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.