The World Turned Upside Down

On year’s longest night,

moon tilted on its side, the

world turned upside down.

Last Thursday, the night cleared briefly, the first time this month, and there it was -- a half-moon tipped over, bottom lit, top dark, lighted from far below the equator by a sun at its farthest away. I suppose “The world turned upside down” comes to mind because I have been reading Kenneth Roberts’ Rabble in Arms. Roberts’ tale is of our 1776 retreat from Quebec, the stubborn defeats along Lake Champlain that delayed Burgoyne and denied the British until we rallied in ’77 to defeat him at Saratoga, the turning point of the war. That 18thC English pop song was played by the British as they stacked arms and surrendered at Saratoga (and again six years later at Yorktown.) My Mom gave me Rabble in Arms when I was twelve, beginning my life-long love of American History. I just sent my 12-year old grandson a long out-of-print copy for Christmas, hoping to set him on the same path.

Roberts extols the tactical genius and battle-field leadership of Benedict Arnold while vividly describing the travails of the Continental Army and the inconstancy of the militia that were to supplement it. A few militia units excelled, but most proved unreliable, undisciplined, incompetent. The difference lay in leadership. Perhaps that is why Mason penned “… a well regulated militia…” later to be the conundrum of Madison’s Second Amendment. Mason wrote “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty;….” Even when Washington came to see the need for a professional army, the first force formed in 1792 avoided the word; it was constituted as “The Legion of the United States.” Its first General was Anthony Wayne; one of its key commanders Arnold’s old nemesis, General Wilkinson, who later also turned traitor to the US.

So there was no standing army in 1789 when Madison wrote the 2nd and said that (therefore) citizens’ right to bear arms should not be abridged. What a far cry from today; now we have a huge standing army, and military suppliers adapt an individual’s weapon of mass destruction and sell it to most any of us – three and a half million assault weapons so far in civilian hands, more than the army has. Is this not madness?

… Madness … General Wayne was known as Mad Anthony Wayne, a tribute to his fiery, battlefield leadership. The Army says Sgt. Bales is not mad – despite wearing a cape costume while assaulting Afghan women and children asleep in their homes, and going out a second time without remorse to do it again that same night. Sounds pretty mad to me. And the Army Psychiatrist, Nidal Hasan? Mad? No, says the military court, but not a terrorist either. ???

And Virginia Tech’s Seung-Hui Cho, who bought semi-automatic handguns from licensed dealers? Who passed background checks with flying colors? And Newtown’s Adam Lanza, said by his mother to have Asperger’s Syndrom? But that is not madness. Is it mental illness? My Asperger grandson, raised by patient, loving, caring parents and specially trained teachers, is now a fully functioning adult, married to a woman he met in college (yes, college), thriving in his auto repair career, loving father of Natalie, my first great-grand child.

What is mentally unfit? Who is to judge?

My grandson’s fine, responsible Dad, my first-born, says guns are inanimate objects, that guns don’t kill people, etc., etc. Well, bats don’t hit homeruns, but take them away and there are no home runs to marvel at …. And then comes Wayne LaPierre who wants more -- more guns, more ammo, more high capacity magazines, more automatic hand guns, more old white guys volunteering to guard public places with concealed weapons … because a highly regulated militia is essential to our freedom.

Oh God….

Just northwest ruminations on a dark December day … the world turned upside down.

Inauguration Celebration ... or Corruption?

The Obama "finance team", reports the NYT, is selling four inaugural packages to corporations and other institutions -- read unions and think tanks.  Price? For $1 million, you get the "Washington" package; or for $500k, the "Adams" package. The "Jefferson" goes for $250k and the "Madison" for $100k. 

For a million, your corporation or union or think tank gets tickets to a "benefactors reception", a children's concert, a candlelight celebration, parade bleacher seats and four tix to the Presidential Ball. 

I assume GW, JA, TJ and JM are spinning in their graves. 

For "finance team" read access peddlers. For "benefactor" read influence seeker.  For "reception" read schmooze time.  For the whole magilla, read corruption.

What a waste!  A waste of money and a wasted opportunity to send a message about this White House and its serious second term.  In these times, when we want banks lending to businesses and businesses innovating, stimulating demand and investing; when we want to close special tax loopholes; when we want people to believe we are serious about shifting the course of our economy ... and to sanctimoniously say "no lobbyists allowed," and then unabashedly sell access to corporations and unions.  What hypocrisy!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the administration and re-election committee announced a bare-minimum inaugural -- because the President had much to do starting Monday, January 21st, and money could be better spent?  Just a speech, a small parade back to the White House, one nice Sunday evening concert or dance, and back to work?  How refreshing would that be?

Isn't it to be celebrated that we have re-elected a black man President, that it wasn't just a self-conscious affirmative action fluke the first time?  Of course; certainly it is.  But this shameful display?  No.  What we need now is the Grinch That Stole the Celebration. 

On second thought, maybe that's what we've got, but apparantly he's working in partnership with the Corruption Fairy.

Who Lost the Election? We Did!

I am sitting here prior to the results even starting to be reported, but already I know who lost. We did.

Representative government lost – when candidate after candidate eschews compromise, represents contributors first and constituents second or when they so clearly represent only those who vote for them and not the whole of their district.

Democracy lost – when a select, few voices are allowed to so outshout the many.

National identity lost – when eleven states representing but 29% of us US citizens receive virtually all the appearances, ads and field work for Presidential candidates; when 79% of us went virtually ignored.

Education lost – when attention being paid was rewarded not with intelligent explanations of the issues, but with pandering, simplistic half-truths, empty slogans and personal attacks.

Trust lost – when the press, TV and radio are filled with stories about voter fraud, voter suppression, last-minute provisional ballot and ID constraints and other dirty tricks, and confidence in the fairness of our election process eroded.

International respect lost – America as exemplar of democracy sullied in the eyes of the world as we squabble, belittle our leaders, waste unbelievable treasure, and mud wrestle our way into the next phase of never-ending political campaigning and partisan gridlock.

Who lost? We did.

January 21st, 2013: What Would You Do…

…not say, do? And not Obama or Romney, but You!

Your inaugural address yesterday has been widely praised for its healing words and for your call to Congress to lay aside ideology, to come together pragmatically, to get to work on our nation’s needs and opportunities -- straight talk that thrilled the huge crowd on the mall and South Lawn and  television audiences around the world.

Now, this morning in the Oval office with your chief of staff, the thin winter light shining coldly in, it begins to sink in: now you have to act. What are the first things you will do to turn those words into action?

You face a House still in Republican control, with John Boehner having barely survived a coup led by Eric Cantor and his Tea Party allies and only then through support of Democrats. Cantor is again House Majority Leader; Nancy Pelosi had little trouble retaining her Minority Leader position. In the Senate, Harry Reid is still Majority Leader, the Democrats retaining its slim majority status with help from independents who caucus with them. Mitch McConnell turned back a revolt among some Senators to retain his Minority Leader post. And everywhere, lots of post-mortems, second guessing, finger pointing going on.

So, what will you now do to get Congress in gear? Grand words from the inaugural address and those platitudes and vague promises from the campaign are all fine and good … but now it’s time to act.

If you are a Republican President, what will you do?
If you are a Democrat President, what will you do?

PS, Fletch talking:
I raised this question at the Olympic Club a couple of weeks ago and have been reflecting on it since. It seems to me an insurmountable opportunity – one of the conundrums that make the Presidency America’s worst job (as the Onion wrote four years ago "US Gives Black Man  Worst Job in America.”) I can’t imagine a sane person wanting to tackle it.

Please post an answer in the comments space below (instead of sending me an e-mail which others cannot share) and tell us where you would start and what your first actions would be to get Congress moving.

PS re the Ummayad Caliphate: What If They Had Won?

My friend Bill Riddle, a military history buff, commented re my thoughts on the Cordoban values of seeking and sharing learning and embracing diversity of ideas and beliefs.  Bill wondered what might have happened in Europe, to Europe, had the "Moors" won the Battle of Tours/Poitiers.  That battle was for control of half or more of what today is France; it took place near the north central towns of Tours and Poitiers in 732. That was before Abd al-Rahman became Emir of Cordoba, in 755, but had the Ummayads controlled the Pyranees and Acuitaine, the southern half of today's France, when they installed Abd al-Rahman, our world might look quite different.

Western historians, particularly Gibbon and various churchy 19thC types, portray Martel's victory at the Battle of Tours, or Poitiers #1,* as having saved Christianity and Western Europe from the dreaded Moors, a decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, driving the infidels back below the Pyranees.

Well, the victorious Franks struggled on in the grip of their church and in the ignorance of the Dark Ages for another 600 years or so.  But what if the Cordobans had won?

Might the Cordoban awakening have spread into Europe by 900 had those terrible "Moors" established some of their translation factories north, in Tours and Avignon and Bordeaux?  Might the Renaissance have come and lifted the curtains of the Dark Ages some 400 years sooner?  Might Jews, Christians and Muslims learned to live together in mutual respect, as peoples of the Book?   Or would the repressive forces of fundamentalist, purist Christianity and Islam have still risen up, driven by fear, suspician and paranoia to overwhelm the humanist, tolerant culture of the Cordobans? 

Perhaps their victory was a pitiful set-back for Europeans.  Idle speculation to re-imagine what might have been ....

* Not to be confused with Edward's 14thC defeat of John of France, the 2nd Battle of Poitiers.

Let's restore "The Ornament of the World"

Our near-month in Spain confounded me with how little I knew of Catholic Spain’s history, and with how totally ignorant I was of the “Moorish” period in Iberia. Seven hundred and eighty years -- that's how long the so-called “Moors” resided in what today we call Spain and Portugal, their al-Andalus (hence today's Andalucia.) Consider: we’ve been a republic for less than 250 years; the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts in 1620 -- not four hundred years ago; Spain founded St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, almost 450 years ago. The so-called "Moors" were there in Europe for 780 years!

The breezy impression one gets there, for the most part, is ‘they came in 711, we kicked them out in 1492, they built the Alhambra, the Alcazars in Toledo and Seville, the great mosque in Cordoba, all of which we turned into our palaces and churches.’

Well, not all true and even more curious. The Alcazars were built in Arabic style by admiring Christian kings who took Seville and Toledo from the Muslims – and they had the walls inscribed with the Quran quote “There is no conqueror but Allah.” Ferdinand III, the Catholic re-conqueror of Toledo, had his tomb inscribed in Latin, Arabic, Hebrew and Mozarabic, the mother-tongue vernacular of al-Andalus. I came away in mystery, what was this all about…?

Since returning two weeks ago, I have been studying to fill my history gap, to learn more about who these "Moors" really were and what they truly left behind in Europe. (A great source: The Ornament of the World, by Maria Menocal, from which I poached my title.)

What I find, what they left behind -- their legacy to us -- was The Renaissance.

Let me to try to encapsulate 700 years in a few paragraphs. As you know, Islam was a tidal wave out of Medina and Mecca that swept across North Africa all the way to the Atlantic in less than 60 years.

From the start, Islam was riven by sectarian in-fighting, as it still is today among Shiites, Sunnis, Sufis, Allewites and all the rest. Barely a hundred years after the death of Mohammed, the Damascus-based caliphate of the Umayyads was overthrown, slaughtered in 750 by another Muslim clan.

The one surviving prince of the Umayyads fled west, made it to Morroco and crossed the straits of Gibraltar into Al-Andalus in 755. Abd al-Rahman's mother was a harem girl, a Berber from the mountains of Morroco; his grand-father, the assassinated Umayyad Caliph. Abd al-Rahman, whose name is a name of God, the Compassionate One, was half-Berber, half-Arab.

It was Berber troops under the generalship of Syrian Arabs who had invaded Iberia forty years earlier, overwhelming the Christian Visigoths, and establishing their Capitol in Cordoba. So both the Berbers and their Syrian Arab leaders welcomed Abd al-Rahman as Prince, as Emir.

This remarkable twenty-something then set out to re-create in al-Andalus the Umayyad society that was being erased in Damascus. It took root as a distance outpost of the new Caliphate, but soon became a culture of its own. For nearly 500 years, until 1236, Abd al-Rahman's successors devoted themselves to learning, to the arts of poetry and song, to irrigation and agriculture, to the graces of cooling architecture, gardens and running water that desert folk so fully appreciate.

This Cordoban culture flourished on two ideals:

1. That knowledge was to be pursued and shared.
2. That diversity was to be embraced.

And so it was that in Cordoba there were established translation factories, where ancient manuscripts were collected from Damascus, Bahgdad, Alexandria and Greece; where then, working in teams, Arab, Jewish and Christian scholars translated the documents into Arabic, Latin, Hebrew and the Mozarabic vernacular. Next, cadres of educated women made hundreds of copies of the translations for distribution throughout the land. Cordobans learned paper making from China, by way of Baghdad, and built Europe's first paper mills.

And so the works of Aristotle, of Heroditus, of Euclid, Plato and all the others, the mainly Greek philosophers, dramatists, and historians, and the mainly Arabic mathematicians, alchemists and astronomers came alive again in Europe. Latin translations were taken to Italy and France in the 1300's to lift the curtain on the dark ages of Northern Europe. Arabic poetry and song became available north of the Pyranees; Hebrew poetry had a rebirth, and Jewish Mysticism grew out of al-Andalus.

This vibrant center of learning and trade attracted people from throughout Europe and the Middle East. It had declared itself the new Caliphate (an unwise presumption, as it turned out, in the eyes of less liberal Muslims in Africa.) By 1,000, Cordoba was the largest city in Europe with a population of over 900,000. Its main library held more than 400,000 books and manuscripts. By comparison, a well stocked monastery north of the Pyranees might have had some 200 to 300 manuscripts. There were more than 70 public libraries in the city, along with multiple mosques, synagogues, and churches.

And that was the second value: not just a tolerance of but an embrace of diversity. It was a society of yes and no, not either yes or no. It was a society that respected the stranger and sought to understand.

My title, "The Ornament of the World", is what Dame Hroswitha, a 10th century Saxon nun, a dramatist and essayist (she'd have been a blogger today) called Cordoba – “The Ornament of the World.” She based that on the description given her by the Caliph's main ambassador to the German court of the Holy Roman Empire. That Ambassador was the bishop of Elvira, the Metropolitan See of al-Andalus -- a Catholic the Caliph’s ambassador, a Jew a later Emir’s foreign minister! Cordoban Emirs' cabinets of ministers regularly included Muslims, Jews and Christians -- anyone of talent.

Despite the Caliphate of Cordoba’s hold on al-Andalus being broken in the 11thC by Berber resentment of their Arab superiors, the culture of learning and diversity continued to thrive in the various Muslim city-states for another 200 years. So integrated was the social order of al-Andalus that Arabic was widely spoken along with Latin-laced Mozarabic, from which has descended Castillian Spanish. In fact, by the 12thC, Catholic Masses in Cordoba and Toledo and Seville were being performed in Mozarabic, much to the disgust of later re-conquering Roman Catholics from the North who represented a very Disapproving Pope.

Concurrently arriving in Al-Andalus from the south, at the invitation of the hard-pressed Emirs of the remaining Muslim city-states, were more of those Berber mountain fighters from Africa, men of little learning hewing to an ideal of purity, of fundamental Islam. And soon enough, they and the Catholic fundamentalists took over.

Between these two disapproving, yes or no, either with us or against us peoples, the Berber Muslims and the Roman Catholics, this magically tolerant Cordoban culture, the Ornament of the World, was torn asunder. By the mid-12th century it was over.

Homogeneity through forced conversions were now being imposed by both new Muslim and new Catholic rulers in their respective city-states. Unorthodoxy was unwelcome. Genius philosophers, physicians, and lawyers like the Jew Maimonides and the Arab Averroes were soon to be exiled, their books banned. By the 15th century, such books -- and such people -- were being burned. It was all over.

The Ornament of the World for nearly 500 years: seeking and sharing learning, embracing diversity, respecting and welcoming the stranger.

Today, fundamentalism grows all about -- both here and abroad. Does not the world need to counter that by again ornamenting ourselves with those core "Moorish" values of the Umayyads of Cordoba? No, not hereditary authoritarianism, nor slavery, nor putting women in harems or accepting polygamy. Set those aside. Is it not time for a re-start, right here in America, to be the new “Moors”; welcoming the stranger; pursuing and sharing learning; embracing diversity of ideas, faiths, and peoples; eschewing “yes or no, you’re either for me or against me”?

P.S. It wasn’t just in al-Andalus. At the same time that Abd al-Rahman was establishing his Umayyad values in Cordoba, the Buddhist scholar Sent-ts’an wrote, in China

          If you want the truth to stand clear before you,

          never be for or against.

         The struggle between “for” and “against” is

         the mind’s worst disease.

Speechifying Charlotte

From Barcelona: Michele Obama also has near-perfect pitch.  Her address was a superb example of public speech -- clearly organized, tuned to her audience (of faltering Obama loyalists), timed to their attention span (unlike Bill Clinton's, though also awesomely effective), and beautifully delivered.  Yes, the cynics will say of both talks that it is vapidly stupid to argue that I love him, therefore you should vote for him.  But both Ann R and Michele O accomplished what they set out to do -- to appear sincere, to be appealing and elicit empathy, and then to suggest that "if I find this distant man warm and human, perhaps you, also, should view him in that light."

Their husbands' speeches did not measure up -- wandering through complicated rabbit-trails of ideas, lacking in feeling, awkwardly delivered in parts.  Guys, take a lesson from the distaff side.

Speechifying Tampa

As some of you know, I am interested in public speaking.  Not good at it, but interested -- an inheretance of Hamilton.  Last night in Tampa we watched a showcase of the great and the awful.

Ann Romney's pean to love and to the love of her life was pitch perfect.  Tight content, beautifully performed, precisely fitted to her audience.  She told us what she was going to tell us, told us, and told us what she had told us: classic structure delivered with passion, charm and sincerity.  It will be a classic of political speech.

Among some truly awful ones was keynoter Chris Christie.  Usual cant and bluster, crude efforts to arouse the crowd, no humor, no charm.  And to insult his predecessor Ann Romney, his opening thought was we don't need love, we need respect.  What kind of a tin ear has he to throw cold water all over an audience still radiating the charm spell Ann Romney had woven.

Gunning for Guns revision

I was confused by and erred in interpreting the Brady state rankings.  Washington State is not tied for 45th most lax; many states have lower rankings than do we. Nonetheless, our rating of 15 out of 100 compares poorly with, for example, New York @ 62, Illinois @35, Michigan @25. California leads the way with 81. 

Here, there is much room for improvement .

Gunning for Guns

It’s been awhile: Ann’s retirement road trip, the Chamber Festival, family visits -- all just excuses. My real blockage to blogging has been struggling to speak about Seattle’s spate of violence – the innocent by-stander killings of Nicole Westbrook and Justin Ferrari; Cafe Racer and Town Hall; the woundings at Folk Life Festival, in Kent and Renton and all the gruesome rest. And now comes Aurora.


Can a Seattleite stand silently by while this epidemic of gunfire afflicts our community -- mocking the very concept of community? But what is one to say in view of the 5-4 ruling by Scalia et al? What to say when our spineless legislators are cowed by NRA's threats? What to say about the reality that some 250 million guns are sloshing about in 115 million households? What does one say, much less what can one do?

Saturday, The Seattle Times sanctimoniously said  about the re-opening of Café Racer, in the same issue headlined with the Aurora “Midnight Massacre”, that “This triumph of the human spirit celebrated in espresso, art, music, and fresh paint is deeply reassuring in trying times.” Trying times??? Christ almighty, is this the best we can do!?!

Let’s start with the Second Amendment. The Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Constitution of the Republic of Vermont (which my Waller forebears helped create and defend) are the roots of the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers little address them for they were a promised add-on should the states ratify. Congress debated them but briefly – less than two days. The context of these ten rights was concern for individuals, acting alone or in concert with their neighbors. The second right, to bear arms, clearly was focused on local community needs in the eighteenth century just ending – against hostile Indian tribes, against foreign powers like France and Britain, against a hypothetical national government that conceivably could go too far. For two hundred years the Supreme Court’s gun rulings upheld the linkage – clearly intended by our founders – between a “well regulated” militia and private ownership of arms. But Scalia’s majority has severed that linkage. Now there is a right to own a weapon unconnected with communal responsibilities. But any weapon? So far, the Court still allows some local regulation of what and how guns can be owned. We should take advantage of and work on those options. Total banning is unpopular and unconstitutional, but reasonable regulation is still acceptable.

Gun protectors always tell us “guns don’t kill people, people do.” OK, let’s look at the people.

Shooters are invariably young men. David Brooks writes compellingly about how we are failing young men, especially in school where boys’ active and rambunctious natures are unwelcome, setting some on a life path of frustration and alienation. Read “Time to Change the Cookie Cutter Approach to School.”

And then Brooks again, on income inequality’s impact on children: “The Opportunity Gap.” This was more visible in the epidemiological findings reported by Wilkinson and Pickett in The Spirit Level, a book the Occupy Movement should have enshrined as Gospel. It’s all there: the social ills and afflictions that accompany income inequality throughout the developed world. And ours, as you know, is growing to be the worst inequality among the developed economies. And this –- supposedly “the land of opportunity” -- is also becoming the least socially mobile among Western societies.

Frustrated, alienated young men without promise: mix their need to assert manhood, to even things up, with easy access to guns. I am mindful of the Berkowitz and LePage landmark studies demonstrating that the presence of a gun in a stressful situation stimulates thoughts of acting out mayhem and that such thoughts can result in actions. Guns can cause violence; guns shoot people up to shoot people.

What to do? I don’t have answers, but some notions:
About the second amendment: if the Court today accepts the legitimacy of local restrictions and regulations, why not
• A King county ban on assault weapons?
• On high-capacity magazines?
• On fully automatic, short barrel handguns?
• On gun shows?
In Okanagon County, such restraints may be neither needed nor acceptable. Fine; suit your needs. But here, in our increasingly heterogeneous metropolitan society where unfamiliarity constrains empathy, we need restrictions that make access to a gun less easy, less likely.

• How about licensing gun owners? A very committed Libertarian friend told me Thursday that he favored licensing and that such licensing qualification should include a personality test! This from a Libertarian, but one who sees guns as tools which should be only in trained, competent, trustworthy hands.
• How about titleing guns? We title autos and tax them. Autos cannot be sold without transferring title and registering it with the state. Sure, at the beginning thousands of scofflaws would pay no attention but over time, transfer of guns would become increasingly difficult and risky if titleing became the norm and penalties for possessing untitled weapons were stiff.
• Write your Representative
• and State legislators.

What to do re the NRA: this is no longer your kindly grandfather teaching a youngster how to safely plink at tin cans with a 22. That was the NRA of my childhood. Today's NRA is a cabal funded by and run for gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Dealers like those in Phoenix who looked the other way while selling 406 guns in six months (that’s more than two guns per day!), over $300,000 worth, to a guy on food stamps! They didn't know those guns were going out the front door and immediately into the hands of folks who couldn't pass a background check? Give me a break. Isn't abetting a crime a crime? Isn't combining to protect such abetting illegal? Why Shouldn't the NRA be subject to RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act?
• How about writing the Justice Dept. and Attorney General Holder
• and Rob McKenna.
• Write Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.
• Contribute to candidates who dare to face the NRA.

About Lobbying for Gun Regulation :
Join me in supporting the Bradys. Their rankings of states in terms of gun regulation places Washington State tied for 45th in the country, with 15 points out of 100. California gets 81; Arizona, 0. Even Alaska has tougher regulations than do we.
• Join the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
• Sign the Brady petition to close the gun show loophole.
• Sign the Brady petition to keep guns out of Starbucks. (Yes, Starbucks!)

Regarding Boys and Schools:
• Support charter schools and then lobby for sex-segregated classes in elementary and middle schools.
• In PTA’s and before school boards, encourage hiring male teachers trained to deal with boys, teachers that boys can relate to.

Re income inequality:
• Vote for candidates who seek short term stimulants to get people working again.
• Vote for candidates who recognize the pernicious problem and propose ways to redress inequality.

There’s no silver bullet for this epidemic of violence. But steady and resolute pressure can bring this community, this State, and this nation to its senses about access to weapons and to identification of and intercession with those who would wield them. It’s a long road, but we will never make progress unless each of us takes a first step.

Leave a comment rather than e-mail me. Let me and the few readers I have hear your thoughts. Start a debate and pass this on if you will. And thanks for persisting through this.

Memorial Day May Prove Drier Than Some Would Like

No, not weather, booze. The changeover from State Liquor Stores to commercial retailers appears to be a planning cock-up – at least for us Islanders – that will leave some celebrating without their Here’s-to-Dad Glenmorangie or the Welcome-summer G&T.

Our only liquor outlet closed May 15th. When I wanted to re-supply Ann’s Kettle One, I headed for QFC, doubting that they were yet set up for spirits. Right, not even a tiny tenth will go through check-out lines until June 1.

Factoria, I was told, was open but “you’d better hurry – they received what will be their final shipment last Wednesday.” I found the store and sure enough, they had a couple of Kettles left, but the near-empty shelves screamed “Going out of Business.” And we are still four days from Memorial Day weekend festivities.

Moreover, Mercer Island has a population of 17,000-some adults over 18. If national addiction averages hold, we have some 1,500 needy alcoholics among us; this could be a tough cold-turkey if they don’t pay attention to their stash. And I don’t relish them driving I-90 to Factoria in extremis.

Somebody screwed up the transition – maybe intentionally, resentment at us voters who ended the state’s monopoly?

Anyway, word-to-the-wise: check your stocks and start searching. Don’t wait ‘til Friday.

Revealing Vladimir

Several years ago, the Irish National Theatre company presented Waiting for Godot at the Moore Theatre. Its tall, lanky Vladimir has haunted me ever since. As night falls, Estragon gets cold; Vladimir wraps his suit coat around his chum. Now Vladimir is chilled. He paces back and forth, wrapping his arms about his body, hunched up against the night air, often with his back to the audience.

Finally, after struggling for a couple of years to figure out what has turned into "Chrysalis"

Chrysalis

(I am a slow worker,) I have embarked on sculpting Vladimir Against the Night.

First step: see if Vladimir can be fit into a 4' column of Indiana limestone I bought in 2006. A builder had donated four surplus blocks to Pratt Fine Arts Institute. They offered them at around $1/lb; my block weighs out at just under 300 pounds. A friend took photos of me in a poor simulation of a chilly Vladimir (perhaps it would have been better naked -- on second thought....)

Second: transpose the image to the block. That alone took about three hours.

Now to begin removing rock. I choose to work with hand tools, as in the 15th century, hammers and chisels. It would sound a bit arch to say Michealangelo's tools -- but in truth, they are. The option is power, which is less tiring. Here is a fellow student using an electric saw to cut grids in marble, which he will next hammer out. But power can get away from you -- and it is so damn noisy! When you learn how, you can remove rock just as fast with hammer and chisel, and you have control of where the tool is going.

I am using a 2.2 lb hammer, a pitching tool to knock off big chunks from the corners, a single point to take out large pieces, and a six-toothed claw that carves out small pieces.

Eventually, I will be using small claws, flat chisels, rasps, files, and so on.

So, slowly I hammer away to reveal Vladimir.

This is how far he's come after about 33 hours of work. Such a long way to go. I will probably remove about 40% of the block. Consider: Bernini removed nearly 70% of a 10'x10'x8' cube of marble to reveal Daphne and Apollo and all with hammer and chisel.

I'm not going for a fully detailed Vladimir. He will be rough, still emerging from the rock. The goal, of course, is to invest him with life, with feeling. The trick will be in the nuances of the neck bow, the hunch of the shoulders, the burial of chin in chest, the hands clasping at shoulders, the bend and tension of knees.... Not easy, but with my coach/mentor/friend Sabah al Dhaher looking over my shoulder, I have a fair chance of achieving those.

I'll keep you informed....

Six Months and a Week To Go ...

May – June – July – August – September -- October plus a week into November: OMG, what an effing bore this is going to be. Some 134 million of us will vote (unless the tedium simply drives us underground until it’s all over) but I dare say 132 million of us already know who we’ll vote for. So to sway some 2 million wishy-washies, more politely called swing voters, PACs, wealthy individuals and true-believers will spend a couple of billion dollars. That’s 1,000 bucks a head! What relief it would be if they could simply gave them ten C-notes each and save the rest of us from all the flak. Well if the presidential race bores, what of Congress? For political junkies like I, watching Congress over the next six months will be excruciating – watch grown men and women act like teen-agers doing everything possible to avoid cleaning up their rooms. Congressional and Senatorial races here and there may prove interesting. But again, millions will be dumped into those districts by outside interests trying to tell constituents how to think and vote. Don’t constituents have a right to be insulated from meddlesome outsiders, a right to think in peace and make thoughtful decisions? Wouldn’t it be great if we could limit political contributions to constituents only? But that has as much chance of passing Constitutional muster as getting corporations ruled non-persons. This bastardization of representative government is what we call our “democracy.” There's got to be a better way.

Musical Hat Trick

Those of you who know us know how important music is to me and even more, to Ann. So this personal report of three distinctive treats in the past three days is just that, a personal remembrance of delights.

Thursday, the Seattle Symphony featured Augustin Hadelich playing Dvorak's Violin Concerto. Augustin gave a superb performance, apparantly note-perfect judging by the enthusiastic applause of the orchestra. (Seattle audiences are unreliably enthusiastic....) And he followed with an encore Paganini Caprice 24 -- stunning! What made it so very special for Ann and me is that we have met and dined with Augustin on occasion; he's become a regular at the Seattle Chamber Music Summer Festivals. To know his story makes his artistry all the more awesome. At 15, this promising prodigy, on his family's Austrian farm, was engulfed in flames when the machinery he was maintaining exploded and the barn caught fire. Life-threatening burns covered his torso, face, and bow arm. He was fighting for life; his violin career apparantly over. But two years later, still in recovery treatments, he raised that bow again and the violin became his life. His playing reflects his sweet, gentle and deep appreciation for the beauty of life and music.

Saturday morning: La Traviata, live from the Met at the Pacific Place theatre. I've seen it three times before; Ann several more. But this! Willy Decker's unique interpretation is the ultimate opera -- moving, simple, music made drama, drama made music. Natalie Dessay is no coquettish Violetta, but a despairing courtesan trapped in the expectations of the beautiful party people, unable to cross over into respectability and happiness, unable to fend off time. Each set of society petty, cruel, and self-centered, ready to sacrifice Violetta to their vanities. Dessay, ill leading up to the performance, admitted in an intermission interview that she had missed a note. But acting, feeling, living the role more than compensated for those few (Ann among them) who noticed.

Saturday evening: SRJO's gala at FareStart. If classical music is all about the notes, jazz is all about the transitions, the conversation. A quintet of SRJO musicians created music together and with singer Greta Matassa. Here was the epitome of jazz -- musicians listening to each other, extemporaneously talking to one another, blending thoughts and ideas but each retaining individual identity. To see Thomas Marriott listening, head leaning forward, eyes closed, then raising his horn to add in, soto voce, under Mike or Randy; then signalling he'd like to speak, and taking the lead. Greta scatting and Mike riffing, talking back and forth, taking each other to new places neither had heard before, and all coming back together in sync. Magic. Music composed as it was being played, ethereal, never to be heard that way again. Magic.

A hat-trick of musical delights. Wish you could have been there....

Sharing Joy

Earlier, Ann and I got a call from a dear friend who wanted to share joyful news that a long friendship has burst forth into love, and that a career-shifting job is in the offing. Many of you will try to guess but we will neither confirm nor deny about whom we're talking; that's not the point. This post is not about our friend or about such news, but about how good it feels to receive a call to unguardedly share elation and joy.

Ann and I are grinning still, an hour later. The call confirms the caller's care about and trust in us -- to share elation without reserve. And we know the caller knows how much we care, in turn. The other side of the coin, of course, is a call to openly share sadness and despair. Such calls have come -- and will.

But for now, have joy? Share it...!

Rain, Rain, Go -- For God's Sake, Go ...

… some place you are needed. Seattle got 7.2 inches in March – twice the average March since data collection began in the 19th Century -- and half-again more than March, last year. Even the most sodden Seattleite is fed up. Yes, I know, weather isn’t climate and No, this isn’t another column about polar bears – but wouldn’t it be just plain prudent to act as if human behavior was partly responsible? Dick Tompkins and Bryna Webber, dear photographer friends, have been documenting global water issues – in Iceland, Bhutan, Kenya and Antarctica; that’s a Masai herder boy moving his family’s skin and bones cattle to Tanzania after this three-year drought in Kenya.

The water issue? Distribution – too much here, too little there. And water issues are dangerous issues – while men may fight over alcohol, they kill over water.

A second thing Seattle is famous for is entrepreneurial opportunity. We’ve got a lot of smart guys – smart water guys over at Bill and Melinda’s new place; Bezos is a smart distribution guy. The world’s two largest boring machines – that’s boring machines, not boring machines – just punched though under Capital Hill and the Federal Cut to bring light rail to the UW. There’s an idea thirty years late; we turned down Federal money back then to bring light rail to Seattle. Portland was next in line; now they have real light rail, not those cranberry-colored toys running around Amazon’s new neighborhood. Meanwhile, we are building a huge plant to dump fresh water run-off into the salt water of Puget Sound. Federal dollars are available for boring machines and pipelines and storm-water run-off plants.

Why don’t some smart guys and Federal money start piping rain, if not to Africa, at least to Nevada or Texas? A lot more friendly than piping oil – and just as many jobs.

My Dwindling Faith in Democracy

Throughout adulthood, I have clung to my belief in the ultimate wisdom of the American public: that in the end, their collective judgments on potential leaders, on policies, on national priorities will prove right. The source of this faith in our democracy? Perhaps my fifth grade civics teacher; certainly my father’s dedication to national service and responsible citizenship; to a fundamentally idealistic belief all will turn out well.

But more and more, crude realities intrude on my romantic vision of our civic process. Last spring, when my Olympic Club friend Jerry Carlson asked me what grade I would give our democracy, I started out thinking around a “C+” and wound up, upon reflection, giving us a “D” (see Grading Our Democracy, May 20, 2011.) In these last few months, my assessment and mood have only become bleaker. Sliding into a D-. Consider, in no particular order:
• That citizens of capability and potential as leaders – city, county, state, national – recoil from any suggestion that they run for office rather than submit themselves and their families to the grinder we now put candidates through. Only aberrant wanna-be’s offer themselves to us.
• That 30% of people under 30 in a recent study cannot name two nations we fought against in WWII.
• That in a 2006 poll of Americans under 30, 63% could not locate Iraq on a map of the middle east, 75% couldn’t find Iran, and 88% couldn’t find Afghanistan.
• That a tiny, unrepresentative handful of Americans (white, ultra-conservative, older) in primaries and caucuses are selecting one of the two major candidates between whom some 130mm of us will select our next President.
• That while our roads, bridges, rails and airports rot away to third-world standards, we argue about gay marriage and contraceptive pills.
• That one candidate accuses his opponent of speaking French – and is applauded for it.
• Anonymous voices, through super-PACs, have pre-empted candidates and parties in articulating political views and ideas to the public.
• That 40% of social security recipients answer “no” when asked if they receive any support from the government.
• That candidates for legislative offices proudly proclaim that “compromise” is a sin they will never commit.
And you can make up your own list, I’m sure.

Those Founding Fathers about whom Sarah Palin loves to prattle distrusted democracy. They established a system of limited enfranchisement, sequential layers of representation, and counter-balances between political bodies. Responsible judgment was what they sought; they did not share my naïve faith in communal wisdom, but sought to winnow out popular passion and protect the minority from excesses of an enflamed majority. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, we gradually replaced representative government with direct democratic participation, eventually enfranchising all citizens regardless of sex, material stake in society, education, whatever.

On paper that looks good. But, if, as it appears to me, we are becoming more narrow, more stupid, more malleable to populist crap, more polarized, are we not unworthy of the gift of democratic participation? Is this how we ought to govern ourselves?

We attempt to prohibit the mentally ill from owning guns. We demand drivers be licensed after demonstrating that they can operate a car with some prospect of not harming fellow citizens. But what of voting? Is not the vote a powerful weapon with which to inflict damage on fellow citizens? We entrust young people with the vote before we trust them to drink wine. Any citizen has access to this weapon – with no qualifications re thoughtfulness, sense of history, judgment, values or anything other than having attained the age of 18 and having been fated to be born of an American parent.

Or, of course, having been naturalized; a strong argument can be made that the naturalized American is likely a more thoughtful and qualified voter than their by-birthright fellow; at least they studied and were examined on our history, structure of government, constitution, and the like.

We register to vote. Why not impose a voter qualification test at the same time? Ten or so simple questions about our history, government structure, constitutional rights and obligations, party systems, world affairs and so on might underscore that this voting is serious business, that the right is precious, and at the same time screen out those whose ignorance and thoughtlessness should disqualify them from the right to a ballot.

That’s only a part of revitalizing our political process, of course; we need constitutional constraints on super-PACs, equitably affordable campaigns, limits on non-constituent contributions, maybe even a return to more brokered party conventions which balance party leaders’ assessments with popular support for candidates. Undemocratic? To be sure -- but then, so was the Golden Age of Athens, the Roman Republic, and the societies that produced the Enlightenment thinkers who so influenced the works of our Founding Fathers.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his new (and recommended!) book, Strategic Vision; America and the Crisis of Global Power, argues against the inevitability of American decline, citing six inherent assets that we can marshal to meet our domestic and global challenges. But to capitalize on any of these six requires a leadership to energize us and marshal national will. To develop such leaders, it seems to me, we need to look with fresh, realistic eyes at our entire system of democracy, and not take on faith my fifth grade civics belief that “democracy” is the panacea that inevitably generates progress.

Is a voting test a good idea? Probably not. It would be highly divisive, subject to abuse, take a constitutional amendment to establish, and so on. But it galls me to realize that my vote counts just the same as some yahoo’s who believes the world was created 6,000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, who thinks France is our enemy, who doesn’t know who fought whom in Korea, and whose answer to foreign frustrations is to bomb the bastards back into the stone age. D- for democracy.

Tank Thinking in America. How do I get in on this? Where’s my tank?

You’ve seen the talking heads on TV – On the News Hour: Professor so and so from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. On Charlie Rose: Ms. Michael so and so from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. On 60 Minutes, Dr. Edward So and so of the Rand Corporation, a defense policy think tank.

What the hell is a think tank anyway? Is it a real entity or just a term to pump up our perception of this “thinker” or to add gravitas to his or her institution?
The American Heritage Dictionary (my favorite) says a think tank is “a group or institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems , especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament.” Wikipedia pretty much concurs, and notes that “most think tanks are non-profit organizations.”

There are more than 4,500 think tanks world wide -- in countries as disparate as Israel, Venezuela, Russia, Jamaica, even Uzbekistan has one. In US, more than 1300 are listed on Wikipedia, an incomplete list they say.

Think tanks vary by ideological perspectives, sources of funding, issue focus and audiences they aim to influence. All sorts of think tanks:
~Independent, civil society think tanks
Some ideologically identifiable, e.g., Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, The Center for American Progress
Others not, e.g., The Center for Strategic & International Studies
~Policy research institutes located in or affiliated with a university, e.g., Hoover Institution at Stanford University
~Governmentally created or state sponsored think tanks, e.g., The Rand Corp
~Corporate or trade association think tanks
And lots more.

Let’s look at some examples, via their IRS form 990’s, mainly for 2010.
A government funded think tank, The Rand Corporation
Rand was formed with a 1946 USAF grant to Douglas Aircraft, and later spun off as a free-standing corporation. Charter: “To help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.” Revenues (2010): $261.9million, up 5% from prior year. (Not bad, in an austerity environment.) Government grants made up $226million of that – not sales, not fees, grants. That’s what justifies this 1700-person corporation being tax exempt. Yes, it’s a non-profit, losing $849,000. CEO James A Thompson earned $733,900. (There are some CEO’s of for-profit corps ten times larger that don’t earn that.)

A conservative, civic think tank, The Heritage FoundationCharter: “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense.” That’s a mouthful. Revenues of $78.3mm, up 14% from prior year. (Wow, +14% in a recession.) But a loss of $2.1mm. Despite that dire deficit, CEO Edwin Fuelner had a good year: compensation, $1,096,000. For a $78 million operation!

Let’s cross the aisle:
A liberal think tank, The Center For American Progress“Dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.” Revenues: $38.6mm, up 35% from prior year. What? 35%! And, they made a surplus: $7.0mm. Perhaps this think tank couldn’t think up ways to spend it fast enough. CEO John Podesta made (a modest) $238,000.

A libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute“To broaden the understanding of public policy based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” Revenues $40.4mm, up 26% from prior year. +26%! And these libertarians know how to sock it away: surplus of $16.8mm! 40% of revenues! They put away $9.7mm the year before. CEO Edward H. Crane earned $488,200.

And what about non-partisan, non-ideological think tanks?
The Center for Strategic and International Studies“Dedicated to analysis and policy impact.” Short and sweet: think and make a difference.
Revenues: $39.1mm, up 35% from ’09. Surplus (yes, another sock-it-away year) of $9.0mm. CEO John J. Hammer earned $414,000.
(Incidentally, I subscribe to CSIS’s Critical Questions service; I highly recommend these occasional e-mail updates on what lies behind little-noted but significant current affairs developments. Go to www.csis.org and sign up.)

These think tanks appear to be recession-proof. CEO’s of for-profits would kill for these revenue increases and operating surpluses – and be tax exempt, to boot.

So, who does the thinking in these think tanks? Fellows. Fellows are authors, scientists, scholars, physicians, politicians, columnists, diplomats -- just about anyone who can think. From scanning through 990’s, it appears that the going rate for a Fellow is around $185,000 – $250,000. And of course, most of these Fellows have regular day jobs as well; think tank pay is pin money to supplement their income.

Think tanks themselves are becoming subjects of thought. The Hudson Institute – a think tank -- is holding a conference next week entitled “Are Think Tanks Becoming Too Political?” The 2012 Winter edition of National Affairs leads with an article entitled Devaluing Think Tanks.

Well, when institutions begin holding seminars on themselves, then you know that this is an industry. And given those double-digit revenue increases in the midst of recession, this is a growth industry. And, folks, with those surpluses and those paychecks, this growth industry of think tanking appears to be one sweet racket.

So my question is, how do I find a tank that will pay me to think? If any of you have a suggestion, don’t hesitate -- Please -- Help me find a tank to think in.