I just translated the lyrics. Damn, I forgot how difficult translating poetry can be. It took me quite some time. I tried to translate it as closely to the German meaning as possible, while still upholding or at least emulating some aspects of the poetic style of the original.

"Spring Greeting

1. (intro)
One beautiful spring day
A spring greeting – a little flower
Lay dying by the wayside

The poor thing had been plucked
Its existence doomed – Thrown away
To feed Death alone

2.
As I bowed down
To eye this misery
That bespoke brutal workings
Suggesting no remorse
A word escaped my throat
– Murder!

For this flower, so fragile
Was appallingly, purposely plucked
By the wayside, I assume
In a rush of ecstasy, absent-mindedly,
Someone bowed down
And bemused, elated, blushed,
In spring rapture, deeply delighted,
Discovered, clutched and killed it

Chorus:
And I asked myself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Oh forbid

3.
The fool, he was so moved
That he had no doubt
His mind was captivated
By its splendor, which he abducted
And unscrupulously corrupted
As he took it – gave himself to it
Only then he became aware - it was dying

And suddenly the realization
Flashed through his mind and all too honestly
Comprehension became confession
Into his heart, painfully,
His misdeed crept, all too gravely

Chorus:
And he asked himself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Oh forbid

4. (Bridge)
Shocked by his fallibility
He threw the beauty into the sand
Irritated by his misdeed
He retreated from his disgrace
‘Though he had desired the little flower,
Loved, adored, admired it,
He had not respected it
And this splendor by the wayside
Is now concluded and passed

Chorus:
And he asked himself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Oh forbid

And he asked himself, who seeks,
Against all grace and goodness,
To take such beauty's life
Executed, slaughtered
So disempowered, off-handedly
This peaceful blossom
So discarded and despised
Man forbid

5. (outro)
One beautiful spring day
A spring greeting – a little flower
Lay dying by the wayside

Bereaved of the beautiful springtime
Of existence – doomed – of lust itself
A victim of vain humanity

It was me. It was me. I'm sorry.
It was me. It was me. Now I'm sorry."

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

If this was a serious documentary or a report to congress, then yeah.

But it's just a comedy bit, so a bit of poetic licence with the hyperbole is acceptable IMO.

Besides, I really don't think it's that hyperbolic.

Ok, I'll explain it.

It's a comedic piece, not a lecture on reproductive health.

It doesn't matter if condoms are 97, 80 or 50% effective. They are being used as a stand-in for something that HAS a 97% consensus on its accuracy.

Granted, it's not a completely perfect analogy (they are comparing efficacy to consensus), but it's poetic licence. In other words.....

it's a fucking joke.

As for writing people off, everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but really at this point climate deniers are up there with creationists, homeopaths, and flat earthers. There's only so much slack we can cut them, before we move the fuck on and say "If you believe that shit, you're an idiot"

@newtboy
@Lawdeedaw

you two are adorable.like an old couple that should have divorced decades ago but were unwilling to share the pet dog.

the arguments i see playing out here are one of distinctions,but what are we basing those distinction on?
well,Lawdeedaw has addressed that point and i happen to agree with him.

if you find an abuse of power cop video,where someone is shot or beaten to death acceptable.then you must also find this video acceptable,because they are both using the exact same metric.

that being said,i feel newtboy brings up a good point:context,meaning and ultimately the REASON for posting a video where someone dies.

i think i understand lawdeedaws intent on posting.to reveal the cultural hypocrisy we have in regards to homeless people.how they are invisible,disregarded and disenfranchised.that even though we cringe at having to see homeless people,nevermind interact with them.they are still human and can have just as much courage and moral integrity as any one of us,even though they are discarded and invisible.even though there is much hand-wringing and empty-worded rhetoric,disguised as compassion,making us have the feel-goods while we do nothing.

they are human and this mans humanity and sacrifice can be beautiful to behold.

but where is the context?
take away lawdeedaws poetic understanding...what is happening here,besides a man getting shot and the gunman riddled with bullets?

so newtboy brings up a good point.
so allow me to add some much needed context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-man-saving-hostage-victim_55f06cdbe4b093be51bd1940

I was thinking the same thing. We had a good deal of choice of what classes to take. I didn't take Lit, but I did do the basic English classes, where we read some Shakespeare and the like, but not to the degree the Lit students did. I didn't do any complex math classes either, I did Algebra. But then I also did Applied Business, or whatever it was called. I did Civics with the base History classes. I did Home Economics in 9th grade, not a required class, but an elective. Woodshop was another example of an elective class. Have they removed electives from schools? If not then it's this dude's own fault for not choosing the proper electives. If they are gone and all that is taught is the core, then there may be too much core.

I got to disagree with the video's premise that Math, History and the cores aren't needed. Do you need Calculus, no but you should graduate with a strong understanding of basic Algebra. History is important to, though I'm not sure the methods used are effective, route memorization of facts and dates for tests, rather than a general understanding of history and how to avoid the same mistakes. Teaching for tests period is a problem... Lit isn't important and should remain an elective, but having read some of the "classics" is important too, even if it is just a quick Cliff Notes sort of version of it (do they still have Cliff Notes?) Actually a Cliff Notes rundown of lots of the "classics" would probably be better than what most English classes do, while encouraging students to read more modern what they want fare for reports and the like. I didn't take Biology, but basic Science understanding is important, problem is it's politicized and rather than stick with the facts, too many people want to introduce at the very least doubt about the facts if not introduce ideological ideas that contradict the facts and are based on a misunderstanding of what the facts actually say... due to a messed up literal reading (well when it's convenient to take literal, other times things are dismissed as "literary" or "poetic" be it about the Earth not moving or bats being birds and on and on) of one particular bronze age book.

Also you can't teach people who to vote for... you gain understanding of the issues in History and Civics... so...

How to move away from testing is a tricky thing. You need to prove you have an understanding of how to form an Algebraic formula and to solve one. You need to prove you understand the issue(s) of the Civil War and the basic era (I'm not convinced you need to remember exact dates, know it was the 1860s), same with the other wars. What was one's nation's involvement in the World Wars and what caused those wars in the first place, and again basic era, if you don't know the exact year of the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the dropping of the atomic bombs, okay, but a basic close approximation of the years. For English you need to prove you can write and read, and a basic understanding of literature, not details of classic books, but narrative structure etc. There should perhaps be more time spent on critical thinking and how to vet sources. You need to have a basic enough understanding of science not to dismiss things as "just a theory" which proves you don't know what theory means in science, and don't ask ridiculous questions like "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" instead you should be able to answer that. You should be able to answer properly if somebody notes that CO2 is good for plants or that compact fluorescent have mercury in them so they aren't better for the environment than older bulbs.

How does one prove these things without tests? That's the question. And it needs to be Federally standardized to a degree to ensure that you don't have lose districts teaching that the Civil War wasn't about slavery nearly at all, rather than the fact it was the primary reason, or that Evolution is "just a theory", or deny the slaughter of the Native Americans or interment of Japanese Americans. You need to insure that all students are getting the same basics, and insure they have a good range of choices for electives. It's the basics though that basically need tested for, and I personally can't figure out a way to prove a student knows say what caused the Civil War or that they know what Evolution actually is, or how to form an Algebraic formula to solve a real life problem without a test.

*length=1:52 poetic justice? hahahahahaha

Great, I'll never ever be able to fold a paperplane again without feeling stupid.

Also: 'Here's the tower and here's the flower' could be a line of dialogue from the most poetic porno in existence.

So poetic and beautiful.

@enoch

Both @A10anis sentences say roughly the same thing, just poetically phased differently as the 1st focuses on the message, whereas the 2nd on the passing of the message.
Consolidated and rephrased more directly "children should have access to this message/video".

To remove the conflicting poetry and interpret it as intended, re-read it while replacing "brainwashing" with "teaching" and "doctrine" with "message".

I disagree with this somewhat. It sounds poetic and whatnot, but contrary to your statement I still feel that understanding you know nothing at all is a sign of actual intelligence.
In the context of your post: "He who knows and knows he knows" easily applies to every fucking moron on the planet, who is convinced of their own self-righteousness.
Everyone *thinks* they 'know' to a fault. Ultimately none of us know anything, and to proceed through life with this perspective will not only let you avoid being a beacon of ignorance, but you will approach all things from the innocent perspective of wanting to learn more.

That's my philosophy anyway.

Whatever. Being a statist is its own punishment. The institution of the state has too much popular support, even if the particular criminals who get "elected" sometimes lose their popularity after a few years. They get "replaced" by "new" more popular criminals and so the cycle repeats itself. Nothing will likely stop it, regardless of the nation, be it Israel, the U.S., or elsewhere... Except perhaps the economic collapse. So the good always comes with the bad and vice versa. Probably best to get out of the way as things fall apart. At least you can say there's drama constantly. Never boring.

And as someone has said about being a contrarian:
"Following the herd is a sure-fire way to mediocrity."



@newtboy writes: "well thought out complaints with follow through often DO get results, and even if they don't you'll know you tried the right thing first."

Yeah, "the right thing," eh? According to whom? You?

Even if you replace the cop (even if it happens which often doesn't), so what? Another one takes his place. It's the whole police system, these are not just "isolated" individuals who are out of control. A lot of people insist that these are just "bad apples." Then those people become victims themselves. Poetic justice.

@lantern53
look at you waxing all philisophical!

prosperity gospel is NOT an interpretation though.
it is a gross twisting of the gospels.
it is "the secret" wearing the garments of jesus but lacking any substance or depth.a poetically laced corruption,lightly sprinkled with scripture to appeal to the most incurious and base of us,in order to continue the flavor of the decade:greed is good.

fuck those charlatans and pray for those who have bought their twisted theosophy.

I like how he ascribes a certain agency to the cheese. So poetic. Italians really love their food!

Really? I understand racial insensitivity, but is this a fair expectation of diversity in a fictional place that takes place in Scotland? Sure, the name is completely off, but it feels like the rest of this anger is misplaced on an author who is not trying to tell a story on themes of racial diversity.
To top it off, crowds react strongly and positively to enthusiastic and impassioned anger, further building the bravado of this poetic "slam" piece.
If Rowling is trying to tell and cast a story reflective of the local demographics, it doesn't appear inaccurate.
Scotland isn't the same type of "melting pot" America has come to be. Again, perhaps the expectation has been created that all cultures must have the demographic diversity that America has established. Remember, the character she is referring to is actually Scottish.

Scottish population by ethnic group (Scotland 2011 Census)

Percentage of total
White Scottish - 84.0%
White Other British - 7.9%
White Irish - 1.0%
White Gypsy/Traveller - 0.1%
White Polish - 1.2%
Other White ethnic group - 1.9%
White Total - 96.0%

Pakistani - 0.9%
Indian - 0.6%
Bangladeshi - 0.1%
Chinese - 0.6%
Other - 0.4%
Asian Total - 2.7%

Caribbean - 0.1%
Black - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black Other - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black - 0.1%
African - 0.6%
African Other - 0.0%
African Total - 0.6%

Mixed or multiple ethnic groups - 0.4%
Arab - 0.2%
Other - 0.1%
Other ethnic group Total - 0.3%