Humanities desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 3

Why a slow rise but a sudden fall in the economy?

What are the reasons behind the often observed fact that the economy rises slowly but falls suddenly, like a crashing wave? Instead of slow/sudden, why isnt it slow/slow or sudden/slow for example? 78.147.251.229 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reasonable explanation is that people are (on average) risk averse. That is, as things get better people will tend to be slow to believe that things are getting better. When things get worse, people will be quick to believe (and even overestimate) that things are getting worse. As people act on those beliefs (e.g., make big ticket purchases now versus later), they generate (or fail to generate) economic activity. Thus, economic up turns will tend to happen slowly and down turns will tend to happen quickly. Wikiant (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perception problem: it only looked slower going up. The four quarters prior to this down-turn in the US saw an average 1.9% real GDP growth. That’s the same as results for the year preceding three of the last six recessions. As for housing prices, the run-up was extraordinarily fast. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's for much the same reason that houses are built slowly, but burn down fast. It takes time to build real value, but losses can be realized overnight. For example, in September 2008, one of the world's largest brokerages went bankrupt, one of the largest money market funds failed (and no money market fund with individual investors had ever failed before), and there was a massive government bailout of the world's largest insurance company, all in a two-day period. Naturally, there was a massive rush away from any perceived risk, resulting in an immediate slowdown. It takes time to regain trust and rebuild that economic activity. John M Baker (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable to what extent the increase in the stock markets, etc., was "real value". It was, in large part, a bubble. --Tango (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is one can't define "real value" because value is subjective. By extension, there is no clear definition of "bubble." Wikiant (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, those terms only have meaning in 20/20 hindsight. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's why I said "questionable" not "wrong". --Tango (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example might be GM - took decades to build up, now in bankruptsy. I've been thinking that maybe its because un-truths are discovered suddenly, but building something takes time. By un-truths I mean things like Madoff's fraud, bubbles, or that the GM business model is appropriate for the current economic environment. 89.243.113.64 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that, to some extent, a recession may simply be the revelation that supposed value was in fact illusory. But there generally are real losses in economic productivity, and these tend to predominate.

Note that the OP is asking about falls in the economy, not falls in the stock market; these may be associated, but that is not always the case. John M Baker (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The graph at the start of the business cycle article only shows a slow rise and sudden fall most recently: there have been lots of sudden/suddens in earlier decades. 89.243.74.161 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Indian Sri Lankan Party

Which Sir Lankan political party is considered as a Pro-Indian? Sri Lanka National or United National? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the basis of a "pro-Indian" political party would be, when many Sinhalese are distrustful of India's intentions, while many Tamils have bitter memories of India's military intervention... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Career In Photoshooting

I want to get a career as a paparazzo, if not, a photographer. How do I do that?68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attend a college and get a degree in photo journalism. This page here: [1] from the National Press Photographers Association has some advice on choosing a school to get a degree in photography. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idiot with a camera can be a paparazzo. Even children can do that. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being a paparazzo is much more about where you go and whom you see as about the quality of the pictures. So, read tabloid press to learn about your targets.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most paparazzi sell their photos through photo agencies, so you could approach one of them with a portfolio/resume. You don't say where you're based; in the UK, the Big Pictures agency has a website Mr Paparazzi which buys photos from the public; this would offer a way in. Googling "How To Be a Paparazzo" throws up lots of websites, which recommend first taking photos and then hawking them around newspapers or agencies. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, your ambition in life is to stalk celebrities and take photos of them at private moments, so that the public can satisfy their idle curiosity? I can understand someone getting into that because they couldn't make it in other photography, but I've never heard of anyone who actually made it their ambition. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese online communities / discussion forums

Hi. Can anyone point me to a good English language discussion forum or website (if it exists) where chinese people discuss their politics/society etc. I confess I have a morbid curiosity to snoop in on what people of other countries are talking to each other about but I can't find anything for China. Thanks --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find much, you might find the reasons here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more pertinent reason might be the scarcity of fluent English speakers in China? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that factor, PalaceGuard008, but I was still hoping to find blogs of expatriate Chinese (lots of expatriate Indians have political blogs in English, besides resident Indians). Or I was hoping to find something on China written by a chinese expert (written or translated into English), on the controlled transition the society was going through. But I only found western viewpoints. But I understand language may be a contributing factor.

Also I read in a book that while we are struck by Saudi Arabia's lack of democracy, the people there are strangely content and reverential towards the royalty. I was looking for a similar clue about the thinking of the Chinese. It's a very important and unique country, so I wanted to know --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are blogs, not forums, but I think you'll find them interesting. EastSouthWestNorth, Global Voices Online, Danwei. 121.72.205.147 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good, pretty much what I needed. Thank you very much, anonymous poster :) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapa Nui mythology

Is Make-make the only god known from this religion, or are more gods and godesses known? --Aciram (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start: The book Handbook of Polynesian Mythology, which is mentioned as a source on the Make-make page, also refers to a god called Haua. And this book mentions Era Nuku, Manana Take, Taporo and many more. Looks like we don't have articles on any of them yet. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tangata manu article mentions other deities. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They should have their own articles. Perhaps I'll write them! --Aciram (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation laws (~1945) Alaska => Soviet Union

Where can I find information about the deportation laws (~1945) in Alaska? Background: Were there any cases of POWs who escaped from the Soviet Union to Alaska and who were returned? Would they have been returned? I assume, yes, but I can not find the legal basis. Thanks! --83.141.221.231 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POWs of what nationality do you mean? 87.115.17.103 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately post-WW2 there were Russian POWs liberated from the Germans who were sent back to the USSR despite requests to remain in Europe. Stalin regarded them as contaminated by exposure to his Cold War enemies and unreliable, and many were sent to labor camps. In the 1980's a Russian sailor jumped from his ship onto a U.S. naval ship, and the U.S. allowed Soviet security forces onto the U.S. ship to chase the man down, club him into submission, and drag him back onto the Soviet ship. So there were many instances of not granting asylum to random citizens of the USSR who sought it. So it is quite possible that immediately post-WW2 if a German POW escaped from a hypothetical POW camp in Siberia to Alaska that he would have been returned to the USSR if they requested the return, on the basis that he was not worth an international incident that would have strained relations between then-allies. Did you have a specific person in mind? Edison (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. The background of my question is a fiction (see Clemens Forell published 1955) based on the experiences of a German WWII-POW in Siberia wo escaped through Siberia and Iran, among other countries, because "he had learnt that another prisoner who had escaped to Alaska was returned to Siberia". Whether this deportation is true or not may be of secondary importance. The question remains, whether the legal basis for a deportation was given in 1945++ . --83.141.221.231 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Coast might have been a military zone under command of the U.S. military in 1945, so military commands rather than civil law could have applied. Edison (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

liberalism and journalism

Why is it that in the US, a disproportionate number of journalists are political liberals? Is there something inherent with liberalism that influences them to become journalists, or do they start mixed and become liberal during their education, or is it something else? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really disproportionate; you probably just think there is a liberal conspiracy against you because you're a conservative. It's observer bias, maybe? Or maybe we can go with the glib answer that educated people become liberals because conservatives are dumb. Or that there are no liberals in the US, everyone is conservative, and the rest of the world giggles when you think otherwise. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should see the Canadian media ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US media bias article mentions a survey showing 61% democrats, 15% republican which would imply that it is not really observer bias. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is certainly a correlation with the type of people that want to be reporters and the type of people that hold liberal ideals. It is an "artsy" degree at school, after all. While there may be more of them, however, I'd say a case could be made for conservatives more than holding their own thanks to popular conservative commentators like Limbaugh, Hannity and (always obnoxious) Glen Beck. As in there are fewer of them but more people watch them. I'd say the bigger problem with American news is that people tune in to these kinds of political talk shows for more than just opinion, they go for the "facts". Instead of looking for information to better formulate their own opinion, they are effectively told an opinion by often extreme public voices. I think this has been an important factor in the increased polarization of American politics, and don't think it's good for anyone except the shrill peddlers of this twisted and over hyped information. TastyCakes (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that more liberal people would want to be journalists (or vice versa). Journalists generally value freedom of information and keeping the public informed, which suits a liberal ideology more than a conservative one. --Tango (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's particularly true. I'd consider myself a conservative in the libertarian streak, and I believe part of that is having transparent information, particularly where it comes to government spending, laws and policies. Similarly, there are liberals who do not seem to care about twisting information to suit their needs: Michael Moore being the obvious candidate. But I agree that journalists often seem to fall into the "bleeding heart liberal" mould, probably because part of their motivation for becoming a journalist is exposing and correcting perceived social ills. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that 50 years ago, the Republican party owned the college-graduate demographic, but that it leans heavily Democratic today. Journalists almost all have degrees, so if you just took a random sampling of college-educated people, it's likely to lean left. Add to that the do-gooder aspirations of many journalists which TastyCakes mentioned, and you're going to get an even more liberal crowd. That said, I think the whole "liberal media" meme is wildly overblown. Books and articles by lifelong Republican Bob Woodward don't come off much different to works by his more liberal colleagues. --Sean 20:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an element of subjectivity. Sure, a lot of US journalists are Democrat voters. But from a European perspective, that doesn't really mark them out as social liberals. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European liberals are called radical socialists here. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, European "liberals" are called free-marketers here. The Economist had an amusing essay a few years ago, remarking that liberal is a term of abuse on both sides of the pond, with roughly opposite meanings. —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cronkite has promoted the view that journalists tend to be liberal because they are better informed than the average person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists are likely to be self-selected by their principles. Lots of journalists get into journalism because they believe the people have a right to know what is going on, that government should be open to scrutiny, and that there are more important things than money. Believing those things make it less likely that you will be a 'conservative', in the US use of that term. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Adoption Statistics

Does anyone know where I can find any statistics on successful and unsuccessful applications for adoptions by gay men in the UK. Since 2003 I suppose, after discrimination was removed.

Sounds like something that should be available, but my google-fu is failing me. Thanks 78.144.219.154 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try approaching the Lesbian and Gay Adoption Group UK, at New Family Social Group. They have a message board, and a section form research requests. Or try the British Association for Adoption & Fostering, which has some statistics on its site and might be able to come up with more if you ask nicely. Lisa Saffron has writen books on the alternative family, mainly lesbian parenting, but might have journalistic research leads as well. She was involved with Pink Parents, which now has branches all over the place. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden resigned as Senator in January 2009. Was this unconstitutional?

Doesn't it say in the constitution that no person can be in the executive and the congress at the same time? Why didn't Obama and Biden have to resign on Nov 5th?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because until the inauguration in January, he was only the P or VP elect, which is not an executive position (or even a job technically). 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Obama wasn't even elected President until December 15, 2008, per the Electoral College. That election's formal vote tally and certification didn't take place until January 8, 2009, per the Twelfth Amendment (with a date change for this particular election). Only then could Obama and Biden formally claim to be the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect -- and even then, as 65. notes above, those are not executive positions. — Lomn 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course. For some reason I completely forgot they weren't inaugurated til January. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of the National Debt by a period of inflation?

Britain and other countries have large national debts, private individuals have debts too. Wouldnt therefore some inflation for a few years be good for everyone, both individuals and governments, to reduce the real value of these debts? 20% inflation for 5 years would reduce the real value of debts by about two thirds. I assume that wage levels would rise to keep up with inflation, as they did in the UK during high inflation times in the past. 89.243.113.64 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have savings, too. Would you want to dilute the value of savings to benefit those with debts? Sounds like the Free Silver movement of the 19th century. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20% inflation would be very damaging in many ways (see Inflation#Effects), it would also be very difficult to get rid of after the 5 years. As you say, wage levels would rise to keep up, which itself causes inflation, so you get a "wage spiral", which is notoriously difficult to break. --Tango (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel prize winner Tobin says inflation is good. 89.243.74.161 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is referring to expected inflation. What the OP is suggesting is unexpected inflation. In the case of the former, people can incorporate the inflation into their decision making (for example, don't accept a job contract unless the offered wage is automatically adjusted for the inflation). In the case of the latter, the inflation acts as a tax on savers. When the government prints money to payoff debts, it is stealing from savers by reducing the purchasing power of their savings. Wikiant (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What the OP is suggesting is unexpected inflation." No I wasn't! There are more borrowers than savers, and many savers are also borrowers, so its democratic. Maybe inflation is bad for the rich - thats why the nobs dont like it. 89.242.95.175 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your generalization is not necessarily correct. Savers aren't necessarily rich (plenty of rich people are net borrowers). Consider the following examples of net savers: (1) the elderly who are living off of past earnings, (2) the prudent (e.g., those of all income levels who save up before buying rather than buying on credit), (3) working folk who are building up for retirement in 401(k)s. Characterizing everything in terms of "rich vs. poor" might be emotionally appealing, but makes for bad economic thinking. Wikiant (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you expect to happen to imports/exports and international investment into Britian during this period? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sightless Cervidae. 89.243.74.161 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would undoubtedly be a very bad idea. While some previously fixed debts would obviously benefit, the real value of all the cash (ie savings) held by everyone in the country would reduce. Creditors would increase their lending rates to match (indeed, to exceed) inflation, so a new mortgage or other loan would entail an extremely large rate by today's standard. Everyone not employed (the retired) and anyone whose job's pay doesn't rapidly adjust to the inflation (pretty much everyone to some degree, government employees and such to a greater degree) would see a corresponding decrease in their real wealth, they would be unable to buy as many goods and services as they were before this "policy". Perhaps most damaging would be the loss of trust between lenders and the government: if lenders know the government is willing to flood the economy with money to stir inflation and reduce the costs of existing debts (ie ease the debtors burden by making the lenders feel the pain) they are going to be much more cautious when lending money for any purpose in that country. That would probably have devastating consequences that would rival the credit crunch of last year, and has been demonstrated in countries experiencing hyperinflation all over the world over the past few generations. TastyCakes (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not working well for Zimbabwe, nor did it work out too well for Germany post WWI. I would say historical precident says this is a bad idea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it seemed to work in the UK in the 1970s - Very high inflation, and I and my parents both got wealthier. Cannot remember how much unemployment there was compared with other times. THe difference may be that home ownership was common - much less common in Germany or I imagine in Zib. 89.243.88.190 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has 60 million people. You can't judge the efficacy of economic policy on the basis of what a small non-randomly selected sample experienced. It's like saying, "Lotteries must be good because I played one once and won." For the record, the UK experienced mass unemployment during the 70's and 80's. Wikiant (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were examples of the common people. Millions of other householders got more wealthy as well. Do you have any stats on unemployment and inflation during the last four or five decades? 78.147.85.112 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really managed to live in the UK in the 70s and 80s without being aware of the mass unemployment, I assume you weren't paying attention to politics or newspapers or the economy? Or much of the population of the country... This and this might be helpful starting points. 1 person in 8. Page 24 in this Parliamentary document is probably of interest to you, in terms of historical trends. And if you're going to claim that you are one of the 'common people', you're going to set Pulp lyrics going in my head. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Quantitative easing for a less dramatic version of your idea, that's actually been put in place, somewhat controversially, by HM Government. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cop search legality and marijuana suspicion

If a US Cop suspects marijuana on a person, is that cop allowed to legally search you, even if consent is not given? I have a friend who has been bugging me about it, so I thought this might be the best place to ask. Please be elaborate in your response (I'd like to learn a lot more about the fourth amendments usage and application). ^blurred _peace ☮ 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search of persons#United States says no, and cites Minnesota v. Dickerson. Students have a lowered right of privacy, as this link discusses. Tempshill (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, he might search you even though this might violate the Fourth Amendment, and you're not allowed to resist. They could then jail you and arraign you if they decided to be jerks; and then your competent attorney at trial would succeed in his argument that the marijuana itself should be excluded as evidence against you, and at that point you'd be off the hook; though of course you've been in jail for a bit by now, and had to pay an attorney. Also I'm not certain what the required threshold is for suspicion of drug dealing. I seem to remember one case established that an anonymous tip describing the dealer was insufficient to allow a search. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two standards in use for this sort of thing. Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a police officer who wishes to stop and question a person; or to "frisk" a person for weapons (but not drugs or other contraband). Probable cause requires a higher standard of evidence to activate a search, but such evidence as a positive "hit" from a drug-sniffing dog may provide that probable cause. Of course, you should always seek the advice of a lawyer should you find yourself in a situation like this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who answered. I got answers from here, a legal pal, and from this video (for others who find this thread and need an answer compounded on to what has been stated). ^blurred _peace ☮ 03:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist/communist locales in the United States

Are there any socialist or communist strongholds in the United States? If not, what specific area(s) have the most support per capita for socialist or communist resolutions or candidates? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The socialist to have achieved the highest political heights in the U.S. is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who probably could not have gotten elected in any other state. That said, you can't call Vermont a socialist stronghold -- the state house has six Vermont Progressive Party members out of 150 members. Arcata, California is one of the most left-wing places in the country -- it once elected a Green Party majority to the city council. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have any data to support it, if you consider unions to be inherently socialist perhaps there is a swathe of blue collar socialism across the rust belt? TastyCakes (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is an extremely helpful answer. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that in San Francisco, when Gavin Newsome ran last time for mayor, he was considered the conservative candidate because the main opposition was from the Green Party. Republicans don't stand a chance there. There are 11 members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: One is Green, one, Sophie Maxwell I can't find her party, and all the rest are Democrats. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget the upper midwest. The city of Milwaukee has elected multiple mayors who were members of the Socialist Party of America or other affiliated parties. See List of mayors of Milwaukee. Also consider the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, which is a state-level affiliate of the national Democratic Party, but is also a descendent of the socialist-leaning Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many college towns lean left due to their demographics. Ann Arbor, MI; Chapel Hill, NC; Berkeley, CA; Austin, TX; etc. But that's a long way from saying they're "communist strongholds", which I don't think exist in the US, perhaps outside of intentional communities. --Sean 12:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to see shirts in Berkeley that say "People's Republic of Berkeley." But that being said, while they lean left, they are far from socailiasm and Communism in reality. Berkeley is mostly college kids (whose political demographics are about the same as anywhere else these days) plus long-term homeowners, who are usually pretty left-of-center but are most of the upper-class Green type than any actual proletariat.

All that being said—don't confuse Socialists with Communists. They are not the same thing, they do not believe in the same things, they do not operate the same way. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do you have to be proletarian to be a communist - industrialists can be communists too! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why long for a socialist USA when you have beautiful White Russia and tropical paradise Cuba?--Radh (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, brilliantly placed and thought inspiring answer there, Radh. Oh, and you forgot everyone's favourite workers' paradise, North Korea. (seriously, why people think that they're being smart by giving the "well if you like it so much, why don't you move to Cuba" interjection to any debate thread that has anything remotely to do with Socialism/Marxism/Communism is beyond me. Besides, OP never once expressed anything that could be described as "longing for a socialist USA".) TomorrowTime (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question About A Song

This could easily be on the language desk, so feel free to move it. I put it here because it's a question about a song. I also think I may have asked this before, but it might have been a dream as I can't find it on the archives (spending too much time on Wikipedia!). Anyway, to the point. What are the words for Transfiguration (et in Arcadia ego IV), by Aerenda? The title is obviously Latin, but the lyrics sound like Hindi to me. Can anyone help me here? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 5#Song by Aerenda. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Jack. I knew I could rely on you. Good job I said I'd asked this before (and thank God it wasn't one of my many Wikipedia dreams!). Still haven't got the lyrics, though, just an explanation of the title. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered it anyway, KT, because I remember providing the Et in Arcadia ego link. What slightly made me wonder if this was related to that question or not was that it was only a month ago. (And I thought my memory was getting a tad dinosaur-like ... :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]