…and that Sultry Southern Sexpot Susan Sarandon (…Part II of Art, Sport and now Sex)

People often ask what drives me.* I reply: women, art, and sports.** Given that my recent posting (see below) discussed an intersection of art and sport, I was surprised that I had the self-restraint not to pull sex into the discussion. Well, turns out I don't. My mind started wandering and my pen followed. But for the sake of brevity, I will limit this posting to how these themes collide in... North Carolina.

I have an affinity for the Carolinas, partly because of a fling I had with a young woman one warm winter in Durham. Mary--that was her name--taught me that there are nine different types of intelligence, one of which is physical intelligence. This revelation cultivated a deeper appreciation for the intensity and aesthetics of sport. It elevated athleticism beyond mere "skill." Jeter's backhanded grabs were not mere training but a form of genius that could be as graceful as a Raphael and explosive as a Picasso, or as sloppy as a Pollack and banal as a Warhol; all of this in the utilitarian pursuit of victory. I was a born-again sports fan. Then I looked into Mary's eyes and forgot what we were taling about. Which is good because that is a rambling diversion from the following segway: Homeward bound from this romantic romp, I passed the Durham Bulls baseball stadium and realized it had been too long since I had last seen Bull Durham, that classic rumination on sex and sport starring...

Susan Sarandon playing Annie Savoy--another sultry southern sexpot from North Carolina. Annie is intensely seductive in a unique way. Physically, the actress does not awe me, but the character deeply and lustfully draws me. She is an independent woman ("I don't believe a woman needs a man to be fulfilled") with high standards for philosophy (metaphysics v. theology), poetry (Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman) and men ("I'd never sleep with a player hitting under .250 unless he had a lot of RBIs or was a great glove man up the middle"). The subtle irony, hidden messages, double entendres and self-awareness packed into this last line are succintly brilliant.

Annie also taught me four valuable lessons. One: never wear socks during sex. ("You think Dwight Gooden leaves his socks on?") Two: poetry is an aphrodisiac. She had me writhing when she teasingly purred the ebb and flow of Whitman for foreplay. Three: the small of a woman's back is so hot it could light a fire. And four: kisses should be "long, slow, deep, soft, wet and last for seven days."

Ok, so the last one came from the Crash Davis character, but he gets Annie in the end. And she knocks my socks off.

-------------

*Ok, people don't "often" ask me this. But they should ask me more often. I really like this question because it reveals a lot about a person.

**This is only 2/3 correct. Really I say "women, art, and whiskey." The first two remain true, but getting drunk is getting boring. Sports are closing in on the third spot, but not quite there. Plus, even these numbers are inaccurate, as I should also include friends and family up there. But by the time I get this far into clarifications, people are bored.

Hoagland and Others Sound the Alarm on R2P

Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland recently sounded the alarm on the international community's failure to protect civilians in the eastern Congo's outbreak of violence, warning it could herald the death of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. R2P, adopted by the UN in 2005, asserts the responsibility of the international community to intervene in countries to protect civilians from mass atrocities when their own governments cannot or will not. But, Hoagland worried, the principle is "being buried in the killing fields of eastern Congo... 'never again' has become 'sorry about that.'" Coming on the heels of the international community's failure to act on the Darfur tragedy in Sudan, he continued, "eastern Congo may be the final nail in the coffin of R2P."

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner echoed Hoagland's concern, calling the situation a "very damaging... turning point." The silver lining may be that the recent violence highlights the need to resuscitate the principle. Analyses from around the world are making the case. The Financial Times argued for sending an EU force to assist the UN peacekeepers and send a message of intent. Kenya's Business Daily urged the international community to "step in and disarm all the combatants." A recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations declared that the UN peacekeepers are "the only plausible force" to secure the region.

On a more promising note, Hoagland and Kouchner acknowledge that an attentive Obama administration could help resuscitate R2P. His administration "could change everything," Kouchner said, "and not only for America. You Americans have just held a world election. President Obama should not wait to show what that means."

The Most Perfect Perfect Game Never Pitched (…Part I of Art and Sport)

The pursuit of perfection is plump with peril and profit. Alliteration aside, this is why I love when art and sport mix. They have seemingly different approaches to this pursuit. The inherently subjective nature of art renders "perfection" an almost meaningless word. For an artist, it suggests satisfaction--that limited ambition Johnny Depp demurred to be the "death of an artist." Artists nonetheless pursue perfection (masochists!) defining it subjectively and individually. Obviously, this makes comparing and valuing one artwork vis-a-vis another difficult as there exists no accepted criteria to dictate "what" is "better" (nor should there). The post-modern, independent hipster further complicates this matter. When indie is trendy and indie is irony, meaning blurs and fuses with futility. So who knows, Dave Eggers asks, "What is the what?" Not so with sports, where the scoreboard is all that matters. This is why I love when art and sport mix and the pursuit of subjective and objective perfection collide.

There is no more clearly defined achievement of perfection in sport than baseball's "perfect game": one pitcher, 9 innings, 27 batters up, 27 batters out, no runs, hits, walks, or errors. Perfect. No room for subjective or objective disagreement. Or so I thought...

...until I heard the song "Harvey Haddix" (listen to it here) by a band aptly named "The Baseball Project." The tune tells the true story of its namesake: a Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher who on May 29, 1959 threw a perfect game through 12 innings--I repeat, not 9 but 12--only to give up one homerun in the 13th to ruin the most spectacular pitching spectacle ever exhibited. To put this in perspective, only 17 pitchers in baseball's history have thrown perfect games--all of which lasted 9 innings. Haddix raised the bar on... perfection... by 33%! Had his feeble teammates produced one run in extra innings, he would be a household name for pitching The Most Perfect Perfect Game. As is, his opponent (throwing a mere shut-out--laughable!) got the win and Haddix the loss. Oh the cruelty of objectivity. So is Haddix a tragic loser or unsung hero? Here's the band's take:

"The search for perfection is a funny thing, at least as I've been told

It drives you nuts, it makes you curse and eats away at your soul

Sometimes better ain't better, sometimes justice just ain't served

Sometimes legend isn't laid where it's most deserved."

Perplexed and distraught at Haddix's doomed fate to never appear on that most distinguished list of perfect game pitchers, the band asks, "Why don't we add old Harvey to that list?" Marc Hirsh touches on the underlying irony that if they got their wish, "the pitcher would simply be one man out of 18. As it is, Haddix stands alone." Then is this loss paradoxically the best game ever pitched? The band continues:

"Humanity is flawed as the losers will attest

We're drawn to tragic figures, the ones that suit us best

But for 12 innings on that fateful day, old Harvey was a God

A perfect game if nothing else because perfection's always flawed."

This is the ambiguity of perfection and the beauty of baseball; thank you, art, for articulating it.

Shake the Fake and Deal the Real

Awkwardly incompetent authority is one theme in comedy that bonds us all in laughter. It makes The Office a successful sitcom and Sarah Palin an unsuccessful VP candidate. In her latest episode, Palin talks of "real" and "fake" America. Is anyone willing to tell me New York is any less "American" than Wasilla (or vice versa)? Whoever is holds a very narrow, exclusive, divisive and retrograde understanding of America. The fact is there are multiple and differentiated experiences of "America," not just one. Here's a plot twist: how about a candidate that understands the value of all areas of the country? Hmm, I think Colin Powell said it best:

"The approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama at the same time has given us some more broader inclusive reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. And I've also been disappointed frankly by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign has, on issues that are not central to the problems that the American people are worried about."

But what would Powell or I know? We're from the fake America.

“What are you waiting for?”: Character Revelations of the Third Presidential Debate (… or the Unbearable Lightness of Indecision)

In the torrid wake of the third presidential debate, I pose (in awe) one question for undecided voters: what are you waiting for?! The previous two debates revealed policy stances (in so far as two minute speaking slots can summarize complex problems). Thanks to Schieffer's penetrating questions and McCain's exegesis to throw a knock-out, the third revealed character. So then, who won? And does it matter? Surely you have an opinion. Or a defense. Shall we discuss over coffer or tea? You decide... ok, then I will.

McCain's vociferous approach kept Obama on the defensive. Many analyses will give this tactical advantage to McCain, thereby projecting a passionate McCain pro-actively taking control of the debates. Obama strode in with the lead and didn't go for the kill, seeking to portray a calm, resolute confidence as a necessity in these tumultuous times. Voters are left to decide: the passionate, aggressive McCain or the steadfast, focused Obama. However, this is a Picasso depiction: good from far but far from good.

I was decided before the debate on policy; last night cemented my decision on personality. At the beginning of this campaign, I respected both candidates: Obama for his intelligence and potential, McCain for his dedication and integrity. In fact, I calmly concluded that this government would be in trustworthy hands regardless of the outcome. I am no longer so certain. The resulting race has revealed an increasingly competent and focused Obama and an increasingly petty and impotent McCain. The VP selection was a turning point. Biden is a long-term focused choice. He does not bring a surge of votes to the ticket; he brings post-election value in terms of experience and expertise. Palin brings nothing but votes. She is starkly unqualified for the position and was clearly picked to arouse a surge of voter motivation. I lost respect for McCain for selecting such an unqualified person for such a high position. It was a short-term focused choice that put election first, country second.

The third debate did little to change these trajectories. Obama tried to steer the debates to policy rather than personality, but McCain focused on the latter. I had not held McCain responsible for the many inappropriate and irrelevant accusations continuously hurled at Obama regarding Ayers and ACORN (Swiftboat anyone?), even as his cumbersome running mate disrespectfully tried to sow these tethered threads. A recent Politico cartoon labeled "Mountains and Mole Hills" hits the nail on the head. It depicts the media obsessively huddled around a group of mole hills labeled "Ayers, Wright and Keating," oblivious to the mountainous words "WAR, ECONOMY, JOBS and HEALTH CARE" looming in the background. (http://www.politico.com/wuerker/) Last night McCain drew himself into that cartoon. After blaming and chastising Obama for this race's negativity, he proceeded to use those very same tactics with no hint of irony or self-awareness. He would not drop Ayers and ACORN. Keep beating that dead horse old man; it reveals how out of touch you are. America has moved past these flimsy accusations; it's time you did the same. McCain was petty to link Obama to terrorism.

Obama's response was unflinchingly assured. His clear explanation of the limited relations highlighted the baseness of the accusations, capped off with this zinger: "I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign... says more about your campaign that it says about me." That is the night in a nutshell. This was the debate's pattern: McCain attacks Obama, Obama's defense neutralizes the attack, occasionally revealing the desperation behind it. For example, McCain accused his opponent of condoning Rep. Lewis's remarks when in fact Obama's campaign (and later Lewis) immediately declared the remarks inappropriate. When McCain tagged Obama's suspicious votes on abortion and education, the democrat clearly explained how the votes were due to the bills' unjust clauses that McCain neglected to mention, suggesting McCain had either not done his homework or was mischievously distorting the reasoning. The democrat's adept counter-attacks occasionally won him points, particularly when illustrating how autism education would suffer from McCain's spending-freeze hatchet, highlighting the advantage of Obama's scalpel. McCain talked personality, Obama responded with policy.

McCain likewise had his strong moments, most memorably: "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." Very effective. Perhaps legitimate, but I wouldn't know because he preoccupied himself with railing Obama rather than explaining how he differs from Bush. He rightly criticized Obama's worrisome record of consistently towing the democratic party line while highlighting his own bipartisan successes. I respect McCain for repeatedly standing up to his party (immigration, campaign finance, etc.), but recently he has rallied around the most ill-repute of his party's orthodoxy. Unfortunately for McCain, foreign policy was not discussed. While Obama demonstrates an impressively nuanced understanding of this field--supposedly his disadvantage--his insistence on a rapid withdrawal timeline is shaky. Yes, his opposition to Iraq from the start was brave and prescient. But the main concern now is what must be done, not what should have been done. McCain staked his career on supporting the surge; its success credits his foresight. Let's hope Obama keeps this in mind if in office.

But the confident McCain of the past has not shown up in this campaign. Instead, we've seen an honorable man slouch to a jittery, petty curmudgeon. Obama's gazelle-like grace and his self-assured, focused approach is the kind of leadership the government needs in such perilous times. There is a paradoxical tragedy (or humor) in that if McCain loses, Bush will have effectively destroyed the careers of the two most respectable Republicans of the last two decades: McCain and Powell. But then again, you reap what you sow.