Humanities desk
< December 23	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 25 >

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.

December 24[edit]

Hillary bloopers reels?[edit]

I am curious whether there are any ~10:00 videos of HRC "bloopers" videos that feature things like her "What difference, at this point, does it make?" and her "Why, you may ask, am I not 50 points ahead..." that one can get from youtube or elsewhere. Most of such videos are very time restricted. I am looking for a long-term bloopers real. Let me clarify that I understand that some Hillary supporters or anti-GOP/conservative members may find this to be "POV" material, but I suspect that Florida law allows such media as protected free speech. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 11:47 am, Today (UTC+8)

She lost, so what would be the point? Also, those comments don't really qualify as "bloopers" - they're just normal comments that you might disagree with or dislike. A "blooper" would be like when Dubya said something about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, illustrating each half of that phrase with the wrong hand. Or like when Perry forgot which agency he would abolish, or when Johnson was asked about Aleppo and said "What's a Leppo?" Or like when Chicago's original Mayor Daley said, "Da police are not dere to create disorder - dey're dere to preserve disorder!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As crummy and overly optimistic a Democratic candidate as she was 10 minutes of those kinds of statements is a very long time. Of course the first Google Video result for Trump lying is Trump lying for 13 minutes straight, the first after clicking "long videos" is Donald Trump lying to the entirety of Mozart's Symphony No. 41, 2nd result for that is 2 hours of Trump lying and the 2nd result for "minutes of Donald" is 10 minutes of Donald Trump demeaning, objectifying, and insulting women. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those might be interesting, but they aren't "bloopers" as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is 16.5 minutes of Trump contradicting himself close enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask Medeis if it qualifies. I wouldn't call it bloopers, but it might be what Medeis is looking for, for Hillary. I don't know that she's been anywhere near as self-contradictory as Trump tends to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten minutes was meant as an upper limit, and I would have no problem with the "what's a leppo?" phrase and other funny ones being thrown in. As for Hillary having lost, well that's exactly why the "Why aren't I 50 points ahead" question is so ironic. That question has nothing to do with politics per se, it has to do with public announcements made during the campaign which have become funny, given the campaign's results. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "blooper" usually is when you say something different from what you intended. Like the old one where a radio host introduces President "Hoobert Heever". Spoonerisms make for good bloopers. Another can be when you say something that you don't think is being recorded. Like the apocryphal one about Uncle Don saying, "That should fix the little bastards" or whatever it was (not). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe gaffes is a better keyword? —Tamfang (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like Medeis to explain how the two initial examples qualify as "gaffes" even. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hillary gaffes" does yield a good amount of material, but mostly print [1]. "Hillary gaffe videos" [2] yields a lot of overlap , but also these videos [3] [4] (which I have not watched).--Wikimedes (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting in the aisle[edit]

Aisle (political term) says that US Senators sit on the left of the aisle (if Republicans) and on the right (if Democrats). What about non-caucusing independents? I understand that Bernie Sanders caucused with the Democrats when he was an independent, so presumably he sat with them, but Independent politician#Congress lists an assortment of other independent federal senators holding office since the beginning of national parties, so I'm guessing that one or more of them caucused with neither of the major political parties of their eras. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The majority party's caucus generally controls the agenda of Congress, e.g. what bills are brought up for a vote and when, as well as controlling the appointment of committee chairs and the majority party's seats on committees. The minority party's caucus controls the assignment of committee seats allocated to the minority party. If a Congressman were to join neither major party caucus then he would be stuck with whatever committee roles were left over after both parties had already allocated their preferences, and he would have no say in setting the internal agenda of either party. Given those powerful incentives to pick a side, it seems likely to me that every independent politician would do so (at least since the two-party system became firmly established), though I don't have an historical references to prove that this is true. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first public housing project in the United States? Techwood Homes or First Houses?[edit]

Wikipedia appears to give conflicting information.

"Techwood Homes was the first public housing project in the United States, opened just before the First Houses."

Techwood Homes

"Techwood Homes in Atlanta, first U.S. public housing project opened in 1936." "Public housing in the United States"

v

"First Houses is a public housing project in Manhattan in New York City and the first such in the United States." First Houses

Rexmcgregor (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bragging rights depend on how you define "oldest". If you go with date of dedication, then Techwood wins (dedicated in November 1935)... if you go with date of opening then First Houses wins (opening in December 1935) Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, Queensbridge Houses has a much better size to age ratio (opened 1939, biggest projects in North America) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the largest (the claim is unsourced in the article), it is only because the larger ones have been torn down like the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. Rmhermen (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]