We were watching the spelling bee finals on TV tonight and learned a new word. A young girl informed us that a "kakistocracy" is a government by the worst persons possible.
So that's what Bush has been running all this time!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
New Painting Revisited
Last month, I posted a picture of a new painting, called "The Soccer Game". I was a bit premature. (My wife says I'm premature in other things, too, but let's not go there). The picture was of five boys playing soccer in front of a war-torn building, and was in the April 17th post if you want to go take a look at it.
I went back and revised it. The reason was that the five boys competed for attention with the bullet-blasted wall, and there wasn't a single center of interest. It was like I couldn't make up my mind: which was more important pictorally, the wall or the kids? So I painted out four of the five boys. Now it feels in harmony. The wall is the dominant feature: it tells the real story of what happened there. The boy is in a supporting role, telling about how life is returning. Actually, the weeds are in a supporting role, too: they say that the fighting has been over for a while.
So here's the new version:
I went back and revised it. The reason was that the five boys competed for attention with the bullet-blasted wall, and there wasn't a single center of interest. It was like I couldn't make up my mind: which was more important pictorally, the wall or the kids? So I painted out four of the five boys. Now it feels in harmony. The wall is the dominant feature: it tells the real story of what happened there. The boy is in a supporting role, telling about how life is returning. Actually, the weeds are in a supporting role, too: they say that the fighting has been over for a while.
So here's the new version:
Monday, May 21, 2007
Stupid Criminals Department
I was talking with somebody today about, of all things, credit-card fraud. I don't have a clue how that got started. I was telling the young lady about how our American Express cards were compromised once. She told me that a friend of hers recently had her debit card information stolen. It didn't take the police long to figure out who did it, though: the guy used it to pay his income taxes!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Political Developments
It's been a while since I last posted, and since then there have been a number of interesting political developments that I just have to comment on.
Paul Wolfowitz finally resigned today. Hurray! Here's a guy who was one of the most important people in crafting our insanely stupid war with Iraq. He was rewarded for this unbelievable blunder with the post of President of the World Bank. And promptly showed his true colors by giving his girlfriend a hefty pay raise. So now he's out and whining about it. He ought to consider himself lucky that he's not on trial as a war criminal in the Hague.
Alberto Gonzalez is holding on to his job for the time being. George Bush is standing by his man in true Bush fashion: no matter how incompetent his appointee is, and how flagrant his abuses, George can't admit he chose the wrong guy for the job. "You're doing a heckuva job, Gonzo!" Bush is probably the only man in Washington more incompetent than Gonzalez at the moment. (Some would say Cheney is, but I think Cheney is criminally inept, not incompetent.) We need to keep the pressure on for Gonzo's resignation. He needs to become a civilian, just like the eight attorneys he fired for political reasons.
I just read where James Dobson is threatening to sit out the next election if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee. That's wonderful news for the Democrats. Dobson is the founder and co-chair of the Focus on the Family right-wing religious group. He endorsed Bush in 2004, which helped Bush retain his throne. Given the fact that the Iraq war was already a major catastrophe by then, and that Bush was clearly a dweeb of the first order, that doesn't say a whole lot about Dobson, now, does it? So if the Republicans nominate a moderate, then Dobson will take his voters and go home. Great! Go!! Please, just go!! Now!!!
The Democrats and Republicans are still playing chicken with the Iraq funding bill. I suppose it had to come sometime, as Bush just cannot have a blank check forever. But the way this is playing out is a disaster. I saw this sort of thing happen before, and as a military guy who had to make do with inadequate funding while the elephants danced in Washington, I experienced the negative effect that these shenanigans have. Congress needs to provide all the support that General Petraeus (the guy in charge of the war) asks for. Petraeus is a straight shooter and will tell us if the surge is working or not.
I'm extremely worried about a possible war with Iran. Bush doesn't seem to know how to talk with people who aren't fully on his side - he's a divider, not a uniter - and Iran hasn't been fully on "our" side since George was doing heavy drugs. But now Bush has created all the elements of another Tonkin Gulf fiasco (this was the incident where the North Vietnamese were reported to have attacked a couple of our destroyers, causing us to go into a full-scale war there ... and the event never really happened). And all we need now is some trigger-happy Iranian border guard to fire a pistol at an American ship and we've got another stupid war on our hands. During the Cold War, neither the US nor the Soviet Union really wanted a war, so they set up hot lines and other means of communication to make sure one didn't happen. George has refused to do any of that. He seems to be itching for yet another war.
Not all of my rants are negative. I think that Robert Gates has been doing a great job as Secretary of Defense. Now, granted, the bar was set exceptionally low by his predecessor (some would say it was set in negative territory), but Gates has proven himself willing and able to make difficult decisions, move fast when necessary, and work well with the military leaders. General Petraeus has been great in probably the worst job in the military right now. And Admiral Fallon, the guy in charge of Central Command, is proving himself to be more than up to his impossible task. The fact that we're not at war with Iran (yet) is due more to Admiral Fallon than that idiot in the White House.
Awright, awright, I'll shut up now. Maybe next time I'll talk about something more positive than politics. This stuff just gets my dander up, that's all.
Paul Wolfowitz finally resigned today. Hurray! Here's a guy who was one of the most important people in crafting our insanely stupid war with Iraq. He was rewarded for this unbelievable blunder with the post of President of the World Bank. And promptly showed his true colors by giving his girlfriend a hefty pay raise. So now he's out and whining about it. He ought to consider himself lucky that he's not on trial as a war criminal in the Hague.
Alberto Gonzalez is holding on to his job for the time being. George Bush is standing by his man in true Bush fashion: no matter how incompetent his appointee is, and how flagrant his abuses, George can't admit he chose the wrong guy for the job. "You're doing a heckuva job, Gonzo!" Bush is probably the only man in Washington more incompetent than Gonzalez at the moment. (Some would say Cheney is, but I think Cheney is criminally inept, not incompetent.) We need to keep the pressure on for Gonzo's resignation. He needs to become a civilian, just like the eight attorneys he fired for political reasons.
I just read where James Dobson is threatening to sit out the next election if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee. That's wonderful news for the Democrats. Dobson is the founder and co-chair of the Focus on the Family right-wing religious group. He endorsed Bush in 2004, which helped Bush retain his throne. Given the fact that the Iraq war was already a major catastrophe by then, and that Bush was clearly a dweeb of the first order, that doesn't say a whole lot about Dobson, now, does it? So if the Republicans nominate a moderate, then Dobson will take his voters and go home. Great! Go!! Please, just go!! Now!!!
The Democrats and Republicans are still playing chicken with the Iraq funding bill. I suppose it had to come sometime, as Bush just cannot have a blank check forever. But the way this is playing out is a disaster. I saw this sort of thing happen before, and as a military guy who had to make do with inadequate funding while the elephants danced in Washington, I experienced the negative effect that these shenanigans have. Congress needs to provide all the support that General Petraeus (the guy in charge of the war) asks for. Petraeus is a straight shooter and will tell us if the surge is working or not.
I'm extremely worried about a possible war with Iran. Bush doesn't seem to know how to talk with people who aren't fully on his side - he's a divider, not a uniter - and Iran hasn't been fully on "our" side since George was doing heavy drugs. But now Bush has created all the elements of another Tonkin Gulf fiasco (this was the incident where the North Vietnamese were reported to have attacked a couple of our destroyers, causing us to go into a full-scale war there ... and the event never really happened). And all we need now is some trigger-happy Iranian border guard to fire a pistol at an American ship and we've got another stupid war on our hands. During the Cold War, neither the US nor the Soviet Union really wanted a war, so they set up hot lines and other means of communication to make sure one didn't happen. George has refused to do any of that. He seems to be itching for yet another war.
Not all of my rants are negative. I think that Robert Gates has been doing a great job as Secretary of Defense. Now, granted, the bar was set exceptionally low by his predecessor (some would say it was set in negative territory), but Gates has proven himself willing and able to make difficult decisions, move fast when necessary, and work well with the military leaders. General Petraeus has been great in probably the worst job in the military right now. And Admiral Fallon, the guy in charge of Central Command, is proving himself to be more than up to his impossible task. The fact that we're not at war with Iran (yet) is due more to Admiral Fallon than that idiot in the White House.
Awright, awright, I'll shut up now. Maybe next time I'll talk about something more positive than politics. This stuff just gets my dander up, that's all.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Artistic Influences
I'm gonna take a break from my political ranting and talk about some of my artistic influences instead (okay, I hear all that cheering, knock it off already). I was asked the other day about where my influences came from, and why I paint the kind of things I do.
My earliest influence was Norman Rockwell. As a kid, I thought he was the best artist who ever lived. He could tell a story that you would understand right away, and all the people and objects were depicted with such realism that you could almost feel them. I wanted to do that kind of painting when I grew up. But when I did grow up, I realized Rockwell's limitations. He was a sentimental illustrator - his images were sappy, idealized versions of a bygone America that never really existed. He almost never engaged in any subject with any meat to it, and even when he did, there wasn't much to it. For example, he did a painting about freedom of speech. An important topic and technically well done, but in his version, it just showed a guy standing up and talking, with other people respectfully listening. There's no emotional involvement by the viewer, no tension, no conflict. Pretty dull.
Another early influence was Edward Hopper. His paintings had a lonely feel to them. I think a lot of people can relate to that, particularly teenagers like me, who felt like nobody in the world understood them. (Now I know that's just a normal part of being a teenager, but then it was a major trauma). When I first saw this painting, Early Sunday Morning, it about blew me away. Here was a painting that had a palpable feel to it. It's about people, but there aren't any people visible - just the traces of things they touched. It's a narrative that isn't completely spelled out, that requires the viewer to fill in a lot of it. And each viewer will come up with a different story. Of course, as a teen, I went completely overboard, and thought Hopper was the greatest painter who ever lived. But later, when I really studied his paintings, I found out that he, too, had limitations. Hopper's paintings missed the mark more often than they hit it. Some paintings were unbelieveably strong, while others were just poorly done. Still, his work resonated with me.
Later, I discovered Thomas Hart Benton. Now Benton is often derided these days as little more than an illustrator or genre painter, but an artist can learn a lot from studying his paintings. Benton really knew how to construct a painting. This one is titled The Sources of Country Music. It's a very dynamic composition. Everything is tied into everything else. It swoops and swirls, and your eye moves around it easily in a smooth rhythm. If you imagine leaving a trail of paint behind your eye movement, you'll recognize the painting style of one of Benton's most famous students: Jackson Pollack. Benton told illustrative stories, Pollack worked with paint, but the structure and movement in both is very similar.
While a student at the Maryland Institute, College of Art, I discovered two painters who had a big effect on me. One was Alice Neel, the other Lucien Freud. Both focus on the figure and both let the individuality of their subjects shine through.
Neel uses a very loose approach, starting with an underdrawing (often in ultramarine blue!) and then building up from that. She doesn't worry too much about fine finish: she's after the ephemera of personality and the moment. Neel's subjects are real people, not idealized or generic.
Lucien Freud's work is much more finished. Like Neel, you can see the results of the process: thick paint, brushstrokes, changes, decisions made and unmade. I get the feeling that Freud is more concerned about his own thoughts and feelings than he is about his subject's, but his subjects are still very real people. For a long time I consciously copied many aspects of his style; actually, I think that now I may be going back toward it again. For me, it's vital that a painting look like a painting, with brush strokes and paint in themselves being as important as the thing they depict. If you're going to hide the painting process and try for a photorealistic image, you may as well just take your photo to WalMart and blow it up.
A more contemporary artist who has had a significant influence on me is Jerome Witkin. He works with serious subjects: rape, the Holocaust, religion, the Kennedy assassination, and more. His paintings have all the structure of Benton's work, but in a more subtle yet solid manner. His people are normal people caught up in events outside their control. The paintings are stories that don't tell you everything. I really respond to Witkin's work on a gut level. A couple of years ago, I was fortunate to spend three days working with him in his studio and learned a tremendous amount. He's a wonderful artist and a supremely kind and gracious individual.
Last, a problematic artist is Odd Nerdrum. His paintings have an "ohmigawd" element to them. Nerdrum paints like Rembrandt, but his subjects come from deep in the psyche. Lately I've been studying his paintings as closely as I can from a big thick brick of a book, looking at how he builds them up. Nerdrum uses layers on layers, dragging paint over the top, scraping it down, and eventually creates a deep image that's rich in texture. I've been trying to learn the technique, but it seems to bog me down - in focusing on surface texture, I'm losing the "moment" that Neel and Freud are so good at capturing. My paintings are starting to look static and almost overworked. For some of them, the "static" element is fine - these are the paintings of the destruction in Bosnia, which are quiet and contemplative, and which seem to suit this style. I can't seem to get it to work with figures. I don't know yet if I'll stay with this, or go back to the looser style.
This note has gone on long enough. I wanted to get this down before the thoughts left me, and now my brain is empty.
My earliest influence was Norman Rockwell. As a kid, I thought he was the best artist who ever lived. He could tell a story that you would understand right away, and all the people and objects were depicted with such realism that you could almost feel them. I wanted to do that kind of painting when I grew up. But when I did grow up, I realized Rockwell's limitations. He was a sentimental illustrator - his images were sappy, idealized versions of a bygone America that never really existed. He almost never engaged in any subject with any meat to it, and even when he did, there wasn't much to it. For example, he did a painting about freedom of speech. An important topic and technically well done, but in his version, it just showed a guy standing up and talking, with other people respectfully listening. There's no emotional involvement by the viewer, no tension, no conflict. Pretty dull.
Another early influence was Edward Hopper. His paintings had a lonely feel to them. I think a lot of people can relate to that, particularly teenagers like me, who felt like nobody in the world understood them. (Now I know that's just a normal part of being a teenager, but then it was a major trauma). When I first saw this painting, Early Sunday Morning, it about blew me away. Here was a painting that had a palpable feel to it. It's about people, but there aren't any people visible - just the traces of things they touched. It's a narrative that isn't completely spelled out, that requires the viewer to fill in a lot of it. And each viewer will come up with a different story. Of course, as a teen, I went completely overboard, and thought Hopper was the greatest painter who ever lived. But later, when I really studied his paintings, I found out that he, too, had limitations. Hopper's paintings missed the mark more often than they hit it. Some paintings were unbelieveably strong, while others were just poorly done. Still, his work resonated with me.
Later, I discovered Thomas Hart Benton. Now Benton is often derided these days as little more than an illustrator or genre painter, but an artist can learn a lot from studying his paintings. Benton really knew how to construct a painting. This one is titled The Sources of Country Music. It's a very dynamic composition. Everything is tied into everything else. It swoops and swirls, and your eye moves around it easily in a smooth rhythm. If you imagine leaving a trail of paint behind your eye movement, you'll recognize the painting style of one of Benton's most famous students: Jackson Pollack. Benton told illustrative stories, Pollack worked with paint, but the structure and movement in both is very similar.
While a student at the Maryland Institute, College of Art, I discovered two painters who had a big effect on me. One was Alice Neel, the other Lucien Freud. Both focus on the figure and both let the individuality of their subjects shine through.
Neel uses a very loose approach, starting with an underdrawing (often in ultramarine blue!) and then building up from that. She doesn't worry too much about fine finish: she's after the ephemera of personality and the moment. Neel's subjects are real people, not idealized or generic.
Lucien Freud's work is much more finished. Like Neel, you can see the results of the process: thick paint, brushstrokes, changes, decisions made and unmade. I get the feeling that Freud is more concerned about his own thoughts and feelings than he is about his subject's, but his subjects are still very real people. For a long time I consciously copied many aspects of his style; actually, I think that now I may be going back toward it again. For me, it's vital that a painting look like a painting, with brush strokes and paint in themselves being as important as the thing they depict. If you're going to hide the painting process and try for a photorealistic image, you may as well just take your photo to WalMart and blow it up.
A more contemporary artist who has had a significant influence on me is Jerome Witkin. He works with serious subjects: rape, the Holocaust, religion, the Kennedy assassination, and more. His paintings have all the structure of Benton's work, but in a more subtle yet solid manner. His people are normal people caught up in events outside their control. The paintings are stories that don't tell you everything. I really respond to Witkin's work on a gut level. A couple of years ago, I was fortunate to spend three days working with him in his studio and learned a tremendous amount. He's a wonderful artist and a supremely kind and gracious individual.
Last, a problematic artist is Odd Nerdrum. His paintings have an "ohmigawd" element to them. Nerdrum paints like Rembrandt, but his subjects come from deep in the psyche. Lately I've been studying his paintings as closely as I can from a big thick brick of a book, looking at how he builds them up. Nerdrum uses layers on layers, dragging paint over the top, scraping it down, and eventually creates a deep image that's rich in texture. I've been trying to learn the technique, but it seems to bog me down - in focusing on surface texture, I'm losing the "moment" that Neel and Freud are so good at capturing. My paintings are starting to look static and almost overworked. For some of them, the "static" element is fine - these are the paintings of the destruction in Bosnia, which are quiet and contemplative, and which seem to suit this style. I can't seem to get it to work with figures. I don't know yet if I'll stay with this, or go back to the looser style.
This note has gone on long enough. I wanted to get this down before the thoughts left me, and now my brain is empty.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Odd Technology
We have a small portable DVD player. Little bitty thing, smaller than a laptop computer. It works well, but the screen has to be in exactly the right position to be seen clearly, and if you're more than about two feet away, you won't be able to see anything. But the thing that gets me is that all the controls that mean anything are on a remote control that's about the size of a credit card. So my question is, if you can't see the screen if you're more than two feet away, why in hell do you need a remote control??
George Tenet
George Tenet, the former head of the CIA, has a new book coming out, and he's making the rounds of the talk shows to plug it. Tonight he was on 60 Minutes. As a retired Navy cryptologist, I'm very interested in things like that and made it a point to watch.
Tenet made a very passionate case that the CIA was wrongly accused of producing inaccurate intelligence that led to the current war. He made a strong case that war with Iraq was in the planning stages since at least Sept 12, 2001, and that the Bush administration (not Bush himself, evidently) used him as a scapegoat when their war started going wrong. Tenet was pretty convincing.
But there's another side of the story. CNN has published a letter that was written and signed by six former CIA officials that takes Tenet to task for the inaccuracies in his book. Specifically:
- Tenet was "a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war";
- Tenet signed a National Intelligence Estimate (this is the Big Thing: an official pronouncement of the best thinking in the entire national intelligence system) that was in line with groundless statements by Dick Cheney and at odds with existing CIA intelligence;
- Tenet testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda even though the CIA had hard evidence that they didn't;
- Tenet helped the Administration bully analysts into saying the things that supported the Administration's preconceived ideas;
- And a lot more. Most entertainingly, it calls Tenet "the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community--a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality."
You can read the full text of the letter here. It's well worth the time.
Tenet made a very passionate case that the CIA was wrongly accused of producing inaccurate intelligence that led to the current war. He made a strong case that war with Iraq was in the planning stages since at least Sept 12, 2001, and that the Bush administration (not Bush himself, evidently) used him as a scapegoat when their war started going wrong. Tenet was pretty convincing.
But there's another side of the story. CNN has published a letter that was written and signed by six former CIA officials that takes Tenet to task for the inaccuracies in his book. Specifically:
- Tenet was "a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war";
- Tenet signed a National Intelligence Estimate (this is the Big Thing: an official pronouncement of the best thinking in the entire national intelligence system) that was in line with groundless statements by Dick Cheney and at odds with existing CIA intelligence;
- Tenet testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda even though the CIA had hard evidence that they didn't;
- Tenet helped the Administration bully analysts into saying the things that supported the Administration's preconceived ideas;
- And a lot more. Most entertainingly, it calls Tenet "the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community--a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality."
You can read the full text of the letter here. It's well worth the time.
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Politics of Iraq
This week, the media has been all abuzz about the supplemental spending bill that funds the Iraq war but sets a timeline for pulling out, and Bush's promise to veto it. Actually, I think both sides are on the wrong track.
First, Congress should not set in stone a withdrawal date, particularly since it just unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to go clean the place up. The General is a smart man and a straight shooter (unlike the Republican administration in general). The troops he's getting aren't all there yet, and he's right to ask for time to do the job. When he says he'll know by mid August whether the buildup is working or not, and will tell Congress his views regardless of political pressures, I believe him. If the Dems are really serious about this, they wouldn't set a withdrawal timeline until after General Petraeus says that the buildup isn't working.
But no, the Democratic leadership is hell-bent on pulling out, regardless. Actually, Congress under the Democrats is no better at passing clean laws than Congress under the Republicans. The Dems promised to clean up the pork, but this bill is just loaded with it. Oink, oink: the sound a Senator or Congressman makes, regardless of political affiliation.
On the other side, we have a chickenshit chickenhawk for President. Here's a guy who skipped out on his own military service, surrounded by lots of other guys who skipped out on THEIR military service, who has no problem whatsoever in sending our young men and women off to be killed or hideously maimed in a really stupid stupid stupid war. When he says he "carefully considered" whether to invade Iraq, he's lying through his teeth. The bastard knew long before he was even elected that he would invade Iraq, he was just looking for some kind of excuse. He didn't need, and didn't want, any evidence one way or the other. This draft dodger still talks about "victory" in Iraq, even though even General Petraeus acknowledges that we can't "win" this war. It's not our decision. We "won" the military conflict by defeating the Iraqi army. Everything since then is a civil war and we can't impose our will by military force. All we can do is give the corrupt Iraqi government some time to get their collective act together and start acting like a government. If they don't step up to the plate, we can't "win" Bush's war even if we had a million troops in country.
Don't even get me started on Cheney.
So why do I still support the buildup? The "Pottery Barn" rule: we broke it, we should try to fix it. There is still a tiny chance that the incompetent crooks in the Iraqi government might start acting like statesmen instead of a cabal of organized crime families. So I say, give 'em till the middle of August. If they aren't seriously doing their job by then, pull our troops out as fast as humanly possible. And none of this "gradual redeployment" bullshit, either. We're in, or we're out.
First, Congress should not set in stone a withdrawal date, particularly since it just unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to go clean the place up. The General is a smart man and a straight shooter (unlike the Republican administration in general). The troops he's getting aren't all there yet, and he's right to ask for time to do the job. When he says he'll know by mid August whether the buildup is working or not, and will tell Congress his views regardless of political pressures, I believe him. If the Dems are really serious about this, they wouldn't set a withdrawal timeline until after General Petraeus says that the buildup isn't working.
But no, the Democratic leadership is hell-bent on pulling out, regardless. Actually, Congress under the Democrats is no better at passing clean laws than Congress under the Republicans. The Dems promised to clean up the pork, but this bill is just loaded with it. Oink, oink: the sound a Senator or Congressman makes, regardless of political affiliation.
On the other side, we have a chickenshit chickenhawk for President. Here's a guy who skipped out on his own military service, surrounded by lots of other guys who skipped out on THEIR military service, who has no problem whatsoever in sending our young men and women off to be killed or hideously maimed in a really stupid stupid stupid war. When he says he "carefully considered" whether to invade Iraq, he's lying through his teeth. The bastard knew long before he was even elected that he would invade Iraq, he was just looking for some kind of excuse. He didn't need, and didn't want, any evidence one way or the other. This draft dodger still talks about "victory" in Iraq, even though even General Petraeus acknowledges that we can't "win" this war. It's not our decision. We "won" the military conflict by defeating the Iraqi army. Everything since then is a civil war and we can't impose our will by military force. All we can do is give the corrupt Iraqi government some time to get their collective act together and start acting like a government. If they don't step up to the plate, we can't "win" Bush's war even if we had a million troops in country.
Don't even get me started on Cheney.
So why do I still support the buildup? The "Pottery Barn" rule: we broke it, we should try to fix it. There is still a tiny chance that the incompetent crooks in the Iraqi government might start acting like statesmen instead of a cabal of organized crime families. So I say, give 'em till the middle of August. If they aren't seriously doing their job by then, pull our troops out as fast as humanly possible. And none of this "gradual redeployment" bullshit, either. We're in, or we're out.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sleepytime
So, yes, I'm a grandfather now, and yes, I have a collection of about 80 photos from the tyke's first week on earth. Most will sit in the photo folder and be coo'd over by Janis. This one, though, I had to share. (The photo is by the mom, Julie Kane, so if you're going to copy it and use it somewhere else, please give her the photo credit!)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
New Painting
I've finished a new painting. This one is titled "The Soccer Game" (oil on canvas, 24" x 30"). It's based on my experiences in Sarajevo in 1996. I saw kids resuming their lives as kids, playing soccer and other games, in the shadow of buildings destroyed in the fighting. It's my homage to kids who are caught in the middle of wars everywhere.
Monday, April 16, 2007
We're Grandparents!
Jackson Charles Kane (aka "Jacks") was born tonight just after 9 pm EST. He weighed in at 8 lbs 13 oz. His daddy had the cell phone on, so Janis and I got to hear his first cry. He's got a good set of lungs, too! And with the miracles of modern camera cell phones, this photo was taken just moments after his arrival, transmitted across the country, forwarded to our home computer, then uploaded to a server in God knows where, so everybody in the world can share in the miracle!Jacks already has a large selection of stuffed animals to cuddle up to, courtesy Janis (aka "Granny Ro". Something tells me his collection is going to grow in the very near future ...
I never had kids of my own, so I'm jumping straight into grandpappyhood. It's quite the thrill.Friday, April 13, 2007
Hypocrisy and the Imus Scandal
Don Imus got fired yesterday for his racist and stupid comments on the Rutgers womens' basketball team. After a week or so of his groveling before the whole world, CBS dumped him.
Frankly, I'm pissed off. I never liked Imus and think shows like his are stupid. But when you spend several hours every day talking unscripted before a huge audience, and your job is to push the envelope, sometimes you're going to step over the line. Imus certainly did in this case. And he did the right thing: he immediately and profusely apologized. Today the Rutgers team accepted his apology. CBS and NBC had previously announced a two-week suspension. Sounds like the case should be closed.
But NOOOOO!! The "Reverend" Al Sharpton and the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson raised holy hell. These two guys behaved in a totally un-Christianlike manner. Whatever happened to the concept of forgiveness? Instead of acting according to their alleged faith, they acted more like wolves on the scent of blood. They literally hounded the networks into firing Imus. Seemed like every time I turned on the news, there were Sharpton and Jackson, solemnly making statements about how offensive it all was.
Just a few minutes ago, I came out of the post office. There was a black guy in a car on the street playing some rap music on his stereo. The windows were literally rattling for yards around (scared the hell out of my dogs, too) while every other word out of the performer's mouth was "niggah", "bitch", and "ho". THAT is offensive, my friends. I don't want to listen to crap like that, and Imus can lose his job for using terms like those, but rappers get rich off the same damn words.
So Jesse and Al, where the hell is your solemn anger over the offensiveness of black rap music? If it's offensive for Imus to use those terms, it's offensive for rappers, too. "Niggah" is "niggah", I don't care whose mouth it comes out of. And if you say otherwise, you're a bald-faced lying hypocrite.
Frankly, I'm pissed off. I never liked Imus and think shows like his are stupid. But when you spend several hours every day talking unscripted before a huge audience, and your job is to push the envelope, sometimes you're going to step over the line. Imus certainly did in this case. And he did the right thing: he immediately and profusely apologized. Today the Rutgers team accepted his apology. CBS and NBC had previously announced a two-week suspension. Sounds like the case should be closed.
But NOOOOO!! The "Reverend" Al Sharpton and the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson raised holy hell. These two guys behaved in a totally un-Christianlike manner. Whatever happened to the concept of forgiveness? Instead of acting according to their alleged faith, they acted more like wolves on the scent of blood. They literally hounded the networks into firing Imus. Seemed like every time I turned on the news, there were Sharpton and Jackson, solemnly making statements about how offensive it all was.
Just a few minutes ago, I came out of the post office. There was a black guy in a car on the street playing some rap music on his stereo. The windows were literally rattling for yards around (scared the hell out of my dogs, too) while every other word out of the performer's mouth was "niggah", "bitch", and "ho". THAT is offensive, my friends. I don't want to listen to crap like that, and Imus can lose his job for using terms like those, but rappers get rich off the same damn words.
So Jesse and Al, where the hell is your solemn anger over the offensiveness of black rap music? If it's offensive for Imus to use those terms, it's offensive for rappers, too. "Niggah" is "niggah", I don't care whose mouth it comes out of. And if you say otherwise, you're a bald-faced lying hypocrite.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Priorities in the News?
For the past couple of days, it seems like all I hear from the news channels are stories about (1) Anna Nicole Smith and (2) Don Imus. This is ridiculous! Is a bimbo with big tits, no brain, and loose morals, and a shock jock who said (gasp) something shocking really more important than Iraq, Iran, Darfur, or global warming? Apparently so. I took the dogs for a walk this morning, and when I left, CNN was talking about Anna Nicole. When I came back 20 minutes later, CNN was talking about (you guessed it) Anna Nicole. The next story was Don Imus. The next sound was a "click" as I turned the TV off ... it was better than throwing a brick through the screen, at any rate.
I thought news channels were for news. If I wanted the dirt on celebrities, I'd watch E! or read People or something.
I thought news channels were for news. If I wanted the dirt on celebrities, I'd watch E! or read People or something.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Children of Men
We watched the movie "Children of Men" this past weekend. It was a supremely powerful movie. There was a lot that we missed, though, so on Sunday I watched it again. This time I caught a lot of things that had blown by me the first time, and everything hung together. In fact, I thought it was even more powerful the second time around.
"Children of Men" is an apocalyptic movie set in 2027. All women on earth have been sterile for about 18 years, and nobody knows why. Civilization has collapsed everywhere, with only Britain still maintaining the facade. A man in London is thrust against his will into helping a refugee woman escape to something called the "Human Project" ... nobody really knows what it is, except that it's something far off, mysterious, and the only hope. As it turns out, this refugee woman is pregnant - the first pregnancy in almost two decades. The two are caught between the government and a rebel force, both of which would use the pregnancy for their own ends.
"Children of Men" is exceptionally well made, beautifully shot, powerfully scripted, and extremely intense. It was well worth two viewings this past weekend and I'd see it again in a heartbeat.
"Children of Men" is an apocalyptic movie set in 2027. All women on earth have been sterile for about 18 years, and nobody knows why. Civilization has collapsed everywhere, with only Britain still maintaining the facade. A man in London is thrust against his will into helping a refugee woman escape to something called the "Human Project" ... nobody really knows what it is, except that it's something far off, mysterious, and the only hope. As it turns out, this refugee woman is pregnant - the first pregnancy in almost two decades. The two are caught between the government and a rebel force, both of which would use the pregnancy for their own ends.
"Children of Men" is exceptionally well made, beautifully shot, powerfully scripted, and extremely intense. It was well worth two viewings this past weekend and I'd see it again in a heartbeat.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
If It's April, It Must Be ... Snowing?
Just a few days ago, we were having record high temperatures. I was grumbling that I'd have to spend all day Saturday (today) mowing the lawn. Yessir, that's the way it was just a few days ago.
Woke up this morning to almost 3" of snow on the ground.
Guess I don't need to mow the lawn today.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Pelosi's Visit to Syria
It's a sad state of affairs when the Speaker of the House is doing more to promote peace in the Middle East than the President is. Nancy Pelosi is doing what the Bush administration should've done years ago: open a dialogue with Syria. As Lee Hamilton noted, if you've got a problem with somebody, you talk with them and try to find a solution. No talk, no solution.
Actually, Bush is "all talk, no solution". But that's because he's only talking to his right-wing base, not to anybody who really matters.
Actually, Bush is "all talk, no solution". But that's because he's only talking to his right-wing base, not to anybody who really matters.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
My Dogs Are Smart
Yesterday, I was down in Hendersonville. I was in the gallery talking to the owner, while my two dogs kept watch over the place. My dogs are little Shih Tzu's. They're sweet little girls, but they normally don't like other dogs at all. Right outside the gallery, however, there was a German Shepard. It was sitting by the bench while its owner was playing a guitar and singing. For some reason, my two dogs were perfectly cool with this. They just sat there and looked out the window and completely ignored the German Shepard.
But when a Fox News van drove by, they went nuts! They did not like it, and they wanted it gone, NOW!
So, evidently, my dogs are smarter than several million supposedly intelligent Americans. Good on 'em!
But when a Fox News van drove by, they went nuts! They did not like it, and they wanted it gone, NOW!
So, evidently, my dogs are smarter than several million supposedly intelligent Americans. Good on 'em!
Thursday, March 29, 2007
B.B. King
Janis and I went to see B.B. King the other night. He's on tour for about the gazillionth time. It's always a treat to see a living legend, and BB's one of the best. He's 81, as he told us several times, with a body that doesn't work at all like it used to. Still, he could belt out some hard-ass blues with a voice that's as rich and strong as it ever was. His guitar playing is phenomenal - it seems so effortless, but that's what comes from 70 years of practice. Combine the voice and guitar, and you have music that is incredibly rich and deep.
BB is obviously having the time of his life. What a kind and gracious man, very gentle, but still with the fire in his belly .... just not as wild a fire as it once was.
Go see him if you can. While you can.
BB is obviously having the time of his life. What a kind and gracious man, very gentle, but still with the fire in his belly .... just not as wild a fire as it once was.
Go see him if you can. While you can.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Studio News
This past weekend I had a long road trip. I drove down to the Durham/Chapel Hill/Raleigh area on Friday. On Saturday, I checked out the art galleries to see if any might be interested in carrying my work. Then it was on to Fayetteville for the opening of their juried art show, which has one of my paintings. Finally, it was another long trip home on Sunday.
As it turned out, the weekend was a big success. On Saturday I went to four galleries and found one that wants to work with me. It's Bill Hester Fine Art, located on the main drag in downtown Chapel Hill, right by the university. Bill's an interesting guy, with some very definite ideas about art which he isn't the least bit shy about sharing with you. But he's also a very straightforward businessman, which counts for a lot in my book, especially after some of the gallery owners I've dealt with over the years. Anyway, I'm very excited about working with him. Bill wants to start with six of my paintings, three from the "Meditation on War" series and three from the "Old Times" series. He'll get 'em at the end of the month.
After visiting with Bill, I headed down to Fayetteville. The Museum's show is a big event in the NC art world. They had nearly 300 entries, selected 46, and my painting "Lament" was awarded Second Place in the show.
So all in all, the weekend was a success. Now it's Wednesday and I'm almost back to a normal schedule. I'm getting the six paintings ready to go to Chapel Hill, and meanwhile have two more on the easel. Too much to do, of course, but hey, I'm pretty happy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
