March 21

1. Where in the bible does it say "Come as you are?" (Regarding the clothes you wear to church.)

2. King David's son died as a baby as a punishment from God to David. I may have heard secondhand about his son going to heaven, but what verse indicates this?

Moreover, what other verses indicate that children before the age of accountability go to Heaven? What verses, if any, indicate that children could still go to hell? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your second question, the Old Testament, for the most part, does not mention reward and punishment in the afterlife. There are a few possible allusions to it in some of the later books (especially the Book of Daniel) but those are disputed. So most likely the question is not treated at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On question 2, after David's son's death, 2 Samuel 12:23 has David saying "But now [that my son] is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." It's up to the reader to decide if David's belief that he would "go to" his dead son means [1] in Heaven, [2] in the Bosom of Abraham, [3] in death, [4] in the ground, [5] in Sheol, [6] in Hell, [7] in the Limbo of the pagans, or [8] any of the really limitless other possibilities. Despite this nebulousness, those who wish to believe that dead babies go to heaven have found comfort in this particular verse. Historically, the beliefs regarding the "destination" of dead unbaptised babies have evolved over time—like most "Biblical" beliefs, verses can be picked out of context and interpreted in myriad ways, so that almost any doctrine can be justified, and has been. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I didn't know that. That seems to supersede my answer for this specific question. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original questions — (1) The Bible doesn't say this. (2) This question is very much disputed; there's no specific passage that discusses the question in detail. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish belief is that pretty much everyone eventually goes to Heaven. Sinners may have a stop in hell first (maximum of 11 months). Children under the age of majority (12/13) are not responsible for their transgressions so would not go to hell. Ariel. (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not alone, many people think "come as you are" is in the bible somewhere. Here's a list of passages that are relevant, some moreso than others [1] SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Christian Faith; Matthew Ch.2 16-18 may help with an answer. Heaven was only opened up after the Resurrection, see Harrowing of hell. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much as with the initial question, there are no specific Biblical references to the harrowing of hell. Similarly, the passage you list from Matthew has, as best I can tell, nothing to do with anything discussed here -- it's Herod's Massacre of the Innocents, but it says nothing about the post-death fate of those killed. — Lomn 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We express a firm belief in the Apostles Creed of Our Lord's desent into hell (Sheol/Hades). I said that the quote from Matt. 2 may help with an answer. I was thinking of Matthews' quote from the psalms regarding the reaction of the Angels to the deaths of the children. (Mat.2 ver. 18).MacOfJesus (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) What "we"? Our article on the harrowing makes it clear that, in addition to the lack of explicit references, there is no firm agreement within Christianity as to whether the harrowing occurred or, if it did, what form it took (note also that expressions of the Apostles' Creed do not universally include the reference). As for the other, asserting that an atopical reference "may help" is trivially true but not useful. — Lomn 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest -- Matthew quotes Jeremiah, not Psalms, and Jeremiah doesn't discuss angels. Perhaps you meant some other reference? — Lomn 21:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the main-line Christian Churches give their assent to the Apostles Creed. I was attempting to answer or give areas of study to the OP to help with a final answer. (I am not seeing myself being diverted into diverse arguments. I was answering from memory.) MacOfJesus (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help. Please, send to me link to source of info about kinsmen relations of Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great to Haakon Sigurdsson. I will high appreciate your answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_I_of_Kiev

Oleg L.Gubarev <E-mail address removed to prevent spamming> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.73.176 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may simply be referring to the theory that the rulers of Rus were of Norse origin. See Varangians, Rurik, and Primary Chronicle, which is a detailed, but partly fictional source for this period. It's possible that Vladimir's more recent ancestors had a relationship to Haakon's line through marriage, but I can find no source for that. Lesgles (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Oleg L.Gubarev Thanks for your answer. Excuse me, if I am wrong, but is not needed here to give link to the source? Because it is very clear note that Vladimir go to Haakon Sigurdarsson. For such information must be some base.

You are right, and I have therefore added a "citation needed" template. If you do eventually find a source either way, I encourage you to edit the article and remove the template. Lesgles (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What date in 1826 was a Monday the 2nd?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on 1826, the calendar is here. The title of this thread differs from the question you asked. Monday the 22nd was in May. Monday the 2nd was in both January and October. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nifty site that will display a calendar for any year:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On YouTube, I have been listening to recordings of both British and German air raid sirens which were used in World War II. My question is why were they different from one another? The British used a dual-tone siren while the Germans employed one with a single tone. I would have thought they'd have been standard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British sirens were dual tone for an air-raid warning and single tone for the "all clear". I would imagine that Britain would not have wanted to buy it's sirens from Germany of vice-versa! Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this is obvious to everyone else but why would you think that they'd be the same? Were both sirens made by the same company? Dismas|^(talk) 09:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but seeing as stop signs, traffic light colours, etc. are all standard use internationally, I had presumed air raid sirens would have sounded the same. I have probably been influenced in my thinking by the fact that the British air raid siren is used as a generic siren in all World War II films, irrespective of nation. I recall having seen a film about the war based in Italy, and the British siren was used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using traffic signs, you should perhaps instead compare them to the situation regarding sirens on emergency vehicles, which can also vary a lot from country to country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that having lived in four different countries. The US emergency vehicle sirens appear to be much faster and frenetic-sounding than those in Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago I was taking a physics class with a professor who had been a kid in Germany when the allies were bombing and the air raid sirens were sounding. At some point a police care came whizzing by, blaring its siren, very audible as the windows were open. He said that when he heard an American police car or other emergency vehicle, it gave him chills, as it took him back to that time. It was always my understanding (tell me if I'm wrong) that European emergency vehicle sirens have that two-tone aspect to them purposely to sound different from air raid sirens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, UK emergency sirens are different from those used in over in continental Europe. Road signs weren't harmonised until the late 1960s. I remember learning one set for a test at Cubs and then having to learn a whole new set because they'd changed. You can see the old UK signs here. BTW, the old air-raid sirens were kept in the UK until the 1990s in case WWIII broke out. In London, they were also used to signal a major flood, before the Thames Barrier was completed. There was a test once in the 1970s and it was a very erie sound - made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story I heard was that a new set of British road signs were designed in the 1960s by a British artist, and then these were copied by countries all around the world. I think they didnt pay her or the government anything. Edit: see Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anderson_Committee - far more than you'd ever want to know about them. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Siren (noisemaker). I thought the sound from the traditional British air-raid siren was due to compressed air blowing through a series of holes in a rapidly rotating disk - hence the lower tone as it rotated up to speed. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which links to Civil defense siren, a rather informative article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British siren is scary enough, but when I heard the German air raid siren, I was so terrified, I wanted to run out of the room. It's like an announcement of unavoidable death. Go listen to it. I expecte they were designed to alarm people just as the Stuka dive bombers had sirens to heighten the terror of the population under attack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer appears to be that British sirens had two rings of holes in the Siren disk or disc, while German ones only had one. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"seeing as stop signs, traffic light colours, etc. are all standard use internationally" That is not completely true even now, and certainly wasn't between the UK and the rest of Europe until relatively recently (1960s). See Road signs in the United Kingdom, though sadly that article has no illustrations of the old-style signs. Some (not very good) examples here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. A pity the images cannot be uploaded to the article. I am also curious as to which air raid siren was used in Italy during WWII. As I said before, war films tend to use the British for effect due to its recognisability.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have sound files for both British and German Second World War sirens? (Both for raid and all-clear would be ideal). DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old German WWII Air Raid Siren YouTube Here's the German siren.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The video you have requested is not available." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. I fixed the link. Here's the British siren. British siren with All-Clear plus vintage footage of the Blitz--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Scary stuff. But it got everyone's attention. The British siren sounds similar to the typical sirens used in the US, which are tested once a month on a specified day, and are also used for emergencies, the most typical being tornado warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are both scary. The British one, although eerie, seems to tell people to hurry while there's still time; whereas the German one is more dreadful, as if it's saying: "Too late. Your time is up. Death is now overhead".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The German one is definitely scarier, but maybe that's because I'm used to the American sirens, which are similar to the British. However, the German item says, "here you can see/hear only the low-tone unit with big 3 ports". Does that mean there's a piece missing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding police cars, here's a youtube of a German car,[3] which sounds similar to the typical (or stereotypical) police car sirens used across the European continent and the UK. Here's an interesting sequence from New York City.[4] American police have a variety of types of sirens, which tend to get plenty of attention. Here's a nifty video that shows the control mechanism for those different types of sirens.[5] We're assuming the guy making the video had permission. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans (of course excluding experts) are more knowledgeable about British politics. Compared to this, they have little knowledge/interest on the internal politics of other European countries like France, Germany etc., even through these countries are major global powers and their economies are ahead of UK economy. Is there any sociocultural explanation for this? Does language have something to do with it or other reasons? --Reference Desker (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the amount of Americans who post on these reference desks who seem to think the UK is a socialist state, I would say your first sentence bears little resemblance to reality. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, given the number of Americans who insist on changing UK spelling to American spelling in article about British subjects, they don't know much about the language either. HiLo48 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be nice to each other now. My guess is that it's because of the Special Relationship. It works ther other way too; I know a lot more about US politics than I do about French. Also, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who the Prime Minister of Japan was until last week. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American politics is of interest everywhere in the world, simply because American politicians have the (real or potential) ability to wield enormous political, economic and military power anywhere in the world. That's why some American politicians generate almost audible sighs of relief around the world when they are elected, and others are viewed as, simply, terrifying. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you (awkwardly) recast the original assertion as "Of the politics of non-US countries, Americans are most knowledgeable about British politics," then there may actually be a grain of truth to that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the fact that the US was once a British colony may have something to do with it. Just a shot in the dark, mind, but worth thinking about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, related to that, the fact that a high proportion of Americans (higher than for any other country I'd guess - I haven't checked) have ancestry from, and often current relatives in, the UK, so that they may be more interested in what happens there. The language issue is probably most important - the language used in the UK doesn't (usually) need to be translated for US viewers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Americans don't know that Britain has a three party system, or anything about British politics. Most Americans don't even know who the speaker of the house is, or who has the majority in Congress.AerobicFox (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain" doesn't actually have a three-party system. It may be broadly true that England does - though there are many smaller parties who win significant numbers of votes there - but the nationalist parties are at least equally important players in Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland (which may or may not count as being part of "Britain" depending on whether you're defining it as the island, or as the UK) has a (largely) entirely different set of political parties. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "Most Americans don't know ... anything about British politics." Have to disagree. UK Conservative Party comes second to the Republican Party that interests US conservatives, not Germany's CDU, French UMP, even though both CDU and EMP are conservative parties. Similarly, American liberals identify themselves with the Liberal Democrats. France and Germany have their own conservative and liberal parties, but most Americans don't even know those names. And I think Margaret Thatcher is probably the only foreign figure who still influences American conservatism. --Reference Desker (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they are all pretty similar. 129.120.195.14 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(addressed @ User:Reference Desker) If you'd like to do some more general research on this topic, one keyword often used in media theory is "cultural proximity" (no article on Wikipedia, though it is listed among "conditions for news" in our article on news values). It's a loosely defined term, but often refers to people's (and the media's) preference for products close to their own values, culture, language, history, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add some of my own anecdotal examples: I frequently listen to WBUR or other NPR radio stations online. While it is night in the US, they often feature British programs. So I'm getting British news while listening to an American station. I live in Zurich, and sometimes know more about certain local politicians in Germany than about local politicians in French-speaking Switzerland, because I read, watch, and listen to German media far more often than to French. Yet I'm still far more familiar with French and Italian politics than I am with Swedish, Spanish, or Greek politics, because I virtually never read media outlets in their languages. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Americans have no knowledge of politics outside the United States, and many have little knowledge of politics inside the United States. Most can name the U.S. president, but surveys have found that a majority cannot name the people who represent their state or district in Congress or key members of the president's cabinet. Of the few Americans (5% ?) who can even name a foreign head of government, probably the best-known heads of government would be the leaders of Canada and the UK. That is partly because people on the northern border can receive Canadian media in their own language, and because a substantial part of the 5% who know anything either listen to the BBC on the radio or subscribe to The Economist, both of which are produced in the UK. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can blame this appalling ignorance on the piss-poor US educational system. Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see some real data on this, rather than guessing. My general experience is that Americans know more about "enemy nations" governments than "friendly" ones —I would suspect more to know who are the leaders of Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea much sooner than they would know the leaders of Canada, the UK, and France. But this is just more guessing on my part, mixed with anecdata. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone heard of indexuniverse.com, the source for info on ETFs and indexes? I don't see an entry on them and their publications ETFR (Exchange Traded Fund Report) and Journal of Indexes and the data on the ETF industry they provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycsanfran (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I have a question about the meeting room at the JSA at the Korean border. The room is cut in half by the border (so half in South Korea and the other in North). Apparently it's possible to visit one of these rooms from the South side. How that is coordinated with the North? Is there some agreement where the South can bring in visitors on one day and the North on the other? In a similar way, this photo [6] shows a South Korean soldier on the North Korean side of the room. Does anyone know what the arrangement between the North and the South is regarding this? Thanks. - Akamad (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article Joint Security Area? --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read that article, but it doesn't seem to answer my question. It says that "both sides may allow tourists to go inside the MAC Conference Room", but there is nothing about what the arrangements are regarding this. In other words, how do they avoid having North Korean tourists and South Korean tourists entering the room at the same time? Or worse yet, how do they avoid DPRK soldiers and ROK soldiers entering the same room at the same time. They must have some rules regarding this, but I haven't been able to find any reference to them. - Akamad (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that they do (might) enter at the same time, but are not permitted to talk. Presumably they would be escorted out if they (or the other side) did talk. I think it was in the context of that being one of the ways for each side to see the other (i.e. the closest that interaction gets). Ariel. (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can the US - and possibly also its partners - attack Libya without congress approval? 212.169.185.194 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a United Nations resolution to attack Libya, not solely the USA's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution only requires Congressional approval when war is formally declared (Declaration of war by the United States). There are limits as to how long a conflict can go on, though, before Congress is consulted (War Powers Resolution). Technically Congress could probably de-fund the activity if they wanted to (power of the purse), though, additionally technically, the President could probably find ways to divert funds to it again (e.g. Iran–Contra affair, black budget). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first point, other nations do not need the approval of the US congress to do anything.

other than that, the president is empowered to engaged in military actions of certain kinds without consulting congress. This is designed to allow rapid response to situations impacting on national interests, and includes acting on resolutions passed in the UN - no one wants something potentially damaging to the national interests to continue unimpeded while the members of congress debate and debate and debate over what to do. Only congress can explicitly declare war, of course, but that power has been weakening since the 1950s, when presidents started indulging in full-scale military 'police actions', using their power to engage immediate threats to commit to extended military involvement without declarations of war. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the OP meant congressional approval from their respective congresses, which could be granted or not, be necessary or not. Quest09 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the question, then as far as the UK is concerned, what happened is that the government in power took the military action that it believed was necessary (having extensively trailed that decision over the last week or two thus allowing opportunity for Parliamentary comment) and then that action was discussed by Parliament at the earliest sensible opportunity, which I believe was today. This in theory gave Parliament the opportunity to condemn the government's action if they chose to do so. The exact mechanisms by which the discussion in question was put in place are down to the inner workings of Parliament (I think the government co-operated in making sure it happened), but there are many such mechanisms for different circumstances; for example Robin Cook used his resignation statement (billed in Parliamentary terms as a "personal statement") to make his acclaimed speech condemning the Iraq war (YouTube version). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no requirement on the British government to obtain the support of Parliament for military action; a White Paper issued early in Gordon Brown's premiership indicated that such a procedure would be made compulsory (see paras 25-30 here) but it is difficult to see how in the United Kingdom constitution it could really be made binding. Nevertheless, it remains the case that there is a political necessity on the Government to obtain Parliamentary approval. The debate yesterday was on a motion explicitly supporting "the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973" and was agreed with an overwhelming majority of 557 to 13. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanne: The UN does not have the authority to do that, since they do not represent the American people.

Officially, it is not a war declaration, nor a war. The US is just enforcing a UN resolution. Quest09 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that the UN cannot force a nation to go to war, but I wanted to point out that it isn't an American-led enterprise as in Bush's Iraq War. Five nations so far have abstained from joining the coalition against Ghaddaffi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UN cannot whether force nor authorize the US to go to war. "Bush's Iraq War" is ambiguous. Quest09 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "abstained from joining" is maybe potentially misleading. The five (Brazil and Russia and India and China and somewhere, if memory serves) merely abstained on the UN resolution. That of course also implies those five won't be providing military forces or logistical support as part of the coalition. However, I would guess it's entirely possible for a country to vote in favour of the UN resolution and not provide military forces or logistical support. Thus, supporting the resolution isn't necessarily the same thing as "joining the coalition" in my view, although it might be the same thing as "backing the coalition". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right on this. 10 nations voted 'yeah, bomb them all', but 10 nations are not bombing Libya. Quest09 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The President of the United States is commander in chief of the U.S. military forces and can order them into action without consulting Congress, though the War Powers Resolution requires him to obtain Congressional approval for military action within 60 days. Similarly, in 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya without Congressional authorization. Marco polo (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007. —Kevin Myers 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Obama administration decided that the Libya situation does in fact represent a threat to the U.S. (Or are you suggesting that the Obama administration is turning into Bush's third term?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Obama thinks Libya represents an "actual or imminent threat", or perhaps he has changed his mind about the powers of the presidency, or perhaps he doesn't remember what he wrote, or perhaps he is deliberately violating the Constitution. The second option seems most likely. But some other liberals have not changed their minds about the power of the presidency. Dennis Kucinich has even mentioned impeachment. —Kevin Myers 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It puts liberals in the position of defending Qadaffi, which is an interesting situation. Kucinich, of course, is pretty extreme in his views, even for a liberal. But if such a notion gained traction, it would put the GOP in an interesting situation also - because if they were to support impeachment, they would be hard pressed to justify their support of the Bush actions, and those of future Presidents, especially Republican Presidents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[7] --Reference Desker (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And [8] --Reference Desker (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a source, please, bugs, for anything you just wrote. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the points made in Reference Desker's second link are along similar lines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source for your claims. I have problems with your use of "liberals" in the first sentence, and "pretty extreme" in your second sentence. Cite sources, please. This is a reference desk, not your personal soapbox. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confine your personal attacks to the talk page, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the Obama admin would focus on the word "unilaterally" in that sentence. The odds are he briefed somebody in Congress about it before it occurred (e.g. one of the select committees that deals with things like this). Whether "unilaterally" means "requires a vote" is unclear. The Constitution sure ain't clear on it, and the War Powers Act gives a lot of leeway. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly misleading to suggest opposing the resolution and its enforcement or arguing President Obama's actions violate the US Constitute means you support Qadaffi. Incidentally, the right wing Accuracy in Media [9] is also strongly opposed to Obama's actions [10] as they were to Clinton's actions on Kosovo Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is politics. If this attack on Libya was ordered by Bush, liberals would have opposed it. Since it is ordered by Obama, conservatives are opposing it. Similarly if Iraq War was initiated by a Democrat president, Republicans would have opposed the war. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's usually more complicated than that. Some Republicans/conservatives called for intervention in Libya before Obama acted; see this editorial from the National Review. They have and will criticize Obama's handling of the conflict, without opposing the confict itself. This is predictable. When a Democrat uses the military to advance US interests overseas, he will usually get some Republican support, and lose some support from the left in his own party. It works the other way too; there were Democractic supporters of the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, including Obama. —Kevin Myers 13:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why there was no article or information about the street photographer, Paul Trevor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.221.61 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because no one wrote it yes? At the first glance, he could pass the notability threshold. Quest09 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, my lil sis needs help with her R.E. homework and I'm in the rather embarrassing position of not knowing the answer! It has a few questions about Moses, most of which we've worked out together, but we're unsure of the last two. It asks "how did his Hebrew background prepare him for his future role?" and "how did his Egyptian background help him...?" Now my knowledge of the Moses story is not that extensive, but as I see it the fact that he was brought up by Egyptians would make him more likely to be able to speak to the Pharaohs, since i imagine that the Hebrews, treated as second class citizens, would not be able to have access to them. His Hebrew background would make his people trust him more and believe in what he was saying, since he was one of them. But these two points fleshed out would only take up about 4 sentences, when she would probably need a couple o' paragraphs (she's only 11). Any help much appreciated! Postrock1 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you're right, but what point in his life are we talking about? Is it, for example, when he is being brought up in Pharaoh's household? Or when he is leading the Children of Israel across the Red Sea? Anyway, try and relate his dual nationality to the later events in his life (it is unlikely, for example, that God would have given the Ten Commandments to an Egyptian non-Hebrew) and you should get more flesh on the bones you already have. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, we're not 100% sure since she missed a few days off school. The previous question was asking about his excuses and indecision in following God's word, which I think is referring to when he went to the pharaohs to tell them to free the isrealites, but at first he's too scared too? I think. haha I actually have no idea about this, I would fail on Are You Smarter Than A 10 Year Old Postrock1 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has she got any friends in that same class? Ask to borrow their notes, or for them to help summarize what the topic is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question can be answered here - but can it be answered to the satisfaction of the class's particular religious interpretations? For example, I might say that Moses could hardly have presented himself as a Hebrew prophet without the appropriate background. Or I might argue that if he hadn't had intimate familiarity with the plans and construction of the Ismailia Canal, he couldn't have led a horde of Israelites down it with the Egyptian Army on their heels, arranging for his comrades to close up the locks and dry up the flow of that branch of the Nile long enough for them to cross it, opening them back up afterwards and swamping the Egyptian chariots. But I might get a big fat F for that one. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... his training as a member of Pharoh's household had doubtless given him dignity, confidence, poise, and had accentuated his ability to organize and command..." Truly Moses had a diverse background, but like an athlete or musician with natural ability, these qualities must be cultivated. That is a big part of the reason that Moses had to undergo another 40 years of training: "the qualities of patience, meekness, humility, long-suffering, mildness of temper, self-control, and learning to wait on Jehovah needed to be developed in him to a higher degree, in order for him to be the fitting one to lead God's people." (Insight on the Scriptures, v. 2, pg. 435). Hope this helps! Schyler (one language) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like that are really designed to make a student think, not to have definite answers. Doing the thinking for her basically defeats the purpose of the exercise. Looie496 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Exodus chapter 2 in a decent translation. Rashi's commentary is helpful, too. If you'd like to score well, don't overlook Moses' sojourn with Jethro in Midian, which helped form his character and is neither necessarily "Hebrew", nor "Egyptian". The fact that he's initally mistaken for an Egyptian is also interesting. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're having trouble remembering the story in detail, but don't have a copy to refer to. Did you know there are many online Bibles available, including in fairly easy-to-read English? For example... 212.183.128.13 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest read the relevent texts to her, explaining in simlpe English as you go along and the answers should appear naturally. Moses was au fait with the house of Pharaoh, and there were not many men around of his age as Pharaoh had ordered their deaths at birth. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Also, Moses had run away from Pharaoh over the death of an Egyptian. God ordered him to go to Pharaoh. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Me again!

I've learned that US employers provide improved health insurance as a fringe benefit that is not taxed. This apparently goes for 20% of US employers - or something like that. Now, Donald Barr claims that when you get (after discussing with your employer) an insurance that is better than the last - covers more stuff etc - the HMO's costs go up. That's what's problematic to the feds about the fringe benefit insurances. How does this happen? The only way I see prices going up is by the employee showing up at the doctor's office/hospital, and receiving MORE care for an injury of one type, than he would with the SAME injury on a lesser insurance. Ie, that the physician would feel it prudent to take more tests, each and every one with less actual reward for the bucks spent. Since this sounds like a very difficult thing to measure, I thought I'd ask if it was the case.

Thank you in advance. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that these plans drive up costs for the HMOs; it's that they drive up the cost of healthcare in general by shielding consumers of healthcare from any of the costs that might reduce demand. Remember that in the US system, the government does not impose any limits on healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and so on, who are free to charge what the market will bear. If consumers of healthcare are shielded from price constraints, then there is potentially no limit to healthcare costs. See this article for more information on this topic. Marco polo (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to clarify: When I ask what the concrete consequences are that up the prices of healthcare, I propose that it is the inclusion of more tests, or slightly more costly treatment, by the physician - OR, by simply seeing the doctor more often. Your link seems to echo this, "... the most expensive plans — which some argue encourage overuse of medical care...". What you are saying, I think, is that one must view the problem as one based on supply and demand. Now, here's where I lose you: Are you saying that if presented with an insurance plan detached from the employer (thus based on your own desires for this plan), then that plan would necessarily involve cheaper treatment? I do not see the connection between increasing the profit for a HMO by buying unnecessarily expensive insurances and an increase in federal expenses, without receiving a more expensive treatment/drugs for the same illness. That, and seeing the doctor more often - but also then receiving more treatments. What I hear from a lot of people is that the prices for drugs skyrocket because the feds are by and large conned into covering them (the demand you speak of). What this entails to me is that there must be one treatment that works OK and is cheaper, and another treatment that works OK and is more expensive. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I think one of the distinctions of the most generous plans is that employees who receive them do not contribute to their cost and do not face any fee when they go to seek treatment. So people with those plans will not think twice about continuing to attend physical therapy sessions every week for six months at $300 per session even though they received 95% of the benefit of the sessions during their first month of attendance. Or, people with those plans may wish to have a $2,000 MRI scan every time they experience the least back pain. By contrast, my own US employer requires me to pay 15% of the cost of the insurance, which gives me an incentive to choose a plan with some restrictions and limits, since it is less expensive to me personally. All plans offered by my employer also require the employee to pay a set fee, or "co-pay" for every visit to a healthcare provider. So, for example, when I received physical therapy, I had to pay $30 for each session. This covered only a fraction of the session's cost. However, once I felt that the benefit of attending an additional session wasn't worth another $30, I canceled the sessions. If I had a plan without fees or limits, I might have kept going, since the physical therapy was pleasant in and of itself. Finally, you mention one treatment that is okay and cheaper and another that is okay and more expensive. This is precisely the case, in many cases, with brand-name versus generic drugs. My plan requires me to pay a much higher fee for a brand-name drug if a generic version of the same drug is available, so I will almost always choose the cheaper generic. People with insurance policies that don't penalize them for choosing the more expensive version are more likely to do so. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marco! You've been very good help to me. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]