I Don't Watch Sports on TV: Reason #1

I don't watch sports on TV. Not very often, anyway.

I've never been that excited about sports -- watching it OR doing it myself. I can think of 100 things I'd rather do than watch sports.

Still, I'll break the pattern once in a great while. Today was one example: we watched the Belmont Stakes. At least we like horses, so sometimes we'll watch horse-related sports.

But I was reminded of some reasons why I don't like television sports. The number one reason: the INANE and CONSTANT chatter!

When was the last time you heard anything intelligent spoken during a sports broadcast?

Commentator to losing team member: What happened today?

Team member: Well, the other team had a really strong offense, they were really on their game, they had some good moves; our team's defense was weak and had a few holes in our plays, but we'll come back even stronger and get 'em NEXT time.

Isn't all of that obvious? Didn't the winners simply play better than the losers, assuming the teams were evenly matched in the first place? What ELSE could the team spokesperson say to explain their loss? In which case, why bother interviewing the guy/gal in the first place?

Back to the Belmont: lots of interviews, lots of utterly forgettable comments made. Constant chatter. Do viewers really like this stuff? If so, why? Does drinking more beer make it all go down better? If viewers actually attended the race (or other event), they wouldn't hear the chatter then. Why bore us with it in the comfort of our homes?

And the Belmont Stakes at least a two-hour broadcast! Two-three minutes of racing, preceeded and followed by interviews and mindless blah-blah.

I realize a program like this probably can't function by airing only the race itself. OK, so maybe the trumpet fanfare, the race itself and the awarding of the trophy. Half an hour. If necessary, raise the advertising rates to make sure costs can be recovered in 1/2 hour. On TV, I've seen rooms decorated and paintings completed in that amount of time.

By the way, Summer Bird won. And I'm done watching TV sports for a long time.

Decisions, Decisions

I'm one of those who tend to feel extreme empathy for critters, especially if they happen to be cute.

Partly for that reason and also because I photograph the wild critters around here to use in paintings. As you can see from the attached pictures, bunnies and Gambels quail rank pretty highly on my scale of desirableness. (Is that a word?)

So to ensure I have a steady supply of critters around to photograph when I need more pix, I put food out for them every evening before sundown: rabbit pellets for the bunnies, and chicken scratch for the quail. I also have hummingbird feeders (two) for their namesake and a suet feeder, originally intended for woodpeckers. And I have containers of water outside -- I replace and refill them with fresh water every day. It all makes for happy critters.

But then there's this danged thing called the Law of Unintended Consequences. All of these types of food have been attracting more than the critters I wanted to attract -- some of these are OK, some are not.

Among the undesirable critters: ground squirrels. The worst ones are the species that look like tree squirrels (although their tails aren't quite as bushy), and they DIG HOLES!! Lots of them. They live to dig. Some holes would be okay--it does help aerate the soil. But it can be overdone.

It seems like these last few years, the squirrels have been cranking out LOTS of offspring. We have a lot of cholla cactus growing around here, so I suspect it's hard for predators to catch them and keep the numbers under control. And, of course, having food and pans of water so easily available to them isn't helping the situation, either.

Last year I bought a "catch-'em-alive" trap which I've used to capture and relocate squirrels, one at a time. But this year, I can't seem to catch up. It appears as I reduce the numbers of squirrels, other squirrel "families" move in to take their place. So I'll think: "Ah...only one more squirrel to catch and that's it." Nope--the next day, I see five new ground squirrels!

So, decisions decisions. Do I stop feeding and watering ALL of the wild critters in the hope the ground squirrels will go elsewhere, or at least not be encouraged to take up residence here? Maybe. I hate the thought of it, and I hope I don't put out enough food to the point where the bunnies and quail are entirely dependent on me to survive; otherwise, they could starve to death without me feeding them.

But the ground squirrels are slowly destroying this area--even the parts that are natural desert. They even eat the cactus, roots and all! How do they do that without embedding millions of stickers in their mouths and faces?

Maybe this is one of those cases where the few have ruined it for all. Let's just hope I have enough pictures. And let's pray for the bunnies and the quail. But not for the ground squirrels.

Quail By Moonlight

I try to make it a point of getting new critter pictures whenever I can.

Here, I was able to get a shot of a male Gambel's quail by moonlight. Impressed?

Na-a-h-h...don't be. It's a daylight shot, but I didn't realize I had this particular adjustment on the camera set for tungsten light. Thus, daylight pictures came out too blue.

Oh, well. I discovered my mistake soon enough and corrected the setting. For painting purposes, what I really need is the overall form of the quail. I have other references (including the live quail running around outside) to get the coloring right.

Besides, maybe this male is seeking a romantic encounter...by moonlight!

Kelly Clarkson and Fat-Ness

I came across this and other pictures of singer Kelly Clarkson on a number of Websites. Most of those sites commented on how fat and, therefore, unsightly she's become. One person mentioned that since we look up to these celebrities and they need to give us the best they're capable of, they shouldn't allow themselves to become this out of shape because then they can't give their best.

????? I can't say how true that last statement is, other than saying Hollywood and other "experts" of culture have somehow succeeded in, IMO, brainwashing the public into believing that thinness is the best look for women if they dare to appear in public.

I've mentioned in a previous post: one can look at paintings by the Old Masters who showed what the ideal females of their times looked like. They weren't skinny!

I also mentioned in that same post: I realize being overweight (according to medical charts) leads to conditions that can literally shorten life: heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, strokes and even cancer. But, also IMO, this is an issue entirely independent from attractiveness or even -- dare I say -- sexiness in a woman. For me, a little weight is both attractive and sexy. I know, and have heard of, many other men who feel the same way.

Now, I'm NOT looking for additional female company. I've been happily married for over 24 years. But for my taste, Kelly Clarkson has never looked better! I know, of course, that she will be expected to lose weight because so many people and "experts" expect her to.

Kelly, I doubt you're reading this, but if you are, I say to you: "Girl, you look GREAT!!!"

Addicted?

I don't know where you stand on this issue, but I've become a little addicted to the computer.

I find I can't wait to get on to see if there are any e-mails, new Facebook posts, new artist forum comments, whatever. And, once I'm on, I'm hesitant about getting off! I find myself just surfin' the 'net, looking at things (or trying to find pages) that are purely for entertainment's sake.

The problem with that is, of course, it cuts into my work time. The type of paintings I do takes a long time -- certainly longer than if I simply shot paintballs at a large canvas and called it Art! (Well, OK, it would probably be art to some, but not for me -- not if I'm doing it, anyway).

So -- what am I gonna do about this? Do I need an intervention? A padlock on the computer? More self-discipline? Sa-a-a-y-y...maybe that's the answer.

But there's always that part of me that says: "Naaah!!! It's fun. Just do it!"

We'll have to see who wins: the little angel by my right ear, or the little devil by my left. In the meantime, I guess I'll see you in cyberspace!

A Flash of Color with a Sweet Tooth

Hummingbirds aren't the only birds that like hummingbird feeders!

We have two species of orioles that live in the desert. (I have seen a third species, but it's more of a visitor, not a resident). Pictured is one of them -- a hooded oriole. (It's hard to see because he's facing away from us, but he has a yellow-orange head with a black "hood" under his beak).

While many of the colors here in the desert are muted, some are not. Seeing this flash of bright yellow-orange against a deep-blue sky is breath-taking. A flash of color with a sweet tooth!

The Inspiration and the Painting

This is one of the few time I feel a side by side set of pictures is warranted.

The photograph on the left shows a view of an area near Eureka Peak in Joshua Tree National Park, CA. The image on the right is a painting I made from the photo. The size is 8" x 10"/20cm x 25cm.

I made a couple of minor changes when I made the painting mostly in the interests of simplifying the painting and to add a little more color to the scene. This is what I call an "eBay painting" -- one that I do somewhat quickly, without the time-consuming glazes I normally use when I paint the material you see on my Website. Thus, I can sell "eBay paintings" much more inexpensively than I could my Website paintings.

I'll be posting this piece on eBay soon. I also want to try another site someday, etsy.com. Etsy is limited to fixed-price handmade items, unlike eBay which is an auction site for almost anything. Stay tuned...ah, um, I mean, keep checking your computer!

27 May -- Update: This painting is listed on eBay as of tonight. You can find it quickly by searching for the item number: 320376968859.