The Pork, The Parks, The Politics

This is how fat cat Democrats line their own nests.

What will a double-budget for the National Parks do to ‘stimulate’ the economy? Nothing. But it will enrich Democrats, give them more power, and help get votes.

It’s PORK!!!

Nothing else.

Against all better judgment I’m going to go in an obviously imprudent direction and tackle the world of politics as it relates to the current stimulus plan. Masochist that I am, I often enter the world of Rush Limbaugh on my way to and from lunch as a means of taking the pulse of the Right Wing in our country. I laughed as I heard him complain about the cost of the inauguration ceremonies during a time of economic distress, as if he would complain so loudly given a newly-minted Republican president with the ability to draw such a huge throng to the National Mall. Every once in a while I think the guy has a point, though by and large I just yell at the radio and worry about a large segment of our country who look to Rush as the epitome of sanity (I feel the same distress when I check out lefty blogs as well – the curse of being a “spineless” moderate). I was moved to tackle this post when I heard Rush yesterday complaining about the presence of nearly 2 billion dollars in the House stimulus bill for the National Parks Service.

The quote at the top of this post, which is reflective of the comments I heard from Rush, came from the comments section of this newspaper article detailing the beef some Republicans have against the money in the bill. Apparently the Democratic ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee happens to have a son who lobbies on behalf of the NPS. It has been made clear that the son does not lobby his father directly (makes you wonder why ethicists haven’t pointed out the massive conflict of interest inherent in having Jesus lobby Dad on our behalf), though this has done little to keep the opposition from crying “Pork!” on the whole business. Apparently the commenter feels that this 2 billion dollars would only serve to enrich Democrats, though he offers no mechanism for how this scenario would come about. In reality, the NPS has a maintenance backlog which runs as high as 9 billion dollars according to some estimates. It is hoped that this stimulus money would take a large bite out of that backlog while improving the quality and attractiveness of park facilities and putting large chunks of money into the design and construction industry accomplishing those projects. While you could argue that a lot of design professionals fall to the left of the political spectrum, it would seem that the lion’s share of this stimulus money would go to the construction companies and contractors working on park infrastructure projects – not necessarily a hotbed of liberal advocacy.

It is this thought process which has led me to lament the emergence of “pork” as the new taboo of American politics. While I understand the problems posed by conflicts of interest in appropriating taxpayer funds, I don’t think that the presence of a possible conflict of interest should preempt an honest investigation into the merits of the appropriations being discussed. Rather than bothering to find out what the NPS would do with an extra 2 billion dollars, the opposition simply tarred the whole pot with the pork label, conveniently allowing them to ignore actual issues while painting Democrats as purveyors of nepotism. They ignore the fact that it wasn’t even the father who introduced the earmark and somehow insinuate that both the father and the son are getting some sort of underhanded benefit from the whole mess. Why is it so awful that the son was successful at his job? It is his job to scrape together as much funding as possible for the NPS seeing as how their annual operating budget has not been enough to prevent the accumulation of a 9 billion dollar maintenance backlog. When he is successful at carving out a chunk of the American Bailout Pie Rush gets his panties in a bunch because Daddy happens to be a congressman on the Appropriations Committee. I mean, come on, it’s not as if anyone else in the country cares what the hell happens to our National Parks – right? Not to mention the fact that the son is a federal employee, meaning his compensation is regulated by federal executive compensation rules. He is not going to mysteriously end up with millions of dollars in his bank account to share with Daddy.

All of that and I’m not even a huge supporter of an extra 2 billion dollars for the NPS! I think its effectiveness as a stimulus is dubious at best and while I would love to see the National Parks infrastructure improved, I’m not sure it’s the best use of stimulus dollars in the current situation. However, let’s make those judgments based on the issues and not as a response to some sort of sinister inside baseball on the part of the evil Democrats.

Palin and the Bartlet Psychosis

I’m going back to the old standby of The West Wing as a means of belatedly critiquing the political landscape during our recent election. Thankfully, the circus has left town and I was hesitant to even drag the tired subject back up to the surface of my mind, but I think there is an interesting discussion to be had around these issues. As the Republican Party begins the herculean task of reconstituting itself I feel compelled to vent my fear of a looming Palinocracy within the party walls. A few scenes from The West Wing came to mind and I’ll share them here:

BARTLET:
Let's go ahead and say the Republicans nominate Ritchie.

TOBY:
They will.

BARTLET:
First of all, I'd stop for a moment and say, you know, 'why?' I mean they got some serious guys in the field. Kalmbach, Daniel, Wesley?

TOBY:
Democrats had a lot serious guys in the field, and they nominated you.

BARTLET:
That's true.

TOBY:
[moves a chess piece] Check.

BARTLET:
[responds with a move] You think the strike against me is nobody likes the smartest kid in the class.

TOBY:
I don't know, sir. Being a smartest kid in the class is a pretty good pitch, it's not a strike unless you watch it as it sails by.

BARTLET:
I don't do that.

TOBY:
Check.

BARTLET:
And I'm not a snob.

TOBY:
I don't believe you are.

BARTLET:
If a guy is a good neighbor, if he puts in a day, if every once in a while he laughs, if every once in a while he thinks about somebody else and, above all else, if he can find his way to compassion and, and tolerance, then he's my brother, I don't give a damn if he didn't get past finger-painting. What I can't stomach are people who're out to convince people that the educated are soft and privileged and out to make them feel like they're less, then, you know, 'he may be educated, but I'm plain-spoken, just like you!' Especially when we know that education can be a silver bullet, it can be the silver bullet, Toby! For crime, poverty, unemployment, drugs, hate...

TOBY:
Who are you trying to convince?

BARTLET:
I'm saying I don't watch the pitch go by.

CUT TO: INT. THE OVAL OFFICE - NIGHT
Bartlet pours himself coffee at his desk.

TOBY:
Abbey told me this story once. She said you were at a party once where you were bending the guy's ear. You were telling him that Ellie had mastered her multiplication tables and she was in third grade reading at a fifth-grade level and she loved books and she scored two goals for her soccer team the week before, you were going on and on... And what made that story remarkable was that the party you were at was in Stockholm and the man you were talking to was King Gustav, who two hours earlier had given you the Nobel Prize in economics. [laughs] I mean, my god, you just won the Nobel Prize and all you wanted to talk about to the King of Sweden was Ellie's multiplication tables!

BARTLET:
[approaches to sit across from him] What's your point?

TOBY:
You're a good father, you don't have to act like it. You're the President, you don't have to act like it. You're a good man, you don't have to act like it. You're not just folks, you're not plain-spoken... Do not, do not, do not act like it!

BARTLET:
I don't want to be killed.

TOBY:
Then make this election about smart, and not... Make it about engaged, and not. Qualified, and not. Make it about a heavyweight. You're a heavyweight. And you've been holding me up for too many rounds.

Toby lays down his king on the board to retire. Bartlet stands and turns to walk out.

BARTLET:
Pick your king up. We're not done playing yet.

Later in the same season President Bartlet runs into Governor Ritchie at a play that both men are attending to support Catholic Charities.

ROBERT RITCHIE:
Mr. President.

BARTLET:
Governor.

RITCHIE:
You enjoying the play?

BARTLET:
I am. How about you?

RITCHIE:
We just got here. We were at the Yankee game. We were, you know, hung up in traffic.

BARTLET:
Yeah, I know. Listen, politics aside, and I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but you probably insulted the church, and you can head it off at the pass if you speak to the Cardinal tonight.

RITCHIE:
Well, I didn't mean to insult anybody.

BARTLET:
No.

RITCHIE:
And it's a baseball game. It's how ordinary Americans...

BARTLET:
Yeah. [beat] No, I don't understand that. The center fielder for the Yankees is an accomplished classical guitarist. People who like baseball can't like books?

RITCHIE:
Are you taking this personally?

BARTLET:
No. Something horrible happened about an hour ago.

The two find a place to sit across each other.

BARTLET:
C.J. Cregg was getting threats so we put an agent on her. He's a good guy. He was on my detail for a while, and he was in Rosslyn. He walked in the middle of an armed robbery, and was shot and killed after detaining one of the suspects.

RITCHIE:
Oh. Crime. Boy, I don't know.

BARTLET:
[sighs] We should have a great debate, Rob. We owe it to everyone. When I was running as a governor, I didn't know anything. I made them start Bartlet college in my dining room. Two hours every morning on foreign affairs and the military. You can do that.

RITCHIE:
How many different ways you think you're gonna find to call me dumb?

BARTLET:
I wasn't, Rob. But you've turned being un-engaged into a Zen-like thing, and you shouldn't enjoy it so much is all, and if it appears at times as if I don't like you, that's the reason why.

RITCHIE:
You're what my friends call a superior sumbitch. You're an academic elitist and a snob. You're, uh, Hollywood, you're weak, you're liberal, and you can't be trusted. And if it appears from time to time as if I don't like you, well, those are just a few of the many reasons why.

Music plays inside the theater.

BARTLET:
They're playing my song.

Bartlet stands and heads to the stairs, but he turns to Ritchie before reaching them.

BARTLET:
In the future, if you're wondering, "Crime. Boy, I don't know" is when I decided to kick your ass.

I certainly hope that the Republican Party chooses not to head down the Ritchie path with a coronation of the same Sarah Palin we observed in this election cycle. I don’t have a problem with ignorance, but I have a big problem with flaunting ignorance as a virtue, as if being intellectually engaged in world affairs was somehow a mark of elitism rather than prudence. Even David, who was certainly “unengaged” at the time of his anointing, was elevated because of humility, not because he saw his lack of gravitas as a blessed diamond to show the world.

Bush's War

When I first saw the promo for the PBS series Bush’s War, I was ambivalent about the whole thing. The marketing was such that it appeared to be a pretty lopsided romp through the last few years with the distinct flavor of leftist agitprop. I was pleasantly surprised to encounter an exceptionally well done documentary that was both disturbing and hopeful at the same time. I was disturbed by the President’s unwillingness to listen to moderating voices from his own government and even within his own staff and pleasantly surprised that there were those in government who performed their respective jobs admirably and competently, whether listened to or not.

What I came away with was not a total disappointment in the American government, but a clear disappointment in an insular executive that refused to listen to the voices of knowledge and experience in key positions. The sooner Americans, especially conservatives, realize that Iraq has been a public policy disaster resulting from the administrations refusal to listen to the guys in the field (politics be damned) the better off we’ll be. This was not a failure for conservatism or a victory for liberalism; this was a simple case of bullheaded hubris perpetrated in the main by the trio of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. To put my own conclusion slightly more bluntly, if the next president goes in with the mantra of either stubbornly perpetuating current policy or stubbornly reversing current policy without first listening to the people whose job it is to know something about a given topic, we’ll forever be caught in the endless political dance of platforms and platitudes over reason, knowledge, and prudent judgment based therein.

Check out the documentary and the huge archive on the website and draw your own conclusions, I’d love to hear what you think afterwards.

Christendom, The Sequel: Insert Pithy Subtitle Here

Welcome to that purely American hell of superficiality that we, kind ranchers that we are, brand with the unassuming and altogether benign name of “Election Year”. Of course we all know what a gigantic pain in the backside that red-hot poker is as it labels us red or blue, commie or corporate whore. In honor of the big dance I want to throw out some purely philosophical questions and vague statements in the hopes of generating some sort of meaningful debate in the midst of the quintessential American Enema.

Here goes:

I. Is there a New Christendom out there to be obtained? What does it look like?

II. The American Popular Religion of personal belief sacrificed at the altar of public service is neither religious nor popular. Discuss…

III. What is a sensible theological endgame in the arena of public service and governance? Asked another way: What does a purely Christian method of governance divorced from Christianity look like?

IV. Is America the Greatest Force for Good the World has Ever Known? If not, turn in your GOP card to Sean Hannity and please defend your blatant blasphemy.

In all seriousness as I turn off the sarcasm – I want to know what my devoted handful of readers expects from Christianity in public and civic life. This will be a bit of a theme for the year that I hope to touch on from multiple angles in the hopes of coming to grips with my own little collision of Christianity with the wider world. Happy Election Year everyone…it’s going to hurt like you know what.

(Un)Reasonable Man

I was in PBS nerd-dom again last night, watching An Unreasonable Man on Independent Lens. It’s a fascinating little documentary on the career of Ralph Nader from the consumer crusader days up to the recent elections and scapegoat episodes. I’ll admit to not paying much attention at all to Nader in the previous two election cycles, knowing him only as the goofy Green Party Candidate or the “Consumer Advocate” dude with absolutely no chance whatsoever. The documentary had me hooked from the beginning and did an impressive job of painting a picture of raw American Idealism.

You’ll have to forgive me for the use of “American Idealism” in that last sentence. You see, I’m not a big fan of what passes for American Idealism these days. I shudder at the moral depravity we have justified in the name of protectionism and national security. I have a simmering pot of angst that I should really do something about regarding the American Popular Religion that equates the mission of Christ with the mission of the Holy Republican Party. I had nearly forgotten that there was an actual dream of American freedom divorced from corporate politics and K Street hubris. In that sense I can thank An Unreasonable Man for polishing the silver of my own increasingly tarnished view of American Idealism.

It’s important to note that the film is no whitewash of the Nader legacy. They provide ample time for criticism, especially regarding his quixotic presidential runs and their effect on the status quo political landscape. These criticisms for me came across as so much whine and blame shifting that they were nearly comical – watching the rage bubble to the surface in pissed off Gore supporters as they rail against Nader the spoiler. I was reminded of an appropriate exchange from The West Wing where Josh is ticked that a fellow Democrat is running a doomed campaign against the president in order to raise what he feels are important issues:

AMY: That's sweet of you to look out for me, but I liked the job I had. And when I lost it, I didn't pitch anything. I didn't stage a nutty. I fought you, I lost, I had a drink, I took a shower. 'Cause that's how it is in the NBA. You know what I do when I win? Two drinks! I didn't start consulting with Stackhouse to piss you off. There are things here I believe in. I didn't come out here to piss you off, either. I wanted to tell you that if the Senator responds on needle exchange, the President shouldn't take the bait.

JOSH: No kidding.

AMY: All right, I'm going back in.

JOSH: He's taking the President's votes. It's as simple... He is taking the President's votes.

AMY: Listen, I'm not indifferent to the situation, but that right there, that's the crazy part of your argument.

JOSH: Why?

AMY: They're not his votes.

Which is exactly how I feel when the subject of Nader as Grand Gore Spoiler comes up. Nader didn’t steal Gore’s votes - he earned the votes of people who were tired of the same dual corporate party Catch 22. There was a surreal moment in the documentary when he was denied access to even watch the first presidential debate when he held a valid ticket to watch from an overflow viewing room via closed circuit TV. After being told by police that if he did not leave the property he would be arrested he proceeded to give a pretty good little speech on the abuse of authority perpetrated by the debate commission against the State of Massachusetts for putting the hapless officer in that very un-democratic position. Not surprising given that the two decision makers of the Presidential Debate Commission were both corporate lobbyists themselves. The man who took on GM had no chance in a debate system itself controlled by business interests.

I’m a bit ashamed that it wasn’t until last night that I found out more about the events surrounding Nader’s early career as well as the events surrounding the 2000 election. It says something about my lack of interest in meaningful politics as well as the power of corporate media to shape debate at will in this country. While I would probably disagree with Nader on numerous issues, I can at least credit his story for restoring a notion of American Idealism that I thought I had lost forever.

The documentary is highly recommended, catch it on re-run or at the video store if you can. Another bonus: If you find Michael Moore to be an annoying jerk there is a wonderful flip-flopping moment of schadenfreude for you.

Isn't it Ironic...

Politics, Sweet! Our much esteemed and lauded Presidential Wannabes are knee deep in the political two-step nowadays, hitting all of the hot spots and dropping sound bytes like so many tons of lead…which leads me to the recent GOP hit and run on the NRA. (I know, too many puns, I just can’t help it.)

Consider the following gem:

The audience of about 500 people gave a warmer reception to Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who announced his campaign this month. Some stood and cheered as Thompson said: "Our basic rights come from God, not from government.”

What this has to do with anything was certainly lost on most in attendance who stood and cheered, tears in their eyes, as they thought of God’s big smile down upon the righteous gun aficionados. This would be slightly humorous if not for the oddly twisted fact that I’m sure many in the audience would be less than enthused to hear that same remark in reference to some of the more “nuanced” applications of universal rights so beloved by the Republicans nowadays. Lest I offend any ultra-conservative readers, I’ll avoid using the word tortu…oops.

All that being said I support the right to own guns. (Just trying to avoid the knee-jerk commie response…)