My nephew William sent me a birthday greeting!

        

        

This man dropped his french fries on the ground at Coors Field. And then he picked them right back up again! Thrifty or filthy? How about hilarious!

        

This is a Googled MS paint redux of Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow by Piet Mondrian (1930).


However this is the real Composition II. Multiple web sources actually attribute the first image as Piet's original; is this done ignorantly or apathetically?

The differences between the digital redux and Mondrian's original are not subtle. The first hightens contrast and colors; the rectangles are more pleasing (more "golden" — following the golden ratio). The fat, outlining border does not exist in the original and the internal lines in both are are only uniform in the redux. There is a mistake inhereant in taking for granted the differences as meaningless for the sake of retaining the perceived whole.

Mondrian did not accidentally paint the brightness, slightly off-ratio rectangles, slightly incongrous lines of Composition II. Perhaps many people internalize Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow as defined by contrast, exacted uniformed linearity and most pleasing composition, but why so?
 
As I see it that's really not what Composition II is nor what Mondrian was aiming for. The goal was not a manually created clean, contrasted, uniform and "golden" composition. If he meant to he would have — and he didn't! The goal was a composition nearly there but not. It is amusing that someone "corrected" his perceived mistakes in creating the redux. I wonder if Mondrian would take offense? Why do I?

At somepoint the inspiration of Mondrian's work realized in other forms transcends the original and becomes valid by itself. It is interesting that the conceptualization of a thing can be very different than its actual existence.

        

My brother lent to me his copy of the comic book (aka "graphic novel") Watchmen. The plot follows the background and intertwining storylines of a band of super heroes in an alternate 1985 Amercia amidst the context of imminent, nuclear war. Deep character back stories, multiple sub plots and the ambiguous moralities of both the protagonist anti-heroes and anti-villains all drive the story telling.

I have never been interested in comics myself. Spiderman, Superman have the same appeal Saturday morning cartoons. Though admittedly actively ignorant of both Spiderman and Superman for my comparison I'll treat them as examples of event-driven, traditional "comics." Watchmen is a different flavor than these and I'll risk cliche when I call it "a thinking person's" comic.

Like all comics, Watchmen's story telling is enhanced by its graphic format. Four paragraphs describing a character are replaced by three comic frames or the artful font chosen to display a narrative. Forshadowing is achieved visually in a few cases which turns out to be more fun than the traditionally explicit, glossed-over references instituted in novels for the same effect. As a comic the storyline is free form and non-linear; plot devices that would otherwise be unwieldy or heavy-handed in a novel are free flowing here.

For example there is a very enjoyable parallel story-within-a-story (actually comic-within-a-comic) inside Watchmen entitled The Black Freighter serving as allegory to the major plot's progression. I'm unsure if this device would be successful (or even possible?) if Watchmen was anything but a comic. The movie excised The Black Freighter in its adaptation along with other events that apparently did not work when converted to the film's linearized story line.

As comic-disinterested as I am I really enjoyed Watchmen. I highly recommend it to anyone who has never read a graphic novel or is simply open to reading an excellent specimen of one. I think I may try my hand at other comics now (but I'm still not interested in Superman or Spiderman!).

        

Rodeo has a diamond-shaped ridge of hair on his bottom that pops up when he is nervous or anxious. Usually when other dogs bark at him or he thinks people walking behind us are following him purposefully. Normally this diamond-shaped, second ridge is absent

        

Here's a picture of my nephew at his third birthday party hurling a ball at his poor, indentured-to-photography uncle Reid. I get no respect!

        

I have undergone serious changes to my Cretaceous world view since learning that Spinosaurus aegyptiacus was larger than Tyrannosaurus rex. Much larger!  Frankly though it's amazing that Tyrannosaurus rex has lasted over 100 years as the world's ultimate land predator even if only to casual perceptions. Like many others I don't subscribe to the Jack Horner hypothesis that T Rex was primarily a scavenger (especially if it was any sort of varient of warm blooded!). The discoveries of Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus and more recently the re-discovery of Spinosaurus still haven't toppled the idea that T Rex was a beast.

Though politically uncorrect an analogy to dogs bred for fighting may be apt when comparing the advantages of the different predators in regards to their size specifically. Jack London's White Fang demonstrates the advantages a strong, short bulldog can have over the larger wolf; stemming from those imageries I have convinced myself that a Spinosaurus would not be winning a no-holds-barred cage match with a Tyrannosaurus rex. So let Apollo Creed be the new fan favorite, I've still got my money on Rocky "T Rex" Balboa.

        

A great post-workout, protein recovery meal. Takes all of 1 minute to prepare. Super tasters will detest, mouth breathing brutes like myself enjoy.

2 cans lean tuna, drained
1/2 medium white onion
1/2 teaspoon habanero green pepper sauce
1 teaspoon pure horsradish
Sage to taste
Chili pepper to taste
Worcester sauce

Dice onion and add to tuna. Add spices and Worcester sauce, turn to mix.