Modern Philosophers

Most people wouldn't see modern day rock-bands as philosophers. But most people have bad taste. How else do you explain the success of boy-bands? -- But the moronic total control prepubescent girls weild over our culture is a topic for another post.

Anywho, Rammstein, a somewhat controversial band aus Deutschland, who have somehow managed to be branded both homosexual and fascist almost simoutaneously (figure that one out) have managed to convince me of one of their less spoken of talents: philosophical insight.

Take their song Engel, (query youtube for it). Here are some interpretations of the songs various meanings:

• The song Engel is about not wanting to aim at perfection all the time because oftentimes, something that seems perfect and pleasurable is in fact elusive. What one would think as a blissful existence is actually fearful and lonely: when the angels in the chorus sing: wir haben Angst und sind allein (we are afraid and alone).
• The song can also be interpreted as doubting the existence of God and angels: Den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann warum man sie nicht sehen kann (you look to the sky and ask why can't you see them).
• Yet a third interpretation can be sexual in nature. Angel (Engel) can be a slang term for a lifelong virgin, that is, a person that dies without ever having sex, and so the song could be seen as the thoughts of someone who doesn't want to die without experiencing at least some really swell oral sex; which by the way I personally consider a chief tenant of stress relief: Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein (God knows i don't want to be an angel). Some other lyrics also support this interpretation: sie müssen sich an Sterne krallen (ganz fest) damit sie nicht vom Himmel fallen (They must cling onto the stars, very tight, so they won't fall from heaven) could be seen as a metaphor for masturbation. Which is also a chief tenant of stress relief. Also, the video made for this song seems to imply through imagery of the main character being teased by a stripper holding a snake (possibly an image of Eve and "Satan" from the Christian Bible) that the man is a virgin fighting off the temptation of lust. Two children also appear in cages dressed as cherubs with black eyes, probably representing the innocence of youth. The woman then turns into the same that was watching her with black around the eyes, possibly representing that his inner sexual urges were leading him astray. He is then trapped in a prison, perhaps of his own design either by succumbing to temptation or by resisting.
• The Fact that a group of who appear to be the main character's friends leading him into a strip club is also reminiscent of a bachelor party thrown by a man's friends before a wedding and this could in fact lead to a fourth interpretation. Perhaps, that of a man who will be getting married in the near future and his friends convince him (perhaps unknowingly) to call it off by bringing the man to a strip club where he decides he'd rather remain single instead of being metaphorically imprisoned by marriage. In either case this seems to work with the Sehnsucht album's theme of Longing (for sex and/or freedom). These are most likely not the true meaning behind the lyrics, but may be deliberate as Rammstein is well-known for their use of puns and double-meanings.

(German Lyrics)

Wer zu Lebzeit gut auf Erden
wird nach dem Tod ein Engel werden
den Blick gen Himmel fragst du dann
warum man sie nicht sehen kann

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehen
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

Sie leben hinterm Sonnenschein
getrennt von uns unendlich weit
sie müssen sich an Sterne krallen (ganz fest)
damit sie nicht vom Himmel fallen

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehn
kann man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

Erst wenn die Wolken schlafengehnkann
man uns am Himmel sehn
wir haben Angst und sind allein

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein

(English Lyrics)

Who in their lifetime is good on Earth
will become an angel after death
you look to the sky and ask
why can't you see them

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel

They live behind the sunshine
separated from us, infinitely far
they must cling to the stars (very tightly)
so they don't fall from the sky

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel

Only once the clouds have gone to sleep
can you see us in the sky
we are afraid and alone

God knows I don't want to be an angel


Poetic, eh?

Why I blog

I was doing some self-reflection, and considering why I even continue to do this:

Because I can?
Well, yes.

Plus I find that my near-dyslexic, quasi-ADHD brain tends to go in odd directions; and I may as well document it. AND, I hereby promise that when my schedule is less hectic I'll resume posting my brilliant insights at a more constant rate.






Just kidding!!
They won't be brilliant.

Russia goes nuts (yet again).

President Vladimir Putin chose a little-known government official to become Russia's new prime minister Wednesday (effectively dissolving the government), a surprise move that set off fevered speculation over whether loyal technocrat Viktor Zubkov was being groomed to replace Putin next spring.
The move came a few hours after Putin dissolved the Cabinet of his long-serving prime minister, Mikhail Fradkov, saying he needed to appoint a government better suited to the election campaign and to "prepare the country" for life after the elections.
The nomination of Zubkov, who has overseen investigations into suspicious financial transactions, caught much of the political elite off guard, which appeared to be Putin's intention.
Most observers said they did not see Zubkov as Putin's successor, but rather as a caretaker prime minister, perhaps to be replaced closer to the March presidential vote. Others said they considered his appointment a signal of Putin's intention to retain control after he leaves the presidency.
In promoting Zubkov, whose nomination could be approved by the lower house of parliament as soon as Friday, Putin showed he is still calling the shots.
The plucking of Zubkov from relative obscurity reminded many Russians of Putin's own ascension to power, which began when former President Boris Yeltsin suddenly named him prime minister in August 1999. After the Kremlin secured control over the lower house of parliament in elections the following December, Yeltsin again shocked the nation by stepping down on the last night of the year and naming Putin acting president.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/12/russia.parliament.ap/index.html

,,Die Augen sind die Seelefenster"

That's a nifty little german phrase, its english-approximate being "Eyes are the window of the soul." And as it turns out, it may just be true. Anthropologists have uncovered some interesting findings about our eyes and how others percieve us.
Of course, how we "read" people determines an essential aspect of choosing your future partner. As it turns out, the iris of the eye has two physical traits that have been linked to personality differences. The number of "crypts" or pits in the iris signal how likely you are to be warm, tender and trusting. And the number of "furrows," or curving lines along the outer edge of the iris, signal the degree to which you are likely to be neurotic, impulsive and willing to assuage your cravings. In both cases, the more crypts or furrows, the more likely you are to be, respectively, tender hearted or spontaneous. These traits develop in the womb. In short, we have evolved a remarkable and subtle biological strategy to signal who we are.
In an evolutionary sense, this is a very efficient strategy of helping determine potential mates -- afterall, anything that saves time (instead of spending several months or even years trying to figure out if someone is really loyal, or just manipulative) is inheriently energy saving. Thus, you save resources; and have a better chance of survival. In a wider sense; finding loyal mates that will stick around and support offspring, and yourself, is in terms of survival: excellent.
This also leads to some interesting aspects of culture and history. Nearly every culture throughout history has accentuated the eyes to some extent. Ancient near-eastern peoples would use makeups. For Egyptians specifically, both men and women would use mascara to draw attention to the eyes (plus, the darker paints around the eyes reduce sun-glare -- similar to the way modern day football players stripe their faces before a game.) Not to mention cultural rules on maintaining eye-contact.

Source: http://www.helenfisher.typepad.com/

Acting as a shining example

*sigh

We really do.

What makes a Citizen?

In honor of the b-day of America, I think I'll tackle the concept of who is, and isn't a citizen. Of course, it may seem clear-cut, however, citizenship throughout history has always been pretty abstract.

So, what makes a citizen? Even more then that, what makes a GOOD citizen? Most imporantly, given the immigration debate, who SHOULD be a citizen?

I think too many people have a Prussian-type of attitude toward citizenship. One had to serve in the military to be counted as a citizen in Prussia. Ancient Rome had this as well. Some conservatives, have even posited a required military-service. Some have an economic outlook, that taxpayers are citizens. And while voluntary military service is excellent, and paying taxes (even with government waste) is generally a service to the public good, both of these come from a view that one has to sacrifice something in order to be counted.

Should an immigrant that serves in the military be granted full-citizenship? Yes, and no. While military service shows commitment, not every new arrival should be expected to serve; much less required service for all able-bodied persons. The reason? Not all can serve in the military. Plus, I'm positive I wouldn't want to be apart of a nation that would fight for freedom, yet doesn't have the vaguest idea of what the word means. Not that american soliders fall into this mindset at all, however Roman, and Prussian soliders did - fighting for the prestige and guaranteed rights that came with citizenship; not because of an understanding of what they were protecting.

As for taxes, even visitors to the US pay into the tax system vis-a-vis sales tax, but no one would consider them "American" for doing so. Both legal and non-legal immigrants have a portion of their checks given to the government vis-a-vis income tax (unless of course they're paid "under the table"). But a tax-payer does not a citizen-make. This is because a) not everyone can contribute lump-sums equally, and b) everyone recieves the benefits of taxes whether they are a citizen or not, think transporation systems, etc.

So...sacrifice doesn't make a citizen, per-se, but it does show a commitment. Perhaps a citizen is someone who doesn't just sacrifice, but creates as well. One who has an understanding of government, a respect for law, and, for americans, a geuine love of freedom. These are concepts, and actions, that can only grow from an understanding of civics and histroy education. This is why felons don't get a vote, as they've demonstrated they don't care - and why people who choose to become citizens are first tested on american history.

This is partially the reason why, at least on some level, immigrants (legal and non-legal), throughout American history are viewed with a bit of suspicion - their level of "American-ness" is in question. Until they're assimilated into American culture, it will probably remain that way.

Darfur

This blogging session will be a little different, as I won't cite sources - mostly just my own personal mussings over a situation that no one seems to care about.

It should be clear by now that Darfur has become the first incident of genocide in the 21st century; with a death toll past half a million. So why is it happening? More importantly, why isn't the world reacting?

The causes of the conflict aren't really as clear as some crazy dictator wanting a "pure" (homogenous) populace. They're partly rooted in colonialism, partly in climatic changes, partly in racial politics. The arab portion of the populace lives in the Nile-valley region, which, due the presence of the river is a bit more resistant to climatic change, and has received much more development during and after colonial times; and ultimately a larger propotion of persons can (or at least claim) to trace their ancestory back to arabs. Arab ancestory, or claiming it, isn't uncommon in east Africa; as many slaves in the past (both pre-colonial, and during the colonial period) were pre-dominately of african origin; as tends to be the pattern all over east Africa (though with sooo much African history, this pattern isn't always true everywhere).

In any case, Darfur lies in the marginal lands not bordering on the Nile, and is largely populated by non-Arab africans. When rains didn't come to this Sahel-region, starvation and a certain amount of internal anarchy ensued. Of course, it wasn't completely internal. Lybian President Muammar Gaddafi was obsessed with creating an Arab-dominated Sahel (believing in the racial superiority of Arabs).

To say the least, my brief explanation isn't the end-all be-all. But it shines some light on the situation.

So why isn't the world reacting?

Perhaps its the cynic in me, but most people, even if they know of the situation, figure they won't get anything out of it if they do offer assistence. Plus, in terms of governments; the Sudan is home to large oil reserves; which quite a few nations are willing to overlook a few hundered-thousand deaths for a few hundered-thousand barrels (that's you China).
Perhaps its an isolationist ideal? "It's not our problem, let them work it out."

Given that's it's almost the fourth of July; lets take a look at the awe-inspiring Declaration of Independence, and one of my favorite lines from the document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.."
Indeed, it's a western-value: equality, and basic human-rights. Just because these aren't American's dieing, much less 'westerners', shouldn't matter to an honorable person, indeed, any person that holds american values close to their heart. How can we proclaim such rights, and never stand behind them with action?
I'm not calling for american forces to jump into the fray; I would like to see some major UN involvement in the area; akin to the Bosinia situation. I would also like to see America declare sanctions against any nation that deals with the Sudanese government (that includes China, as well as Saudi Arab, both of which are the poorest excuses for American allies I've ever seen). Just to bring the point home; close the holocaust museums, and the war-memorial momuments in protest. How much history will view us as the supreme hypocrites if we didn't.