-Liz Koch

-Paul Engle, American poet

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.

-Virgil, Roman poet

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

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

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…

-Sir Ben Kingsley, actor, from the film Elegy

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.