Gospel = Good News!

Quote of the day

“There’s an African story of birth where the women gather and send you across the river, and as you walk across this log across the river you head out with these women. As you go across on the narrowest part you’re alone. No one can be there with you, and as you emerge onto the other side of the river, all the women who have ever given birth are there to greet you.”

-Liz Koch

Quote of the day

“Wisdom is knowing when you can’t be wise.”

-Paul Engle, American poet

I recently had a dialogue…

with someone in which I said something that he quickly called me on. But I have begun to wonder whether the point of contention is one worth arguing about…

I will soon be embarking on returning to school for my Masters and, for that matter, in a subject wholly separate and different from my undergraduate major. And in a roundabout way, the person I was engaged in a dialogue with asked me if I was excited about school. To which, I replied saying

…no ordination here or at least not that i can foresee but i obviously leave myself open for God to lead me where he wants…after all, i didnt even think i would get into a Princeton program, let alone go…

To which, he replied

he? lol…God is gender-neutral, my friend…lol. that’s cool, though.

I was initially taken aback. Then I snarkily thanked him for the knowledge lesson and continued with our dialogue, which was rather terse after the aforementioned interchange. I didn’t want to necessarily delve into the point of contention he countered me on because this “dialogue” was a cyber one, i.e., it occurred on Facebook and who likes having cyber arguments…? But I felt that my curt retort was response enough. Nevertheless, does he have a point?

Of course, I recognize that we live in a society that is wholly patriarchal, even in our religious leanings and practice. However, specifically with Christianity, there is an understanding, as written in the Bible, that Jesus Christ walked this Earth in the form of a man as per his epithet, the Son of God (Matthew 26:63-64). Now, if you believe in the Trinity, there is a further understanding of Jesus Christ being an offshoot of his Father (masculine word) and that the Holy Spirit (neutral word) was/is the Paraclete, the Comforter, when Jesus no longer resided among these earthly dwellings. Thus, by those standards – one in three and the three as one – could it perhaps be safe to assign the male gender to God? In no way am I presuming that this stance is the be all and end all of this debate but with that evidence, is it far-fetched? Furthermore, the statement that God is gender-neutral perhaps does as much compartmentalizing as my referring to God as ‘he’. Here is what I mean:

By stating that God is gender-neutral, it suggests that God is neither he nor she; God has no gender. Or it suggests that God is both male and female, with no respect to being more of one than the other. Those categorizations, in and of themselves, do box God into a specificity that does perhaps seem more equitable or embracing of his total creation, man and woman, but also still assigns something to the being that we cannot know and yet perceive in order to further assert that we understand the complexity of God. But what’s funny about this whole dialogue is that I actually think that assigning a gender to God affirms not only why God, as revealed through Jesus Christ, came to Earth, but also makes us feel better about our own personal relationship with our maker.

As a man, if I choose to say that God is a ‘he’, that is in part due to my own interpretation of God, i.e. my personal exegesis of how IseeJesus. As well, if a woman chooses to refer to God as ’she’, she is completely entitled to do so. Likewise, there are women who continue using ‘he’ for God (I know a couple; one even wrote a song about it) and I have no doubt that there are men who say ’she’ for God. (I know two men here and here in particular.) So the idea that through my own interpretation of God’s gender specificity someone else can give me his/her personal interpretation as “universal truth” not only reduces my own comprehension of who God is, which is why he came (because God was not seen the same way by everyone God encountered and for that matter, God did not leave everyone the same way God initially found them), but also leaves my thirst for righteous interpretation quenchless. After all, God moves (and works) in mysterious ways, his/her wonders to perform. And God even admonishes

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Isaiah 55:8-9 (NIV)

So what happens when the “truth” turns out to be nothing more than a fiction for and figment of our imagination regarding someone whose thoughts are so infinitely higher than ours that we cannot even fathom the infinite greatness and knowledge of the numbering of even the very hairs on our heads?

And in the end, though I referred to God as a ‘he’, it doesn’t mean that when I am fatherless, he is not my Father; that when I am motherless, she is not my Mother. For you see, unlike mortal man, God cannot be boxed in. God is malleable and through omnipotence, God can be whatever I need God to be, whether it be male, female or simply the light of my world. So, as I embark on this new stage in my life, I will continue to leave myself open for God to exhibit divinity in my life and hope that where he leads me, I will follow.

Quote of the day

“Fortune sides with him who dares.”

-Virgil, Roman poet

Who’s on first, what’s on second, I don’t know’s…

on third. So someone is on deck, right? Here is this week’s edition of “On Deck…”:

Cold War Kids – Something Is Not Right With Me :: I am a big fan of Cold War Kids. I think I first heard one of their songs during an MTV show but I can’t remember. Oh now I remember – I heard there music on the Downtown Records’ website; that is the record label they are signed to (and to which I comically sent a demo). Anyway, the first song I heard by them was God, Make Up Your Mind and I really liked it. They kind of have a sound like Radiohead with a California soul on the beach vibe. So when I saw this newest track off their upcoming release Loyalty to Loyalty and it was a free download, I knew I had to get it and I did. It has that indie rock feel while not blowing your eardrums out. A cool band in my book…

Eric Benét – The Hunger :: This is the second single of Benét’s upcoming album Love and Life, which is slated for release next Tuesday. In my opinion, he is apparently moving in the direction of having a perhaps more organic relationship with his fans. So this video, as well as his first on this album, were filmed at a series of what appears to be block parties in his hometown of Milwaukee. I think it’s cool that he is looking to connect with his listeners in different ways and obviously, it brings a level of positive press to his old neighborhood such that those who currently live there can have pride in one of their own. I like the song; it is a kind of throwback to his early sound and affect. I’m looking forward to hearing the album.

Lauryn Hill – Ex-Factor :: In honor of the recent 10-year anniversary of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, I thought I would pay homage to “the best breakup song ever made” as per my significant other. Though much has been speculated about Hill and the aftermath of this album (there is a full oral history of it), I feel like the existence of such a record has left an indelible mark on and link between hip-hop becoming overtly mainstream and at least satisfactory in the eyes of dominant culture and yet somehow remaining wholly true to the art form and its intended interpretation. This album winning “Album of the Year” made it that much easier for the experimental genius of OutKast’s Speakerboxxx/The Love Below to win or Kanye West’s Graduation to even be nominated. And who’d have thunk that a little girl, with skinny legs and a pressing curl, who’s mother always thought she’d be a star, would have opened the door for other artists and their crafts to be appreciated on an international scale only for her to fade into the blackness of a recluse, writing lyrics on mirrors and toilet paper. What genius is left in Hill? We don’t know. But I think enough people crave her reentry into society that they will take anything to hear her rich contralto again.

Mint Condition – Nothing Left to Say :: Ever since I can remember knowing what Mint Condition was, I have liked them. The lead singer Stokley Williams is highly underrated as one of the preeminent voices in R&B/Soul to this day. And the band has always been sharp. I especially loved and bought their penultimate album Livin’ the Luxury Brown. So when I heard they were coming out with a new album, E-Life, I was excited. I listened to 30-second snippets on iTunes, and then my excitement waned. But that just goes to show you that the snippets don’t do some songs justice because when I heard this song on the radio, I thought it had the sounds of vintage Mint Condition a la Is This Pain Our Pleasure. They will always stand as one of the best bands in my book and they continue to pay homage to vintage soul music at its best while still carving new sonic paths for others to later traverse.

Adele – Chasing Pavements :: This song has been in my head for some reason ever since Labor Day. And then, lo and behold, she appears on The View today and I’m like maybe the song is just what I needed…? Though I would usually link the video, the reason why I linked the performance from The View today is for the small yet beautiful two seconds worth of vocals she has around 0:40 in the clip. I like her because for all of the old school appeal Amy Winehouse’s voice lends itself to, she seems like the more youthful alternative who is completely, and literally, happy in her own skin. Furthermore, she gives me hope that considering I am still young and would probably sing soul music over anything, maybe moving to London will be my ticket to stardom. 

We Are Scientists – Chick Lit :: To be honest, the only reason this song is on here is because while I was watching MTB4 on mtv.com, this song was being played during the online commercial slots. I like this band, as shown by a previous post, and I thought I would practice what I preached and give the 30-second snippets I hear more of an opportunity to invade my auricular cavities.

Feist – 1234 :: I have known this song for a while but never really got around to paying attention to it. Most people probably know the song from the Apple iPod Nano commercials it used to run in. But I actually started paying closer attention to the song when it received critical acclaim for its use in an episode of Sesame Street. I thought it was pure genius to commingle the two worlds of the elementary, in counting to the number four, and pop culture, by infusing this song by Feist, in order to educate impressionable minds. Furthermore, I am one who loves videos so the idea of a life-sized crayon box coming to life only made me love this song and Feist even more.

Honorable Mentions:

• Michael Jackson – Off the Wall
• Mya – Fallen
• Red Hot Chili Peppers – Breaking the Girl

Quote of the day

“Honesty is never lost in translation.”

-Derrick Brown, poet, from the poem, a kick in the chest

So here’s the thing…

about lying: I have engaged in dialogues before as to whether omitting the truth constitutes lying. And I have always taken the stance that it doesn’t because, unlike the proverbial courtroom oath, you can tell the truth, (not) the whole truth and nothing but the truth at the same time, so help you God. For example, say my girlfriend buy a nice dress but the shoes she buys with the dress, in my opinion, don’t match it. If she asks me how does the dress look, I’ll answer honestly: it looks great. Considering that she didn’t ask me about the shoes, there is no reason for me to pipe up and say that they don’t go with the dress because she may stylistically believe that it does. And after all, what adult likes being told that they are colorblind and can’t dress themselves…? So am I lying somehow through the omission of what I think about the shoes as relates to the dress or simply answering the direct question that was posed to me honestly? It would be different if she perhaps said, “How do I look?” because I would then reply, “I think the dress is nice, but the shoes don’t go with it”. But that’s not the question that was asked…

I say all of this because in light of yesterday’s bombshell confession that Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant, I think that the whole sins of omission and commission debate may, among other things, be the reason why the story won’t be left alone. But three things before I get to that:

Let me first say that many people jump on the bandwagon that the mistakes of children are directly related to bad parenting. But I will not join the maddening crowd and say that the Palins are bad parents. You see, at times, people can do exemplary jobs as parents. But that does not mean that their children cannot make honest mistakes (after all, humans are perfect…?) or that their children, in spite of the guidance and teaching of their parent(s), can still stray from those lessons because they have an invincibility cloak that they sport. What I mean by invincibility cloak is that children can be reared with the knowledge of right and wrong, good and bad, and still want to test the boundaries of life in order to prove to their parents and themselves that “those things can’t happen to me”. Likewise, some children also have the mentality that “I am going to do what I want, when I want, with whom I want and as much as I want” and they can live in households with parents who teach them the diametric opposite, i.e. for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction; you reap what you sow; there are always consequences for your actions, etc. I am a witness to both bad parenting and know-it-all children. So, this idea that “Palin doesn’t know what’s going on in her own house so she is obviously unqualified to lead” or “How can you lead a nation of people when you can’t even set an example of what’s right in your own household?” is not fair; her politics and experience alone are enough examples for people to decide the viability of her qualifications to lead. The family structure and the efficiency of it is a very touchy aspect with which to gauge someone’s capabilities. Furthermore, some people cannot even take care of themselves, sans family, and they are in positions of leadership. So we must be careful how quickly we judge because if the microscope were turned on us, many of the judgments being leveled against this family and this child would also be hurled at us. Number two, the viral nature of this story only shows the double standard regarding teen mothers and the boys/men who impregnate them. Would this story and the social ramifications being relegated on this 17-year-old be the same if the issue was reversed and involved her older brother Track and some unknown girl? OF COURSE NOT! And I would even assert that the hypothetical “unknown girl” he impregnated would probably be filling the shoes of Bristol right now. At times, I think that the oft-appearing scourge associated with teen pregnancy, not just in America but all over, further alludes to the general misogyny existent in our psyches. And no, I’m not saying that teen pregnancy is optimal or that it should be a more welcome part of society just because; I would not wish that any person, child or adult, who is not financially, emotionally, and physically ready to be responsible for an innocent and helpless child be entrusted with that duty. But I do understand that again, people are not perfect and make mistakes. Lastly, if the tables were turned and one of Obama’s daughters were pregnant, would the affect toward her be different than that expressed toward Bristol? I hate to say it, but I think it would be different and unfortunately, more negative…

Nevertheless, here’s what I think this news conveys: the family should have told the truth from the beginning instead of omitting it and McCain has been caught with his proverbial pants around his ankles, no pun intended.

  

Now, the picture on the left was taken and accompanied by an article, dated March 9, 2008, in the Anchorage Daily News, ironically talking about the buzz surrounding Palin as a possible VP candidate. (Now, some people say the photo was taken in 2006, others say March of this year; you’ll never know unless you query the newspaper and even then… But I do find it rather odd that the newspaper would publish a story about the family this year and use a photo that is two years old, give or take. Wouldn’t you think they would take and use an updated photo…?) Anyway, when this photo was taken article was published, it would have been in the vicinity of the unborn child’s conception (based on reports that Bristol is about five months pregnant, putting conception at mid-to-late March). This would have been the same time that her mother Sarah would have been carrying her brother Trig, who was born on April 18; Sarah was already four months pregnant in December. So, at the time of this picture article, we presume that Sarah Palin was already seven months pregnant. But if you notice, and here’s my art history background being utilized (Thanks UPenn!), Bristol is off to the side and (un)knowingly drawing attention to her belly whereas the rest of the family is more nuclear, touching each other in literal contact. Also, everyone else is smiling, while Bristol has more of a coquettish grin a la the Mona Lisa. Now, if this were a painting, one would reasonably infer that the four on the left are happy, or at least feigning happiness, while the one on the right appears to be an outcast, seemingly othered off to the side, meant to signal a difference between her and the people she is pictured with. Then the picture on the left, which we are sure was taken last Friday in Ohio, shows the othering of Bristol again. She stands out like a sore thumb, a makeshift bridge between the the cities of Palin and McCain. Yet while everyone else stands singular and individual, with their hands politely placed in front of them, she is holding her baby brother and covering her midriff with a coat. Again, we see a marked difference between how others are portrayed in juxtaposition to Bristol. Similarly, we also learned that as quiet as it was kept contiguously, in that land far, far away called Wasilla, this pregnancy was no secret. So by omitting a truth that enough people knew and would have inevitably leaked anyway when she, I don’t know, went into labor, does that cloud the collective “pride” you have in her decision to keep the child and marry the father who according to his now defunct MySpace profile, doesn’t want kids anyway? I think that may be why people, (mis)understandably so, are angry/peeved/judgmental among other things because with all the singing of “Stand By Your Daughter”, many of the instances in which that should have happened, did not. And furthermore, if from the beginning of the pregnancy, you had perhaps come out and said what was uttered yesterday, the blow would have perhaps been cushioned and the media fodder would have been hashed out months ago. After all, do you hear anything about the girls in Gloucester, Mass. anymore? And speaking of hashed out and months ago, those are perfect segues to my last point…

John McCain, pull up your pants. There was an obvious shroud and shred of doubt surrounding his decision to choose Palin based of her virtually unknown national political cred. However, all of these events only further affirm and confirm Luke’s admonition on the part of Palin and McCain. Nevertheless, this recent revelation only shows that McCain did not properly vet Palin and that they, specifically his campaign people, are lying. And here’s why:

Based on what they have said and what we have read, before Thursday of last week, McCain and Palin had met only once and spoken on the phone the same amount of times. Any conversations that occurred between Palin and McCain from February, when they first met at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, to last Sunday, when McCain called Palin while she was taking in the Alaska State Fair, were handled by his VP Vetting Committee. Now, let’s do some math: They first met in February. Bristol Palin is ~5 months pregnant, again putting conception around mid-to-late March. According to reports (this one, this one and this one are, in and of themselves, conflicting), McCain “knew all of it”, a la Karl Rove and Jeannette Haien, regarding the vetting process of Palin. But with the time line of their initial meeting and the full disclosure she shared with McCain about “all of it”, we know she couldn’t have told him in February because the daughter wasn’t even pregnant then. Some sources reported he knew all along about everything. Yet according to this list of 70 questions asked and answered, Palin only disclosed that her husband had a DUI 22 years ago and today, we find out that McCain was actually told last week about Bristol. So we can now confirm that between February and some time last week, Sarah still had not told him about the unborn child but rather the husband’s past indiscretion. (I highly doubt she told him on the phone while at the State Fair.) She then flew to Sedona, Arizona, met with McCain’s aides and was vetted some more before meeting MccCain for a second time on Thursday. So we are left to reason that she told him or the aides between Sunday and Thursday of last week, they decided that the situation was not enough to disqualify her, and come Friday, the ball was already rolling to announce her as the VP. And to that, I give a resounding YEAH RIGHT!!! We all know that didn’t happen. McCain either found out when everyone else did, his people were debriefed briefly before we found out or this weekend, when it was too late to turn back, they were told. And here’s why it makes McCain look bad: He “knows” Americans so well and apparently is the benchmark of sound judgment. Even if Palin wanted to take a chance and be McCain’s running mate in spite of the sociopolitical ramifications of her daughter’s pregnancy (which would be quite selfish because political families suffer enough), why would McCain choose to put himself through the media blitz occurring now and allow Palin to make such a decision? I agree – this situation should not have disqualified her from being considered; it is a private matter. But considering the nature of the beast, and by beast I mean the lamestream media and the American psyche with regard to teen pregnancy, the better judgment perhaps would have been to say to Palin, “Thank you but no thank you. Everyone in your town knows what’s going on and they remain tight-lipped; it should be kept a private matter and not given the public scrutiny that these kinds of circumstances lend themselves to.” And again, it’s not like there weren’t other women who were equally, if not more, qualified. It just meant that maybe campaign posters would have to wait and read “          /Palin ‘12“. Then again, I wonder if this was really a big ploy to energize the base and make him and her look even more like mavericks. Stranger things have happened. And yet you ask yourself, at the cost of people questioning your parenting and scrutinizing your family and kids, three of which are too young or simply unable to grasp the gravity of what people are calling you, your husband and daughter, you would still run for such an office? And it’s a sad state to face but some people would and will unequivocally say YES! After all, that’s the American way…

However, I am slowly but surely beginning to believe that Palin may stand to shock us even more. And for all this talk about Obama shifting positions/moving toward the right, if the fortune reads true, the Republicans may look like the left Democrats of yore when it is all said and done…

UPDATE: So continuing with the theme of admitting when I am wrong, when I read that CNN article about the 70-question survey, I was thinking that Palin answered the survey months ago and that the campaign occasionally made calls to Alaska to further vet her. But you’re telling me that McCain, who won the presumptive nomination in February and had almost SEVEN months to choose a running mate, you’re telling me that he and his campaign had not even literally sought Palin out properly until last Wednesday…? And mind you, during that interim ~7 months, McCain and some of the finalists, NOT including Palin, traveled with each other abroad, spent time at his house in Arizona; they lobbied for him on Meet the Press and other news shows, all things that in my mind would play up their qualifications. And yet, a process that took over six months for them, to no avail, took her only TWO DAYS!!!….??? And you want to talk about someone else’s judgment or lack thereof? He and she should be somewhere hiding under a rock…

Quote of the day

“When a man makes love to a woman, it’s like he’s getting revenge on everything that ever defeated him in life.”

-Sir Ben Kingsley, actor, from the film Elegy

How do you know when you’ve…

made love?

Is that a weird question to ask? I mean maybe the answer is simple enough or is it…?

So there’s this new movie out called Elegy; I haven’t seen it but I am a big fan of Sir Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, House of Sand and Fog, Sexy Beast) and I actually saw the movie trailer on mtv.com. (FYI, if you ever want to see the trailers for upcoming movies in any plethora of film genres, go to the Trailers section on MTV’s website; the trailers are updated pretty regularly and you may be surprised what you find. There are free music downloads too.) Anyway, the film looked interesting enough but I didn’t think about going to see it; I, as for many other movies, would just wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it or something. But my significant other in Chicago went to see it last night. She said it was OK (which didn’t move me anymore to go see it) but she did walk away with this gem:

At one point in the movie, Kingsley’s character says (this is going to be my quote of the day too):

When a man makes love to a woman, it’s like he’s getting revenge on everything that ever defeated him in life.

When she first said this to me, I was kind of confused because it didn’t seem to make any sense. In fact, my first response was “Well that doesn’t make any sense.” But after thinking about the quote and now wanting to see the movie in order to get a context for it, I began to ponder if it is at all possible to know whether you have made love and if, in fact, Kingsley’s quote is actually true.

Of course, I’m not so shallow as to recognize that when most people refer to “making love”, they are talking about coitus, i.e. the most intimate moments of life; the moments when you are literally the closest to another human being that you can be. There is the Hollywood version of lovemaking which really entails a lot of interesting camera lens shots and awkward body positions and swatches of cloth over nether regions. But in reality, lovemaking is perhaps the most vulnerable position, no pun intended, in which another human being can be. Unlike sex, lovemaking seems to tap more so into the emotional and not the carnal, the intimate and not the intimidating. Lovemaking brings two bodies of flesh together and they proverbially become one flesh – a living, breathing, feeling, emoting entity that seeks to express love through the passionate instead of the primitive. But last night when she told me the quote, I pondered whether making love is just relegated to the bedroom. For example, I sing and I definitely believe that you can make love with your voice; it is completely possible. I may have even done it myself…? Enough about me, say you love a certain flavor of ice cream and I decide to surprise you by going to Ben & Jerry’s and having an ice cream cake made with that favorite flavor. Is that a form of making love? I am making a conscious effort to think about what you love and because I love you, I choose to express my love by creating a tangible object of my affection. Or say I go grocery shopping and I see a greeting card with two kids on it that look like mirror images of us when we were younger and I buy the card because of the simple nuance it gives. Could I be making love? Or maybe it is that I am doing all of these things in order to have love made? Maybe it just doesn’t take a lot to make love, and by ‘lot’ I mean a romp fest…? I guess I just wonder if lovemaking and affection are mutually exclusive or the same thing in a different form, like 2 nickels and 1 dime. They both equal 10 cents; one quantity just carries a little more weight.

And then I wondered how valid that quote is. I don’t think I am giving anything away but apparently Kingsley utters the quote while ironicallymaking love to Penelope Cruz. Anyway, hmmm, when a man makes love to a woman, it’s like he is getting revenge on everything that ever defeated him in life. That’s a pretty weighty presumption. But you know, I thought about it long and hard, no pun intended again, and I realized, I think it is true.

So much of our society tells men that we are only really good enough to be leaders and sperm donors. (Is that too heavy?) There is no type of cultivation for the emotional well-being of men for fear of being considered weak or effeminate, which of course, is not the case at all. And yet, all of those forces, in and of themselves, are kinds of defeats. Why? Because when faced with yourself by yourself, you only further recognize and become a shadow of the man you perhaps wish to be, and that goes for men who are gay, straight, closeted, DoLo-ed, etc. (Is that too heavy again?) You are minimized by the maximum amount of facades society dictates you must wear as a man. And yet, when that pesky and ofttimes clandestine thorn called love pricks your innermost being and you find yourself in a vulnerable position, such as embarking on or in the midst of “making love”, it truly is revenge on everything that defeated you. Why? Because, if not for anything else, you consciously welcome yourself to be rendered susceptible to someone viewing as you wholly and truly are. And society of course debunks that because as a man, you are told you must be this way and you must not cry and you must not be an emotional wreck sometimes. (And honestly, and this is off topic, that’s why I have become endeared to Joe Biden; I know that’s random but in the short time that I have to come to know this man publicly, he has cried at least three times of note that I’ve seen. And each time, it was a mixture of sadness and joy that for some reason, some politicians and citizens stamp with a badge of vulnerability. But I truly appreciate someone who can recognize, in earnest, that in spite of what life has dealt me, I can still be grateful and awestruck by what life has also availed to me.) And yet when you find yourself “making love”, whether defined as the actual physical act or the smaller and perhaps more profound act(s), the end you are looking to achieve, that ultimate experience and expression of passion manifested tangibly, is not diminished by the amount of work you put toward reaching it. In fact, I would say you may work even harder just to be able to fully enact revenge on every ounce of life’s defeats that sought to allay you, with the eventual hope of actually winning.

And what do you win?

A helpmate; someone who knows you in the most intimate of ways and yet doesn’t judge you for it (if your partner does, that’s not love); a best friend who you can confide in completely; someone who you can laugh with and not feel self-conscious about how hearty it is; someone who you have visions of building a home with and hearing the pitter-patter of little feet on the hardwood floors; someone who completes the pictures of you and the kids on the fireplace; someone, who in spite of your defeats, allows you to lovingly enact revenge on them in order to become the man they always knew you could be and then some; someone who holds you up when you’re at your lowest; someone who is the literal rib of your completion.

That’s what you win as a man – you become yourself, unabashed and unashamed; beautifully and wonderfully made – you.

And maybe what I just wrote is a bit too optimistic or whimsical. But I feel like when you know love and you have earnestly “made” it, there’s no hiding it; it shows on your face, in your manner, it’s undeniable. And furthermore, perhaps the agony of defeat is really just a catalyst for the thrill of victory.

Gospel = Good News!

Quote of the day

“As one knows the poet by his fine music, so one can recognize the liar by his rich rhythmic utterance, and in neither case will the casual inspiration of the moment suffice. Here, as elsewhere, practice must precede perfection.”

-Oscar Wilde, author

So what do you do when…

you engage in something you love and a group of people tell you that in spite of how good you are, we will not recognize you in the same way we recognized someone else?

So I read this story on Thursday or Friday of this week and then read it again today and kind of didn’t know how I felt about the stance taken but just bear with me…

I am a big fan of Robin Thicke. I first liked Robin Thicke when he was just Thicke and looked like a bohemian Jesus Christ riding his bicycle in the middle of New York City traffic and invoking Beethoven. And I still liked him when his newest single and video debuted at the conclusion of an episode of the once popular show The OC, in which he kind of cleaned up his look, put on all black and had a sharper motif for his jones. And I liked him when my friend told me about his song Vengas Conmigo. And I was honestly one of the first people to go out and buy his latest album, The Evolution of Robin Thicke, at my school and tell all my friends about it because of this track for the lyrics and this track for the groove and this track for the overall sentiments it evokes. And in turn, I saw all of my friends buy it and find his music as endearing as I did and do.

I always found it interesting that a lot of his success has been due soully to the black community because like many lighter skinned artists before him, we have taken him in as our own. Heavy rotation on our urban radio stations definitely helped to catapult this latest album in ways that did not help his first album, which eventually flopped. We have him come play at our venues, with predominantly black audiences, in the urban tundra and he performs on our culturally elite’s stage and he plays on CD players in our cars and on our iPods and he comes out with our jams. And yet, with all of that blackness he perhaps assumes and we consume, and I would even venture to say throw on to him, you would think he would perhaps cover one of black culture’s most well-known publications, Vibe. But unfortunately, as told to Thicke during an interview, that is not the case because

[We] don’t put white artists on our covers.

???

Then in the next breath, they say

The only white artist [we've] had on the cover was Eminem.

???

And Thicke, in my opinion, in the most diplomatic way possible, replied saying

This is a magazine I love. If there’s one magazine that I’d want to be on the cover of, it’s Vibe. Their response was they don’t have white artists on the cover; that the only white artist they’ve had on the cover was Eminem. I guess if that’s what it is, it is what it is. And I respect that because I live in a house with a black woman.

I won’t use the word “racism.” I will say it’s a tough — but rewarding — fight. I look at Mary J. Blige, somebody who has had only a few pop hits and yet has changed culture, generated new sounds and inspired leagues of artists. She’s now a worldwide phenomenon. And it’s because of what she stood for; she never gave up. She kept making great music, pouring her heart out to people.

You can’t always expect people to be as color-blind or open-minded as you want. What you can do is keep giving your heart and soul, like Bob Marley did. His music became so overwhelmingly loving; it was a relentless love in a sense. Keep beating them down with love and they can’t stop you.

This is tough, kind of…? So the major point, and it is a rather obvious one, is that you can’t tell Thicke that you don’t put white people on your cover and then turn around and say but we made an exception once with Eminem. That’s such a blatant hypocrisy that the magazine should change its name to Hypocrite…? And furthermore, whoever works for the magazine doesn’t know much about it’s history and should be fired for false advertising…?; Eminem is not the only white person to cover the magazine and the one white person (that I could find) featured on the cover by himself is basically Robin Thicke in a younger, reworked, street credited, once-a-boy-bander version, whose has much of his success at the hands of Timbaland, a black man…

        

The other issues, no pun intended, are a tad more complicated and so as to not be too long-winded, I am going to try and illumine them in as few words as possible…

It’s your magazine and you can do what you want. But I feel like there’s something more to saying that to Thicke, as shown above, but also pay attention to Thicke’s response; he invokes the black woman he lives with, that being actress Paula Patton, and how much he loves Vibe and then talks about “killing people with kindness”, something my parents even instilled in me.

My friend believes that maybe the magazine differentiates between Thicke and Eminem because of the lines drawn by race and class, i.e., Eminem’s upbringing is more symbolic of a “black experience”: poor, lower class, poverty-stricken. But I believe that at the end of the day, no matter what class system we live under, there is a level of privilege that comes with whiteness that can transcend that; they are still white men and we are not. And for all intents and purposes, not every black person grew up experiencing life like Kanye West or Jay-Z, whose upbringings, in and of themselves, are very different. So by alluding to a “black(er) experience” as lived by white people is flimsy at best. Likewise, I think that Thicke, even in his innocence(?), was very calculating by invoking his black wife. For those of you who may not know, Vibe magazine was launched by Quincy Jones. Now, Jones is notorious for his penchant for women of the lighter hue. In fact, all of his children are biracial, usually with European mothers. So was Thicke invoking his own wife a coincidence? You be the judge of that. Nevertheless, I bring this up because I think the magazine appears even more suspect because by having that stance of no white people on the cover, they seemingly deny/judge the decisions of the man who launched the magazine to have children with whomever he wants, namely white women, that the magazine he launched wouldn’t even put on the cover…? Furthermore, many of the people they put on these covers have relationships with black people, women in particular, that are questionable at best; many of the images created by those on the magazine’s cover (Nelly’s Tip Drill video or R Kelly’s videotaped escapades) and the language they use (ahem Kanye West’s “…I’ll do anything for a blonde dyke…” and the now commonplace use of the ‘b’ curse) make Thicke’s love song where his own wife is the video ingenue pale in comparison. I wonder if this was all Quincy Jones’ intent when he started Vibe…

Similarly, if anything, Thicke, as an artist, poses significantly less controversy than Eminem. After all, there is no evidence, that we know, of Thicke using historically sensitive and offensive racial slurs. Furthermore, as I kind of alluded to earlier in this post, I think we, as black people, sometimes do a disservice to ourselves and to the people who we “take in” as our own. I have no doubt that the reason Thicke asked, though tacky in its execution, to be on the cover of a magazine he “loves” is due to a false sense of assimilation. Who inculcated that belief? Black people. We tell him, “You’re one of us – a brother from another mother!”, “You’re black!”, “You’ve been nominated for a BET Music Award.” and he, of course, begins to believe it and seemingly questions himself because of his own love for the culture, the passion with which he has sought to learn about it, and the othering he feels from without, as well as within:

And yet, when forced to recognize, through the success of the Timberlakes of this world and the Stefanis of this world and the Eminems of this world (and the lack of success of black artists who have been playing the same game for years and are equally, if not more, talented), that the bread these white artists provide for their families is rooted in an art form that, though beloved by them, has historically been stolen, used, abused and further marketed as a hybridized shell of its former self, only then do we, black people, begin to recognize the aesthetic differences between us and them as revealed through skin color. All of this is to the detriment of Thicke’s comfort, and other artists as well, and to our historic and continued commodifying reality. Likewise, considering the history and current state of black people being kept out of mainstream media through such outlets as magazine covers and the like and in turn, calling the media and those outlets “racist”, is it fair that when given the opportunity to have those same outlets and forms of media for ourselves, we do the exact same thing to others that was perpetrated against us, while still not being called “racist” because of our newfound “agency” or prior lack thereof?

And in the end, I think the interviewer could have been as “tacky” in responding to Thicke as Thicke was in even asking that question. All the interviewer really had to say to Thicke, due to the history of white people on the magazine’s cover and the now bombastic lie, was that maybe we haven’t put you on the cover of our magazine because we just don’t want to/we don’t like you, whether that’s the case or not (I more believe the latter suggestion due to these recent revelations).

After all, the truth, or some semblance of it, may always be better than a lie.

UPDATE: The Editor-in-Chief of Vibe has issued a passive-agressive (and heavy on the passive) statement regarding Robin Thicke’s “thoughts on race and R&B”. But according to some people, the reason why they didn’t go with Thicke for the October cover was because they had a more “viable” cover already laid out. I guess skin (or lack thereof) is still in…

UPDATE: So maybe Ciara was the better choice; I get the picture now…

UPDATE: And the plot continues to thicken…

Quote of the day

“You can’t expect to meet the challenges of today with yesterday’s tools and expect to be in business tomorrow.”

-Anonymous

So as per usual, I’ll admit that I was wrong again;…

McCain didn’t choose Clinton; he chose Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. But maybe Clinton, and a whole list of other people, would have been better choices…?

So after last night’s rousing good time in Denver, and furthermore knowing that McCain was going to make his announcement in Ohio today, when I received a text message this morning from my significant other in Chicago that stated

McCain picked a chick as VP. He’s definitely going to win

I was thinking to myself, “Well that’s surprising…?” and furthermore that perhaps my conjecture stated above would come to fruition. But again, I fell just short (?) of being right. So I called her and asked who he chose and she says to me the Governor of Alaska, and I’m not gonna lie: I laughed out loud and then proceeded to say, “Now I know Obama is going to win.” But I have come off of my high horse and am ready to face these realities:

• McCain choosing her was both a politically expedient and adept move at the same time
• I personally would prefer Obama’s lack of experience to hers, as one commenter said, “seven days a week and twice on Sunday”
• There are obviously more people qualified than she is and they WERE NOT all men or politicians, which is why as politically expedient/adept the decision was, it was also …. (fill in the blank) and 
• If McCain really wanted to scare the Democratic Party, he should have chosen Condoleezza Rice.

McCain’s choice is obviously a smart move, to which if i saw him, I would probably stand and applaud. The first thing I actually said when told Palin was Governor of Alaska was “Oh well, outside of the obvious, he picked her because on ANWR and oil.” But oops, I was wrong…? And then, I learned, as most Americans are today, Republican and Democrat alike, that she is an NRA lifetime member (that covers the guns debate); a mother of five touted as a “hockey mom” with an oldest son, Track, who is enlisted in the Army and ready to be deployed to Iraq at any moment, and a youngest son, Trig, who in the womb, according to reports, was diagnosed with having Down Syndrome, but she still decided to give birth to him because she is pro-life, which is highly admirable considering that many people have not/may not make that choice for themselves or their children (that covers the womanhood, motherhood, military exposure/toll, pro-life/choice, ethics and interesting children’s names debates); and she touts her tough standards and stances on ethics reform, energy and natural resources (that covers the character and environment debates). But (un)fortunately, all of that pales in comparison to the first thing I said when I, like many people, put a face to the name this morning: “Wow, she seems to be an attractive woman”. Chauvinist as it may be, it seems like McCain may also have chosen this first runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant and Miss Congeniality because it pits the themes of aesthetic beauty in this election: the two popular kids in school with movie star good looks are helping their father-like/-looking counterparts achieve dreams untold. I guess we will have to wait until November to see whether the prom king or queen will be crowned.

Similarly, I cannot help but agree with Bill Burton today who said

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency…Experience is being taken off the table considering you’re putting someone within a heartbeat of the presidency with the thinnest foreign policy experience in history.

or Senator Chuck Schumer who said

It is a real role of the dice and shows how John McCain, Karl Rove et al realize what a strong position the Obama-Biden team and Democrats in general are in in this election. Certainly the choice of Palin puts to rest any argument about inexperience on the Democratic team and while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling. I particularly look forward to the Biden-Palin debate in Missouri.

It almost seems, and by almost seems I mean is, laughable that McCain would dare suggest that Obama is not capable of leading because he is inexperienced because his choice alone has only been the Governor of her state for two years. And OK, granted, she served in the local government as Mayor of the small town (or as Keith Olbermann referred to, hamlet) of Wasilla, AK, but if that were the case Mayor Michael Bloomberg from NY would have been a perfect candidate as well; he is an Independent and he definitely has more “experience”. Or Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) who many pundits labeled inexperienced because

Kaine’s not only a foreign-policy rookie–he’s rookie, period. In fact, he’s the only candidate on Obama’s list–long or short–who’s served less time in *major* statewide office (two-and-a-half years) than Obama himself. Reasonable people can argue over whether this greenness would hamper his vice presidency. But there’s little doubt that Kaine’s skimpy CV, more than any other top contender’s, would help Republicans crystallize their most convincing attack on Obama–he’s not ready to lead. Kaine expands the “inexperience” target instead of shrinking it, or even leaving it the same size.

And lo and behold, John McCain not only turns around and does the exact same thing people feared Obama would do (and didn’t), but Obama has even had more experience in “major statewide office” than McCain’s choice. Her time in major statewide office *drum roll please* – two years. She says 12 years(?) but I guess she’ll have to SHOW ME THE MATH!!! a la Cuba Gooding, Jr. in Jerry Maguire. Furthermore, at least Obama can say that he worked with Biden or saw/spoke to him on a consistent basis when the Senate convened every year. How many times has McCain himself seen or at least conversed with Palin? Twice, (three times if you count the phone conversation at the Alaska State Fair) with the second time they actually sat and talked with each other being yesterday, when he asked her to be his running mate and the first time being February of this year at the National Governors Association meeting, where they first met. So you have had a relationship with basically a complete stranger for all of 6 months, which consisted of two “meetings” and a phone call and you’re now ready to leave this country in her hands if perchance something happens to you? Excuse my language but most people don’t even give it up that easily. Indeed, the debate between Biden and Palin in Missouri will be interesting but I think it further plays into why McCain chose her as illumined to me by a friend today. Considering the delicate tension abounding in this country with regard to those who fall on the opposite ends of the chromosomal pool of XX and XY (and the racial pool of white and non-white…?) and further considering Biden’s penchant for having a finely tuned tongue (…first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean…), perhaps his fiery words and comportment may be painted as sexist this time around and rile up an already angry and offended group of (white) women who feel the election was stolen from them, thus making it that much easier to have Palin be their new shero because the big bad bull shark is preying on the helpless Barracuda? Just saying (and that’s oxymoronic–barracudas are predators too)…

Likewise, and I’ll try to be short from here on out so as not to keep you here long, there were any number of people who are “more qualified” than Palin is and they were not necessarily all men, white or politicians (not that the three are mutually exclusive…?) Here are just a few:

• Former Secretary of State Colin Powell
• Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
• Former Ebay CEO Meg Whitman
• Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
• Current Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
• Current Connecticut Governor, M. Jodi Rell (my home state)
• Current North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole (who ran for President in 2000)
• Current Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (he is an Independent and flip-flopper but it would have been a marked change from the past and apparently he was the top choice but was not chosen for fear that it would cause backlash throughout the GOP)
• Current Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (who gave Palin a ringing endorsement today…?)

The list goes on, and those are just the Republicans, with an Independent thrown in for good measure. Now of course, I missed one person in particular which leads me to my penultimate point:

Condi, Condi, CONDI. You know what would have scared people, and I mean literally and figuratively, would have been choosing her. For all the negative pub she gets from some black people and her seemingly poor judgment in party unity and relationships(?), people cannot deny her intelligence, as adeptly enumerated in that article alone. And in no way am I accounting for intelligence through degrees, but I mean she is a force to be reckoned with and probably more decorated than the four left standing combined. She speaks five languages, is Phi Beta Kappa, has a PhD centering on, of all things, military policy and politics in Czechoslovakia (sound appropriate?) and actually left the Democratic Party in 1982 because she disagreed with the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter. Come on! She would have been perfect and preliminary polls already showed a McCain-Rice ticket would have beaten an Obama-Clinton ticket (or vice versa) in one of the most left-leaning states in the US: New York! She has foreign policy cred, and for all intents and purposes, she has been an ambassador for the US time and time again abroad since holding a position in the Bush administration. Notwithstanding her politics, she is also an accomplished pianist and a football enthusiast. If McCain wanted to lock up this nomination and be assured of an inauguration come January, choosing Rice would have had all Democrats shaking in their boots and furthermore, probably converted some of them. And with the anniversaries of the March on Washington 45 years ago and the culmination of the Suffrage Movement 88 years ago this week, Rice, in the words of Michelle Obama, is

crosscurrents of that history, knowing that [her] piece of the American dream is a blessing hard-won by those who came before [her],…

the complete embodiment, racial and gendered, of the “change” this country has been looking for. And why wasn’t she chosen? How about I not enumerate all the reasons but rather I ask this one, simple question:

What is the difference between Condoleezza Rice and Sarah Palin? The answer – their experience and their race. For you see, too much change makes for a dull country and an even duller affect for wanting to be better in general. Too much change hurts and only when people are committed to changing themselves can that much change, i.e. two black people of different genders being up for the highest, most powerful offices in the world of different parties, fully shatter the still intact glass ceiling with 18 million cracks in it. And speaking of 18 million cracks…

To be honest, in spite of whatever issues I and others may have with her, I feel the worst for Hillary Clinton. Why? Well, because for all of the work she’s done throughout her life in order to come to a place where history could be made and ultimately involve her and her personal/political dreams, someone else, definitively less qualified than she, may reap the benefits. I agree with many pundits: maybe in their debate, Biden should make the obvious statement of “Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton!” in order to further weaken the affect asserted by McCain’s people that this decision was to further court Clinton voters, who apparently only voted for her because she’s a woman, which could be/is the case. But then again, we, as Americans, have a tendency to (dis)enjoy hearing the ulterior motives/the truth of the reasoning behind why we do what we do. But I guess if Clinton is fine with it, we might as well be too. I guess the only questions left to ponder are:

• In this election cycle, which change will mean more to people: race or gender, if either of those at all?
• Is it politically astute for McCain to have Palin compare herself to Clinton fully recognizing the depth of service for one and the dearth of service for the other?
• When do you fully recognize you are being used – when people in your own party think that choosing you is a kind of Hail Mary pass/that you are qualified only because you are old enough and a U.S. citizen or when a talk radio personality, also a member of your party, lifts more platitudes about your personal life than your record while suggesting that you were actually a good choice because of your looks?
• Who is more foolish: Obama, who according to PUMA wearers should have chosen a woman before McCain did or the PUMA people themselves who are being duped into believing that McCain doesn’t think they are stupid and may still vote for him anyway just because a woman, who disagrees with everything they believe in, is a woman, like the woman they agreed with the whole time? And talk about ending affirmative action…
• Considering Hillary Clinton’s loss to Obama, if she had won and not chosen him as her VP, would that mean that McCain would have chosen a black man/Republican? (The answer to this question is easy: No! Though I mentioned Colin Powell above and perhaps JC Watts would be a good choice(?), we all know that wouldn’t have happened…) and
• Why is it that whenever Barack Obama endeavors to do something on a national scale, white men and a white woman stand en contra to his goal…?

Laugh, it’s sarcasm; we all know the answer to the last question…

Oh yeah, and Happy 72nd Birthday John McCain…

UPDATE: My question as to the strategy of invoking Hillary Clinton was answered yesterday with a smattering of boos…

UPDATE: I guess when one of the people who assumed the responsibility of making sure you were properly vetted can only name one decision (which isn’t yours anyway) to support your foreign policy experience, either you weren’t vetted well or an unwise choice was made. Thanks Tucker! And now that someone is canceling already scheduled appearances, it appears that a whole slew of people are scrounging to keep their collective tails from between their legs.