Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 11

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.

November 11

History of neutering

When did it become common and socially acceptable to neuter house pets? Looked at objectively, the idea that one would systematically remove an animals' male or female bits is a rather aggressive approach to population control. I would guess that it was uncommon before the advent of anesthesia and modern surgical techniques, while today it seems to be very common and widely accepted. (My perspective is American, if that makes a difference.) Dragons flight (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutering has been common on farms far longer than anesthesia has been available. Geldings, oxen, etc. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, neutering has been around for a while, but I would guess the incentive to neuter beasts of burden was somewhat different from the incentive to neuter pets. I also suspect that society in general may have been less concerned about preemptively controlling stray dogs and cats in the past, so it may not have been pushed as a systematic agenda like it is in many places today. Dragons flight (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that historically farms had bullocks, geldings and capons, I'd say neutering animals in generally has been socially acceptable for a long time. However, cats have historically been either pampered and kept separate, or viewed very cheaply such that drowning excess kittens was fairly common. It's generally much easier to neuter a male animal than a female one (given lack of anaesthesia and modern surgical techniques), and it is the owner of female dogs and cats who bears the cost of extra animals, so it's easy to see a situation with little incentive to go through a tricky procedure. I'd imagine the set-up with dogs is slightly different.

If you look at the article castration, you'll see that there are specific terms for all manner of commonly castrated (male) domestic animals, since it was common practice. Even in humans, you have eunuchs and castrati, with the last castrato only dying in 1922. However, it is questionable how socially acceptable these last were. 86.142.230.196 (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Eunuchs were used by (and often made for the purposes of) royal courts throughout the Old World for many centuries, and many post-Renaissance composers wrote music specifically for castrati. I'd say that they were socially acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"I castrate my bulls by slamming two cinder blocks together on their balls."

"Geez ! Doesn't that hurt ?"

"No...only if you get your fingers stuck between the two blocks." StuRat (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gastric pressure needed to vomit

I have been unable to discover the intra-abdominal pressure (mm/Hg) needed to eject the gastric contents from the gastrointestinal tract in human. Please quote authoritative source.72.75.122.122 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read the responses the last time you asked this same question. I'm not sure that the data you seek has changed all that much in 3 weeks. --Jayron32 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Brilliant!! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Legality of To Catch a Predator

I have always had problems with this show, but when discussing it with my friends they never agree with me about this. I've had these problems:

1. The show never asked the subjects permission to film them, interview them and broadcast them on national television. He doesn't even admit that is what's going on at the beginning of the interview.

2. They kind of set up the subject by talking to him about sex and stuff on the chat room; the FBI agent had to say yes at some point in the conversation.

3. Chris Hansen always ends the conversation with "you're free to go", or something of the sort. Except they're not free to go, there's a bunch of police officers and stuff waiting right outside for them, and they get arrested immediately. It doesn't seem right that he can tell them they're free to go when he knows full well that they're not.

My friends say these points don't matter because they're child molesters, and so don't deserve any rights, but I thought everyone in America had privacy protection and protection from getting set up and lied to by the cops. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen that show but going from your description you might be asking about entrapment. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, that show really bothers me as well, so you aren't alone. Grsz¹¹ 04:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it a "reality show," staged by actors? If so, that would answer your questions: the entire program is a lie. See our article. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to be entrapment, the show would have to plant the idea of the crime in the perpetrator's mind. In other words, it isn't entrapment to merely "go along" with someone until they commit a crime they already were going to commit, it would have to be the show that propositioned the perpetrator. The show is careful not to do that. Those posing as underage children merely passively wait to be propositioned for sex, and accept the proprosition. --Jayron32 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your logic for #2. I guess it's okay in that regard. What about points 1 and 3? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly an ethical problem with "to catch a predator". In a sense it's very much like provoking a Pit Bull intently to lead him to bite and then to define it as a dangerous dog and to put it to sleep. It's true that these people are somehow on the border, but it mean nothing about their being dangerous because dangerous pedophile will initiate sexual relationship even outside the internet, many times using force or seductive means, with childrens much under 16 (actually, the DSM definition for pedophiles, if I remember correctly, is attraction for childrens under 12 and without sexual features that usually distinguish male from female)and his urges are typically uncontrollable. Here they produce a very artificial situation: underage teenager is being left alone at home, she is interested in sexual relationship with a much older man and etc. They traped these people with a fantasy they dragged them into. This is not real situation and the way to keep this danger far from childrens is by monitoring chat rooms and not by deliberately hunting and destroying in a wave of the hand the life of people for a fututre crime they yet didn't commite in the scene of the crime they were cast in just for the rating. I think that this phenomenone is much more dangerous than those people themselves.--Gilisa (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no legal implication for #3—telling someone they can go (as far as you are concerned) when you know that a cop is outside to arrest them does not break any laws whatsoever. You can lie all you want to people, casually. There are only a few situations (relating to fraud and perjury) when lying to someone carries legal implications. As for #2, I think they ride a pretty fine line close to entrapment, but don't cross it. As for #1, I am sure their lawyers have hashed over the permissions question fairly carefully, since the entire thing hinges on that. My understanding is that US law is somewhat weak in this respect (privacy, exposure, etc.) and that the copious permissions forms usually used are just overkill to avoid any possibility of lawsuits, not that they are necessary to win lawsuits. You can get more information about privacy law in the US at Privacy laws of the United States—being exposed for committing a crime is probably not a violation of privacy, but if the shows air before someone is convicted, that seems like it would open the network up to False light problems. But again, I ain't no lawyer, and I know they do have fleets of lawyers. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on TV, it even seems, in the US, at least, that cops can lie directly to the suspect, and often do. For example, they will say "your buddy has agreed to take a plea bargain and testify against you, but we really want to get him, not you, so this is your last chance to take the plea and testify against him, instead". I've only seen this on TV, and hope that a lawyer can explain that this isn't actually the case. This type of thing certainly seems like it should be illegal to me, as it might cause an innocent person to agree to plead guilty and also calls into question why anyone would believe anything a police officer tells them. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

American's don't have a right to not be lied to by the police. In fact, the life of a police officer would be very difficult, if not down right impossible, if they couldn't lie (why bother doing any undercover operations if you always had to say "Yup, I'm a cop" every time you are asked?). Also note that law enforcement does not do any of the initial online investigation, its done for the most part by volunteers from Perverted Justice. Entrapment only applies to law enforcement and a defendent would have a very difficult time trying to prove they were coerced in to the meetings by a civilian volunteer. Livewireo (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're all saying. I guess the show is okay. It doesn't sit well with me, but I do see they're not breaking the law. I guess it's kind of like when cops pretend to be homosexual at gay bars and arrest people after 'requesting' sex. Those arrestees didn't get any of the above three points either, and while I can disagree with it, it's not illegal. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See the article Louis Conradt, about a man who killed himself after being "caught" by "To Catch a Predator." Note that the district attorney wanted nothing to do with Chris Hansen and refused to pursue any "To Catch a Predator" cases that had led to indictments. There are clearly legal issues with Dateline's methods of operation -- not that those will let all of the people they caught off the hook. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was reading once about a specific case I came across once (think on Youtube) of a rabbi who's name is mentioned in To Catch a Predator but I won't mention here for BLP reasons who was eventually prosecuted. The DA (or someone) originally said it was unlikely so I'm not sure whether public pressure or something else happened in the interim. You can search his name for more info Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps only of limited relevance, privacy laws are often fairly weak in the US AFAIK (although they do vary from state I'm pretty sure) compared to privacy laws in many Europeans countries, or Australian and NZ. In Germany for example, Google Street View was subject to some restrictions (as discussed in the article). The blurring of faces and/or vehicle registration plates was also I believe primarily the result of privacy concern & laws outside the US. It's not uncommon people are concerned about email and other stuff hosted in the US for privacy reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting geography question

I am looking for the name of a slice of land (nearly 4,000,000 sq km) contains over 75% of a political entity's population, yet only 25% of its territory.

Apprecaite any help.

I tried to figure out variuos combinations but could not succeed.

Obviusly the total area of the political entity (may be a country or state etc) is close to 16,000,000 sq km. Only China matches this size. It could be one of the cities in China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

European Russia is what you seek. Roughly 1/4th of Russia's area and 3/4ths of Russia's population. I spent a long time digging through various official Subdivisions of Russia, but none was nearly large enough or populous enough. --Jayron32 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you ignore the size of the slice, Japan also fits into this - I seem to recall reading that 80% of its population lives on 20% of the land - in the shore belt you can draw from Tokyo across Aichi and Osaka to Kitakyushu. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alaska? --Thomprod (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of a US border. Not sure if that total is 25% of the country or not. Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. It's a big country. --Anon, 01:43 UTC, November 11, 2009.

The Indian subcontinent has more than 75% of the population of the Commonwealth of Nations population in under 25% of its territory (just over 4M square kilometres). Warofdreams talk 14:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayron is right, it's European Russia. China and Canada are each less than 10 million square kilometers. Only Russia comes close to being large enough, and it also matches all the other parts of the Q. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another tantalizing geography question

Which is the highway of sorts (may be waterway or seaway or similar one) which is named for a major religious figure (some thing like santa or saint or st) and it has a namesake in one of the African countries ( Kenya, South africa, Angola, Congo, Nigeria , Liberia or Cape Verde) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The only african nation named for a major religious figure I can think of is São Tomé and Príncipe named, in part, for St. Thomas. That may give you a start. --Jayron32 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP's asking about a passageway of sorts, not the name of a country. Sort of like if Nile was called "St. Nicholas' pass" or something. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's a saint, a likely guess might be a patron saint of travellers or sailors. Saint Christopher is the patron saint of travellers. Maybe it's him? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And St. Nicholas is the patron saint of boatmen, which is why I used him in the example :) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it only those specific African countries? If so it's an odd range... For some reason, my first thought was St. Lawrence (as in the seaway, definitely a "highway of sorts"), but I can't find any St. Lawrences (or Saints-Laurents or San Lorenzos) in Africa - though there is a São Lourenço dos Órgãos in Cape Verde, so that might be it. Loads of places in Cape Verde are named for saints, BTW, as this page implies. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the Saint Paul River which runs through Monrovia, the capital of Liberia? Astronaut (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One more challenging Geography teaser

1.It is Frequently plagued by pirates and 2 somewhat difficult to navigate because of its depth 3 it conveniently connects two of the planet's oceans, 4 and through it a huge percentage of the world's oil is transported on a daily basis

Which fits the above criteria??

I am looking at straits/channles/canals since these water bodies connect Oceans. But I am not able to zero on any since I am not able to verify with resources like wikipedia

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Panama Canal connects 2 of the world's oceans, is difficult to navigate due to depth - not sure if it has piracy problems but then it wouldn't be hugely surprising - it's a place where bilions of dollars worth of cargo goes through every year so would be a prime sport for would-be pirates to try their hand. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It's a big shipping route, including by Saudi Arabia, and plagued by pirates from Somalia. With the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, they connect the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. I have no idea about #2. Rckrone (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Suez Canal is probably more likely than the Panama Canal, even though it is deeper (it is still too shallow for many supertankers). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that it is the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the Strait of Malacca. The nations of Panama and Egypt have very tight control over who enters their respective canals. Indonesia is not capable of doing the same for Malacca, because Malacca is international waters (it also borders Malaysia and Singapore). Go read Piracy in the Strait of Malacca if you want to learn more. --M@rēino 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you illegally copy a CD on a cruise ship, are you guilty of "piracy on the high seas" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a subject that's difficult to navigate because of it's depth. Fribbler (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to come up with a torrent pun but I couldn't come up with anything clever enough for me to be happy with. —Akrabbim ^talk 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I though it was likely to be the Bab-el-Mandeb, the straits between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, or the Hanish Islands some 150 km to the north-west in the red Sea itself. In both places, the deep (>50 m) channels are only a few 10's of km wide and the Hannish Islands have several sets of rocks mid-channel which I imagine are a significant navigational hazard to shipping. All shipping to and from the Suez canal has to pass through this area and the nearby Gulf of Aden where piracy, particularly against large ships such as oil tankers, has become a significant problem in recent times.

However, the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia, is even shallower (<30 m deep in many places), has many shipwrecks and other navigational hazards and is also plagued by pirates. Astronaut (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But that fails the "2 oceans test". The straits of Malacca, mentioned previously, seems to pass all the tests. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most comprehensive search engine for second-hand books in the UK?

I want to look up and buy some second-hand books in the UK. What is the most comprensive website for doing this? I am aware of Alibris and Abebooks. I seem to remember some website that combines both of these. Does anyone know any more about this please? 78.149.246.109 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found http://used.addall.com/ which I now remember and which appears to be relevant to the UK but I'd be interested to hear of any more. What would be great would be something that combined this with Amazon and eBay etc. 78.149.246.109 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I use BookFinder, which aggregates the listings of a number of sellers and listing services, including Alibris, AbeBooks, Amazon, and eBay—click on "Our booksellers" at the bottom of the page for a full list. (This is not an advertisement, and I have no connection with the site.) You can set your search parameters with "United Kingdom" as the destination and "British Pound" as the currency displayed for prices. Deor (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also the British branch of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When did the changes in pre-trial Small Claims Court procedure in England and Wales come into effect?

I understand that to recover a debt you are now expected to go through an exact pre-trial procedure. Does anyone know when this came into effect please? I am trying to find books that will be relevant to the current proceedures, so ones published before this date will not be relevant. Thanks 78.149.246.109 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when it came into effect, but can point you to guaranteed up-to-date documentation. The CAB advisernet says "The protocols require each party to provide specific information to the other. The nature and subject of this information varies between the protocols, but in general the claimant is expected to set out a clear summary of the facts and the defendant is expected to state if s/he accepts or denies liability within a set time period. Details of the protocols are contained in the Civil Procedure Rules and may be viewed on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk.". That website has a PDF of "Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct" which I would suggest should be what you need. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Place in Lincolnshire, name of Tid

Resolved

 – by Nanonic

The Dictionary of National Biography entry for Gerard de Camville has him "measuring the marsh between Spalding and Tid in Lincolnshire". Is there any evidence of such a place as Tid, or has someone simply misread the word tide (however it was spelt at the time). Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to expand your search into alternate spellings, for instance - Tydd railway station used to serve many villages called Tydd- in Lincolnshire. Nanonic (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been very helpful - that makes perfect sense. Thank you. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that a very large number of rural communities in England simply disappeared following the arrival of the Black Death. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler

Someone in my class claimed that Hitler was a Socialist, and that therefore all Democrats are neo-Nazis. Ignoring the glaring logical errors, I have one question: Was Hitler a Socialist? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazi comes from National Socialist German Workers' Party, so basically yes. (One could argue over whether Hitler was actually socialist, especially towards the end, but that was his party association.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's highly misleading. The "national socialist" in the Nazi Party's name comes from the right-wing nationalist ideology of Austrian National Socialism, although the use of this name was initially opposed by Hitler. While there were a few points in the party's first programme, copied from the Austrian group, which have origins in socialism, these were de-emphasised, and they are far outnumbered by nationalism and conservatism. To give an example of the Nazi's attitude to socialism, both communists and social democrats were imprisoned in concentration camps. It's not for nothing that socialism is placed on the left of the political spectrum and fascism on the far right. Warofdreams talk 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The early history of the Volkswagen is sometimes mentioned in this context. It was to be a nice affordable, government sponsored car that almost any German worker could afford. That's a pretty socialist thing to do. Of course, they never really delivered any of those cars (except a few photo-ops) before they switched the factory over to making tanks. I don't know if historians interpret this as an honest socialist effort that was ruined by the war, or as a Trojan horse from the very beginning. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The largest communist nation on earth is the People's Republic of China. George W. Bush is a member of the Republican Party. Therefore, George W. Bush is a communist. See how that works? The use of a word in one's name means nothing. The German Democratic Republic was an oppresive dictatorship under the control of Erich Honecker for 18 years, and wasn't really democratic nation under any reasonable definition of the term. Forget the names of things, and what groups call themselves, instead focus on their actions. Your friend is an idiot on two counts. 1) The Democratic Party is a liberal/leftist party on the U.S. political scale, but they are FAR from what anyone would define as socialist. On most worldwide political scales, the Democratic Party would be considered a centrist, or even center-right party. See also Blue Dog Democrat. 2) Even so, the Nazis were not "socialists" in any reasonable definition of the term; the Nazi's were primarily an authoritarian nationalist party; the socialist part of their name has little to do with following any branch of political or economic socialism. --Jayron32 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there's North Korea, or, by it's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They must have defined "democracy" as meaning you have the choice of voting for the person you are told to vote for, or being killed. It's good to have a choice, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was fervent anti communist, however he was socialist. I think that in USA it's somewhat harder for people to make the distinction between socialism, which not forbid private property, and communism which is a totaly different creature. For example, the EU countries are pretty much socialistic (espcially the Scandinavian ones)--Gilisa (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a fervent anti socialist. The movement you mention in Europe is social democracy, sometimes described as a branch of socialism - our article is quite good on how it arose and how social democracy relates to socialism. Again, Hitler fervently opposed social democracy. Communism is also a branch of socialism; it should be distinguished from social democracy, but not from socialism.

You totaly missed my point. In the first section of my post here I wrote that Hitler was socialist. You don't have to be democart to be socialist and addressing me to the article on social democracy was realy unnecessary. In the second section I just tried to shortly make the difference between socialism, communism and capitalism. I wrote that the EU countries are socialist to make it clear that they are not following the American capitalistic model, and that countries can be socialistic without being communistic-a fact that is not well known to all. So Hitler wasn't a communist, nor a capitalist, he promoted the idea of nationalistic socialism. BTW, there are studies that show tight connection between nationalism and socialism: the more one population is culturaly and racially homogeneous the more taxes people are willing to pay on the behalf of socialitic state system.--Gilisa (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point. I was stressing that your assumption that social democracy was a form of socialism was not straightforward - while it is sometimes called socialism, and there is certainly a relationship, it is not as simple as saying that it is socialism. Your contrast between communism and socialism is also incorrect (unless you are using communism in the Marx's strict sense of the ultimate state towards which socialism tends); communists also describe themselves as socialists, and Marxism is widely recognised as an influential variety of socialism - it is covered, as expected, in our article on socialism. Hitler did not promote "nationalistic socialism"; he promoted national socialism - a specific ideology which is not socialism any more than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is democratic. The negative correlation you mention between nationalism and socialism is interesting - I wouldn't have thought it would make any difference, but I suppose that if people feel that nationalism is less of an issue (e.g. in Scandinavia), they may be more likely to accept socialism. Warofdreams talk 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I will start from the last to the first. Fisrt, who told you that in Scandinavia nationality is less of an issue?I have a Sweedish friend and she once told me that many people in Scandinavia even have derogatory names for Swedish people of German origin (when I can't see any great differences between the two nations) and certainly for people of other, non European, races. Many right wing parties whose political platform focus is to stop immegration of non Europeans (and eastern Europeans) to their countries are pretty much bolssom -even in the Netherlands which is considered by many to be maybe the most friendly for foreigners among European countries. In scandinavia, the biggest party of Sweeden is the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which strictly fight for stiffing the laws of immegration. It's not that they necessarily adopted nationalistic agenda, but it's just that there is deep, unsolveable contradiction between the cultures of some immigrants societies and that their way of life is treatend. Second, Hitler didn't promote social rules for Jewish people and not even for Polish ones-that's tell nothing about his vision for the Aryan nations, which was at least at the declarative level -socialistic. I know that the Nazis, for instance, grant maternity benefits. Communism is a radical for of socialism, even I feel pretty much uncomfortable to imply that communism can be a form of socialism. While in socialistic society priavte property is allowed and the focus is on equal opportunities, communism focus on equal outcomes. What more that socialism have its roots already in the bible and it's not restricted to one form (but you told it already). Social democracy is much more a form of socailism than communism is, and as I see it, it's the best and most successful form of socailism (and state economical system at all). Are you familiar with the social rights of women after birth in Finland for instance? With the rights of single-parents in Scandinavia (even if here you can find an instance of a case where too much social rights can cause problems in society)? About the protected tenancy in Germany? It's all very socialistic, I can find no other term for it. If Wikipedia article imply that social democracy is not a form of socialism, then it don't worth much.--Gilisa (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things Hitler did were socialist, even if the predominating mantra of the party was not. Lots of the posters for the 1931/2 election campaigns show the Nazis as a party for every sort of problem (this one springs to mind). Clearly that has a lot to do with popular appeal, but it does demonstrate the rule that not every policy of a party need match the underlying ideologies. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What things that Hitler did were socialist? By that, I don't mean populist, and I certainly don't include state control of much of industry - there's nothing inevitably socialist about that. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialitie and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public" as a general idea. Taking this, one can see parallels with the position of Jews in society (perceived or real) as believed by Nazis, and through a few other smaller things, including natural opposition to other forms of government. Shakey, perhaps, but it's enough to say there are a few small aspects of the Nazi ideology (particularly during elections) that were socialist. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful question to answer is: why does anyone (and it's not many people) think that Nazism is related to socialism? Leaving aside crude propaganda, usually, it's one of two reasons: the use of the term "national socialism" in the party's name, or the state control of sections of the economy. As Jayron discusses, the name of a political entity isn't a good guide as to its actual position. The idea that state control of sections of the economy is sufficient to make something socialist appears to originate with the Austrian school of economics. It's not a definition which many socialists would agree with (for them, the question is in whose interest is the state acting, or at least claiming to act?), and it's not a definition with which fascists would tend to agree - they tend to either see their ideology as stridently right-wing, or as outside left-right politics. It seems to me that, therefore, this is not a useful definition of socialism. Warofdreams talk 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler promised to take many socialistic moves: he promised a private car for every laborer (however, his industry was more busy with war and war preparations to do that), he promised to make socialistic reformes but escaped these promises as well to avoid confrontation with his sponsors and etc. However, he did rehabilitated German economy, create an atmosphere of uniformity and as socialism ask, gave everyone (very roughly) the same oppurtinity to success (which is a great moral and economical principle that capitalism ignore) -as long as they were Aryans(...). However, Nazis didn't invent Socialism and didn't realy apply it.--Gilisa (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's first just say, "socialism" means a lot of things. It is not incompatible with capitalism. It is not restricted to Communism. It is not restricted to Nazism. It generally refers to government ownership of and administration of resources. In the United States, "socialism" is used as a bogeyman, something to attack as being similar to the USSR or Nazism. In reality, many sectors of the US are or have been in the past run in "socialist" ways—public power production, Medicare, the public mail service, Social Security, etc. You can have socialism without having horrible 1984-like situations, and you can have hybrid public-private systems that try to utilize the best of both worlds (the private system is very good at certain types of public systems, but less good at others, and prioritizes profit higher than other goals, which depending on the system in question may not produce the greater good for the greater number).

Once we've gotten that out of the way—and the implication that if the USSR or Nazi Germany or whomever is "socialist" then it makes people who believe in, say, increased regulation of economic transactions or government-run health insurance Nazis or Soviets—I think we're ready to have a real historical conversation.

Hitler did believe in a centralization of the state, and definitely was of the mind that the resources of the centralized state should be used to enact certain economic outcomes. It was not the same economic approach as, say, the USSR, where the state actually planned out the economy every five years. But it was still pretty centralized and was not unfettered capitalism in the least.

Hitler did this, though, not because he believed he would reallocate resources, or that the state was a better organ for doing these tasks than the private market. He did these because he wanted power and because he could not tolerate dissent whatsoever. He centralized the medical profession not because he believed it worked better that way, but because he could then use it as an organ of political power and ideological justification. He centralized the scientists not because he believed it would make for better science, but because he wanted to enforce loyalty among the intellectual elite and complicity among the wary. All of his "socialist" activities were clearly and explicitly done in the name of political power. (The same cannot be as easily said for the policies of Stalin, which were often for political power but cloaked under layers of Marxist justifications, e.g. collectivization, which was about breaking the kulaks as much as it was about trying to turn agriculture into a proletarian economy).

So was Hitler a socialist? It depends whether you are defining socialism as the ends or the means, and how broad a brush you are painting any government intervention into the economy as "socialist". Personally (as a Democrat, I would say, and one who, I am sure it comes across above, believes that some government economic intervention is necessary and appropriate), I think the answer is probably, "yes", but a very qualified "yes", and one that recognizes fully that Hitler was vehemently anti-Communist (both in terms of consolidating his power, but also in terms of denying the core of their ideology, that class was the central unit of political power and change) and espoused a variety of "socialism" that is very different than even the left-wing socialism of his day, much less what passes for "socialism" these days. Hitler's ideas about socialism are a bit like Hitler's ideas about hygiene—yes, they bear a family resemblance to certain concepts in modern politics, but the motivations and the means are fundamentally different.

But opinions on this question are a dime a dozen, and even professional historians slog this particular battle out, so I do not encourage you to take me (or the other answerers) as being the final word on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to testify in death penalty cases

If I witnessed someone commit a capital offense, would it be legal for me to refuse to testify due to the fact that I oppose the death penalty? If not, and I were fined or imprisoned for contempt of court, and I still refused to testify, and my testimony were vital to the prosecution's case, could the person still be convicted on the grounds that I wouldn't refuse to testify if the suspect weren't guilty? (Note: This question is purely hypothetical.)

Also, is contempt of court/obstruction of justice a felony or misdemeanor? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to testify could be deemed obstruction of justice, and you might find yourself on trial. Googlemeister (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

But if my testimony were vital to the prosecution and I still refused to testify, could the suspect be convicted anyway on the basis that I wouldn't have refused to testify if the suspect were innocent? ----J4\/4 <talk> 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

isn't that circumstantial evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.205.178 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't indicate the value of the testimony at all (your testimony could be full of holes, or just plain wrong, and the only way to know would be to actually have it open for cross-examination). I do not think any judge (or lawyer) worth their salt would let your refusal to testify officially be part of the judgment of the jury. (How that would actually play out with a real jury is, of course, different, but I am certain that a judge would direct them not to take it into account.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This question, or one similar to it based on the Fifth Amendment, was asked within the last couple of months. In the United States, no, it would not be legal for you to refuse to testify on those grounds. You would be cited for contempt of court and jailed until you agreed to testify or until the judge got tired of thinking about you sitting there in prison. The law says you have to give the evidence that's demanded in court. In every state. On your last question, the jury would not have heard your evidence, so, no, they can't pretend that the evidence was presented anyway and convict on the grounds of the pretend evidence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the prosecution could direct the jury to take your refusal to testify into account, though (which it couldn't if you were the defendant). I would be circumstantial, but that doesn't make it inadmissible, just not particularly convincing on its own. Having somebody else testify that you told them you saw XYZ would be hearsay, so would be inadmissible. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: In cases like this, I believe it's common for the judge to call a recess until the witness agrees to testify, so the trial is simply put on hold, if the judge feels this is what's required for the administration of justice. He doesn't have to march through the rest of the trial ending up in an acquittal due to lack of evidence. But this is my vague belief and I'm unsure how common this type of recess is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't be forced to testify, though, and no judge would recess the trial indefinitely. Eventually they'll have to give up on you, charge you with contempt (as opposed to just detaining your for it on their own authority), and get on with the trial. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. You're speculating when you say "no judge" would recess indefinitely. Judith Miller was in jail for 3 months for refusing to testify to a grand jury. I don't know what the longest recess for this purpose has been; it'd be interesting to know. Branzburg v. Hayes, a 5-4 decision, has been the only reporter's privilege case decided by the SCOTUS to date, apparently. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for your felony vs. misdemeanor question, see Contempt of court in the United States section (assuming that's the location you are asking about). Normally it is actually neither; the judge just throws you in jail, and since "you hold the keys to your own release" by simply agreeing to testify, due process is not required under the law. You can later be charged with criminal contempt of court, which is a more lengthy and complicated and unusual process. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Josh Wolf served a record 226 days, surpassing Vanessa Leggett's 168 (in a murder case), see the Wolf article and Murder of Doris Angleton.John Z (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The separation of church and state

What are the laws pertaining to the separation of church and state; or more specifically; what are the right of a religious orginization to lobby, petition, or otherwise try to influence state or federal lawmakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpoehls (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In Iran, there is no effective separation of church and state. In the UK, there is an official state church, but (nowadays) people are free to ignore it. In Germany, there is a stronger version of separation - no state church, but some large churches have special status and receive special taxes. People again are free to follow any religion (or none), and their religion does not limit rights or access to offices. In the US, the guiding principle is the First Amendment to the constitution, interpreted by the US Supreme Court over time in light of Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists (the "Wall of separation" phrase). In short, it limits what the US government can do, and by application of the Fourteenth Amendment, what the states and local government can do, but not what religious bodies can do. The Southern Baptist have the same right to buy a congressperson as Exxon Mobile, Boeing, and Kenneth Lay. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I assume you are talking about the US. In which case, the relevant law is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I don't think it makes any restrictions on religious organisations. The constitution is designed to restrict the powers of the federal government. There may be some restrictions on what an organisation can do if it wants to get the tax and other benefits, but they aren't part of the separation of church and state. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your latter statement isn't really true. The IRS has been pursuing a policy, which I think the OP is alluding to, where if a church advocates one political candidate over another, it is in danger of losing its tax-exempt status, which I'd argue is definitely related to the separation of church and state. Oh, Separation of church and state in the United States ought to be related to the OP's question, though the article is mostly about the history and is pretty sprawling and has an OR tag or two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the Supreme Court hasn't stopped the IRS from doing that, I guess it isn't in violation of the prohibition against the state getting involved in religion. It could be considered as being related to it, I suppose. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that endorsement of a political candidate is not about separation of church and state, but would be considered evidence that the organisation is not a religious one but is a political one. In the US the line can be pretty fine at the best of times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the OP is making a somewhat subtle distinction, asking about the laws about political contributions. These are largely statutory creations. In fact, religious organizations have as many if not more free association and political contribution rights as other groups (commercial ones, for instance). However practically speaking, IRC 501(c)(3) (tax exempt) status for religious organizations is premised on their non participation in certain kinds of politics. I haven't researched it in depth, but I see no reason why congress couldn't tax churches if it was inclined to do so. 501(c)(3) is an exception, but because it is the IRS can set some terms on that. The full story is more complicated partially because putting strings on legal privileges premised on constitutional rights is often a problem for other reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it, or good enough; here is an IRS fact sheet that goes into great detail. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Violation can result in the removal of tax-exempt status. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Those organizations may still have rights to participate in elections, albeit without tax exempt status. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure; and looping back to the OP's question, a church could "intervene in elections" all it wanted as long as it was OK with being taxed. I'd be interested in knowing whether there are any such churches, and very interested in whether this IRS rule has been tested in court. As for the other questions from the OP, about churches petitioning and influencing US lawmakers: this happens all the time, and there aren't any restrictions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gelatin, whey, and lard vs. Islam

Why Islam forbid Muslims to eat gelatin, whey and lard? do they associate with pig?

Animal products have to be killed in a certain way to be halal. If the animal wasn't haraam and had been killed in the proper way to obtain these products, I would imagine Muslims would eat them - but I'm no expert. I don't know about whey. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This piece may shed some light on the issue of whey. Pallida  Mors 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Lard is a pig product, so is right out. Gelatin is boiled out of bones, and would seem to be OK only if the bones were of halal animals. PhGustaf (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was once problem with giving immunizations to the Muslim population in few places after it became clear that many vaccinations have gelatin as one ingredient. The problem with gelatin is that it actually made of haraam animals bones or from animals that was not slaughtered according to the Islam. I don't knopw how it was solved, in Judaism most rabbinical ordinates viod any problems with gelatin as it's considered as new raw material that during its long manufacturing process lost any connection to its original animal source. As for whey, it's a basic by product of cheese manufacturing. Some cheese generes use rennet enzyme to cause the coagulation of the acidified milk from which the cheese is made. The rennet is obtained from animals stomach, having the same problems Vimescarrot described. As for lard, eating pork is haraam and forbidden for Muslims. There are also animals which are not haraam but are makrur -meaning that eating them is not forbiddened nor allowed. Generally, they are treatend as haraam.--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Most rabbinical ordinates would not void gelatin because the rules of nullification have a few exceptions, and davar hama'amid is one of them. Kosher gelatin could come from properly slaughtered kosher cows, but in practice, is derived primarily from fish (info is included in previous link). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Israel many products have the label "Kosher for gelatin eaters" and generally, most orthodox people in Israel do consume it (I don't know about the ultra orthodox) -but I don't know what animal the bones were taken from to make this kosher gelatin.--Gilisa (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything is 'permitted' for those who 'permit.' It's often suggested that it is 'permitted' to drive on Shabbat for 'those Jews who drive on Shabbat.' DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In Malaysia, halal gelatine is commonly made from beef/bovine/cow bones/skin/etc I believe [1] [2] (Indonesia not Malaysia). I presume this is the same for most Kosher gelatine [3]. As for the method of slaughter some say it matter (the Indonesia link), [4] [5] [6] [7]. However the use of gelatine from beef/bovine/cow sources obviously creates issues for Hindu consumers. For this reason gelatine is often avoided entirely (if they uses non animal alternatives they can cater to vegetarians as well). Gelatinious jellies are rather uncommon in Malaysia for example, instead you're likely to encounter agar-agar jellies (which are just called agar-agar) although which I presume is a historic thing given the origin of the name. Agar-agar jellies and powder are also used in other deserts. On a similar note, while this is somewhat of a problem in Malaysia, it's likely to be even more of a problem in India so I presume studying the situation there would be enlightening.

As mentioned by DRosenbach fish bones/etc may also be used but I believe they're less common (and probably more expensive) and thought this is a fairly recent thing but it obviously has the potential to get around the Hindu/Muslim/Jewish animal choice issues (but not vegetarian ones). At least in Malaysia I'm pretty sure it's the case historically. The link provided by DRosenbach does appear to suggest most Kosher gelatine is form fish sources. However the link I provided to the same site (i.e. [8]) seems to suggests to me that beef/bovine/cow gelatine was the more common source for Kosher gelatine at least historically. The fact that such a large proportion of gelatine comes from cow skins also makes me suspect this is partially for religious reasons since several references say pig skins is often a cheaper source so it seems likely the primary reason you would use cow skins is for halal and kosher purposes (although obviously it depends on quantities since they're all waste products). One of the obvious issues is that there's likely to be a significantly large source of halal animal skins/bones then the is kosher whereas if I understand it correctly many fish are kosher and the method of slaughter doesn't matter so there's quite a large source there (also for halal but that has both) so that may be the reason for the difference, if these is a difference. Our article on gelatine also mentions that the use of fish byproducts is recent although the ref isn't great and in the pie chart comparing sources it doesn't distinguish bone types. I've read before the use of fish byproducts is an active area of research (at least in Thailand) e.g. [9]

Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention in response to the original question, one of the obvious issues is that outside of countries with a large Muslim population it's unlikely most foods including those containing gelatine would specify whether it's halal. Most probably won't even specify the source so even if they don't care about the method of slaughter they still don't know if it is, and there's a good change it won't be. With the increasing Muslim population this is obviously changing [10] Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way vs stands for versus. Perhaps vis a vis is what was meant. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Black immigrants in the USA

Where is black people or African Americans usually immigrant from. Since black people not neccessairly come from Africa then from what country could they most possibly immigramnt from Is Central America or Australia most likely, our they can be just born and raise in the south of USA? not too many blacks come from Africa-from my know of I don't think any black people I see comes from Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think they don't come from Africa? If they (or their ancestors) don't come from Africa then they aren't really African american, the article goes into some detail about history and demographics. We also have an article on Black people. I didn't think the Americas had native black people, i could be wrong, but I thought all the black people the Americas, including central and south were African descent also. I think it's a pretty safe bet that there would be very very few Australian aborigines immigrating to the States. Vespine (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because they have never been to Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian immigrants, even Aboriginal ones would not be considered African Americans or even, by most, black Americans. Of course, I don't think I have ever met an aborignial Australian American. Immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa still come to America but some will not identify themselves as "African American" which usually refers to the culture associated with the descendants of American slaves who make up the vast majority of black Americans. More than 1 million of the 1.4 million African immigrants in the U.S. come from sub-Saharan Africa and they make up only a couple percent of all U.S. immigrants.[11] See also African immigration to the United States 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of black people in the USA will have been born there. Most immigrants to the US these days are from Mexico and Asia, so they wouldn't generally be black. I can't find a break down of US immigrants by race and country of origin, but if we just go by country of origin for people getting permanent residency in 2006 there were about 1.3 million total, of which only about 120,000 were from Africa, who would probably have been mostly black. There were about 150,000 from the Caribbean, who were probably mostly black as well. Most of the rest were Asia (440,000) and Mexico (170,000), who wouldn't generally have been black. Country of origin isn't a perfect way to tell race, but it's the best I can do. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

hold on when Tango said black in the USA will have been born there he means where?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He meant: Most black people in the USA were born in the USA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. --Tango (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what you want, at least a good starting point. It has breakdowns by country of origin, so you could assume that African immigrants were largely black, and it might also have breakdowns by race (I don't know if it has breakdowns by race and country). Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the OP is confused about the term "African American". (See that article for details.) This is not surprising, because the term is easily misapplied. In most of the USA, the term is a euphemism for "black". It doesn't mean that the person came from Africa, or that their parents did; it is supposed to indicate they have some ancestor who came from Africa. (Presumably in the last few hundred years, or else all Americans would be called "African Americans".) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Boston area, there are large numbers of immigrants from Haiti, for example. They are definitely "Black" but they are not part of "African American" culture. (Their children probably will be, though.) They look quite different (much darker), they speak a different language (Haitian French), go to different Churches, wear different clothes, etc. There are also a non-insubstantial number of immigrants from Nigeria, who similarly stand out for the first generation (but subsequent generations do not, in my experience). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original post... There are American citizens who were born in Africa. I know at least two that I work with. The first was born in Kenya and the second in Ghana. Also, I work with another black guy who was born in Canada and has American citizenship. And finally, not all blacks who are born in the US are born in the South. They're free to travel anywhere and give birth to black children anywhere in the country. I'm not quite sure what you seem to think of the US due to your comments and questions... Dismas|^(talk) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the questioner is asking, "From what countries do black immigrants to the U.S. come from?" I'd bet the U.S. Census Bureau could produce a table for him, although I can't find such a table in a cursory check of their website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A link with that information was already provided above: African Immigrants in the United States. Tops are Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but my guess is more "black" immigrants come from the West Indies. And not all immigrants from Africa are black. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Much to my surprise (knowing several African immigrants but no Caribbeans ones, myself) - "In 2005, two-thirds of the 2.8 million foreign-born blacks were born in the Caribbean or another Latin America country and nearly one-third were born in Africa. Another 4 percent (about 113,000) were born in Europe, Canada, or elsewhere."[12] Now I am still not sure how many Afro-Hispanics (?) there are versus Afro-Caribbeans. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read African American culture if you want some perspective on the cultural difference between recent African immigrants in the US and the so called African American community. Most African Americans are descendants of slaves brought to America by force hundreds of years ago. To find the countries or regions that these slaves tended to come from see Atlantic slave trade, however due to this history of slavery, most African Americans today simply identify as African American (or black or whatever other term) rather than by ties to specific countries or regions their ancestors were from. A lot of those specific ties were destroyed, although many slaves did try their best hold on to pieces of their shared cultural roots, which still heavily influence black culture today.

It's true that a slight majority of blacks still live in the South (see African American#Demographics). Many also live in big cities like Chicago and New York (see Great Migration (African American)), but there are African Americans dispersed throughout most areas of the US and have been for many generations. Rckrone (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Communism

In Letter 40: Choosing a College in Chapter 40: It's Over in the book Lord Foulgrin's Letters by Randy Alcorn, Lord Foulgrin says:

While our experiments in communism with their legacy of mass destruction have disappeared nearly everywhere in the world except China, I'm proud to say that communism is alive and well among many American college professors.

I don't understand. What does he mean by that? What does he mean? What is he talking about? What American college professors? Like whom? Where? In what universities or colleges? Can you please explain?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is fiction, not real. If that bit has a meaning, read on and the book will tell you. However, don't expect to find a real-world match. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, which appears to be a work of evangelical fiction. Assuming that the author means the statement to be taken seriously, I would guess that it is hyperbole, referring to the reputation of college professors to be more liberal than society as a whole. But they could be talking about the continuing influence of Marxist thought in many fields of study. I'm no expert on American academic Marxism, but Michael Hardt is one name which springs to mind. Warofdreams talk 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Bowei Huang asked what it means, so let's try to answer him. I have not read this book, but I am going to try. "We, the devils of Hell, have experimented with installing the evil plot of Communism in several places on earth. Communism has disappeared nearly everywhere except for China. However, fortunately, there are many college professors in the United States who remain Communist!" There is an old conservative complaint that there are "too many" leftist professors in US universities, and the youth of America is at great, continual risk because the leftist professors are inculcating the youth with their leftist values. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The book sounds just like the premises of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters. It certainly has copied the format and the characters. I suspect the style may be where the two books part company. Bielle (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this was asked in good faith. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't. The OP probably knew it was fiction, but didn't know how much truth was in that particular clause. —Akrabbim^talk 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP has asked questions in this fashion for a lonnngg time now, always along the same lines, never with any particular interest in learning anything, never with any apparent regard to the answers given, without any attempt to actually understand the issues at hand. He has been warned about this for literally months. Always the same "left-behind" literature, always questions that are the political (anti-leftist) equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Check the edit history, check the comments he has removed from his talk page warning him about such things. Don't take my word for it. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But (s)he doesn't incessantly disagree with the given responses like most other bad-faith posters. We shouldn't discriminate against loaded anti-leftist questions if they are factual. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There probably are a lot of "communist" professors in the United States, by some warped definition of communist. But it's all in the definition. They are definitely leftist/socialist ones - but socialism and communism are not the same thing, any more than conservatism and fascism are. They are leftist, that is, in relation to general US political standards, but those standards are so far to the right by most western world standards that any straightforward comparison is meaningless. Given that the basic tenets of socialist government are government of the people, for the people, and by the people, it's surprising there aren't more of them; it's a shame that the US for the most part has abandoned such principles. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that Lord Foulgrin's Letters is fiction. I know that. When I asked what did Lord Foulgrin mean by that statement, I actually meant what did the book's author, Randy Alcorn, mean by that statement. I meant what did Randy Alcorn mean by what he wrote there in the book. What did Randy Alcorn mean? What did he mean by that statement? What did he mean by what he wrote there in the book? What was he actually talking about?

It was the only one place in the letter, the chapter, and the book where it mentioned communism. I've read on in the letter, the chapter, and the book but the book didn't tell me.

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As (I am sure) none of us can read minds, the only way to find out is to write to the author and ask him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)