, , , , , , ,

I am not a good person.

I know that.

I took entirely too much glee in the Kansas win over Ohio State. Entirely too much.

I loathe Ohio State. It is not “THE” anything.

I loathe it because I am from MSU. I loathe U of M too. I dance on their graves.

I would root for satan in a match between them.

I am thrilled to squash their little heads in my hands until their brains squirt out.

I am not a good person.

But we all have our little quirks don’t we? 🙂

I believe in God. I have a worked out theology that I’m comfortable with. I fit in pretty well in most of the mainline Catholic, Protestant theologies. We quibble around the fringes. I consider myself sane and reasonable, and frankly normal.

Much as I admire the intelligence of Richard Dawkins, he would not return the favor. He thinks I’m nuts, and I frankly don’t appreciate it. I saw him on Chris Hayes Up a week ago, and found him as I usually do, just a bit too insufferably arrogant. The problem was put in a nutshell by Quinn O’Neill from 3quarksdailythe man cares more about eradicating religion than he does in keeping vacuous “creationism” out of school curriculums. And that is simply wrong in my opinion.

Dawkins actually now advocates outright, in-your-face ridicule of believers. He doesn’t differentiate between the knuckle-dragging fundies who believe the earth is flat and only 6,000 + years old and those who believe that the universe is the creation of a greater mind who nurtures life and encourages connection to a fuller life.

On the other hand, there are folks like Robert Wright, whose book I reviewed here, who take a very different tack. In his article at The Atlantic, Wright argues that such an approach is needlessly confrontational and creates enemies where none need be.

While I agree and have argued here, that the far far Right is unreachable by reason, that is simply not the case with a great many who hold anti-science opinions, simply because that is what they were taught at home and they’ve never had the need or reason to confront an alternative explanation. These people can be persuaded by real evidence, and that opportunity is missed when you come at them like a Rottweiler.

Both are worth reading.

Which brings me to art. Now, I am not what you call art savvy. I know what I like and what I don’t like, and I’m not impressed with experts on this issue, because I think a piece either speaks to you, or it doesn’t and that is the point is it not? It says something about life, the human condition or you simply love the colors and it matches the sofa. I am thusly a live and let live woman when it comes to what makes you swoon artfully speaking.

That said, I saw a segment on 60 Minutes about the pop art of the day, and the unbelievable prices for which the stuff goes. Some of it is crap, and I wouldn’t want it sitting at the end of my drive way awaiting the trash collector. Other stuff I thought “wow, I’d love to have that!”

Except that I can’t. These art fairs are singularly held in the playgrounds of the rich and famous, and while you make look, you may not touch, unless you have at least $250,000 to plunk down for that rusty faucet dripping water, or that hoe with an entangled bunch of hose and some flamingo boas entwined in what can only be described as  “I found a way to make a million exercising only 1/10 of my brain cells” chic.

Yes, I’m well aware that there are little known “local fairs” with a bunch of local artist wannabes and a few genuine original geniuses possibly to be found, but I can learn to throw a pot too ya know. So my question is still valid.

My question?

Yes. Is there no morality to art?

Meaning–where are the artists who so love their work that they want the little guy to have a chance to own a piece? Where are the artists who refuse to let their pieces initially sell for more than say $50 or at least no more than 20% over the cost of materials? Am I whacked for even suggesting it? Is art only the play toy of the rich and famous?

You tell me.

On a final note, a little help.

We are not looking for you to vote and decide for us.

But, we are entirely conflicted regarding our dog Bear. Some days we feel we should have him put down and bury him with Brandy, and at other times, he seems good to go. We don’t trust ourselves any more. It would be vastly easier to not take him. How much is this truth likely to push us in the wrong direction?

Here are the facts.

  • He is incontinent either through dementia or just not giving a rat’s ass any more. We have to cut him off from water by 8 pm or face a clean up the next day.
  • He is increasingly hard of hearing.
  • He has some difficulty on some days getting up and down the porch steps (he had his leg badly broken as a youngster).
  • He gags some days all day, a bit between gagging and coughing (which can be a sign of heart trouble or at least some growth)
  • He is in his 14th year and that is really old for a border collie.
  • He took Brandy’s death very badly and it took weeks before he pulled himself out of it. The trip would be disorienting and confining. He would be on a harness and leash for months.
  • He’s always been free to roam and this meadow has been his home for 12 years.

On the other hand:

  • He eats  fine.
  • He seems to eliminate fine.
  • He seems in no major pain, though we suspect he aches (he paces some nights)
  • He still likes to go for a ride, and experiences some interest in sniffing around, if only for a short time now.
  • He still seeks pets and affection.

We are thinking of taking him to the vet and having him checked out and let the vet guide us. Any other ideas we have missed ?