A song that nearly defines me.

There are a few songs that really hit home for me. this is one of them. The one thing that botners me about this song is how misunderstood it is. This is not a religious song. There is no religious connotation to this song. It is using an aspect of religion as a metaphor to give some insight into the nature of what true love is.

Here is the only statement that this song makes about religion " religion has a powerful influence on the behavior of humans"

Tere is a dual nature to religion. It has a frivolous side, the ceremonies and garments and hymns. There is a serious side too, the teachings and the philosophies. If people could focus on the philosophies and the teaching, then the garments and hymns and ceremonies could be just tossed out because the "purpose" of religion would have been accomplished.

The hymns, the "hallelujah" are just trappings, not the core, the substance. This song relates this statement to the same aspects of true love, the frivolous side and the serious side. the trappings and distractions and the substance, the core.

The chorus of this song, hallelujah repeated several times, is almost sarcastic in the way it is sung. The singer has a downbeat and inglorious tone. the exact opposite of what a religious "hallelujah" is meant to be spoken. The message in the chorus is that we sometimes celebrate and get lost in the frivolous of both religion and love while the core, the substance is failing.

there are three people in this song. There is

1. the singer

2, there is "you" the person who the song is written for.

3. there is the woman bathing on the roof

Only the gender of the woman on the roof is known, she is female. the gender of the singer and "you" is not revealed. In this interpretation of the song these genders are unimportant. Just the love and the relationship are important.

The first stanza is
"I heard there was a secret chord
that david played and it pleased the lord
but you dont really care for music do you?
it goes like this:
the fourth the fifth
the minor fall and the major lift
the baffled king composing hallelujah

This stanza gives a hint of the theme of the song. The singer is stating that "you" does not understand the true value of things. "David has music that pleases the Lord, God Almighty bur that will not interest "you" because that person does not like music. If I had something that Tickled the fancy of God, it wouldn't matter what it was, only that it made God happy. Only the results would matter. "you" doesn't think like this. the singer i saying that "you" is getting hung up on their personal disinterest in music and missing an opportunity to be part of something special. "You" is getting lost in the trappings and ignoring the substance.

The second stanza is this:

your faith was strong but you needed proof
you saw her bathing on the roof
her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
she tied you to her kitchen chair
she broke your throne and she cut your hair
and from your lips she drew hallelujah

The second stanza descries the problem. "you" has left. "you had faith, that faith was commitment to the singer. that commitment was strong. The "proof" of that commitment will be affirmed if "you" can interact with a beautiful woman, the woman on the roof, and remain committed to the singer. This did not happen. "you" was "overthrown"by her beauty. what is interesting is the result of going to the woman on the roof. She ties "you to the kitchen chair. domesticating him. she breaks "you's" throne and cuts "you's" hair, a reference to samson, symbolizing the taking of strength, a reduction in power, and enslavement to empty beauty. The woman on the roof has beauty, she has lips and she can draw from "you" a hallelujah, but that is just frivolous trappings, "you" has lost the seat of power and has had their strength stolen.

the third stanza is this:

baby ive been here before
ive seen this room and ive walked this floor
i used to live alone before i knew you
aand ive seen your flag on the marble arch
love is not a victory march
its a cold broken hallelujah

This is the most telling part of the song. If you want to see the true power of love, dont get lost in the frivolous trappings when it is joyous and plentiful, rather look in the wake, in the empty ruins after the frivolous trappings and ceremonies are gone. when love is cut off, when it is denied. The singer is now alone. "you" has left but the singer still loves them more than anything. The singers love has become something "cold" and "broken". "you" is lost in the frivolous trappings, the "lips" and the "beauty" while the singer harbors something real, something powerful that has become neglected and damaged because "you" did not see the value of it and was too focused on the trivial and ceremonial. "you" sees lovee as only the phony, only the "hallelujah" and not the core.

you was able to leave the singer because the ceremonies and hallelujahs are easy to replace. the Marble arch Arch is a monument near speakers corner hyde park at the western end of oxford street in london. people go their to speak publicly and spread their ideas. many printed flyers or "flags" are left behind for others to take and read. thee singer is saying that "you" feels like they have a "victory" in their transition to the woman on the roof and that they have expounded on it to others. like someone talking at the marble arch. the highs of the emotions stirred up by this transition to the woman on the roof are small and insignificant to the depths that the singer has sunk to as a result of this loss. the singer is cold and broken and sarcastically sings hallelujah.

The fourth stanza goes
there was a time that you let me know
what was really going on down below
but now you never show that to me do you?
but remember when i moved in you
and the holy dove was moving too?
and every breath we drew was hallelujah!

This stanza deals with the physical side of love. the first few lines are obvious sexual references. The point the singer is making is that their physical intimacy was wonderful. "every breath we drew" is a sharp contrast to "from your lips she drew". Thee singer implies that their pleasure and love was reciprocal and that now "you" has moved away from that for something shallow and fake while the singer still loves "you" and is numbed and swallowed by thee weight of the roken love he carries in him.

the fifth stanza is
Maybe there's a god above
but all ive ever learned from love
is how to shoot at someone who out drew you
and its not a cry that you hear at night
its not somebody who has seen the light
its a cold and its a broken hallelujah

The final stanza is sad. There might be love in this world but the singer has nt experienced it successfully. "shoot at somebody who outdrew you" is the same as "you cant fire me i quit!" The singers experience is that love always ends suddenly. the singer has learned to kill the relationship as soon as there is the slightest problem, to shoot his gun as soon as the other person draws theirs. He doesn't even have hope that he can be in a relationship where there would be no guns, no need to shoot and hurt the lover first.

The last three lines restate the theme. Love is not a cry at night, the sound of love making. it is not some personal revelation or "seeing the light" of some new aspect of love. The depths of your love can sometimes be best evidenced by how cold and broken you become when it dies.

I can really relate to this. I am cold and broken and surrounded by the ruins of everything i have lost. I take some solace in knowing I'm not the only one to feel this way, not the only one to have ever lost, and im not the only one to carry the weight of that loss on top of me.

the beautiful closeness of far away

I kind of consider myself homeless.  I have my things scattered between two apartments.  one of them guarded by a shrill and hateful harpy who seems too have taken t upon herself to destroy the thing I had given her, in confidence and trust, in love and commitment.

 My heart.

A home is not only a place where you re loved and respected and accepted, but it also the place where the things you love are.  I have now, after strife, difficulty and hurt, have a place where I am accepted, loved and appreciated, but i don't have a place where the things i love are.

This post isn't about that though.  this post is about last night.  For every harpy there is an angel to fight it.  For every pain, an ailment.  Last night i didnt come home because I was with an angel.  She faces her own demons, her own harpies.  Perhaps the universe bought us together so i can fight hers, and she mine.  in our own ways.

We were looking art each others face book pages, we were watching you tube videos.  we were just kind of soaking up each others energy and were relaxed.  the harpies, the demons, the changed locks on the apartment and the new girlfriends of ex assholes weren't there.  There, in that place, with that person, that harpy has no talons.  the screeching falls silent.  I am free, I am strong,  I am at peace.  I am healed.  I am happy.

As we talked I was tired and wanted to go.  She wanted me to stay.  Loneliness is one of her demons.  She feels she exists, as all of do, to be with someone.=, and its hard to hard for her to be in her big place by her self.  She trusts me, she says.  it will be fine.  She invites me into her bedroom.

Unfamiliar territory to be sure.  I think t myself that this is about what she needs.  this is about being there for her, helping her overcome her loneliness and anxiety.  If I stay I can help her in the morning and motivate her to get things done, to get past her depression.

We talked for a few more hours.  I felt, I am so close, so fucking close, to the exact thing i need.  the exact thing i should have had all along.  Regardless it was beautiful.  She is an angel.  Wielding for me the sword of her smile, the shield of her laugh.  I am strengthened, I am emboldened, I am inspired.  I am so close.

I want to grab this, I want to pull it close, I want to make it for ever.  I want to protect her, to tell her i can be everything she needs, everything she wants.  Sadly this isnt that kind of thing.  At leat not yet, perhaps not ever.  I'll take it as it is.  An angel is an angel.  I'm lucky to haver her.  I;m lockey to feel her radiance and love.

Probably my favorite song at the moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZ7S2rccsg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The value of differing ideas

<p>     In light of the election and the staggaring loss of the republicans a lot of people on the left are spiking the flootball and saying that the republicans are going to go away and never come back.  I understand the giddy victory feeling, honestly I do.  I mean because of the election, we wont have a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs Wade, and Obamacare will not be repealed and a bunch of other awesome things that help our society are going to happen or keep happeneing.  But because these   good things happened, and any innumeral amount of bad things now will not happen, is not reason or cause to wish the entire republican party away.  Why on earth would I say this, I am sure you are asking.  I mean, didn't these guys say that pregnancies from rape were gods plan?  and that If there was a 'legitinate rape' women could magically not get pregnant, and that 47 percent of the country were hopeless slackers that couldnt or wouldnt take responsiblility for their lives?  How could you not want that to go away.  </p></p>
   <p>    Well, yes they did say all those things, and probably worse.  I want the Republicans to stay around because if there is one thing that any party, or government needs, critically, and absulutely needs, to effectivelly govern, it is a strong and reasoned opposition.  Right now the Republicans are neither strong nor reasoned, and as far as reasoned is concerned, have not been for some time.  The republicans need to get the 'crazy' out of thier ranks, they need to stop hating and blaming the electorate for what they perceive as moral failings, and they need to embrace differing opinions opn what conservatism means so that they can atrract a brader range of supporters.  </p></p>
<p>      It is then that they can present a saner opposition to the democratic government and bring well reasoned and sensical conservative ideas to the table that more people can get behind.  The country can only benefit.  When one party is in control and not effectively opposed there tends to develop and echo chamber where only one line of thinking, and one set of ideas is found to be acceptable and all others are marginalized.  This doesnt do anyone any good.   Ina country as diverse as ours, all ideas must be present in government, all right protected and all peoples cared for.  An Echo-chamber government, whether Democratic or Republican, is notoriously bad at this.  The Democrats are strengthened by a strong, reasonable Republican Party.  The reverse is also true.  </p></p>
<p>     Differing ideas, when sane, can provide us with a more complete, and more representative government.  The more people a government represents the more effective it will be.  Ther eis no group in this country that is not deserving of representation in government, not even the one percent.  The government needs to work for ALL people and to do that, it needs the Republican party.  But to be relevant, the Republican Party needs to get the insanity out of its veins and embrace the wider nation so that it can provide a more reasoned opposition and offer better representation to the people.  </p></p>
<p>    Just because our ideals won the day on election day we musnt trick ourselves into thinking that there are no other worthwhile ideals out there.  Just because our ideas are a majority doesnt mean that other ideas, different ideas, have no value.  All are welcome at the table of government, and all values, all ideas, all ideals have merit and are worth hearing.  We must never want for there to be no opposition because it is only through opposition that we become stronger.  Rather we should wish that our opponents be strong, but beatable.</p></p>

Why process matters

     Every time I turn on the news I see a story about negative attack ads  and how this is possibly the most negative election ever.  Worse than that though, Every time I turn on the news I see a story that has a biased perspective, a story that sides with one side of current political discourse, and worse still, these stories actively disparage the opposing side.  these attack ads, even the political press in this  country tend to tear down the 'other side' rather than simply report news. I hear a lot of people ask why it is that the discourse in this country has fallen to such a level. 
     It is not just America either.  Look for example at the European Union.  The EU was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize this week.  Upon hearing of this, news agencies all over the world responded with snark.  While it is true that the EU is having some trouble because limitations in its governing structure are creating problems and making it difficult to adapt to a rapidly changing world, but the same can be said for any government.  Keep in mind that the EU is only 60 or so years old. 

     The European Union is important and significant because it represents a victory.  Before I explain, let me clarify.  The EU encompasses an entire region of the world.  Nearly an entire hemisphere.  I think when we talk of the European union we tend to think of it as mainly a few large countries working together rather than a massive conglomerate of nearly every European, and eastern European country both large and small, united together under a common currency and governance structure.   Now also realize that the area of the world covered by the EU has known near constant war for all of recorded history.  Yes, in one part of the EU, or another, people have been killing one another for all of time.  That is of course, until the formation of the European Union. 
     The EU has largely ended war and human misery in a part of the world that had been at war since humans had been able to keep track of such things.  The Nobel Committee recognizes this, and sadly it seems that we do not.  Why is this?  We seem to have a distaste for all things policy and procedure in government.  It seems we would rather disparage, tear down, belittle and ridicule the intricacies of government rather than celebrate successes.   I think we do this because we need conflict.  Conflict has been part of human society since we have been able to form societies.  There are different tribes with different cultures and different religions with different definitions of what 'good is' all competing for limited land and resources.  Conflict is inevitable and naturally constant. 
     Democracy, policy, and procedure, rules.  These are things that we have developed to deal with these conflicts, they are tools we have developed  to resolve our differences without killing each other.   Yes, the process is slow, awkward arduous, complicated, bulky and difficult.  When viewed through the lense of history though the result is sublime and beautiful.  So we  but what is the alternative?  I think the answer is war.  I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that either we have people killing each other in streets or we have attack ads.  Conflict is a part of our lives.  So much a part of our lives that we have developed a kind of distaste for how we resolve conflicts in a nonviolent manner. 

Conflict is such a part of us not because humans, in our hearts, are primitives, but because we are predators. Though we have learned to grow our food instead of kill it, we still have predatory instincts, and these instincts express themselves through conflict. As we have evolved and developed a more civilized discourse, so to has our conflict evolved. We have moved from warring tribes, to warring nations, to peaceful nations. Our conflicts has evolved from bloody combat to political vitriol and expresses itself in political adds, social conversation and even internet discussions.

While conflict is inevitable and maybe even necessary we must be careful not to revel in it. At the center of our modern, civilized 'political pundit' age conflict lies a distaste for the procedural, slow-motion bloodless method conflict resolution that we call modern government. Take a look at Congressman Ryans comments on Syria from the VP debate. It was clear that he wanted boots on the ground over sanctions. A lot of people feel the same way on nearly any conflict. blood over talk. We can;t give in to this feeling. Yes, we must tolerate conflict, it is a need we have, but we must defer to the procedural. We must allow for the slow, lumbering resolutions of democracy because they are better than violence and bloodshed. We must also, always remember that there is no bubble that exists in which all conflicts are resolved without differences, and there is no universe that exists in which there are no differences.

We are all different, we all think different and we will all always want different solutions to our shared problems. This will never change, but what we must always do is resort to nonviolent ways to resolve our conflicts, no matter how badly we want to kill the other guy, and feeling that way is natural, we must talk it out. And was we grow, we must do what the European Union has done, we must bring others to our table, We must seek out those nations and peoples among us who still resolve their conflicts with blood and violence and show them that there is a better way. Yes it is slower, and yes it is sometimes awkward, and yes sometimes after months of talk no one gets what they want but if no one dies and suffers, it is still better. This is the burden of civilization, we must lead others to be civilized. If all life is sacred than efforts to preserve life must be undertaken.

When history becomes story

<p>     I am watching a documentary on Cleopatra.  Specifically on how an international group of archaeologists have rediscovered her royal islands in Egypt's harbor after being submerged there for over two thousand years.  It is one of the most significant historical discoveries of all time.  What makes Cleopatra and her story, rather her history so interesting to me is because it could easily be fiction.  Just perusing the highlights it sounds like its made up.  For example, female Pharaoh seduces Julius Caesar, when he gets assassinated she seduces Marc Antony and fights against the might of Octavius and all of Rome.  When her forces are defeated in the biggest and bloodiest sea battle in history, both her and Marc Antony commit suicide.  Her by Egyptian tradition of Asp  bite.  </p></p>
 <p>    Just glancing at it it sounds like its made up doesn't it?  But it isn't.  I bring this up because her story is so intricate, so interesting and so involved, and frankly, so often told that we tend to forget that it's actually history, and not just some story made up by Hollywood.  Those amazing things actually happened, Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony actually existed, I can go to Egypt and see things that they saw, touch things that they touched, I can connect with them even after two thousand years.</p></p> 
  <p>   I want to compare Cleopatra to another figure, Jesus Christ.  Also from about two thousand years in the past, and whose story has also been made into countless movies.  Unlike Cleopatra however, Jesus never existed.  I know that that's big talk but hear me out.  There is not one part of Jesus's story that can be verified historically.     None of the authors quoted as providing proof of his existence are contemporary to the time of christ.   I am aware that most historians consider the existence of Jesus a settled< fact, but I'm not sure that that opinion is based on evidence.  It is based more on a deferral to a vocal community that on any evidence dug up out of the earth.  </p></p>
     <p>I often hear that there is just as much historical evidence of Jesus as there is anyone else.  That isnt true.  I can slap on scuba gear and I can touch things that Cleopatra touched.  I can see the room where she seduced and made love to Julius Caesar and then Mark Antony.  I can see the wreckage of the great battle between her forces and Rome.  I can walk where she walked (well swim where she walked).  Her entire life is documented.  We have images of her that were made while she was alive.  There is contemporaneous evidence of her existence.  </p></p>
   <p>  Where was jesus born?  A manger in Bethlehem?  What manger?    What happened in the thirty plus years after his birth but before his death?  I would think that a historical figure who was rumored to be a god, THE god, would leave more of a trace.  Look again at Cleopatra, all Egyptian Pharaohs were also considered to be re-incarnations of the gods, In her case it was Isis.   As living embodiments of the divine, every move they made and every word they said was meticulously documented.  You would think that the coming of the Christian messiah would be similarly documented.  I mean as far as the christian religion goes, there is no more significant event.  This was their god come to earth was it not?  There were witnesses to the birth, why then did not those witnesses stay with Jesus and document his life?  Like I said, this was God wasn't it?  Why is there such a dearth of information on the life of God?  He is born, disappears for thirty plus years and then dies.  While other human made gods from the same era can't take a dump without someone chiseling it into stone for antiquity.   </p></p>
     <p>I find it ironic that we often forget to realize that larger than life people like Cleopatra and Julius Caesar were real, and the events surrounding their lives actually happened.  The story has been told so often and become so familiar that it becomes just that, a story, not history.  While on the other had, the story of Jesus, has, due to its status as religion, become history.  The deference we give to the myth of jesus has enabled it to assume a place in history despite a near total lack of evidence.  I cannot go and touch the things that jesus touched in the way I can with Cleopatra.  There is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus.  There are no documents that mention him from the time he was supposed to live.  For someone supposed to be god, the most important figure of a religion, this is damning is it not?  </p></p>
     <p>We pay to much attention to myth, and not enough to historical fact.  Cleopatra was real, and the events surrounding her death changed the way the entire world worked.  the circumstances that resulted from her defeat and death changed the course of history and effect us to this day.  Even despite all that most people dismiss Cleopatra as a figure in a story and fail to realize how significant her life really was.  </p></p>
   <p>  Jesus on the other hand, left no meaningful mark on history, and no evidence of his life exists outside of the bible, and the bible is not a historical document.  Yet his existence is held as an undisputed fact.  Why is this?  It is simply because religion demands deference and acceptance, and we give it for no reason at all.  The story of Cleopatra, to me, is so interesting, and so compelling because it is also history, because it actually happened.  the story of Jesus would be similarly compelling to me if it actually happened, but it did not.  I'm not telling people to not believe in Jesus, just that they know that they are in fact 'believing' in him, not accepting his existence as fact.  There is a big difference between the two.