Over a Candle

I know I’ve written about this before (I just checked), but it’s still on my mind.

Let’s get it straight…

God puts into place a rule and gives it to two of his creations, two beings that – if the story is to be understood – don’t understand right and wrong. They were created without that knowledge. So breaking the rules (which is wrong) seems unlikely to be perceived by them as wrong. They break the rule and eat the fruit and come to understand right from wrong.

God then punishes the creatures for breaking the rule. God kicks them out of paradise and makes them mortal. And on the Christian reading of the passage, God sentences them to eternal damnation for their crime.

I could stop there. I often do. After all, the problem of Hell is perhaps the single biggest hang up I have with traditional Christian theology. But let’s ignore that this time. The story continues…

God has already planned for this occurrence and determined that God made flesh (his son) will come to save human beings. But not by appealing the ruling, not finding humans innocent nor lessening the sentence. God determines that the route of this mess is to have human beings kill God made flesh. That sacrifice will absolve us of our crimes, for which we deserve eternal damnation.

So God carries out the plan and humans helpfully go along with the human sacrifice that is central to the plan.

This is the Christian story. This is the Christian miracle. God establishes rules, not just knowing that they will be broken but enusring that creatures have no hope of following them since they don’t yet know right from wrong. When the rules get broken, God passes an amazingly harsh sentence. Then to undo the mess God created in the first place, God makes us accomplices in human/divine sacrifice.

Then we make chocolate into the shape of bunnies and color hard-boiled eggs to celebrate the whole affair.

Admit it… Don’t you wish you were an alien visiting the planet for the first time just so you could fully enjoy the absurdity?

Today the Supreme Court of the United States began hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the health care reform act passed a couple of years ago. Arguments are expected to go on for three more days, and a ruling is expected… Later.

To remind you what’s at stake, here are the basic positions (as far as I can tell, and summed up in the most biased way I can imagine):

The Democrats want everyone to pay for health care so that we can all pay less for health care. This is as opposed to the current system, where we don’t all pay for health care insurance, but we all pay for health care for others who don’t have health insurance and wind up in the E.R.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are fighting for the freedom not to have health insurance. As I understand it this should amount either to the freedom to freeload off of people who do have health insurance or the freedom to die (but at least you didn’t have to live your last few moments under a mandate).

I get it. This is a vast oversimplification, and I’m certain that there are a lot of ways you could make health care more affordable. My problem is that I have yet to hear anyone who is complaining about the health law make a serious effort at explaining an alternative. So let me ask a few simple questions…

Should everyone have access to health insurance or not? Should people who don’t have health insurance be allowed to receive care in the emergency room (which the law currently requires, if I understand it properly)?

If your answer is no and no, then you have no intellectual obligation to offer an alternative. If your answer to either is yes, then you need to pony up some kind of alternative solution.

Unless you think health insurance companies are going to change their practices out of the goodness of their hearts.

Tags: SCOTUS

Okay, Geraldo Rivera is not exactly someone who ought to be trusted to make any sort of insightful comment. In that sense, nothing here should surprise anyone.

Fox’s Rivera: Fla. teen’s hoodie had role in death:

‘No one black, brown or white can honestly tell me that seeing a kid of color with a hood pulled over his head doesn’t generate a certain reaction — sometimes scorn, often menace,’ Rivera wrote in his commentary

Now Rivera had indicated that he thought Trayvon Martin was an innocent, good kid. He just wanted to point out, apparently, that we ought to watch what we wear. Especially if we are kids of color.

This is no different than saying that a woman shouldn’t have been raped, but her suggestive outfit shares some of the blame. It’s wrong. We all know it’s wrong. But that’s not going to stop certain segments of the population from suggesting it.

Likewise, the “hoodie defense” is a crock. If you think someone is a “hoodlum” (to use Rivera’s language), why do you follow him several blocks? Why not let the police handle it? Because you’re a hot-head with a gun, that’s why.

Quit giving passes to criminals. Somebody does something wrong, quit blaming the victim. It’s ugly and has all the appearances of absolving the guilty from their crimes.

Rivera is a joke. (Anyone remember Al Capone’s vault? If not, look it up on YouTube). But still, it’s easy for this kind of nonsense to take on a life of its own. I get it, freedom of speech and all that… Too bad we don’t have freedom from stupidity…

Tags: Trayvon Martin

Dear President Obama,

You’re not bluffing on Iran. You will use (might use?) military force if they build a nuclear weapon. We don’t want Israel to launch a preemptive strike, but we will go to war on their behalf. And why not?

After all, Israel’s our ally. Sure, they have been violating the nonproliferation treaty for decades, but so what? It’s not like we chastised India or Pakistan when they violated that same treaty. One has to wonder why we even have such a treaty if we are willing only to enforce it selectively.

But by all means, let’s go to war over the possibility of Iran having nuclear arms. Look, Mr. President, I get it. The Republicans are acting all tough to make it seem like they are more willing to kill people (but not fetuses) than you are. You don’t want to seem a wimp. Instead of resting on the laurels of killing bin Laden, you want to act like you’ll take us into another war.

I’m assuming this one would be just as unfunded as the last two, leading to bigger deficits, and playing right into the claim that Democrats are big spenders. “Look at Obama jack up the deficit by spending all this money on war!” It doesn’t matter that that’s exactly what Bush did. See, Bush wasn’t really a Republican, ask anyone. It also doesn’t matter that the Republicans will do the same thing. Anything you do will make them unhappy, so quit trying to please them.

Mr. President, you barely ended one war, and you’re trying to end a second. Both of them were foolish and immoral. Why must you be so gung-ho to start another? Don’t let the Republicans force you even further to the right.

Or, you know, go ahead. But if you do it, could you do me a favor? Could you just nuke Iran? My hope is that Russia and China would respond in kind. I mean, do it for the sake of the next generation. I grew up with military threats and the nuclear boogie-man. It’s just not good for kids. Why not destroy the planet with war so that no one else has to suffer that worry? We won’t actually demand adherence to nonproliferation. We continue to threaten strikes against countries. Why keep pretending that we want peace? It’s clear that no one in power is actually interested in less war, so quit prolonging the inevitable. Wipe everyone out. It won’t solve any problems, but they’ll go away just the same. And nobody else has to suffer, right?

Sincerely,
A disaffected former supporter who is sick of people defending you

For your reference: Obama says he’s not bluffing on Iran military option

Tags: Barack Obama, Iran

Over the past several months, I have felt increasingly disillusioned with the Obama administration. I mean, I was never high as a kite on the guy, but lately, I’ve been finding it difficult to manage even neutral disinterest.

On the flip side, I have seen many apologetics offered on his behalf. He has accomplished a number of things: the health care overhaul (which while not enough, was still better than nothing) and the ending of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to name but two. And other things he has tried to accomplish he has been stymied by a recalcitrant and obstructionist Republican-controlled House.

However, he has also done some things that I find difficult to lay at the feet of divided government. When the Health and Human Services agency overrode the FDA’s approval for OTC Plan B sales, Obama supported the override. The Republicans did not make him do that. Nor did they make him step up troop involvement in Afghanistan. Again, to name but a few.

And this morning, on NPR, I was reminded of yet another aspect of this administration to find disappointing: the administration’s so-called targeted killing program, used to target terror suspects with drone aircraft.

In Speech, Top Pentagon Lawyer Defends Targeted Killing Program:

Nowhere in the talk did Johnson explicitly mention the U.S. drone program, used to kill radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, al-Qaida propagandist Samir Kahn, and at least one other U.S. citizen over the past year.

The Obama administration’s legal basis for those strikes remains secret, despite ongoing lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times that seek more information about how the federal government decides to target its own citizens.

This program has always struck me as highly questionable, ethically. What’s more is that the administration refuses to reveal its reasoning for the program, once more underscoring that this administration seems determined to top the previous one in secrecy and lack of transparency.

This policy, and others, have not been forced on Obama by Republicans. He could have done much to open government to more scrutiny by the citizens it purports to serve. He could have done much to recover the ethical center of the country and live up to the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded before he had earned it. He has yet to earn that prize.

While I approve of the things he has managed to accomplish, and excuse the things he hasn’t been able to because of Congress, there are some things that he must be held accountable for. I’m not willing to simply overlook them and pretend he’s doing okay. He isn’t. And we need to hold him to a higher standard than merely “well, he’s better than Bush.”

Tags: Barack Obama

While the rest of the country basks in the glow that is Rick Santorum’s heavenly light, we here in Minnesota still have to listen to Michele Bachmann. Because the national Republican Party didn’t want her, we had to take her back. And of course she’s running for reelection, because, even though Washington is the problem, she wants to be part of the problem.

Wait. I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t put it that way. Even though it seems to be a logical consequence of her views.

Anyway, the point is, I still have to listen to this… former presidential candidate?… get interviewed on public radio. And today, interviewed she was.

She is voting no on extending the payroll tax cuts on the grounds that it is unfunded spending. The people don’t want unfunded spending, so she’s going to raise her voice in opposition. Of course, Bachmann did vote for the troop surge in Iraq… you remember, that war that was paid for entirely by deficit spending? But there’s deficit spending to help Americans, and there’s deficit spending to help Iraqis. Bachmann only seems to support the latter.

But the real gem of the interview (not the standard Republican hypocrisy that you can always find) was the following quote about why she may not endorse one of the candidates during the primary. She wants to bring the party together. And she sees a big tent. But even more, she sees a role in bringing the country together…

Bachmann to vote ‘no’ on extension of payroll tax cut:

‘People want the country to work. People in Minnesota are very practical and that’s what I intend to be – a unifying voice’

Apparently, Michele Bachmann is intending to find a new voice, a unifying one. Because, Michele, I gotta tell you, your voice for the last 12 years I’ve had to listen to it, has been one of the most divisive. So if you want to serve as a unifying voice, you better change your tune. And quick. You’ve systematically opposed reproductive rights and gay rights. Not much of a unifying voice.

Unless you just intend to unify white conservative men. In which case, be my guest. But you could never unify the country because you have no interest in unity.

Tags: Election 2012, Michele Bachmann

A friend asked me about violence and whether it was ever necessary. I wrote a response (probably too long) that struck me as a good general statement of my position on the matter, so I reproduce most of my comments here.

To quote Utah Phillips, quoting Ammon Hennacy, “force is the weapon of the weak.”

Force accomplishes nothing. It can compel bodies, but not minds, not hearts. It does not change people, but merely eliminates them as obstacles. It can create fear, which might produce a desired result, but it does not produce change. As soon as the fear fades, or becomes too much to bear, the people “changed” by force come back stronger.

Nonviolence has a pretty good track record. Do people die using nonviolence? Yes. Do people die using force? Yes. It cannot count against nonviolence that it doesn’t always work (neither does force), that it requires sophistication (so does force), that people are hurt when using nonviolence (so are people who use violence).

Nonviolence, however, has an advantage. It can change people. It can open hearts and minds. (Witness the nonviolent protests against the counter-coup in Russia in the early 90s. The soldiers sent to shoot protestors found themselves identifying with the protestors and against the ones who had sent them there.) It is not always successful, but that is an unfair standard to impose.

Violence is never necessary. When it seems so, it is only because the imagination, courage, or will is lacking. We often ask ourselves, with respect to military service, what are we willing to die for. But that’s the wrong question. When we speak of force, of military service, the question is what are we willing to kill for. It is no doubt true that people die for their country, but they also kill for their country.

I am willing to die for my beliefs, to stand-up for them and accept the consequences of doing so. What I am not willing to do is kill for my beliefs. No belief I have is worth the death of another human being. No ideal. And to kill to save someone (myself or someone else) suggests that I have the ability to judge who is more worthy of life. I do not have that capacity.

In short, there is nothing worth killing for. If that is accepted, then there can never be a case of necessary violence.

Tags: nonviolence

In the aftermath of Rick Santorum’s sweep of yesterday’s almost completely meaningless contests (non-binding and all), seems to have left the Republican field a bit more up-in-the-air than it seemed after Florida and Nevada. Still Romney appears to be the one to beat, but who can say at this point?

Of course, I feel pretty confident of predicting that Ron Paul will not be the nominee. But that doesn’t mean that his campaign won’t be interesting. I have a certain respect for Paul. He strikes me as much more principled than most politicians.

Listening to NPR this morning, however, I heard a Paul supporter from Minnesota interviewed. The supporter did not think Paul was likely to win, but he considered supporting Paul to be sending an important message. That message? That a middle-of-the-road candidate was the way to go.

That’s right, Ron Paul is a moderate. I can think of a lot ways to describe Ron Paul, some of them complimentary. But “moderate” is not one of them. He is a libertarian, just shy of an anarchist. That doesn’t count as moderate.

He is consistent. And I respect that. He believes the government should stay out of every aspect of our lives, not just our wallets. I suppose there is a kind of moderation there; at least he isn’t telling us who we can love. But that still doesn’t seem terribly moderate to me. I’m not even sure I entirely disagree with him (I have my own sympathies for anarchy and libertarian ideals), but I have no illusions that it is a moderate position.

Still, I am fascinated by how Paul’s supporters describe him. It merely convinces me that many people don’t really pay attention or understand the positions advocated by their candidates. I already suspected that, though.

I don’t even know who I want to win this thing. I just want the fight to continue; I still have a lot of popcorn.

Tags: Election 2012

Over A Candle began seven years ago this month. It has been up and down, but generally I’ve kept up the posting. I can’t believe I’ve made it this long. I don’t really intend to stop now. Politicians will still say and do stupid things. Society still needs a kick in the pants on a regular basis. Injustice still remains and needs to be pointed out. Even if no one listens.

My original intention for the blog was political/philosophical/social commentary. Unfortunately, I had just spent time on LiveJournal and brought over some of those posts to get the thing up and running. And quickly Over A Candle became a kind of catch-all for everything I wanted to say, or just random personal stuff.

This isn’t bad, mind you. At least, I don’t care terribly much. However, I’ve found that I’m writing more creative pieces of late, and I’d like a place that focuses only on the creative stuff. And I would like Over A Candle to focus more on the original purpose.

With that in mind, I created another blog for my creative work. My intent is to refocus my work here. Splitting my time between blogs (something I’ve tried before) doesn’t work terribly well when I’m trying to update both almost daily. So my intent is to update here at least once or twice a week. It may be more frequently, as events occur, but I want to commit to at least that often. I don’t want to drop this blog after all this time.

It is my intent also to update my creative blog at least once a week. I’m not going to post a link to that blog here. Too many spammers could follow it. If you want the link to the other blog, either contact me personally, or leave a comment on this post. (To leave a comment, you have to enter an email, so I can send you a message to that address. Don’t worry, no one else can see your email.)

Of course, my intentions might not matter. Perhaps my creativity will dry up. Or maybe there will be lots of stuff this election year. Or maybe I’ll find juggling the two blogs too much. If so, I’ll post an update. And I will reevaluate at the end of 2012. Until then, I’m hoping I can get on some kind of track.

“Oh my god!”

“Drop it.”

“What have I done?”

“Drop it!”

“I… How… This can’t be happening!”

“Drop it!” This time she slapped him. Still dazed, he turned from the bloody mess in front of him and looked at her. “Drop the gun. We have to go. Now!” The force of her command was sufficient for him to obey. He was too stunned to do otherwise.

They were off the platform and a dozen yards down the tunnel before he thought to object. “Wait. If I leave the gun, won’t they find my fingerprints? Won’t they know I killed him?”

“Yes.” She didn’t stop moving.

“Shouldn’t we go back for it?”

“No.”

He hesitated only for a moment before hurrying to catch up to her.

“I don’t understand.”

“I know.”

He grabbed her arm to force her to go back. “Look, we need to…”

She turned quickly, ripping her arm out of his grasp. “Do you want to stop here and discuss things, or do you want to get out of here before anything else goes wrong?”

The fury on her face quashed his desire for an answer. He looked down at his feet, invisible in the gloom.

“Good. Let’s go.”

She turned and resumed walking quickly down the tunnel, never once looking over her shoulder to see if he was keeping up. For his part, he tried to put his feet where she did so that he wouldn’t trip. But he could only guess where she stepped in the dark, so he had to pick himself off the ground several times before they came to a door hidden in the wall.

In truth, it was only the darkness that hid the door, but it was sufficient. He didn’t notice it until she had opened it, allowing a dim light to spill out. Despite the meagerness of the light, his eyes took several moments to adjust. The room was small. A cot, a desk, a cooler, and another door were all that waited inside. The lone light bulb could not brighten the dull grey concrete of the walls and floor.

She sat in the chair and motioned him to sit on the bed. “Now. Ask.”

“Who was that?”

“Why does it matter?”

“He tried to kill me! I killed him! I want to know who he was.”

“It sounds like you’ve already answered your own question.”

“What?”

“He tried to kill you, and you killed him instead. What else matters?”

“But it explains nothing.”

“He was trying to stop you from coming with me. Does that help?”

“Why?”

“You don’t understand?”

“Should I? I don’t even know who you are.”

“You don’t?”

“No.”

“Oh.” Her stony expression cracked, distress showing through.

“Should I?”

Before he could react, she grabbed his hand and stared into his eyes. Her hand on his felt… Right. Good. He almost lost himself in that touch. No. Not lost. Found. He almost found himself. It threatened to overwhelm him. Her name… it was…

Gone. The feel of the gun in his hand, the jarring kick after pulling the trigger, it ripped everything away.

“I’m sorry. I don’t know.”

One more pained glance, searching, and she dropped his hand and her gaze. “They did it again. They took you from me again.”

“What? What do you mean?”

“They forced you to kill one of them. To save yourself. And so lose yourself. I had you… I nearly had you back. I could almost see you, and then I saw the muzzle flash in your eyes. You’re gone again.”

“I don’t know what you mean.”

“No. No, of course not. You couldn’t.”

“Who are you?”

“There’s no point in telling you. Not now. Someday. I promise. Remember me. The next time you see me, ask again. I will tell you. Believe me. But for now, there’s only one thing to do.”

“Which is?” This whole thing seemed too absurd to be real. He trusted her, though he couldn’t say why.

“That door.”

He looked around the room. A cot, a desk… He couldn’t remember how he got here, but this woman was directing him to a door.

“Yes, that door. Go through it. You can only take two things with you. One is my face. Remember it. Trust it.” He looked at her face. His mind had trouble hanging on to what it looked like, but he forced himself to memorize it. “The other is the following information: you killed someone. They will try to arrest you, stop you. Don’t let them. Know you have to run as soon as you see someone representing the law. Run. Find me. We will get you back. I will bring you back. Now, go!” As if she had some power to command him, he jumped up and walked through the door.

He was on a street with office buildings. The sun was high overhead. Where was he going? Of course, back to the office after lunch. The afternoon meeting loomed large, threatening the rest of his day. Boring, useless, but mandatory.

As he headed back to his office, he noticed a police officer across the street. Was the cop staring at him? It made him nervous, and he began walking more quickly, while trying not to look suspicious. He didn’t hear anyone chasing after him but didn’t dare turn around to look. Reaching the door to his building, relief settled in.

“Excuse me, sir.”

He turned to see the officer right behind him, his hand on his gun.

“Yes?”

“Would you come with me?”

He couldn’t go. But why? He hadn’t done anything wrong. A voice screamed at him to go, to run as fast as he could. He obeyed, running away, shoving past people. The cop yelled after him, but he ignored it, kept running. Murder. They thought he had killed someone, and he needed to get away.

Running past a subway entrance, he saw a woman climbing up the stairs. Her black hair tied behind her head, her eyes… He stopped and grabbed her. “Please help me.”

She appeared startled at first, but the moment passed. “Are you certain?”

“Yes! You have to help me!”

“Very well. Follow me.” She turned and walked quickly back down the stairs. He followed, expecting to hear police behind him any moment.

The platform was empty as the occupants of the last train had already filed out. The next one wouldn’t arrive for several minutes, at least. Only a vagrant sat against the wall. “Where to? They’ll be here before the next train arrives.”

She turned to answer his question but gave a yelp. Before he could ask her what was wrong, the vagrant tackled him. Jumping up quickly he noticed a gun in the other man’s hand. From somewhere, he too pulled out a gun. There was no time to think, he had to…

“No!”

Her scream pierced him, and he turned to look at her. Her eyes were full of pain and pleading. Throwing the gun to the side distracted the vagrant enough for him to reach the man and knock him to the ground. A shot sounded, but it missed wide. The vagrant lay stunned on the floor.

“Quick! Follow me!” He heard the relief in her voice over the urgency. She led him down a tunnel to a door in the wall. He couldn’t imagine how she knew it was here. Once through, he found himself in a small room with few furnishings. A cot, a desk, a cooler… And another door.

“What is happening?” he asked, after sitting on the bed.

She grabbed his hand, a tenderness he didn’t think was possible. He got his first real look at her.

“Emily?”

She smiled and threw her arms around his neck, pressing her lips hard against his. How long had it been since she had last kissed him? Too long. After moments or minutes, she sat back and continued to smile.

“It’s a start. We have a long way to go, but you’re not injured this time. And you’re not wanted for murder. They will try other things. But it’s a start. I will get you back.”