Sad State of Affairs

I was reading an article in my old town newspaper (the IndyStar) yesterday, when I happened upon a story about the Indianapolis Museum of Art's new foray. Essentially, they are going to revamp part of the grounds into a nature park and have commissioned 10 original sculptures to be integrated into the landscape, each one by a different artist. What caught my attention is that there were artists from New York, from The Netherlands, San Francisco, Chile, even Cuba...but not one from Indiana.

This probably wouldn't be an issue if it was one piece, or three pieces. But ten?? And there was no way they could justify one person from Indiana to do a piece? Let's take an even wider scope: there was not one person chosen from the Midwest. The closest is a sculptor from Richmond VA.

I found this to be so illustrative of one of the main reasons I finally gave up the fight in Indy. Here is one of the gems of the city, a truly world-renowned art gallery. And yes, they do showcase local artists, mostly in short-term showings (although they do have a permanent area devoted to local artists). But when something "really important" comes along, the Board of Governors didn't even look close to home.

I've seen this time and time again in all of Indy's creative industries. More unbelievable, the same people that go to New York, L.A. or elsewhere for their art or talent will decry the lack of local talent and wonder why no one with any skill stays around unless they're stuck in Indy. And then wonder why their creative businesses lose clientele.

It pains me to read about this. I know talented people back in Indy who want to stay and try to do all they can to change the culture. One by one, they're all fleeing or getting out of the creative business they love altogether. Being in Austin and seeing a culture that nutures and heavily supports local artists, as well as being a cauldron of creative energy, the gulf that Indy and the Midwest have to leap seems more daunting than ever, because the problem and the viewpoints are so systemic and engrained.

The most depressing part was reading the forum postings in the Star, and how many people thought that criticism of the IMA was misplaced...because there's no good talent in Indiana. In essence, IMA has given credence to the stereotype. I'm sure they don't see it that way, and their decision to commission the sculptors they did was not intended to send this sort of a message (at least I hope it was unintentional); nonetheless, it still speaks volumes.

Watching events like this punctuate how glad I am to be in Austin, and how much long-time residents here take for granted. That doesn't mean it doesn't sadden me to see such myopic, provincial behavior in my old hometown.

Obama Rally Recap

When one is going to go to a political rally, there are a few things one should remember.

First rule of thumb: don't stay up until 3am when you're going to do something that requires thought the next day, even if you're having a really good time.

Second rule of thumb: when it's 70 degrees in Austin bring a jacket. 70 degrees isn't really that warm here, especially if there's wind.

Third rule of thumb: 20% chance of rain means that there IS a chance of rain. And it's not a warm rain in February, even in central Texas.

Sadly, the CW and I ignored all three.

Despite all that, this was quite the interesting event. The setting was at Auditorium Shores, which is actually a field on the south shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin. It could easily be called "Dog Shit Smelling Field at Town Lake" or "Nice View, No Seating Park" or something else more readily identifiable.

Other than Obama merchandise and 658 people soliciting everyone in sight to sign up and work for the Obama campaign, there was nothing to eat or drink besides soft drinks, water and $2 packs of junk food. This wouldn't have been an issue, except that the local paper, The Statesman, published press releases that said they were going to limit the crowd to the first 10,000 people; since there were already requests for over 16,000 tickets we figured we needed to be there early, so we arrived a little before 1pm (Obama being scheduled to speak at 3pm). Two hours without any place to sit or food to speak of was a bit tiring (especially given the breaking of the aforementioned rules of thumb), and as it turned out, wholly unnecessary. We could have shown up at 2:55 and been fine. No one limited the crowd and there was plenty of room to put more people in. The final tally came in this morning as "at least 15,000 people."

The crowd had an air of Woodstock about it. The average age couldn't have been over 26, and they were all enthused, engaged and...well...very 1968. Long hair, loose clothes, tie-died T-shirts, frisbees, live bands playing protest songs, artists & poets mingling, old hippies, braless women, everyone talking of love and change, teenage parents with $8.34 between them playing with their kids. All that was missing was the smell of pot and a couple or two getting it on in a tent. It was almost surreal. I'm not a stranger to standing out in a crowd, but usually it's not because I'm the one who looks like the wealthy Republican plant.

One thing that struck me soon after walking in was how difficult it was going to be to secure this area. (See some of the photos at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/photos/02/022307_reader_obama.html ). Not only was the stage in an open field, there were tall buildings all within relatively easy rifle range. Behind us (south of downtown) were an entire construction crew building a new structure, as well as the Palmer events center, all within 1000 yards of the venue. And the security to get in was lax as well: women's bags were searched before entry, but we saw people who came in with backpacks (which you weren't supposed to be able to bring), umbrellas, food (would have been nice to have), and one person even got in with her dog. Anyone could have walked in with a small weapon without a problem.

I saw exactly two police officers, a male and a female, who stayed together the entire time, one sheriff's deputy, and one Secret Service agent patrolling the crowd, who stuck out like a sore thumb way more than I ever could with his tailored suit, Secret Service pin on his lapel and shoes polished to blinding. Nice undercover work; I wonder if the feds are that stealthy all the time. Oh, and a police helicopter circling for about 10 minutes before Obama hit the stage. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign is just naive enough to be reckless about his safety.

For some reason, there was an almost constant running dialog from the stage about New Orleans. Yes, there are still evacuees in Austin, and yes it's fashionable to talk about the failing of the government there. (No one ever referred to the grotesque failings of the Lousiana & NOLA local officials; to hear it from this forum GWB is responsible for everything.) Given that Obama barely brought it up, I have to wonder what purpose there was to grinding that axe.

The final band relocated to Austin from NOLA, which is the only reason I can figure out why they were allowed to play. The horn section was tight...by the 2nd verse of every tune, the female singer was consistently 1/4 step sharp and kept "going for it" in vocal places that she should have left unexplored. As CW said about their self-penned protest songs: "Generally speaking, protest songs are quite badly written." Note to band: there are more lyrical choices than a recounting of what happened. We all know the story of Katrina, we all know the story of Rosa Parks. Don't give us a blow-by-blow recap and expect anyone to pay attention when your lyrics are along the lines of "She was just tired/and needed a well-deserved rest/ so when they asked her to stand/ she just sat." Thanks for the history lesson...now go take some music lessons. When they played their one cover, Stevie Wonder's "I Wish," there was a lot of wishing all right -- wishing they would go away. They did accomplish one thing, though: I have now seen a bad Austin band.

After another girl got up to speak about Katrina, Obama finally hit the stage to..."Rock and Roll Part 2." That's good. Pull out that burnt back catalog of British pedophiles. Always a crowd-pleaser.

Of course, Obama is extremely charismatic and articulate. It's also easy to see that he's very early in his crafting of a stump speech. I was kind of surprised at how many times he said 'uh,' and paused and seemed to have to gather his thoughts. He's so smart and has his positions so well organized in his head that he probably still believes that he can get up on stage and wing it extemporaneously, and to some extent he can. But I will be very surprised if he doesn't start forming a much better template soon. He's in for the long haul and he's going to start getting tired. There are times that it's better to perform than to think, and I think he has yet to learn that.

Obama's four main points were 1) universal health care, 2) rebuilding the country's infrastructure (including broadband access to everyone), 3) more funding for education, specifically more money to teachers, and 4) getting the country out of Iraq. As with any set of campaign goals, the "how do we pay for it" portion was left out, but a campaign stop is not necessarily the forum to go over the details. Finally, he ended with an explanation of what "The Audacity of Hope" means and the emotion of what he wants to accomplish; very powerful and compelling. He left the stage to "Long Train Running" which kind of made sense.

Now the true problem: he has fired up the youth, but despite all the talk to the contrary this is not who you court to win the presidency. They have no money. They don't get registered to vote. They don't vote when they are registered. For all of the "change" in the 60s and the nostalgia of how politically connected everyone was, the last time I looked Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern did not occupy the White House; instead it was Richard Nixon. If this is Obama's sole crowd he has no chance to win, no matter how much enthusiasm is generated.

All in all, my opinion remains the same: Obama is intriguing, likeable, and passionate. There seems to be very little pretense about him; he is the real deal. But there are places where we have fundamental differences of opinion on the issues, and there are little clues that leave me wondering if he is ready to truly lead. (For instance, he doesn't talk about winning, he talks about being an agent of change.) But he has the two qualities that make an effective leader: charisma, and a clear direction on where he wants to go.

I wonder who else will be coming to town...

WHERE ARE THE PATRONS OF THE ARTS?

Living in Austin often makes some "eureka" moments occur. One happened recently. After having various creative discussions, visiting some new theaters, listening to the plights of some artists it hit me that we've lost a serious creativity avenue.

A lot of us pay lip service to patronizing the arts. Some of us go farther, buying season tickets to the theater or the symphony, purchasing local bands' CDs, or buying a painting here and there from local artists. A few souls do a bit more by becoming "patrons" of various organizations.

What isn't happening is the nurturing of individual artists. There's no modern-day replacement for an artist taken under the wing of a wealthy patron or even a government and then allowed the freedom to simply create. Instead, artists compete for a fickle public's ears and eyes, or surrender themselves to bureacracies that might mean well but need to turn a profit, or just go all the way and try to bend to the whims of the corporate culture. If they don't, they are faced with the unexpected choice of making their passion and talent a side hobby, or starving for their art. But how much would this change if even a small percentage of talented artists were allowed to create for the sake of creation, without financial worries?

Don't misunderstand me. There are lots of pitfalls: giving someone a full-time job to create art ain't cheap. People sometimes donate to organizations they wouldn't otherwise for tax breaks and to feel good about themselves while they're being entertained; they're not going to cotton to the idea of sponsoring a playwright or poet. And I'm not suggesting some sort of charity ride for people simply because "they wannabe a painter or a songwriter." But the point is this: few of us ever consider giving a promising artist or even a more mature artist the opportunity for a period of time to work on their craft while being able to live a normal life.

We've all seen the person that we believe is talented enough to "make it" or change the way their chosen craft is performed in the future. But usually, years later we're either wondering what happened to them or why they've changed so much. Perhaps those of us who have been a bit more fortunate financially might wish to consider an alternative to blindly throwing money at an entity, and instead giving more support to an individual that needs the opportunity to free themselves from that which takes them away from their craft.

THE ROMNEY FILES

-Mitt Romney: right-wing conservative.
-Mitt Romney: centrist Republican who can win blue states.
-Mitt Romney: Mormon out of step with America.
-Mitt Romney: Can-do businessman who understands how to lead.

Is he any of these? All of the above? None of the above? Unless you're from Massachusetts or possibly Utah, you likely don't know either. As it is, I'm just now beginning to even find snippets of information deep enough to chew on about the man. Here's the thumbnail:

-Romney made his fortune as a successful venture capitalist in Massachusetts. He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, putting the fear of God into Teddy before losing a close race in which Romney spent over $6MM of his own money. In 2001 he was brought in to salvage the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and took the Games it from a looming financial disaster into a successful and profitable venture. He parlayed that into the governorship of Massachusetts the same year.

Romney's biggest hurdle seems to be convincing voters where he actually stands on issues, and like McCain and Giuliani where he lands may be more crucial to his chances in the Republican primaries than the general election. Romney has been pro-choice for his entire life, but seems to have recently undergone a "conversion" based on a conversation with Harvard scientists who Mitt says horrified him with things they're doing in the lab with human embryos. Whether it's true or not, it rings of a conversion of convenience.

Also hot on his heels is Mitt's religion: he's a Mormon. Most people in the U.S. don't know what Mormons are all, so about stereotypical images are often associated with the religion, such as polygamy. Many fundamentalists apparently don't even see it as a Christian religion, even though they worship Jesus.

Now in my book, neither of these have squat to do with the major problems facing the country. Abortion especially is a hot-button issue that continues to obfuscate other issues and disproportionately dominate the conversation. This is not to suggest it's not important to a large segment of the population, but we are rejecting or electing candidates based on their abortion stance, and it's far from the only issue that is crucial to our lives and well-being. Yet, this may be where Romney's success will be predicated on his ability to walk that line, because if he falls too heavily on one side or the other of the abortion issue he offends that same number on the other side. And there's a real danger that no one believes whatever he says because of his "conversion," even if it's for real, in which case his candidacy is doomed. Sad, but true.

On the actual legislative side of things, Romney has had success as a conservative in an ultra-liberal state where Democrats control both houses. He signed a universal health care plan into law that, among other things, allows employees to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs; it also provides vouchers for the poor. It's probably too early to tell where the successes and pitfalls of his plan will be (and I don't live in Massachusetts so far be it from me to have any insight), but in an era where everyone acknowledges that the system is broken it's a welcome sign of action. He also successfully fought the state Supreme Court's efforts to legalize gay marriage. Score one for each side of the red-blue divide.

My early impression is that most of us don't know enough about Romney to draw any real conclusions; I certainly do not. He reminds me of what ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote about New Orleans Saints rookie Reggie Bush at the beginning of the NFL season, which paraphrased was "No one comes in with more expectations in every direction. If he lives up to the hype, most won't be surprised. If he fails miserably, most won't be surprised. In short, all things and no things are considered possible or even probable, sometimes by the same people."

12 months away from the first primaries, that seems an apt description of Mitt. However, if he takes the bait and goes hard after the right wing of the Republican Party, I'll lay lots and lots of money that he will never come within sniffing distance of the White House. The country has tired of the right-wing rhetoric.

EXORCISING DEMONS, PART 3

As I told the Conservative Wife, savor this for you may never see it again.

The Colts have slain another dragon. It's unfair that one game carries so much weight, but that's the reality. Among the things that will or might come out of this:

-Marvin & Peyton were already going to the Hall of Fame. (So is Vinatieri, but he'll go in as a Patriot.) Now, Tony Dungy and Bill Polian will likely join them. Dungy validates his years of success not only with the Colts but with rebuilding the culture at Tampa Bay. Polian is no longer a man who can build teams to put up regular season numbers only to falter. Now, he's someone who builds teams to go the the Super Bowl. All because of this one win, the 90s Bills are no longer failures but are now part of a winning pattern orchestrated by Polian. All because of a championship.

-If they continue to perform at a high level, this win provides a road map for Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday and Dwight Freeney to the Hall; it also opens the door a crack for Tarik Glenn, Dallas Clark and Bob Sanders. Kind of like the difference between the Cowboys and Bills of the 90s. Without this win, it's only Harrison & Manning who get in. All because of one game.

-On the flip side, the performances by Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes will put Edgerrin James's career in doubt. James seemed a lock for the Hall, but his performance with the Cardinals and his replacements' success make him look much less worthy. He could have come back to Indy for slightly less money. Now, his apparent greed for the extra $1MM might not be worth it to him in 20 years. All because of one game where his former team didn't miss him.

-The clock is ticking on Rex Grossman. Yes, it's his first full season, but does anyone really think the Bears don't have a chance to win the game if they add a quarterback they could rely on? Pick any QB from any of the other playoff teams and ask yourself if you feel more comfortable with them behind the center at 22-17. Trent Green? Chad Pennington? Even Tony Romo or Eli Manning? Those are the four that got bounced in the first round. How about Jeff Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve McNair or Philip Rivers? Not to mention Tom Brady or Drew Brees. Lovie Smith may be saying all the right things to support Grossman, but at best Rex is on borrowed time. All because of one horrible performance on the biggest stage.

-A new legion of Colts fans has just been born. People who wouldn't have watched will now pay attention. Those previously sitting on the fence will make the Colts their favorite team. And kids who grew up with mild interest will turn into rabid, hard-core fans as they get older. Because their ranks will grow outside the city the Colts will turn into a regional and semi-national team. All because of one win.

-Even as a northern city, Indy has a shot at hosting a Super Bowl. The joyous and notably peaceful celebrations in Monument Circle after the game and the parade later today will show Indianapolis as a city that knows how to celebrate. The city had virtually no shot to host the 2011 game before. Indy still can't be favored, but now it's a legitimate contender. All because they just won a Super Bowl.

No matter what does happen, it was wonderful to see a team win with the type of character and grace that the Colts exhibited, not only this season but throughout the past 5 years. In an era of screaming coaches who compete with their players for face time, demonstrative wide receivers who seem to want attention more than victory, and fans who have more hate for opponents than love for anything, this team did it the right way. They outworked, outplayed, outcoached and outclassed everyone else. Even in victory there was very little gloating, save Robert Mathis's comment asking "the haters to please shut up." Much like the Patriots of 2001, they won as a team, not as individuals.

Now, for the Colts to be spoken in the same breath as the legendary great teams, they're going to have to do it again. And that might be harder than getting there in the first place. So Colts fans, you may be witnessing the birth of a dynasty, but it's also likely that this is it. So savor it, because you may never see it again.