Wichita’s Lynne Davis and Marcussen Organ
It’s one of Wichita’s and Kansas’ finest cultural assets, and it needed tuning and repair. So in August, the Marcussen organ in Wichita State University’s Wiedemann Recital Hall was placed in the care of Halfdan Oussoren, son of the organ’s builder.
I took the opportunity of the tuning to visit with Lynne Davis, who is Ann & Dennis Ross Endowed Faculty of Distinction in Organ and Associate Professor. More simply, she’s in charge of the organ program at Wichita State University. Besides managing the program and teaching students, she performs regularly in Wichita and across the world.
Lynne Davis at the console of the Great Marcussen Organ in Wiedemann Recital Hall, Wichita State University.Most of the music heard in organ recitals at WSU and elsewhere is classical, or serious, music. People are often worried that since they may not understand what a sonata is, or how a fugue works, so that they won’t be able to enjoy and appreciate a concert of classical music. So I asked Davis: Is knowledge of classical music necessary to enjoy it, particularly an organ recital?
She answered no, explaining that there is the first degree of enjoying anything, and knowledge is not necessary for this. People learn, she also explained, and people learn to appreciate the organizational aspects of classical music. She also noted that in her recitals she often speaks to the audience before playing a piece, explaining details about the composition that the audience will hear.
There is also an element of universality in music, and lack of knowledge should not scare off people, she added.
The organ, to many people, is closely associated with the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Davis spent most of her adult life living in France, including studying with several famous French organists, so I asked her: what is the French contribution to the organ, both in terms of instruments and music?
Davis laughed — it’s a large topic, she said. A major contribution is the symphonic organ, more like an orchestra in that it has more sounds and voices than the organs of Bach’s time. French composers like Louis Vierne and César Franck responded and wrote music for the new capabilities of these organs.
“The French contribution is enormous,” she added. Wichita State University’s organ is designed for performing the works of Bach and his contemporaries and predecessors, and also for the complex and rich French symphonic works.
Davis was born in Michigan and studied organ in college there. After that, she went to France to study and stayed. So what, I asked, brought her to Wichita?
Davis explained that she had reached the limit as to what she could do in France as a musician, a woman, and an American. Her mission, she said, is to share her talent, and staying in France didn’t offer as much opportunity for this as she could have in the U.S. After her husband died in 2001, she began to look at positions in the U.S., and came to Wichita State University in 2006.
In addition to her teaching and performing here, she performs across the country, generating interest in Wichita State University and its organ program.
The week I visited with Davis was the week the organ’s tuner was visiting and working on the organ. While it may seem strange that pipes constructed of metal and wood would go out of tune, they do, even in the controlled climate of Wiedemann Recital Hall. Also, being a largely wooden machine of great mechanical complexity, the organ requires maintenance and repair. On this visit, the tuner repaired a few pedals that were making clunky sounds when pressed.
The underlying principle of the organ is simple: air blown through pipes. It’s also simpler than people might imagine, as this organ uses a mechanical action. This means that the linkage between the keys and pedals the organist presses and the pipes themselves is constructed from a network of trackers, stickers, levers, and rollers, just as organs have been built for centuries. This seems like unnecessary mechanical complexity in an age of electricity, computers, and automation. But Davis explained that the mechanical action is the most sensitive type of action, and the manner in which the organist touches the keys affects the way air enters the pipes, allowing for differences in sound. An electrical mechanism doesn’t offer this flexibility.
During my tour of the organ’s interior I crawled on top of some of these trackers, fearful that if I slipped I would crash through what looked like some very expensive machinery.
Pipes in the Marcussen Organ. Click for a larger view.The organ does make use of some modern technology, with the stops being actuated electrically, and having an electronic system that allows the organist to easily change the combinations of stops being used as a piece is played.
The Wichita State University organ was manufactured by the distinguished 200-year-old Danish firm Marcussen and Son. The WSU organ was the firm’s first in North America. Its first concert was in October 1986.
Halfdan Oussoren, the organ builder who traveled from Denmark to spend a week working on this organ, gave me a tour of the inside of the organ. His father “voiced” the organ when it was installed in Wiedemann Hall, meaning he adjusted all the pipes so that they spoke with the proper balance and tone.
Oussoren explained that the organ was built at the firm’s factory in Denmark, then disassembled and shipped to Wichita. In 1986 the $500,000 cost of the organ was donated by Gladys Wiedemann. Today, the organ would probably cost $2.5 million to replace.
Stops let the organist select which pipes will sound. Click for a larger view.Inside the organ its mechanical action is evident everywhere on the first floor, as trackers cover the floor and ceiling. The second and third floors are where most of the pipes live, sitting on top of wind chests. As Davis explained earlier, the organ is a simple instrument in principle, but with over 4,000 pipes organized into 65 stops and five divisions, the large numbers involved are impressive to see.
As can be seen in the accompanying photographs, the pipes are constructed from wood and different types of metal. Different construction techniques are also used, each providing a different sound. Part of the artistry of the organist is to combine all these sounds in a musical way.
A set of photographs of the organ may be viewed by clicking on Marcussen Organ at Wichita State University.
Organ events at Wichita State University this year
This year the events in the Rie Bloomfield recital series are billed as “Recital and Conversation with the Artist.” Davis said that these events will feature her talking with the artist before the second part of the recital. Performers this year are from Russia, Italy, and Germany, so this will be an interesting perspective on life and music in other countries. These recitals have a small admission charge.
These three events also feature a Master Class the following morning. These events, which are open to the public, are an opportunity for students to interact with the visiting organist, perhaps even performing for the visitors and receiving instruction.
The Wednesdays in Wiedemann series, now in its third year, is a series of eight short recitals starting at 5:30 pm. Most last 30 minutes, although this year two are planned for 45 minutes. These events have no admission charge. This year’s series features a few new twists, such as a recital with Wichita State University flutist Frances Shelly, a Christmas recital in conjunction with a tree-lighting ceremony, and in May, a pops concert. This concert will feature music of a different type not usually heard in the typical Wiedemann Hall recital.
On January 29, 2011, Davis hosts “Organ Day,” which is a youth outreach program. During this day-long event students and the public can see and hear demonstrations of the organ, and even play the organ.
Davis will perform in a faculty recital on Thursday February 15, 2011, at 7:30 pm.
A complete list of organ events at Wichita State University may be viewed by clicking on Wichita State University Organ Events, 2010 – 2011 Season.
Author C. Bradley Thompson to appear in Wichita
Next week author and scholar C. Bradley Thompson will appear in Wichita for a public lecture.
The event will be held at the CAC Theater on the Wichita State University Campus on Wednesday, September 15, 2010, with this schedule:
6:00 pm Doors open for meet and greet
7:00 pm Lecture
7:45 pm to 9:00 pm Questions and Answers
The event is free for WSU students and all school age children. A donation of $10 is requested but not required of all adults to help cover the expenses.
C. Bradley Thompson is the BB&T Research Professor at Clemson University and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He has also been a visiting fellow at Princeton and Harvard universities and at the University of London.
Professor Thompson is the author of the prize-winning book John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty. He has also edited The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams, Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader and was an associate editor of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment. His current book project is on “The Ideological Origins of American Constitutionalism.”
WATCH: Maes makes his case on YouTube woodsy home video
Dan Maes, the grassroots tea party candidate for governor of Colorado besieged and rejected by state Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams and Republican leaders in the state, has taken his case directly to the people with a YouTube in which he answers questions raised in the media over the last few months. The intimate video is shot against a rough-hewn log wall, presumably at the Maes’s half-a-million-dollar log home in Evergreen.
“Hi everybody. There seems to be a lot of questions out there regarding some issues around my campaign as of late and I’d like to get them cleared up right away so we can move on to victory on November Second.”
He wasn’t lying about being a secret agent in Kansas. He was involved in an investigation into a gambling ring and was fired as a result. He was a newcomer to politics and innocently bungled campaign finances. “I don’t know why the contribution wasn’t logged correctly. Our treasurer hasn’t been with us for eight months.” He has never embellished his business success. “I have never claimed to be a Fortune 500 CEO. I’ve never claimed to be a millionaire. I’m just an average middle-class guy who has owned and helped in small businesses and rose up from poverty to have a lifestyle that I’m proud of right now.”
Maes’s grassroots supporters may respond positively to the video. Maes doesn’t come off like a politician. His detractors may add that he doesn’t come off like a governor, either.
Cals to his offices for comment weren’t immediately returned.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
Wichita economic development incentives to be topic of meeting
This Thursday (September 9) Americans for Prosperity is holding a meeting to discuss a series of economic development incentives that will be considered in an upcoming meeting of the Wichita city council.
John Todd of AFP says:
“On Tuesday, September 14, 2010 the Wichita City Council will be considering the approval of several public economic development incentive programs for private development projects. The City Council meeting starts at 9:00 a.m. Copies of the council agenda detailing these projects is usually available online at Wichita.gov on the Friday prior to the Tuesday city council meeting.
“The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide you with the opportunity to discuss and learn more about the incentives used by local government officials in economic development projects so that if you wish, you can get involved in the project vetting process as a more informed citizen.
The meeting, which is open to the public, is from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at the Wichita Public Library Central Branch (Patio Meeting Room), at 223 S. Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202
For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.
Wichita economic development incentives to be topic of meeting
This Thursday (September 9) Americans for Prosperity is holding a meeting to discuss a series of economic development incentives that will be considered in an upcoming meeting of the Wichita city council.
John Todd of AFP says:
“On Tuesday, September 14, 2010 the Wichita City Council will be considering the approval of several public economic development incentive programs for private development projects. The City Council meeting starts at 9:00 a.m. Copies of the council agenda detailing these projects is usually available online at Wichita.gov on the Friday prior to the Tuesday city council meeting.
“The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide you with the opportunity to discuss and learn more about the incentives used by local government officials in economic development projects so that if you wish, you can get involved in the project vetting process as a more informed citizen.
The meeting, which is open to the public, is from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010, at the Wichita Public Library Central Branch (Patio Meeting Room), at 223 S. Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202
For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.
Wink Hartman, Libertarian Party candidate?
As reported by Rebecca Zepick on State of the State KS, former Republican Congressional candidate from the fourth district of Kansas Wink Hartman may be considering another run for that position, this time as nominee of the Kansas Libertarian Party.
Zepicl reported the news Saturday in the story Hartman Considering Re-Entering Race For Congress Against Pompeo and Goyle. She appeared later that day by telephone on KNSS Radio’s Jim Anderson Program, as did several others involved in this story.
Anderson’s radio program proved to be a sounding board for several issues surrounding this race. For example: All the Republican Party candidates pledged, several times, to support the winner of the Republican primary. A caller to Anderson’s radio show brought up this point, and reminded Anderson — the host of the show — that he, too, made the pledge. Anderson became agitated, at one point threatening to cut off the caller.
Anderson said that after a certain point, the campaign changed and became negative. Although he didn’t say so explicitly, it is clear that Anderson believes the negativity releases him from his pledge to support the winner of the primary. “I’m not supporting anybody right now,” he told listeners. He repeated this later in the show.
After this, Kansas Libertarian Party Chair and candidate for governor Andrew Gray appeared as a guest, calling in by telephone. Gray said the key to Hartman joining the ticket is Hartman’s ability to — currently or in the future — fit in the “Libertarian mode.”
Michael O’Donnell, a staff member in the Hartman campaign, then appeared by telephone and noted, as had Anderson, that the pledges to support the eventual primary election winner were made before the campaign became negative. True enough.
But where O’Donnell missed the mark is in his assertion that the Pompeo campaign launched the first negative attacks, referring to information made available about Hartman’s Florida home ownership and his Florida voting record. Hartman’s recent Florida voting record was first reported by me on this site.
While this information was not convenient to the Hartman campaign, it did not fall into the category of negative campaigning. This is the type of information voters are interested in. It was a matter of public record. It was all true.
O’Donnell said that the Hartman campaign merely retaliated. But it did much more than that, launching some vicious attacks on Pompeo using the techniques of negative campaigns. Hartman’s campaign escalated the attacks, culminating with a charge against Pompeo that Hartman could not back up with convincing evidence.
The pledges to support the primary winner were not made conditionally. They were absolute. In particular, candidates Anderson and Jean Schodorf need to step up and support Pompeo, the nominee. Evidently Paij Rutschman has made a financial contribution to the Pompeo campaign, but her website doesn’t endorse Pompeo.
Looking forward, O’Donnell said that he wanted to make sure that Hartman didn’t appear as a “sore loser mentality.” Losing a primary and then running on a different ticket qualifies as just that: a sore loser. And Hartman lost the primary election in a big way. Hartman’s support declined in the polls as the election drew closer. From July 1 to July 28 his campaign did not receive a single dollar in campaign contributions other than those made by that candidate himself.
Now Hartman may seek another round.
It’s difficult to see what positive things Hartman would accomplish as the Libertarian Party candidate. His political views are barely compatible with those of libertarians. Hartman seems the type of Republican that pokes fun of libertarians for their absolute defense of personal liberty (including legalization of all drugs), a peaceful and non-imperialist foreign policy, deregulation of marriage (allowing gay marriage), and a welcoming approach to immigrants (instead of the fortified border that Hartman advocated).
Radical forms of libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism or even the milder minarchism, seem beyond Hartman’s ability to grasp and understand.
The Kansas Libertarian Party has a decision to make, too. Will it embrace a candidate — one clearly non-libertarian and blemished from running a negative campaign — who can contribute millions to its cause and give the party a big boost in coverage and recognition?
Wink Hartman, Libertarian Party candidate?
As reported by Rebecca Zepick on State of the State KS, former Republican Congressional candidate from the fourth district of Kansas Wink Hartman may be considering another run for that position, this time as nominee of the Kansas Libertarian Party.
Zepick reported the news Saturday in the story Hartman Considering Re-Entering Race For Congress Against Pompeo and Goyle. She appeared later that day by telephone on KNSS Radio’s Jim Anderson Program, as did several others involved in this story.
Anderson’s radio program proved to be a sounding board for several issues surrounding this race. For example: All the Republican Party candidates pledged, several times, to support the winner of the Republican primary. A caller to Anderson’s radio show brought up this point, and reminded Anderson — the host of the show — that he, too, made the pledge. Anderson became agitated, at one point threatening to cut off the caller.
Anderson said that after a certain point, the campaign changed and became negative. Although he didn’t say so explicitly, it is clear that Anderson believes the negativity releases him from his pledge to support the winner of the primary. “I’m not supporting anybody right now,” he told listeners. He repeated this later in the show.
After this, Kansas Libertarian Party Chair and candidate for governor Andrew Gray appeared as a guest, calling in by telephone. Gray said the key to Hartman joining the ticket is Hartman’s ability to — currently or in the future — fit in the “Libertarian mode.”
Michael O’Donnell, a staff member in the Hartman campaign, then appeared by telephone and noted, as had Anderson, that the pledges to support the eventual primary election winner were made before the campaign became negative. True enough.
But where O’Donnell missed the mark is in his assertion that the Pompeo campaign launched the first negative attacks, referring to information made available about Hartman’s Florida home ownership and his Florida voting record. Hartman’s recent Florida voting record was first reported by me on this site.
While this information was not convenient to the Hartman campaign, it did not fall into the category of negative campaigning. This is the type of information voters are interested in. It was a matter of public record. It was all true.
O’Donnell said that the Hartman campaign merely retaliated. But it did much more than that, launching some vicious attacks on Pompeo using the techniques of negative campaigns. Hartman’s campaign escalated the attacks, culminating with a charge against Pompeo that Hartman could not back up with convincing evidence.
The pledges to support the primary winner were not made conditionally. They were absolute. In particular, candidates Anderson and Jean Schodorf need to step up and support Pompeo, the nominee. Evidently Paij Rutschman has made a financial contribution to the Pompeo campaign, but her website doesn’t endorse Pompeo.
Looking forward, O’Donnell said that he wanted to make sure that Hartman didn’t appear as a “sore loser mentality.” Losing a primary and then running on a different ticket qualifies as just that: a sore loser. And Hartman lost the primary election in a big way. Hartman’s support declined in the polls as the election drew closer. From July 1 to July 28 his campaign did not receive a single dollar in campaign contributions other than those made by that candidate himself.
Now Hartman may seek another round.
It’s difficult to see what positive things Hartman would accomplish as the Libertarian Party candidate. His political views are barely compatible with those of libertarians. Hartman seems the type of Republican that pokes fun of libertarians — like me — for their absolute defense of personal liberty (including legalization of all drugs and prostitution), a peaceful and non-imperialist foreign policy, deregulation of marriage (not prohibiting gay marriage), a welcoming approach to immigrants (instead of the fortified border that Hartman advocated during the campaign), and uncompromising opposition to corporate welfare (as reported, Hartman will receive many millions in such welfare in conjunction with his Hartman Arena).
Radical forms of libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism or even the milder minarchism, seem beyond Hartman’s ability to grasp and understand.
The Kansas Libertarian Party has a decision to make, too. Will it embrace a candidate — one clearly non-libertarian and blemished from running a negative campaign — who can contribute millions to its cause and give the party a big boost in coverage and recognition?
Sedgwick County updates agenda information system
Recently Sedgwick County implemented a new system for making its commission agendas and accompanying background material available online.
Previously, only the agenda itself was available online. Agendas contain just a brief description of each item to be handled at meetings. If citizens wanted more information about an item, they had to travel to the courthouse to obtain a printed copy of the agenda report. This document, which might be several hundred pages in length, contains detailed information about each item. It’s the type of information that citizens need if they are to be informed about the matters the commission will consider at each meeting.
The new system makes this information available online. It also handles the minutes and video of past meetings. You can access the system through the Sedgwick County website. Navigate to the County Commission page (the drop-down box at the top right is easy and always available.) Then in the stack of links at the right of the screen, click on Commission Meetings.
Now if you click on any meeting on or after August 25, 2010, you’ll be in the new agenda system.
Using the new system, I found that it took a few moments to become familiar with the way the system organizes the agenda information. Once you get used to it, you can move around the agenda and examine supporting documents easily. Background material is usually presented in small chunks as pdf documents, and it’s easy to print just the few pages that you might be interested in.
The system also allows the public to enter comments, presumably to be read by commissioners or staff before meetings. In a nod to social media and other networks, you can share agenda items on Facebook, Twitter, and other systems. (Sample tweet: PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT SECOND STREET AND ST. FRANCIS IN WICHITA, KANSAS. Presented by: Ron Holt, bff. http://t.co/gl22l3U)
Besides the public face of the system, it will also be used internally by county staff and commissioners to handle agenda paperwork more efficiently.
A fact sheet on the new agenda information system promotes its cost savings, estimated to be $15 per week in reduced usage of paper. The benefit to citizens, however, is access to agenda background information without making a trip to the courthouse. These trips were necessary, as my several recent requests to have background information emailed to me were always declined.
While this system may save $15 per week in paper, it was undoubtedly an expensive system to purchase and implement. According to a county budget document, the five-year cost of this project is $142,594. That doesn’t include internal resources devoted to this project and its ongoing support.
Its goals are more ambitions than what was required to provide citizens with the agenda background information, which was the one area where Sedgwick County was deficient. Many governments, such as the city of Wichita, have made this information available by simply posting the entire agenda report. That’s a simple solution that has worked, although not with all the functionality that the new Sedgwick county system provides.
U.S. needs permanent tax cuts, not Obama stopgap
It’s good news that President Barack Obama now realizes that taxes are a drag on business investment and employment. But we need permanent tax cuts, not a temporary measure.
The tax cuts proposed are in the form of allowing businesses to write off or “expense” capital investment faster than before. This effectively reduces the cost of making capital investments — the purchase of machinery, equipment, etc. intended to increase a firm’s productive capacity.
The tax cuts Obama announced would take effect on September 8th, the day he announced the cuts. That’s only if the proposal makes it through Congress and becomes law. So there’s a dose of uncertainty there, although this legislation would seem likely to pass. But the tax cuts would last only through the end of 2011.
These tax cuts are much preferred to the stimulus program that Obama relied on to jump-start the economy last year. Whether the stimulus spending was effective is disputed.
In the case of tax cuts, each business gets to “spend” (make use of) the tax savings in the way it feels adds most value to it, and by extension, the economic output of the U.S. But stimulus spending had to make its way through the legislative appropriations process, where all sorts of competing — and non-economic — considerations came into play. Evidence of this: Jerry Brito and Veronique de Rugy looked at stimulus spending and found that Congressional districts in Democrat hands received nearly twice as much stimulus spending as Republican districts.
But these proposed tax cuts are scheduled to expire, so we’ll be looking at a situation similar to the present, where the Bush income tax cuts are about to expire. The president favors letting them expire. But now that the president seems to have realized that tax cuts are good for business, good for jobs, and good for the economy, maybe he’ll consider changing his support of a large tax increase to take effect on January 1.
There is the issue that these tax cuts are targeted, although the target is broad. But some firms may not be in a position to make capital expenditures over the next 15 months. These firms would not be able to take advantage of these tax cuts.
Targeting these tax cuts also creates an additional class of capital assets that a firm has to keep track of, as assets purchased during the period of this legislation have to be depreciated in a different way than other assets.
Accompanying the proposed tax cuts is a plan to spend $50 billion on infrastructure.
While cutting taxes is always good, Obama’s plan does nothing to bring federal spending under control, or to reduce the uncertainty that accompanies the expiration — or not — of the Bush tax cuts and the oncoming implementation of Obama’s health care plan.
Kochs and Soros, contrasted and compared
Daniel Fisher of Forbes Magazine weighs in again on mainstream media demonetization of Charles and David Koch for their support of organizations committed to economic freedom and liberty.
Here, Fisher compares and contrasts the Kochs to George Soros, the celebrated financier of many left-wing causes, and to a much greater extent than the Kochs:
“According to the most recent reports available, Soros has donated some $2 billion to his Open Society Institute, which pursues a wide variety of political initiatives around the world. Much of the money went to support pro-democracy activists and the like battling corrupt and oppressive regimes.” That sounds like a noble cause. Perhaps someday some might be used to combat the oppressive Obama regime here in America.
Here in the United States, however, Soros money flows to the same types of organizations and the same types of uses for which the political Left is vigorously attacking Charles and David Koch:
Here in the U.S., the institution has backed a profusion of community organization, “education” and get-out-the-vote groups that seem to have concentrated their activities in important swing states like Michigan and Ohio in the 2008 election year. No reports are available for 2010 but it’s a safe bet a similar amount flowed to organizations which, while not explicitly in favor of a specific candidate, support cherished causes of the Democratic Party and its financial supporters: non-judicial elections, municipal employee unions, universal healthcare.
One of the outfits that’s received a lot of Soros money over the years is the Center for American Progress, recipient of $1 million from Soros in 2008. CAP, a left-wing think tank that supports increasing government intervention and opposes economic freedom, may be of interest to those in the south-central Kansas fourth Congressional district as the former workplace of Democratic Party candidate Raj Goyle.
While Soros has made his contribution to CAP a matter of public knowledge, CAP does not disclose all its donors. CAP takes advantage of the same confidentiality provisions in the law that the political Left criticizes groups like Americans for Prosperity for using. But for some reason, we don’t see mainstream media references to this, and liberals seem blind to the parallels.
We also don’t see much reference to the way Soros earned his fortune. A hedge fund operator and speculator, Soros was actually convicted of insider trading. Yet the Left hammers on Koch Industries for providing energy that America has used to power its economic growth, and energy we will continue to need.
Soros Makes The Kochs Look Like Political Skinflints
By Daniel Fisher
Jane Mayer’s New Yorker profile of the Koch brothers paints a picture of a Wichita-based empire that stealthily reinvests its profits from oil refining and manufacturing into a constellation of vaguely menacing right-wing organizations. Leave aside the valid criticism that the Kochs have been anything but stealthy in their funding, which tends to undermine the title of the article, “Covert Operations.” Writers can always blame an editor for the headline.
What about the idea there’s something aberrational about the amount of money the Kochs are pouring into politics? According to Mayer, Charles and David Koch, personally and through foundations and political action committees, poured $250 million or so into charities, think-tanks and political campaigns between 1998 and 2008. Much of that went to groups like Lincoln Center that the average New Yorker reader could hardly consider a hotbed of constitution-in-exile, would-be McVeighs frothing at the idea of the Obama presidency.