Our windows of opportunity are limited; not unlike a brief visit with a dear loved one,
one needs to make the best of it.--dickcarter

I've recently discovered the brilliant, Modernist style of Charles Harper and his creative dedication to wildlife. Gorgeous.  I'm slowly becoming a serious collector.  Enjoy.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Armadittos"

"Big Rac Attack" 

"Anhinga" 

dickcarter, smartistic

*you can browse through a collection of his serigraphs at: http://www.treadwaygallery.com/HarperExhibit/exhibit.html

Blessed Art Thou           --Kate Kretz

Right on.

transitional xmas.  palate cleansing.  singing a sangria song.

happy holidays

dick

in life i find it hard to imagine death

in life i know no fearless breath

in life how queer the shapes and bends-

that life each day begins and ends

but death comes for sure as it will rain us dry

it is my life, so soon gone by

then makes me think it's all a lie, and all that i give-

to consider birth and meaning; purpose and point

and conclude to what end i do not live-

that death and leaning; purposeless point

have no meaning or reason or want

no, that life is not unlike the death i know

giving then taking, sunning the snow

--dickcarter, thinking of brenda rose (12/19/2006). rest in peace.

the big mouthed black congresswoman from georgia has been silenced. 

weep no more my lady...'tis winter and the crackers are gay.

dick

A reversal of the Fourteenth Amendment (Brown v Board stands there) is soon possible.  Never forget our past, for we are always in dire neglect of repeating it.  The following CNN story highlights the current Court's struggle with Constitutional consideration.  That a decisive vote is necessary (Kennedy, of course), undermines common sense across the land.  Louisville and Seattle are at the core.  Two beautiful cities, on the verge of permanent, historical relevance. 

The article appears as follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/04/race.school/index.html

In response, consider history.  Please.

From the Albany Evening Journal, circa 1857, in response to the Dred Scott Decision.  Compare and Contrast.

The three hundred and forty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-five Slaveholders in the Republic, accomplished day before yesterday a great success — as shallow men estimate success. They converted the Supreme Court of Law and Equity of the United States of America into a propagandist of human Slavery. Fatal day for a judiciary made reputable throughout the world, and reliable to all in this nation, by the learning and the virtues of Jay, Rutledge, Ellsworth, Marshall and Story!

The conspiracy is nearly completed. The Legislation of the Republic is in the hands of this handfull of Slaveholders. The United States Senate assures it to them. The Executive power of the Government is theirs. Buchanan took the oath of fealty to them on the steps of the Capitol last Wednesday. The body which gives the supreme law of the land, has just acceded to their demands, and dared to declare that under the charter of the Nation, men of African descent are not citizens of the United States and can not be — that the Ordinance of 1787 was void — that human Slavery is not a local thing, but pursues its victims to free soil, clings to them wherever they go, and returns with them — that the American Congress has no power to prevent the enslavement of men in the National Territories — that the inhabitants themselves of the Territories have no power to exclude human bondage from their midst — and that men of color can not be suitors for justice in the Courts of the United States!

…All who love Republican institutions and who hate Aristocracy, compact yourselves together for the struggle which threatens your liberty and will test your manhood!

"Fans, the media and sponsors create a high-pressure environment, within which owners must make business decisions."³

Monday Morning Quarterbacking

While watching Sunday afternoon football (work related), I noticed something odd.  During play, the ball was thrown, caught and carried to the end zone.  As the indicated player caught the ball an opponent was running next to him, very close.  He followed the ball carrier all the way, staying within what appeared to be two to three feet.  No lunge, leap, trip or tackle.  He simply followed.  The ball carrier made a successful touchdown and the crowd cheered.  Hmm...

It occurs to me that this is not unusual.  Since that boring Sunday afternoon, I have noticed several other instances where would-be scorers are not prevented from doing so.  With players all around, ball carriers are only slightly delayed by a hit and then allowed to run several more yards before being tackled.  Even then it seems staged.  The tackle comes with a minor hit followed by a pile on.  Menial tasks completed in between touchdowns indicate a very planned effort.  Each player seems to know his job, making no effort to stray from that procedure.  Even when a touchdown is at stake.  Odd.

Growing up, football was mildly mysterious to me.  I didn't watch but my brothers did.  They were fans of rugged, masculine named teams: Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers.  Occasionally, a Dolphin would swim by.  I payed no attention to the meat of the game, but was occasionally curious to see what the fuss was about, specifically how one managed to become so excited over running with and throwing a ball.  I made special ed style jokes, usually ending up drenched in bigoted beer.  They didn't care for my questions, but most especially hated my remarks.  Football players seemed dumb...then and now (my older brother notwithstanding).

My juvenile curiosities aside, football, especially professional football, seemed determined to be real.  Players weren't the ragtime stars of today, with their high profile divorces, drug dependencies and emotional meltdowns.  If a player had problems, they were handled privately, with the spirit of the team in mind.  After all, there is no I in TEAM.  So what happened?  Why are some players seemingly so desperate to make their own, individual mark these days?  Easy.  The team has dropped out of the spotlight, with player cause celebre taking the stage.¹ 

I find it interesting enough to contemplate.  As a team's identity becomes incorporated into a national league, functioning only as an occasional mention on the rotating roster, certain players will break out the only way a 21st century boy can; promptly seizing his 15 minutes.  Paradoxical in nature, the player claims loyalty to one team while promoting his individual agenda.  Never against the league though, and never jeopardizing the game plan.  The player's efforts are selfish only to him.  A little money can be spared.  Bad press is better than no press.  So forth and so on...   

A player's public personality ends there, however, and the team effort continues to keep pace with the league in mind.  With players paid in the millions of dollars, and up to 45 players per team (11 allowed on the field at any one time), somebody is making real big money.  Billions.  With this kind of money exchange, plays and games will be determined prior to kickoff.  Plain and simple.  Folks who profit these figures don't play around; apparently the players have followed suit.

According to Football.com, "Theoretically, one can play football without having any positions at all--as long as everyone follows the rules, there is no need for one person to do a specific thing every play.  So, it is legal to have position-less players who, during each play, run in random directions for no reason at all."²  Score.  Players can actually run in another direction or leap into the air in order to stop another player from advancing.  They are not held down to a hard and fast rule of play that limits their movement or momentum.  So why are so many avoiding opponents?  Don't teams want to win?  Championships?  The Super Bowl?  I always thought it was a given.  My brothers had favorites and winning was always the goal.  No matter what.  Queen's We are the Champions was the call of the day.  When teams consistently lost, franchises suffered and fell, and the boys wanted Seahawks bed sheets.  Not all teams lost the basic fan base of course, but damage was being done to a losing streak club.  Damage that, not unlike a stolen win, could be avoided.  Now I'm getting somewhere.

To win, no matter how (within established rules?), is the object of sport worldwide.  Coming in second means little.  Fairness is to be considered (in theory only?), but trophies, medals, statues, ribbons and rings aren't handed out for kicks (pun[t] intended).  They mean something.  Winning is important.  Important enough to earn the often very valuable keepsake.  And understanding the nature of winning is necessary to complete a personal analysis of what professional football has become.  Because, for every winner there is a loser.  What to do with them? 

A.T. Kearney, a cheeky "team of knowledgeable people who provide extraordinary results," says in Playing for Profits: Winning Strategies for Football in Europe and Around the Globe, "If a club can attract sufficient revenue, either through sustainable external financing or organic growth, it will eventually reach the next stage."³  So I got to thinking.  If a global management consulting firm like A. T. Kearney has done it's research and promoted football (granted, European) as a "leading corporation" to "gain and sustain competitive advantage, and achieve profound, tangible results" then what are the odds a random player will do anything to jeopardize a loss.  A loss that means a win (or at least an Atlanta suburb mansion) when he's cashing his paycheck. 

So they spread it out.  Teams take turns.  Wins and losses for all.  The competitive advantage applies only to the greater good: the NFL.  As long as the NFL is achieving "profound, tangible results," then each team will in turn catch the benefits.  Team owners and other interested parties get together, huddle even, and plan.  With planning and execution, a few timeouts (drinks anyone?) and the necessary substitution, a fourth down possession can indeed change hands.  And does.

In football jargon, "one of the major responsibilities of the offensive coach is to methodically plan plays to maximize the amount of yardage the ball is advanced.  The defensive coach does the same except his goal is to keep the offense from advancing the ball.  Taking into account the abilities of his players and what the other team may do, the defensive coach will start by deciding whether a running or a passing play will occur, what play will the offense most likely do and what type of defense can compensate for that kind of play.  Once that is decided, the pre-play arrangement of the players, called  the "formation," is determined and then how and where each play will move during the execution of the play"².  A.T. Kearney's consultation makes the National Football League's mission similarly decisive.  A common game plan.  Okay coach.

Finally, it makes sense that professional football games are decided before they're played.  Gambling works this way.  Study the inside details of boxing, horse racing and the occasional Olympiad.  When money is on the line, really big money, the only winners are the owners, franchisers, corporate sponsors, retail giants and players.  The fans continue to believe that the Steelers are Pittsburgh, fighting for the common man, Blowtorch Bob.  The Buccaneers are Tampa Bay, skull and crossbones of competition and camaraderie.  The reality is somewhat different, however.  Competition is in name sake only; lip service.  Games are fraudulent fiascos.  Shows set up to entertain ignorant spectators, dumb jocks and polite pretenders (halftime show?) while the real winners, the corporate coaches, punt through golden goal posts, scoring the winning point every time.  Touchdown!

dickcarter, half assed back 

¹It would be interesting to see what would happen if a team pulled the same stunt.  The head coach, chalk in hand, might gather his staff and players and detail the play-by-play plan to capture the league, hold it hostage, earn back the respect of the local fan base and garner global attention (maybe make a political statement or two?). 

²Rules and Information<<Rules and Info Home. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.football.com/rulesandinfo.shtml     

³ "Playing for Profits," Copyright A.T. Kearney, 2004. All rights reserved.  Quoted with permission.

thoughts on breast feeding

is it an intimate moment, to be shared in veiled secrecy between mother and child?  or is it just feeding an animal?  i'm certain that bonding on some level does occur, as it can when adults break bread.  however, it's not secretive when grown ups do it, and intimate only when romance, or deals, are on the table.  no cover-up blankets needed to meet mom for lunch.  no embarrassing stares when drinking milk at breakfast with female friends (well, depending on the previous evening's events of course).  no laws against sharing one's plate of food with another (provided you're not in a golden corral).  its just odd that folks put this kind of importance on such an uneventful event.  could there be a connection with body image and all it's devastating distortions?  ugly betty?  fat tyra?  those poor little rich gelflings, the olsen twins?  hambone?  one wonders.  i'm feeling rather hungry now.  i wonder if she's still up?

dickcarter, regulation admiral

time after time

time magazine recently announced the one hundred greatest albums of all time.  nice.  we love to look at lists.  rankings.  score boards.  americans love it.  i'm an american.  i love it too.  i looked.  read.  thought.  they said, "We hope you'll treat the All-TIME 100 as a great musical parlor game. Read and listen to the arguments for the selections, then tell us what we missed or got wrong. Or even possibly what we got right."  how nice of them.  they want us to judge them, after they judged the musicians.  well, the male musicians. 

i'm gonna state the obvious; something to which i've grown quite accustomed.  out of one hundred records, mostly good stuff, only ten are from women.  ten.  yeah, that's right.  the list goes back to the fifties.  there are one hundred albums categorized by decade.  ten of them are from women.  ten.  additionally, one disc is from a woman band.  one from a band fronted and supported by women.  so twelve of the one hundred somehow involve women.  out of one hundred.  yeah, that's right.  never mind what you think about which albums need to be there, on their list of lists.  never mind all that "parlor game" crap.  never mind that the honest critical analysis is spent on the men and their work.  that just cuts the top.  continuing to read this kind of crap with an ounce of reverence underscores the ignorance in which americans (guys and dolls) are apparently quite comfortable wallowing in.  plain and simple. 

so, you might ask, who comes up with this?  well, men.  even more obvious is that not only are women reprehensibly represented in six decades, but the blurbs justifying the importance of the galbums contain a lot of misogynistic minutia: "seductive;" "sexual tumult;"  "whittles her journal entries and melodies down with poetic economy;" "pop star and mass media manipulator."  you can imagine what these gals must think of this tripe.  also, most of the other women who weren't reduced to parenthetically paradoxical poets or seductive sex pots are said to have made it only because of some man.  headache. 

i suppose time magazine isn't concerned with this issue.  that would take way too much of their, uh, time.  they, i'm assuming, can only publish what they believe americans want.  all three hundred million americans want to know, yet again, how men have creamed the very essence of human life's artistic yearnings?  where would we be otherwise?  not tonight.

no further proof is needed that they are not what they say they are.   

dickcarter, feminist mormon housewife

postum scrotum: frequently, women write songs and sing them.  often those songs are exceptional.  often they are not.  why are so many musically minded men so unable to recognize this simple fact?