Ecolinguistics, continued.

As I do love refuting the diatribe of pseudo-intellectuals, I just had to post this little gem.

Here's a copy of the original article in red italics: (download this article here).

Language & Ecology Online Journal (2004) available from http:// www.ecoling.net/journal.html
[updated version Dec 2006]
Masculinity, health and ecological destruction
by Arran Stibbe
One important way that language is connected to ecology is through the discursive construction of gender. As ecofeminists such as Diamond and Orenstein (1990) and Adams (1993) show, there is a high correlation between patriarchal social structures and ecological destruction, and social structures are created, partially, through language. Discourses which play roles in constructing images of masculinity and femininity are all around, but for this article I will concentrate on one example: an instance of a particular discourse of masculinity which has been called ‘hegemonic masculinity’. In Stibbe (2004), I analysed the construction of hegemonic masculinity in the discourse of Men’s Health magazine, drawing out implications for the emerging concept of health. There other important implications, however, in terms of ecology, and this current article looks at discourse of Men’s Health magazine in terms of its ecological implications.
The covers of the magazine, seen by far more people than those who actually buy it, display a black and white picture of an 'ideal' man, and a series of short statements in various font sizes. The majority of these statements use the conventional syntax of lifestyle magazines to set up various goals for readers, such as being thin or being a great heterosexual lover (Lose your belly! Gold medal sex etc). These are treated as something which is obviously desirable, but they may be implicated more in creating desires than responding to already existing desires. For instance, men may not have realised before that it was desirable to ‘Add 2 inches to your chest!’.
Good health is strongly correlated to ecological sustainability: a diet consisting of local produced, varied, organic fruits and vegetables is as good for biodiversity and the land as it is for health, as is avoiding canned and processed food and walking instead of taking the car. However, rather than goals which simultaneous promote health and ecological sustainability, the main goal that the magazine sets up for readers is the achievement of a huge, muscular body. Clearly this goal is related to images of power and masculinity rather than health. The following are just some of the statements from the cover of the magazine:
l SOLID MUSCLE! l BIGGER BICEPS l BUILD THIS BODY [with arrow pointing at a huge torso] l A HARD BODY l gain muscle l FIND YOUR ABS! l ADD 2 inches to your chest l HARD MUSCLES FAST! l PACK ON MUSCLE! (Men's Health 06/2000 - 09/2001 covers)
Achievement of a huge, muscular body demands the wasteful consumption of large amounts of food, and the magazine recommends one kind of food over all others:
 meat has big advantages over all other foods: It packs muscle-building protein… (Men's Health 2000: December:166)
 Meat is loaded with the protein needed to build new muscle (Men's Health 2000:December:166)
 The muscle stoker [recipe]…eat this meal and you’ll grow your biceps…That’s because the protein in the beef [1lb top London broil] helps to build new muscle tissue (Men's Health 2000:July/August:87)
 make your meat beef and you’ll also get testosterone-boosting amino acids. Testosterone helps you lift more weight and build more muscle. (Men's Health 2000: November, p84)
The cause and effect relationship between been eating meat and growing muscle is clearly expressed in the expression 'muscle-building protein', as if the protein itself will grow muscle without any effort on the part of the person eating it. Likewise, 'protein' is the agent of the verb 'build' in 'protein...helps to build new muscle', rather than the reader. In 'eat this meal and you'll grow your biceps', the reader is the agent of 'grow', but the only activity that the sentence suggests is 'eat this meal'.
Despite the associated risks of heart disease and prostate cancer Men's Health is recommending the consumption of large amounts of red meat, in order to achieve the goal of a muscular body. And meat, when produced in intensive units using chemically treated grains, genetic modification and growth hormones, is one of the most inefficient and ecologically destructive ways of producing food (Turner 1999).
This pattern of connections is repeated in relation to convenience food. In accordance with to the masculinist overtones throughout the magazine, cooking is assigned to women (Fiddes 1991:158). If men must cook, then they should do it the masculine way - with convenience foods. The association of masculinity with convenience food is accomplished through a memorable rhyme:
 A Man, A Plan, A Can: All you need is a can-opener (or a wife) (Men's Health 2000:June:96).
or a simple equation:
 You + a can opener = 12 manly meals (Men's Health June 2000, contents)
or the following imperative:
 Nuke your gut. The TV dinner diet. Three minutes to a leaner waist. These dinners aren’t just easy to make, they’re a fast way to lose weight…low in calories and incredibly tasty. Fill your freezer with these 13 meals… (Men's Health:December:133)
In terms of the environment, of course, convenience foods take a heavy toll in terms of packaging materials, processing, and refrigeration. By encouraging men to grow huge bodies on a diet of meat and convenience food, Men's Health magazine appears to be using language to establish artificial goals which celebrate hegemonic masculinity and male power, and lead to ecologically destructive behaviour. And if men find that a diet of frozen pizza and canned food does not lead to the hugely muscular and lean body of the cover model, then they can always buy one of the huge SUV cars which are heavily advertised in the magazine as a substitute.
The images in the magazine of huge muscular men and the constant implication that this is the ideal shape for a man have the potential to lead to body dissatisfaction. Body dissatisfaction, in turn, could lead to following the dietary recommendations of the magazine to consume large amounts of meat and convenience food, or to compensate for the lack of ideal physique through purchase of the range of luxury consumer items offered by the magazine. In this way, social constructions of gender - masculinity in this case - have the potential to encourage behaviours which damage ecosystems.


Now let’s look at some things wrong with this sadly illogical article, namely, that it simply refuses to acknowledge the bigger picture.

Whether a man is gay or straight, the very reason they read Men’s Health and try to attain a muscled physique and know-how in the bedroom is TO ATTRACT POTENTIAL MATES. There’s a simple logic behind this: the majority of the aforementioned traits are found to be attractive among potential mates, thusly, if one doesn’t posses these traits they may be passed over in favor of someone else. And yes, it’s a two-way street ladies, most straight men don’t find fat women attractive. Indeed, no matter one’s sexual orientation, the vast majority of people don’t find the un-fit attractive due to our collective biological imperative to breed. This is because the physically un-fit are seen as possessing traits which preferably wouldn’t be passed on to offspring (this can also be seen as an inability to care for offspring). Contrary to what radical feminists would have us believe, we are bound by biology in very real ways - our perceptions included.

So, that said, let’s go a bit more indepth with this.

1. How are patriarchal social structures defined? How is environmental destruction defined? Would not an ecofeminist have a bias in linking the two into a positive correlation? Are their research methods really unbiased?
2. Desirable traits, such as big biceps, are actually linked to better health. Admittedly, this link is open, and often culturally defined. However, this feminist assumes, like so many feminist, that what's physically preferable is dictated solely by a "boy's club" of men - and completely ignores the actual interplay that occurs.
3. Maintaining a “well-built” muscular body DOES NOT equal the wasteful consumption of a large amount of food. It requires a careful and varied diet. Maintaining such a physique doesn’t require one to consume a large amount of food, it’s absurd to assume so.
4. While a single article in the 2000 issue of Men’s Health encourages the eating of red meat - the vast majority of its online edition encourages the eating of fish (usually broiled) along with a balanced diet and regular exercise. It really seems as if the author was digging with this one, and the fact that Arran Stibbe didn’t include the information in an honest context means I place the author in same academic category as white supremacists who disregard information outside their worldview and “pick and choose” facts without looking at their outside context. For example, holocaust deniers “pick and choose” the fact that Hitler issued a “no liquidation order”, but completely disregard the historical context.

5. The "easy" food preparation diatribe Stibbe drawls on about doesn't have a root cause in men dominating women, it's root cause is laziness, a trait both genders share. Being able to simply pop something in a microwave rather then break out pots and pans appeals to the lazy side in all of us. Also, I seriously doubt Men's Health recommends chowing down on a frozen pizza, most likely they mean "Lean Cuisine".

If you really want a clean sustainable world where everyone shops at an organic foods store and we treat each other as equals, then stop being such a pompous ass.

You femi-nazi. : )

Ecolinguistics

While I was quietly web-surfing and becoming lost in one of several trains-of-thought, I came across a wikipedia article describing the wonderful field of ecolinguistics.

Have we finally reached a new level of ridiculosity? This sub-field of linguistics frames itself as the earth-friendly version of linguistics.

Here's a sample of what one self-proclaimed ecolinguistic describes the field as:

Ecolinguistics is a new branch of linguistics which investigates the role of language in the development and possible solution of ecological and environmental problems. For this, some ecolinguists use the concept of the eco-system metaphorically for language world systems which they analyse with the help of concepts transferred from biological ecology.
Ecolinguists criticize language on the levels of langue and parole and point out unecological language uses and "anthropocentrisms" which represent nature from the point of view of its usefulness for humans. In a wider understanding, the "growthism", "sexism", "classism" and "anthropocentrism" inherent in many languages and language uses are criticized.
Another important field of ecolinguistics is the research area of the relation between linguistic and biological diversity (two phenomena ecolinguists aim to preserve).
(Emphasis added by me).

This approach to linguistics is ultimately based on Micheal Holliday's research in the early 90's. Which criticized English-speaker's positive attitude towards unmarked terms such as "large", "grow", "tall", etc. and how these terms have a positive aspect, even if they undermine our surrounding environment when used to describe "economic growth".

The laughable things about this approach: these "un-marked terms" don't go without descriptors here in the real-world of syntax. For example, I can say "large amount of pollution" and suddenly "large" in that phrase has a certainly negative aspect.

You don't have to be a linguist to understand that how you frame a concept with language can influence how your readers interpret the information you're trying to convey. We don't need an entire sub-field so narrowly devoted to this subject.

In my own humble opinion, these are tree-huggers who play at being grammarians on the side.

The fact is, every creature on earth uses other creatures and the environment for its own needs. There's nothing wrong with this. This very web of usefulness creates the elegant inter dependencies we observe in the environment.

The very fact that this field of linguistics openly assigns moralistic values to its analysis of language makes this field USELESS.

My ultimate point is: ecolinguistics doesn't treat the cause of materialism, which often drives the destruction of the environment, it only points out the symptoms of materialism.

Beware Conspiracy theorists: Aliens built the Pyramids

This particular theory of faulty thinking has annoyed me for quite some time and will thusly be refered to as: Pyramidiocy.

Pyramidiocy is characterized by having an outlandish, farfetched theory about the origin, nature or purpose of the Egyptian pyramids. The theories of pyramidiots are barely supported by slender threads of evidence. They serve little purpose except to stand as bad examples of speculative thought and fanciful imagination.

Some pyramidiots, such as Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin, claim that the ancient Egyptians were too backwards to have constructed the pyramids without the help of extraterrestrials. Edgar Cayce (professional bullshit artist, also known as "psychic") claimed that beings from Atlantis helped the Egyptians build the pyramids by showing them how to levitate stones. Charles Berlitz claimed that Atlantis lay beneath the Bermuda Triangle and had a pyramid the same size as the Great Pyramid at Giza. Pyramidiots think Atlantis is the link between the pyramids of Egypt and the pyramids of Mexico.

They are not dissuaded by the fact that the one was primarily funerary while the other was primarily used for ceremonies, including some which involved human sacrifice. Arguments demonstrating that the ancient Egyptians or Mexicans were intelligent and resourceful enough to build pyramids are to no avail. This is a particularly frustrating aspect of this fanciful thinking, as it assumes our collective ancestors were as dumb as the proponents of this theory.

Other pyramidiots ascribe super technological or paranormal powers to the ancient Egyptians. Traditional explanations in terms of religion, tombs for pharaohs and their families, belief in immortality, or paid workers, slipways, canals, slaves (new evidence indicates that slaves were not directly used in the construction of the pyramids) , etc. are rejected by pyramidiots in favor of theories claiming that the pyramids were power stations or water pumps. They don't seem to realize there was little use for a power station in ancient Egypt (they didn't have light-bulbs, or anything that requires AC or DC current); plus like all ancient societies it's labor was drawn from slaves and paid-workers - not machines. Not to mention the lack of plumbing beneath the pyramids.

Some pyramidiots claim that the pyramids were built according to some sort of mystical numerology to contain coded messages. Some believe that the Great Pyramid at Giza is at the center of the world (The fact that the Earth is spherical escapes them). Some think the pyramids are a map of the sky. To put it shortly, numerological beliefs about the pyramids are like a horn-of-plenty. Some believe only God could have designed such a numerical mystery. That almost anything in the universe can be found to have interesting mathematical proportions or be related to several interesting mathematical formulae is of little interest to pyramidiots.
That there is no evidence for such beliefs seems to cheer rather than dishearten pyramidiots.

I can't quite figure out why, but then they don't seem to be the most logical bunch.

Beware Conspiracy theorists: Holocaust Denial

While I don't want my humble blog to become the vanguard against zany conspiracy "theories" - the fact is, given the sizable multitude of the simply weird things people believe, I feel it's unfortunately necessary.

That said, let's start with a particularly damaging and ugly conspiracy theory: Holocaust denial.

The mass extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables” at the hands of the Nazis during World War II is referred to as the Holocaust. It has become a symbol of evil in our time. Like many symbols, the Holocaust has become sacrosanct. To many people, both Jews and non-Jews, the Holocaust symbolizes the horror of genocide against the Jews, Romani, Homosexuals, and the disabled. Some modern anti-Semites (that includes persons on the extreme political right, and left) have found that attacking the Holocaust causes as much suffering to some Jews as attacking Jews themselves. “Holocaust denial” refers to attacking the accuracy of any aspect of the symbology or history of the Holocaust.

Holocaust denial seems to be the main motivation of the Institute for Historical Review and its Journal of Historical Review. Since 1980 this journal has been publishing articles attacking the accuracy of various claims about the Holocaust. There is clearly an agenda when a journal is devoted almost exclusively to the single issue of making the Holocaust seem like an exaggeration of biased historians. Indeed, I personally consider the entire "Institute" an affront to academic scholarship. If truth and historical accuracy were the only goals of this group, it would be praised rather than despised. However, it seems that its promoters are more concerned with hatred than with truth.

Thus, even the inaccuracies that they correctly identify are met with scorn and derision. For they never once deal with the central question of the Holocaust. They deal with details and technical issues: Were there six million or four million Jews who died or were killed? Could this particular shower have been used as a gas chamber? Were these deaths due to natural causes or not? Did Hitler issue a Final Solution order or not? If so, where is it? These are legitimate historical issues. However, the Holocaust deniers do not deal with the questions of racial laws that led to the arrest and imprisonment of millions of Jews in several countries for the “crime” of race. They do not concern themselves with the policy of herding people like animals and transporting them to “camps” where millions died of disease or malnutrition, or were murdered. They don’t address the moral issues of medical experimentation on humans or of persecution of homosexuals and the infirm. Why not? In other words, they only concern themselves with questions that are convenient to them.

Michael Shermer devotes two chapters of Why People Believe Weird Things (1997) to the arguments of the Holocaust deniers. One of the favorite appeals of the Holocaust deniers is to demand some proof that Hitler gave the order for the extermination of the Jews (or the mentally retarded, mentally ill, and physically handicapped). Holocaust deniers point to Himmler’s telephone notes of November 30, 1941, as proof that there was to be no liquidation of the Jews. The actual note says: “Jewish transport from Berlin. No liquidation.” Whatever the note meant, it did not mean that Hitler did not want the Jews liquidated. The transport in question, by the way, was liquidated that evening. In any case, if Hitler ordered no liquidation of the Berlin transport, then liquidation was going on and he knew about it. Hitler’s intentions were made public in his earliest speeches. Even as his regime was being destroyed, Hitler proclaimed: “Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world. . . . I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated.” Hitler at one time compared the Jews to the tuberculosis bacilli that had infected Europe. It was not cruel to shoot them if they would not or could not work. He said: “This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so that they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts who wanted to bring Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?”

It should be noted that white supremacists aren't the only ones denying the holocaust, though it is funny to see that whitey's story of what happened is far from consistent; such as when members of neo-nazi groups don shirts that proclaim that Hitler didn't go far enough. Guess they didn't get the memo. Quite a few Iranian, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Saudi leaders have, you guessed it, denied the Holocaust. These are often the same forked tongue leaders that cry for peace with Israel in front of the world, but cry there will be peace when Israel is in pieces to their followers.

As just a side note, the image for this blog was found at an affiliate site of IHR, heretical.com (their "scholarship" just has to be true with that kind of bias!)

Creationism vs Evolution (Part 2)

There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for the theory of gravity. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you should read Essential Cell Biology or browse NCBI or Talk Origins before you claim that it's "more or less consistent with the evidence". The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In fact, since evolution is now used as the basis of algorithms denying evolution is exactly analogous to using "F=mv". Want to find a protein similar to the one you've just purified and sequenced? Try doing it without resorting to the mathematics of molecular evolution. The difference between ID and evolution is the difference between gene splices that work and splices that don't.
Intelligent design, unlike evolution, is by definition not falsifiable. Therefore it is not "provable". It is only "consistent" with the evidence if one accepts the same explanation for every piece of evidence. Lest it be thought that biologists commit the same mistake with the theory of evolution, it should be pointed out that there are many biological phenomena that are explained by molecular biological mechanisms that are unrelated to the classical Darwinian model of selection via random walks on DNA sequences. Here are a few examples - I can come up with many more for those interested.

1. The jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. There is a lot of evidence (based on sequence identity between mitochondrial DNA and prokaryotic DNA) to indicate that prokaryotes were absorbed by primitive eukaryotes and formed a symbiotic relationship that's reflected in the mitochondria and chloroplasts of modern cells. This was not a sequence level perturbation, but it was a fitness perturbation that resulted in a selective advantage.
2. The SOS response. When certain bacteria are starved, the rate of mutation itself is altered by environmental factors. This produces variation when it's most needed, when the cell is desperate. Again, this is non-classical Darwinism.
3. Horizontal gene transfer in bacterial cells. Bacteria exchange genes back and forth by all kinds of methods, much more frequently than higher organisms. Again, this is non-classical Darwinian evolution because the fitness perturbation is from gene transfer rather than sequence perturbation.

The point is that biologists can and do accept explanations other than classical Darwinian evolution when such explanations are in accord with observations. It's not as if biologists are unable to look at alternate plausible theories that are compatible with our knowledge of molecular biology when they also fit the data. ID proponents do not, because ID is nothing more than the "God of the Gaps". Every time a biochemical scenario is validated for one pathway's origin (say, by tracing it through hundreds of species) then ID proponents fix attention on the holes in another pathway. It is impossible to satisfy them because every pathway that has not (yet) been exhaustively characterized becomes the work of a divine hand.

Is ID a cover for Christian creation theories? Absolutely, and while I'm no lawyer it seems the Establishment Clause forbids the teaching of ID on these grounds. Remember, ID presumes an intelligent being responsible for our creation. Usually the rationale afforded is that we are too complex to have arisen from abiogenesis. Of course, such an argument sets up an infinite recursion, which we can see as follows:

1. Let us call our "complexity" C1. By assumption, anything with complexity at least C1 cannot have arisen from abiogenesis.
   
2. Let us call the complexity of our putative creators C2. C2 must be greater than or equal to C1. Otherwise a less complex being could have created us.
   
3. By assumption 1, anything with complexity C1 (or greater) cannot have abiotically arisen. Thus there must be a creator for C2. This creator must have complexity C3 greater than or equal to C2.

It's clear that this recursion doesn't terminate. In other words, the creator, of the creator, of the creator. If it isn't logical, as ID assumes, to assume that abiogenesis (aka, that we emerged) doesn't explain our existence, then how could it be logical to explain Gods existence?

ID is not science. At best, ID is a theological position - and a shaky one at that.

Creationism vs Evolution (Part I)

The Creationist Periodic Table of Elements. There's no doubt, creationism, or intelligent design (ID) is reaching new levels of popularity (and hilarity) in today's world. In fact, just last week I recieved an unwanted snail-mailed publication called "Last Generation" which has a substaintial creationist bent.

Even fellow bloggers have went to bat in support for this "alternative theory". Such as Volokh.

In any case, many supporters of "ID" claim that: "it posits something that may or may not be true (organisms "look like they were designed because they were designed," to quote one proponent of the intelligent design school, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson) -- and that is in fact more plausible to many people than evolution is."

Now, however tempted I am to go on a diatribe pointing out this is a law professor, not a professor in the sciences, I won't. I'll just leave it at that.

Should we decide whether to teach things because they're "plausible" to people? Of course not. Most people think it's plausible that "F=mv", (That is, Force=motion * velocity) because they need to exert a constant force to keep a body in motion on a frictional surface. We disabuse them of this notion because we've learned by hard experience that, actually, "F=ma", (That is, Force=motion * acceleration) and that "F=mv" only seems to explain the case of a block on a frictional surface. The difference between "F=ma" and "F=mv" is the difference between a bridge that collapses and a bridge that stands.

Evolution, like physics and all other sciences has mathematics at its core. As we all know mathematics is based on a system of axioms that are (in principle) independent of the outside world, while ID is a statement about the outside world.

ID is analogous to this same misconception that produced "F=mv". Like "F=mv", it is manifestly false because it provides no explanatory value. What does the "theory" of ID predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution. ID's "answer" is always the same:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? The designer put it there.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? The designer put it there.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? The designer put it there.

Contrast these to the explanations offered by biology:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? Molecular Phylogenetics.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? Explantion of photorespiration.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? Convergent Evolution.

Even supporters of ID must admit that the only reason it is clung to like a dog on a milkbone is to keep from sinking into a sense of nihilism when they realize that God may very well not be in control - and indeed regulated to the level of superstition.

A New Look

Well, I've decided to revamp the look of this humble blogging-project.

If you don't like it; then too bad, because I do. ; )

Minor Freakout

Take a long, hard look at that image.

Yes.

I know.

It's nasty.

But that's the result what I have to look foward to with my upcoming tonsillectomy. That's of course, after the the scabs fall out - and apparently all blood drains from ones mouth.

Why am I getting the vague feeling that this whole tonsillectomy venture may not be worth it?

Don't get me wrong, I'll still do it, I'll man up, and won't even ask for directions to the hospital.

Which brings us to todays topic: manliness.

What defines it in todays shifting culture?

Well, according to Harvey Mansfeld, the appropriately named author of the book "Mannliness" essentially defines manliness as confidence in the face of risk. He also makes the assersation that feminism has hijacked this very essence. "Men are still free to be manly; but there's no justification for it, no welcome for it, no respect for it."

He may be right. Yet, at the very core of feminism isn't an anti-masculine approach, its simply working from a hypothesis of gender-equality. Thus, the shrinkage of manhood may not be due to the ideals of feminism, but the practices. Which, by and large, are based on rejecting "traditional" feminine roles in favor of more masculine ones - from occupations to the family.

Of course, I'm not suggesting women be turned away from high positions in business or elsewhere. However, one must ask themselves why adopting the traits of say, a more powerful "group A" over a less powerful"group B" empowers that "group B". Is it so much of a "man's-world" that women must, at least in some form, become men? Is it, alternately, so much of a "straight's-world" that gay couples must marry?

I would say, in an ideal world, all groups and individuals could simply affirm their equality and move on. Yet, that's hardly, if ever, the case. Can "Group A" so overpower a culture's practices that there seems no other way besides their way? Could the overwhelming desire to adopt a more powerful groups practices stem from a need to "legitimize" oneself, or does it just stem from a lack of creativity?

Just some stream-of-consciousness thoughts for you. :)

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.

In Honor of Tisha B'av

Tisha B'av, for those that don't know, is a jewish holiday which remembers the dectruction of the first and second temple and the many horrible things that have befallen the jewish people; all of which either happened in the month of Av or began in it (see Jewish Calendar).

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this Holiday is that seems to fly in the face of belief in G-d. How can G-d allow bad things to happen to good people? How can G-d allow exiles? Pogroms? The Holocaust?

Some have rejected G-d entirely because of such events. I however will offer an alternative philosophy.

History isn't just a timeline; its a set, a story of interconnected events. In other words, there is rarely, if ever, an event in history that just purely a "cause" or just purely an "effect", as many events in history are both causes as well as effects.

For example, lets take an old jewish tale, and apply it to the grand-scale:
There was once a farmer, this particular farmer owned a horse. One day, the horse ran off. The entire village in which he lived in showed up at his doorstep and proclaimed "What a tragedy!" The farmer replied "maybe its a good thing, maybe it a bad thing." The next day, the horse returned but it returned with a pack of wild horses (it made friends). The whole village came to the farmer's doorstep and proclaimed "How wonderful!" The farmer replied "maybe its a good thing, maybe it a bad thing." The next day, the farmer's son was riding one of the wild horses and it bucked, and threw the farmer's son to the ground, breaking his leg. The whole village came to the farmer's doorstep and proclaimed "What a tragedy!" the farmer again replied "maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing." The next day, a war was declared, and all able bodied men in the village were ordered to fight; except for the farmer's son, who was not of able body. The farmer then declared "It was a good thing my horse ran off."

The point of this tale is to highlight that what may be seen as a negative thing, can ultimately be positive (and alternately, visa-versa). One must be patient to see the full scope of events. The tale also highlights that what can be good on the microcosmic scale (the boy being injured prevents him from being drafted) can be bad on the macrocosmic scale (a war being declared). Of course, if one is a mercenary, then war is a good thing; so as always, it's a matter of perspective. So, how could all this apply to the destruction of the most holy site in judaism, Solomon's temple? How could the Holocaust be good?

Well, I don't think the Holocaust was good, in fact it was extremely evil, one of few cases in history where such a word could be applied accurately. However, the consequences of the Holocaust may not be evil. Greater acceptance, unity, and a commitment among nations to not allow such a thing to be forgotten, lest it happen once more. Some inaccurately point to the Holocaust as a point that created the State of Israel. The founding of Israel is actually rooted in the British Mandate of Palestine, approved in 1922 and put into effect in 1923 - nearly a decade before Kristalnacht and the first inklings of the Holocaust.
If we take a further look into history we can see a pattern: The Babylonian exile helped act as a cause for judaism to formalize the contents of the Tanach, and establish a coherent line of rabbinical thought. The destruction of the first temple showed that, in fact, the jewish people could live without it, and also effectively ended the era of direct prophecy from G-d. The time period during the re-building of the second temple, and eventual destruction showed that the jewish people could also live without a "direct-line to G-d" (though, at that time, not without the Temple and the sacrifices), and finally... without sacrifices (which already had strict limitations, and as some historians point out, were already considered "less than" simple prayer). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Some of you may be wondering....but why would G-d have to torture people (or allow torture/exile/death)? Lets look at recent history: 9/11. America pulled together like never before or since. The fact is, tragedy can often breed the best, and worst in people; and there are few things quite as powerful as tragedy.

So...In honor of Tisha B'av, lets be patient.

Academia and Jews

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/711997.html

Being a student of History, and indeed having a passion for it isn't even a question for those that know me well. Surely, I take pride in my position as apart of academia.

Yet, I can help but shudder; and yes, even find myself agreeing with the political right after reading something by Chomsky or Judt, and their ilk. How can they despise Israel so, and yet ironically still call themselves jewish? Of course, that is a debate for another post; and not one I wish to focus on this time.

This time, I want to deal with a little (infamous) article by Judt "The Country that wouldn't grow up." This historically bereft article brought up some memories of a completely unrelated book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I remember digesting each and every page of word-vomit that this book containted. (Okay, okay, it wasn't all word vomit). However the tone of both were quite similar. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was quick to posit it's thesis of explaining why western civilization has dominated the world thus far; yet continually provided P-C morsels of how "Americans are dumber..then the people of New Guinea" and even going on a diatribe about how white people really are devils. The tone of "The Country that wouldn't grow up" remains the same. Israelis are depicted as imperialistic, when nothing could be further from the historical evidence. In short, the general tone of both works of quasi-non-fiction is sneering; just short of juvenile ridicule.

Time and again through out Judt's article, he posits how the USA is being controlled by Israel; or more preciesly, jews. Just like the media, eh? As apart of academia, I urge Dr. Judt to re-examine his hysterical conspiracy theories.

The reason America and Israel support and agree with each other is both are democracies; both share a liberal set of rights guaranteed to their citizens. It is NOT due to some scant evidence supporting a blantly anti-semetic theory. The US, after all, gives even more money to Egypt then Israel; yet not an academic alive would dare posit that Egypt is under US control; preceisly because such a position is patently absurd. There is, after all, much more evidence of the overpowering effect of oil rich Saudi influence on American government policy then there is of Israeli influence.

Through out the article Judt frequently posits just how powerful Israel is. We all like to size up folks; in this case however he's making Israel seem like a veritable super-power. Full of what polical scientists call "Hard Power" (that is military power, as opposed to "Soft Power" that being cultural power). The fact is, Israel has a good sized arsenal, but lets disspell the myth that Israel is *the* bad boy on the block. Israel is the size of New Jersey; and the twenty-two other states in the mid-east are equivalent in size to the lower forty-eight states of the US. Israel has won every fight she's had. Lets keep in mind that Israel HAS to win every war that she's confronted with; because even a single loss against her Arab neighbors means her total destruction. It's like a matter of initiative; if you know your community could face the very real possibility of slaughter if it losses, you'll fight harder and be cogniscent of prepardness (It was prepardness that's saved Israel, NOT weapons - that is, constant training, and constant strategy). Just a side note; in terms of "Soft Power" Israel has a nearly infinite amount: it's the cradle of western religion; of western morals, of western values, of western courts, of literally, nearly all things western - and a signficant contributor of philosophy and concepts of equality (equality being a component of democracy). The only other nation that comes close in terms of sheer Soft Power would be Greece - indeed western europe and much of the rest of the western world comes to a distant third, fourth, fifth, etc. Perhaps that's a reason modern europeans seem to have such a jealous distaste for Israel.

Now, for a particularly ludicrous claim: "Charles De Gaulle realized that France's settlement in Algeria, which was far older and better established than Israel's West Bank colonies, was a military and moral disaster for his country."
No, your eyes don't deceive you.
Yes, that drivel actually came from someone that teaches.

First, France's occupation of Algeria was much more brutal then Israel with the West Bank. Lets also keep in mind that the jewish settlements are not "Israel's West Bank colonies," indeed, the Israeli government doesn't even have control over those persons that willingly move into area; and certainly don't encourage it. Additionally, referring to the jewish persons living in these settlements as "settlers" much less "colonists" is highly innaccurate and out-right pejorative. Why? The "West Bank" occupies land that is traditionally known as Judea/Judah, and Samaria. In other words, as jews, they have a historical right to exist and live in the land. Much more so then the French did in north africa.

The more discerning may note, however, that Judt states "Israel's West Bank colonies" not "Jewish West Bank colonies" (because Judt knows if he did say that he would be asked to leave History to people that can actually understand it). The fact is, however, "Jewish" doesn't just refer to religion, it's also an ethnicity. Israel is dominated by pracitioners of a particular religion, that being Judaism; this particular religion is practiced by a jewish people, an ethnic group unto themselves. Thus, Israel, like every other nation, is dominated by a particular majority ethnic group; such as Britain by Anglos, and China by Han-chinese.

Jackass for May 2007

After a long mindful musing; with the power invested in my by the Internet, I herebyhand over the prestigous award of Jackass of the Month to Tom.

You may be wondering, Tom? Tom who?

Tom, as in the guy you see on myspace.

It's not as if I know him personally; but I know his hated product.

I know it lacks adequate bandwith, and I know it has an even greater lack of persons who aren't complete fucktards.

Those astonishingly useless bulletins.

Those creepy old men.

Those spam messages you find in your email.

Of course, the point of myspace isn't actually to keep up with friends. Afterall, you could actually have a much more fulfilling conversation over the phone, or, dare I say...in person. The actual point of myspace is to get as many people in your douchebags (friends) list as possible.

Its always entertaining to see someone with more friends in there are days in the year. Perhaps she requires her friends to only interact with her in groups of two or more.

I'm not saying myspace is all bad; after all it does allow bands a media outlet. I mean, I love nothing more then receiving a fresh email from a crappy local band about how "I must be cool" so I should add them.

Let us pray that in a few months, when not a single soul can load a myspace webpage; it will finally die.

Russia goes nuts (again).

According to CNN, Russia is once again upset with the US over, what the US claims, is a missle defense system being deployed in Europe.

The Russian response was to test-launch an ICBM.

The general thinking behind all this was voiced by Condoleezza Rice; to protect our European allies from threats like Iran. Thats all fine and good, I suppose. Prudence is a virtue afterall.

But, am I the only one going WTF?

Explain exactly why we would allow Iran to have such missle capabilities in the first place? I would much rather urge a pre-emtive strike on Iranian facilities. Of course, while I can only hope such a plan is in the works; I can understand the "just-in-case" scenario of placing a missle defense system in Europe. Of course, another question is why aren't European nations taking these actions themselves? If not at least at the urging of NATO.

As for the Russian response; I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Showboating around will only get you so far - yes, I think we're all aware of how Russia still has a poorly made and maintained arsenal.

Jackass for April 2007

Well, after a month of silence, I'm back (finals were gearing up, among other things).

So, the numbers for april are in. The Entire Cast of View are hereby named the Jackass of the for the month of April in this year of 2007.

It's not like I'm completely biased however, I like to think of myself as an equal opporotunity critic. The View has had its good moments; but for me personally, whatever credibility it had died when Rosie claimed that 9/11 was "an inside job". That's absolute-lunatic-talk.

She's well documented as saying "Thats the first time in history I've seen steel melt" Wow.

She further claims that bombs must have been planted to complete the horrible act.

Lets keep some simple logic in mind.

All metals melt. They have too, or you wouldn't have any metal to shape into a spoon, rebar, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Lets also keep in mind that when those planes hit the twin towers jet fuel was ejected (as in dispersed) in large quanities over a relatively small area. Lets also keep in mind that simple physics posits that something with a large surface area (such as dispersed jet fuel) burns quickly and instensely. Hot enough even to melt the steel that supports the twin towers. It shouldn't be surprising that the towers, with melting supports, collapsed, taking tower 7 with them.

Next she'll claim the jews must have planted the bombs.

I'm calling bullshit on "The View" for supporting Rosie's blantant drivel.

I'm not saying we should question conventional theories. I support the unconventional; however I'm a stronger supporter of the fact that logic bears truth; and in this case truth wasn't even given a chance.

..Pry it from my Cold Dead Fingers

The recent tragic shootings at Virginia Tech have already started to prompt the perennial debate on guns, gun laws, and whether or not citizens should even own them.

Guns have their purpose. They can stop a rapists from attacking you, shoot a deer in the head for dinner, or be used as a never ending euphemism to the glory of the male anatomy.

But lets face it, King George has been dead for a while now.

Lets take a look at the infamous second amendment, the right to bear arms:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Many gun-crazed persons in the NRA have repeatedly cited this as the main protection to owning guns. The fact is, however, the history doesn't really support this.

They often cite that it's all about self-defense. Well, the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law. The common law right of self defense is legally distinct from the right to bear arms.

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the perceived constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. Clearly, the right to bear arms pertains to a state militia.

Some history-savy NRA persons have even gone so far as to say that if the settlers were not allowed guns in the west, then americans would have been slaughtered by hostile native american tribes. This may be true. But I feel compelled to point out that settlers weren't in america then. They were in territoires, that is, lands that had not been admitted into the union subject to federal law. Thus, its like arguing that Canadians, or any foreign peoples are subject to federal US law.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't protect themselves. Indeed, I think it's a fundamental right (just not outlined by the second amendment). But, technology has advanced past projectiles hurled by the chemical reactions of gunpowder. One could get the same level of self-defense with a non-lethal weapon. Some may argue, what if multiple persons? I assure you, non-lethals weapons exist that can do this job.

Many pro-gunners believe that the 2nd is the Constitution's way of making sure that our government never becomes tyrannical, and ensures that if it does, we will be able to overthrow it. There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument.

First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect. In fact, America is the oldest continual democracy on earth. Other democratic means already exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has nearly 300,000,000 citizens. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.
There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and then begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have at least ten thousand persons a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

Krazed Korean Kills 33

No, its not Kim Jung-il (I was surprised too)

It was Virginia Tech shooter Cho Sueng-Hui, who was admitted to a hospital for treatment of mental illness in 2005 because he was "an imminent danger to himself," according to court documents. (See at cnn.com)

Of course, why authories didn't respond in an attempt to protect students for two hours after the first shooting seems like bad business. If students die, universities can't get their tuition checks. Plus one has to wonder what the Virgina Tech Dean was doing for those hours.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and in hindsight there were plenty of warning signs that this Sueng-Hui was teetering on the edge. The only thing that seems to be missing was a picture of him wearing a sign plastered to his forehead saying "The Chemical imbalance in my brain makes me CrAzY!"

Nikki Giovanni, one of the gunman's professors stated, "I know we're talking about a troubled youngster and crap like that, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings; troubled youngsters drink and drive," Giovanni said. "I've taught troubled youngsters. I've taught crazy people. It was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."

Hmm..mean... Noteably, Giovanni is an English professor, not a Psychologist.
That must be a whole to new level to "mean" to shoot people. Lets just call a duck a duck; the guy was insane.

On a more personal note, my condolences to those that lost someone due to this senseless violence.

Toronto: Canada's LA?

Yes, according Albert Nerenberg; whose passionate distaste for the city of Toronto warranted an entire documentary.
Of course, for the east-coasters living in the USA, Los Angeles, or Hell, is the arm-pit of the earth.

And apparently, according the documentary, the two cities do have something in common: souless inhabitants.

To be fair, of course, not all the inhabiants of either Toronto or LA are souless. Some are in fact just catholic; which is often understandably confused with being souless.

Source

Article:http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/13/hate.toronto.reut/index.html

Future of American Jewry

Does Judaism have a future in America?
Personally, I would like to say so - despite assimilation; and many jews, including myself, wondering if wearing that yarmakle would draw too much attention; or if taking one of the various jewish holidays off would upset management too much - just enough to deny you a promotion.

However, everytime I see a story casting the dark shadow of assimilation, I can't help but think its a tad bit alarmist. Afterall, as americans we do have rights; and an assortment of employment laws protecting us from religious discrimination.

Yet, the primary objections seem to come from intermarriage not the business world. Falling in love with those pretty gentile boys and girls. To oppose intermarriage today means going against the entire modern American ethos by placing group identity over social integration, individualism, and liberal values.

Many an orthodox, and perhaps even conservative jew would object - citing that we'd just be sacrificing ourselves just to fit in. I say, not exactly. It's ridiculous to think that judaism isn't compatiable with liberalism, or concern for individual rights - values which are also american. So why not embrace them?

Part of embracing them is that as Jews, we need to stop feeling so insecure about our own traditions - aka, we don't have a christmas tree, and we're proud. We have a religious tradition much older, and much richer.

So light that shabbat candle, and wear that kippot like a rock-star; basically, be Jewish without apology.
Besides, The Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) had positive effects, like Zionism, and ultimately Einstein; and it had it's roots in a certain gentile enlightenment...we can't as a group remain completely isolated from the rest of the world, that only invites antisemitism.

Source Article:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378383951&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Queer and in Charge

A new poll indicates that a majority of Americans would vote for a gay person for president. The Gallup survey finds that 55% of respondents would vote for a gay candidate if he or she were "generally well-qualified."Given the wide range of backgrounds among the current field of 2008 presidential contenders, the poll asked how willing Americans would be to vote for them, and it included hypothetical candidates for good measure. The results, released earlier this week, reveal that 95% of those polled would vote for a Catholic (the religion of Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani), 94% would vote for an African-American (Democratic contender Barack Obama), 88% would vote for a woman (Hillary Rodham Clinton), and 72% would vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney, Republican former governor of Massachusetts).The only category to poll below 50% was atheist. (The Advocate)

I have to say, I'm only surprised the number isn't lower. Perhaps its from living in one of those red states too long; but I could only imagin the objections of some..."Just think who would be invited to the lincoln bedroom" - Perhaps thats only a polite objection.

The Good News (sort of)

Surprisingly, we may not all be going to hell in a handbasket; so to speak.

Yes indeedy, America, already the most religious post-industrial nation, according to the Baylor University sociology department, is experiencing an up-swing in religion - dare I say, a minor revival of sorts.

Although the statistics on G-d are a bit skewed toward the Gentiles among us, it's interesting to note the opinions on Big-Guy's personality. Although I'm somewhere between "Benevolent" and "Critical", the majority of my fellow Americans believe in an authoritarian creator.

Interestingly, scholars have been saying for some time that the relevance of denomination is decreasing. But the Baylor survey, which asks about such subjects as God's "personality" and what people pray about, adds to a debate about what that means. It reveals the complex ways Americans describe their religiosity, and the minefield for today's scholars in trying to measure it. Is someone religious if they attend church? If they believe in God? If they identify with a particular religious group? What if they do one but not the others? Which gets more weight?

One has to wonder, however, where this leaves atheists - having known quite a few myself. From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers at the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology, found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Indeed, atheists are truely the ultimate outsider. In the course of the past three decades increasing social acceptance - atheists have been left out. One could attribute this to atheism's identification with communism. However, we often see that as society changes and once outcasts are accepted; they are ultimately identified as having some common core. In America, this core is religion-based values. Of which atheists, perhaps unfairly, are identified as lacking this kind-of moral core. Dr. Edgell, an associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project, said that Atheists "play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past" in that we provide "a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society."

Researchers also tried to discover any correlations between negative attitudes toward Atheists and similar views of homosexuals and Muslims. "None of these correlations is large," reported the researchers. "We believe this indicates that the boundary being draw vis-a-vis atheists is symbolic, a way of defining cultural membership in American life, and not the result of a simple irrational unwillingness to tolerate small out-groups."

US urges Iraq not to cash checks until after April 15th

It's that wonderful time of the year again. The birds are singing, the sky is blue, and sun shining brightly - and you're inside wondering how many "dependents" you can claim.

It's tax time, and we're all wondering why column A of section E doesn't seem to have enough alloted spaces. As if parting with your cash weren't painfull enough.

At least we can all take some comfort in the fact that our money will be spent wisely on 500 dollar hammers, and jeweled encrusted toilet seats.

President Bush requested $103 billion in emergency spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and disaster relief. On March 23, the House of Representatives voted 218-212 to pass H.R. 1591, which includes an additional $21 billion in unrelated domestic spending. The extraneous items include $400 million for rural schools, $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract program, $74 million for peanut storage costs, and $25 million for spinach growers. According to "citizens against government waste"

And you thought only prostitutes were screwed for dough.

Let Freedom Ring

Recently, there have been some Genocide denial stories in the news - specifically laws being proposed to forbid such denials.

Such as this story detailing the EU's far-reaching attempt at squashing denials.

In Germany, there are actually laws on the book that say its illegal to DENY the holocaust; though as europe as a whole (germany included) is moving to a more conservative stance this could change.I think perhaps the nations in which the genocides or attempted genocides in question occured perhaps should have laws similar to germany's....at least temporarily.In most european nations holocaust denial is actually illegal, and seen as stemming from some kind of neo-nazi agenda; but in France on both sides of the radical spectrum they seem to deny, or doubt the number murdered in the holocaust...but yeah, on the other side of the coin France is trying to pass laws that make denying the armenian genocide illegal....it could be a reaction to increased immigration from nations like turkey.

As for the freedom of speech thing....I think it stems from most of continental europe having a civil-law based system, as opposed to england's having a common law based system. Just different general political philosophies about freedom...the reason I'm actually cautious to actually criticize these types of laws is this:

Gregory H. Stanton, formerly of the US State Department and the founder of Genocide Watch, lists denial as the final stage of a genocide development: "Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Now, Gregory H Stanton isn't just "some guy that founded a foundation"; he actually does have some academic authority in the area: he's been a law professor and has a phd in cultural anthropology; in addition to drafting the UN security council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Cambodia.

It should also be noted that freedom of speech is not absolute. Incitment for example, is not protected; these include incitments to violence such as threats, or encouraging people to preform illegal acts. But, noteably, I think the philosophy that many of these genocide-denial laws come from is that liability and slander are not protected speech. Libel and slander defined as: a false statement, or one put into a context that makes the true statement misleading. So,here in the US at least, you can be prosecuted for lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization as well as inciting violence. In this sense, I think these anti-denial laws are seen as an extention of slander and incitment. We have to remember that in europe when these laws were created, esp in germany, democracy was still fragile. Indeed, in Germany, they had just come out of an era of ethnic hosilities of massive proportions ; and cultural preceptions about jews and other minorities in didn't just change overnight - thus, justice for victims wasn't guaranteed - which yes, without anti-denial laws, could have easily lead to retaliation (by victims), and/or further victimization; which could have easily destabilized the fragile democracy that was just starting to revitalize itself in germany.

Outed

Well, we may have already kind-of known, heard whispers, or dismissed them as sheer rumor. Hell, we may have even known, but choose not to approach the subject out of respect for their privacy. But, apparently OUT doesn't take such a stance.

They've been outed, more or less, CNN's own Anderson Cooper, and Jodie Foster. Both of whom I'm fans of - ever since Contact and while Cooper was still just another anchor on CNN at 3AM.

Out explains that writer Michael Musto's article explores "the Glass Closet," in which he identifies a number of gay celebrities and public figures who live gay social lives "while stubbornly avoiding any on-the-record revelations, a delicate dance that's difficult to pull off." Musto challenges those such as Anderson Cooper, Jodie Foster, "Will & Grace" star Sean Hayes, comedienne Wanda Sykes and former chair of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman, who dance around the question rather than give a "yes" or "no" answer.
"It's true that stars are free to put up whatever walls they want in order to maintain boundaries with the public," writes Musto, "But even at their most controlling, straight stars never seem to leave out the fact that they're straight in interviews. Whenever a subject tells me, ‘I won't discuss who I'm dating' or ‘I resent labels,' I generally know not so much that they're passionate about privacy but that they're gay gay, gay."

Really Musto? Even though I'm much too timid to actually wish to be in the spotlight, I'm pretty sure, even being openly gay, I wouldn't consider it anyone's business about who I'm dating. Perhaps I'm just too oldschool, actually considering that others may want a bit of privacy in their personal life.

Though, admittedly, I have to say, somewhat begrudgingly, that OUT supports have a point when they state: "How is a construction worker supposed to come out when the top strata of society won't even come out of the closet?"

Of course, I think I've already witnessed an effect of this story; on CNN recently a corespondent commenting on the outrages attire some were wearing at a certain computer convention said, "Clothes Anderson Cooper's mother would be proud to wear."

Yeah CNN, because so many gays wear ill-fitting, ill-designed clothes. At least get your stereotypes right if you insist on using them.

Westernite, not a movie obsession, a cultural obsession.

No, the title of the blog isn't a shout out to John Wayne; so just to clear things up; here are some definitions..
(American Heritage Dictionary)
The West: 1. The nations of North America and Europe, along with Australia, New Zeland and Israel with developed capitalist economies, especially in contrast to less-developed nations, that share a common cultural heritage.

Sodom: 1.an ancient city destroyed, with Gomorrah, because of its wickedness. Gen. 18–19. 2.A place well known for vice and corruption.

Sodomite: 1.An inhabitant of Sodom. 2. One who engages in sodomy.

Considering how non-western peoples often view the west (you know who you are) I propose a new word:
The Westernite: n. 1. One who lives in the west and/or holds western values.

Of course, given my love of western culture, I would be a proud materialistic, decadent, vice-ridden Westernite. Eat your heart out Yemen.

Screw you Eminem

People are always saying that you have to take your shot when it comes. Go for it. Grab the brass ring. Grab the bull by the horns. Hold your nuts - that last one is mine.

People are stupid that way. We all get chances, multiple chances- like orgasms, every day. Big and small, also like orgasms. "Grabbing the brass ring" originates from riding on a carousel. And if I'm not mistaken, those things have a tendency to go 'round and 'round, again and again. Sure, there may only be one brass ring for everyone to try to grab, but that's why you have to learn to bribe the carnie and punch the other people on the carousel in the back of the head.

Opportunities don't come once in a lifetime, they come around like four or five times a day. Sometimes while you're sleeping. That's why men wake up with erections most mornings. The opportunity fairy visits us and plays brass ring toss on our junk. The point is, as if I ever have one, is real men wake up with some morning glory; knowing they don't need a second chance; because one will naturally come along anyway - they need only look down for proof.