Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 23

= September 23 =

Heaven and all that
I was brought up a Christian, and whilst I can believe most of the bible story, one thing still bothers me: Its about heaven. well the first thing is, where is it, (in this universe or the next). What will we do there if we get there? And if we have to do the same thing all the time (like continually worshipping God), wont it get boring after the first million years?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.252.28 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You would probably be better off asking these questions to your priest/vicar/minister. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming (s)he has a priest/vicar/minister.... Why would it be better to take this question elsewhere, as opposed to any of the other questions that are asked of us here in the Hum Ref Desk? Saukkomies 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, because there's no generally accepted version of what heaven is, where it is (if anywhere at all in a sense that we can understand), whether or not our bodies later rejoin our spirits, what (if anything) we do there, and other questions. Different faiths have their own ideas.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then direct him to Wiki pages (or other sources) where it's discussed online. That's the task set before us Ref Desk editors, no? I mean, to say to someone that has a valid question that he or she has to go talk to a "man of the cloth" in order to get the answer is not a very nice way to treat the person... It's condescending and patronizing, in my opinion. Saukkomies 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your question recalls this cartoon... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, 79.76.252.28, have you glanced at the Wiki article on Heaven yet? You may also wish to check out the article on Hell. It is interesting to note that some religions believe in Heaven, but not in Hell. Others believe in Hell, but not in Heaven. Some religions believe in both Heaven and Hell, while still other religions believe in neither. And yet other religions believe in a complex series of levels, each of which is ranked heirarchically.
 * Then, after reading up on that sort of thing, you could then turn to the subject of Perfection. There is quite a lot of philosophical ideas regarding whether a state of perfection is possible, and if it is, whether such a condition would be a desireable place to be. In that article on Perfection, you'll find a short discussion about the Paradox of Perfection, which basically states that it is impossible to achieve a state of perfection because in doing so it would deprive anyone from progressing further, as well as creating a condition in which adversity was not present. And when adversity is not present, then it is impossible for perfection to exist in the first place (the idea that everything must have its opposite in order to exist). So, there's the philosophical theory that states that imperfection is perfection - thus the paradox.
 * At any rate, check out those sites and their links at the bottom of the pages, and that should keep you busy and out of trouble for a while. Saukkomies 02:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
If Sarah Palin is elected Vice President, would she be the youngest in history? If not, who was? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Looks like John C. Breckinridge was the youngest VP at 36, Palin is 44. Alexius  Horatius 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The list is here. If my math is right (don't bet on it), Palin would be the 8th youngest, older than Al Gore by a month. —Kevin Myers 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize we had that article here in Wikipedia. That was helpful ... and interesting. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

"ascension" eh? SGGH speak! 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that too. The only person I know of who ascended (allegedly) was aged about 33.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Elijah is supposed to have ascended as well. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do American presidents claim divinity, in the manner of the Roman Emperors? Gwinva (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I sometimes wonder what historians 3,000 years from now will conclude when they study the remains of this, this, and this. Alexius  Horatius 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the apotheosis of Washington: the deification of the first in a new line of gods presidents? Gwinva (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Other presidents might be in line for pumpkinification perhaps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what historians from the 6th millenium will do (that is, if they've never heard of these things but still count themselves as historians), is simply go to Wikipedia's pages on these subjects. It will surely still be around then.  It had better be: I've got 2 dozen alternative user names I'm planning to use in future incarnations.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Incarnation, Jack? Do you claim this for yourself, or for all Wikipedians?  What a lot I'm learning today. Wikipedia is, in effect, a new Mount Olympus, from which gods descend in incarnate form. At the same time (passing mid air, perhaps?) US presidents are ascending (apart from those who are turned into pumpkins, of course: they presumably evolve into carriages).  Gwinva (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for others, only myself (and even then, only in my more lucid moments). Any lingering doubts I may have had about reincarnation have been dispelled by this recent event, which has now made me absolutely determined to be around in newly incarnated form in 3000 years time - or however long it takes - for my "horrible" edit to no longer make it onto the list (well, I did say I was going to show it all my friends, and here's my opportunity).  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

However, if she becomes VP and McCain dies (what is almost sure), she would be one of the youngest Presidents and the first woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's absolutely certain he will die; but whether that would happen in the next 4 years, or even the next 8 years, is far from certain. I get the impression he's a tough old coot who's been through some physically extremely testing times that would put most of what the presidency has to fling at him in the shade.  If McCain wins, Palin may never get the chance to be president.  But she might run for president herself next time around.  You never know.  Check back here in 4 years time.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

events happening on this date in history
I keep striking out. But I have seen quotes from Wikipedia about events happening on this date in history. The only article that I can locate is about a BBC program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.207.167 (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at September 23, or any other date, you'll find a list of the events you're after. --  JackofOz (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Society
I would like to know if anyone knows anything about this Society. The society is located in Grove City, Ohio and claims to have a 2300 year old secret that is used by the rich and famous as well as anyone who joins. Please let me know if there is any information on the society.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf1652 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a scam and I would recommend you throw any mail you receive from them in the bin. If it sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is.  Yahoo Answers has something to say, see here.--Richardrj talkemail 08:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember: "If it seems to good to be true, it probably is too good to be true." --Tango (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally just two weeks ago my next-door-neighbor, who is a Ukrainian immigrant widow, came over to ask me precisely this same question about this group. She had received a letter from what appeared to be a mass mailing from this same organization. I made a couple of telephone calls to the Better Business Bureau, and went online to check out what I could find there, which produced a number of sites where people had written email letters complaining about this organization, including this site here. This group will sell you books that claim to provide the secrets to getting rich. The only problem is that once you buy the first book, which doesn't really tell very much, you have to then buy a second book, which turns out to not say very much, either. They keep asking for more and more money for more of their ripoff publications. What surprises me is that anyone even got to the point where they gave these people money for the first book, let alone the second or third... The end result of these searches produced very substantial and conclusive proof that this organization is a complete and total ripoff, and my advice would be to either throw any letters you receive from them, or even go so far as to report them to your local Better Business Bureau for trying to get you to give money to a ripoff company. This group preys on peoples' greed and trusting natures - very similiar to the infamous Nigerian email scam artists. Saukkomies 15:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The secret to getting rich is finding some sucker to sell all those books you just bought at twice the price! ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr Whippy
I heard an ice cream van going through the streets nearby, even though it's September and 23ºC (70ºF) today in Perth and there would be no kids around here - I live in a semi-industrial area and it's school time. I was therefore inspired to research the history of Mr Whippy, which is almost synonymous with "ice cream van" in Australia. However, the official site for Mr Whippy Australia says that it is no longer associated with the ice cream van business, but there is Mr Whippy Ice Cream Vans only serving Victoria. This Everything2 site says that there was some trademark dispute in Australia, and the [UK site doesn't seem to give any history at all. Can I have some help entangling this mess of what Mr Whippy actually is? Keep in mind that I'm blind, so I can't see the logos. Also I have to rush somewhere soon so I probably haven't done all the research I needed. Now I understand why there's an article for [[Mrs. Whippy]] but not for Mr Whippy. ;) Graham 87 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We should have an article. Be careful what you say though, this is a dangerous business and you wouldn't want to upset the wrong people. See for another interpretation. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A history of the Mr Whippy brand was recently published by their current owners Wall's ice cream in 2003 but, alas, is currently out of print. Walls took over Mr Whippy in the UK in the 60's and was subsequently bought out by international brand manager Unilever after the international franchises were awarded. I would imagine that there was a falling out between Unilever and the territorial franchises which resulted in the company throwing it's weight around a bit to retain it's copyright. The history on the Oz Mr Whippy site says that they decided to sell their van fleet to private owners in the early 1970's to focus on their retail business. There is still a franchise operating in New Zealand although the term seems to have become a genericized trademark in some areas with most ice cream vans colloquially called a 'Mr Whippy'. Nanonic (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, this is interesting. I hadn't thought about it being a genericized trademark, much like "to Google" is for search engines or Hoover is for vacuum cleaners. And I didn't know about Unilever either ... it has quite an extensive range of products. The Glasgow Ice Cream wars just sound insane. Are there any more details about the trademark tussle with Mr Whippy's? It must have been on the news *somewhere*. Graham 87  14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're selling crystal meth. Saukkomies 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kitten care
Hi, we just got a new kitten whose mom died shortly after she was born. We were wondering what the best steps to take would be to ensure that the kitten gets the proper care she needs from its mother? thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.192.59 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You should consult your veterinarian, or local animal care experts (Humane Society, animal control, etc.). We cannot give veterinary advice here.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coneslayer that you should go to a veterinarian, but in case for some reason you can't here are some links to sites with information on caring for orphaned kittens   .  Jessica   Thunderbolt   14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Subprime Loans Expire?
Please correct if I'm wrong, but if all these mortgage securitizations are backed by the cash payments from mortgages, then they expire, right? Mortgages aren't forever, so the securitizations are just bonds that give coupons for a certain period, and then stop, either with or without a lump sum at the end (sorry, it's been a while since I took Econ, forgot a lot of the jargon), right? So how long are they set up to last? I know it depends on the securitization, but is there a standard duration? More to the point, are these things going to expire soon enough to have an impact on the current crisis? 99.178.161.44 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I must have missed somthing along the way. I thought that one of the triggers of the current crises was that the original terms on these sub-prime mortgages have expired and people are being forced to renew at current prime or above-prime rates that result in monthly payments doubling and tripling. These borrowers cannot afford the new rates and are defaulting on the mortgages. The amortization periods for these mortgages could be anywhere up to 40 years, but that is just the time over which the whole loan would be paid out, assuming no defaults and no changes in rates. The expiry of the terms, which represent the period of time over which a specific (sub-prime, in this case) interest rate remains guaranteed by the mortgagee (lender), is the problem period. Unless the morgages are renewed for further terms at rates that are also uneconomic, this particular gun won't shoot again. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how these things really work, so don't take my word for it or anything, but isn't the big problem here that people can't pay back the loans, so the loans default? The bank then repossesses their house which was their security, but the houses are worth squat, thus loosing the bank a whole lot of money. Doesn't a loan "expire" pretty much at the time when the person who took out the loan defaults? 83.250.202.36 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Canada and the US have different mortgaging regulations but merely defaulting does not cause the loan to expire. Even if the property is sold, if the mortgagee gets less than the amount originally loaned out, in Canada he can continue to pursue the original borrower for the difference. For all practical purposes, there may be no point in such a pursuit, but people have been forced into bankruptcy over such failures to pay. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The confusion is between the subprime loans (foreclosures, falling home prices, etc) and the financial instruments created out of collections of these (and / or other) types of loans. These are a mortgage-backed security that expires in a certain number of years, unless there is a cash flow that pays out regardless of the life of the mortgages themselves. This would be possible if, say, 20% of the payout were invested in something else. The underlying assets, those mortgages, will likely have varying durations (to all have the same duration would limit the universe of possible mortgages to those issued on the same day), perhaps 3, 5, 7, 20 and 30 years.

Subprime loans, on the other hand, are individual mortgages. Some may be “2/28s,” where there is a fixed (low) interest rate for two years, followed by a higher and likely variable rate for 28 years. (Such loans might be included in a mortgage-backed security, but not necessarily.) The trouble comes when people suddenly face the higher interest rate and either can’t afford it or can’t get refinancing to reduce the monthly payments. This leads to “jingle mail” (keys in the envelope sent back to the lender). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's assessment of bailout
I was wondering how accurate Ron Paul's assessment of the bailout was, as reflected in his commentary. Thanks, 140.182.135.28 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are asking for an opinion of an opinion. While those on the Ref Desk frequently do temper fact with opinion, we are not usually requested to read long pieces in order to comment. Perhaps if you were to ask a specific question about Paul's views you would get clearer answers and we would not be forced to read yet another politician's view of what went wrong. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think too many people dispute the immediate causes of the problem or the attempt of the remedy (as Paul says, it is explicitly "to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices"). As to the final part, which is his proposed solution (just end all government intervention, whatever that means here), that's waaay up for the debate—yes, we'd all like the market to normalize, but the question is whether it normalizes by crashing the world economy or whether it does it in a more gradual and controlled way. I think there would be many economists who would take issue with his assertion that it was actually the regulations that let the boom occur in the first place. --140.247.253.44 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many, many people dispute the immediate causes of the problem and even more dispute the (mal)Administration's proposed remedies. Ending all government intervention would certainly eliminate the risk of moral hazard, but at the cost of one (1) global financial system as we know it. That’s a pretty steep price to pay for sticking to far-right wing ideologies, but certainly not impossible. However, “normalization” in this context would be akin to going back to the barter system. This particular economist finds that to be a remedy worse than the problem. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

YOP
The Youth Opportunities Programme or Y.O.P. as it was more commonly known, as far as I am aware, was a 1980's training scheme set up in the UK, for the young unemployed. Is there any information about YOP anywhere in Wikipedia? I think millions of people went through the scheme but strangely all I have found, so far searching Wikipedia, is an advert for some low fat yoghurt, called, YOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.122.175 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There wasn't, which is surprising. Google didn't find anything. Youth Opportunities Programme is now a horrid stub. But one day it might be a featured article on the front page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These youth programs here in the UK seem to have interesting anagrams, YOT, YJS and YOP. SGGH speak! 22:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The yoghurt called YOP is almost certainly not sold in Russia, at least not under that name, because "yop" is how the masculine singular past tense of the verb ебать ("to fuck") sounds. --  JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the misfortune to be a young person in Thatcher's Britain and I can remember a thing or two about YOP and its successor YTS. They were basically scams to massage the unemployment figures and to provide cheap, expendable labour for companies.  In 1979, the Tories got in on the back of the famous election poster showing a queue of unemployed people waiting to sign on and the slogan "Labour isn't working".  But whaddya know, unemployment under the Tories continued to rise, at some point hitting the magic three million mark.  So the government dreamed up this wheeze whereby young unemployed people would spend a fixed amount of time with a company, supposedly to learn a trade or profession.  That was YOP/YTS. The great thing about it for the government was that those on YOP didn't count towards the unemployment figures.  The great thing about it for the companies was that they could take these young people on, give them shitty menial work to do for six months without having to give them employment rights, get rid of them after six months and then bring the next sucker in.  (It may even have been compulsory to join the scheme, otherwise you risked losing unemployment benefit – I'm not sure on that point.) The great thing about it for the kids was... um, I'll get back to you on that one. --Richardrj talkemail 09:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although during the 1990s I joined one company where another employee had been taken on as a YTS trainee in the 1980s, was given a permanent job, and had become one of the more senior employees. It is true that the YTS was not liked at the time especially by the older unemployed, who would look for reasonable pay rates for doing the same job as YTS trainees were given, when the YTS people were practically free - so it might actually contribute to long-term unemployment. There was also the Young Enterprise Scheme which was supposed to help young people found their own businesses. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Young Enterprise is still around and is a different kind of thing altogether – a charity not a government scheme . --Richardrj talkemail 10:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating the stub, a good startingn point. I took the liberty of adding a mention in the rambling History of education in England. Won't it be fun sorting out which of these initiatives were in England or England-and-Wales only and which had slightly different manifestations in Scotland? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)