community service

A couple of weeks before Christmas, my church group participated in a large community project to lay wreaths on graves at Arlington National Cemetery. It was, to be totally blunt, rather disappointing. We stood in the freezing cold at 8 am "listening" to a bunch of cemetery and veterans officials who we couldn't even see yammer on in speeches that we couldn't hear a word of for nearly an hour. We had to wait for probably another hour for the wreaths to be unloaded from the trucks, because for some odd reason, the boxes were not prepped for the crowd and we were at the back. After all that, we each laid one wreath. I have no problem with paying respects to the deceased, especially if they're military. But that was not what I would call a productive morning.

I drove home with my friends Jen and Josiah, and Jen was more than a little agitated. She also is more than happy to pay respects to the military deceased, but this was supposed to be our church's community service project for the quarter ... and who did we help? No one. Going to a cemetery doesn't help people - it's fine for an activity, but it's not service. We live in an urban area with a lot of poverty and a lot of need. Our congregation is quite well-stocked with wealthy people, and from what we know, they are indeed very generous with their money. But there's a substantial disconnect between writing a large check for a national or global charitable organization and calling it good, and actually going into the trenches to assist the poor with various specific needs in your own locality.

Jen is definitely a model for local community service. She regularly volunteers with a women's shelter for the homeless who are trying to get back on their feet, and her job is with a nonprofit working on immigration issues.

She really made me think about what exactly is community service, and the definition of service in general. Who are you actually helping? What are you really doing? Are you donating your time and effort, and specific items that you know are particularly needed? Or are you just writing a check? Not that writing a check is a bad thing, and national organizations need donations too ... But what are you doing to contribute to your own city?

One organization that I've kept an eye on since I heard about it (on the Stephen Colbert show, of all things) is the Yellow Ribbon Fund. It's a group here in DC that provides specific assistance, such as rental cars and help finding a grocery store, to the families of injured soldiers hospitalized at Walter Reed and the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. They also provide free tickets for the soldiers and their families to things like sporting events and concerts, to help them relax and have some sense of normal life while they're recovering. The timing hasn't been right yet for me to make a commitment to volunteering, but it's on my radar. And it is helping people and it's local to me. Their office is only about 3 blocks from my house, and I'm just 2 miles from the Naval Medical Center.

Any more suggestions? What's local to you where you can contribute either time or money? When are you going to start?

much ado about nothing

The political world is Ground Zero for People Who Make a Big Deal of Nothing and People Who Completely Miss the Point. An election year particularly is prime time for the extremists, and we had a lot of entertainment of this sort this year.

I've rolled my eyes a lot and thought, "You've got to be kidding me." Maybe I'm just on overload now, but this most recent thing currently has First Prize from me for being the biggest Load of Silly for the year ... the blog uproar over Rick Warren, the minister at California's HUGE Saddleback Church, being invited to give the invocation at the inauguration next month - this is bad bad bad because Warren supported Proposition 8 (the gay marriage ban in California).

While I have no doubt that there is political calculation in everything Barack Obama does, I believe him when he says that he believes in true tolerance - that people on all sides of an argument can get along despite differences of opinion, and he intends to include varying opinions within his administration. What do gay supporters think Warren is going to do at the inauguration? Call down the wrath of God on gay people right there in the middle of the Mall? Or maybe he'll just talk about love and acceptance and working together ... you know, those things that gay people need to work on toward religious "traditional marriage" people as well ...

P.S. Guess what? Obama said that he opposes gay marriage too.

barely there

Here are some things that I'm aware of in the political world ... but only barely. I of course see headlines on blogs that are in my Google Reader. Occasionally I'll actually read one of the articles, but it's the holidays and I don't really care right now. So on the following, I have no opinion ... at least not yet.

• Obama's Cabinet selections.
• Hillary Clinton in particular as the designate for Secretary of State. (Well, okay, this one I do have an opinion on but I'll wait on that.)
• The Illinois governor Rod Blagojavich, his attempt to "sell" Obama's Senate seat, and his subsequent arrest.
• The Republican frenzied attempt to link Obama to Blagojavich, with McCain and Gingrich telling Limbaugh and Hannity to can it. (I'll go with McCain and Gingrich on this one.)
• Caroline Kennedy's possible appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
• Bits and pieces about the aftermath of Proposition 8 in California.
• Stuff that doesn't make much sense about the economy except that it's completely in shambles.
• The reporter in Iraq who threw his shoes at President Bush. Whatever you think of Bush with regard to the Middle East, the guy definitely has quick reflexes.
  

So why am I posting this? Because I've been asked for an opinion on these things. Check back in January, and in the meantime, remember that Christmas is not about scoring a ton of presents.

"do-nothing Congress"

Guess why Congress is in session only 3 days a week ... It's not (necessarily) because they're slackers. It's because most elected officials go home to their districts every weekend. Darlene Hooley, a Congresswoman from Oregon, is legendary and quite popular in her district for flying cross-country every weekend to be in contact with her constituents. She recently stepped down from her position, and one of my friends there was concerned that the new Congressman would not fly back and forth so frequently. (I told him I thought it was a logistical nightmare to fly cross-country every weekend not to mention very expensive, but that's just me.) To him, and anyone who complains about the lazy "do-nothing" Congress, make up your minds! Do you want Congress here in DC going to meetings and working on legislation, or do you want them in the districts around the country? With travel, particularly to the West Coast, that's 7 days a week. 3 days in DC, 2 full days on the road (one there, one back), and 2 days in the district. Where's the break?

It's also floated in the local rumor mill that a number of House members don't even have apartments in DC. They literally sleep on cots in their offices, use the showers at the gym in their office building, and head out of town as soon as the final vote is taken for the week. They don't live here at all, they just work here. So obviously those members don't move their families here - if they have young children or teenagers, the families stay in the state and only the Member comes to DC during the week. That's even more incentive for them to travel back and forth.

There is a reason to call them the "do-nothing Congress," but it's not because they have a 3-day work week in Washington.

so what happened?

I saw the following on a random blog yesterday:

In 2007, Toyota sold 9.37 million vehicles. General Motors sold 9.37 million vehicles. In 2007, Toyota made $17.1 billion. General Motors lost $38.7 billion.

Huh. I wanted some verification, so I went looking around on the internet. The original quote seems to have come from the Mises Economics blog. There was no source cited for the numbers but someone in the comments referred to a couple of outside sources that don't quote those exact numbers but support them:

Progressive Politics Examiner: Big Three labor costs compared to average manufacturing, 9 Dec. 2008.

Heritage Foundation: UAW workers actually cost the Big Three automakers $70 an hour, 8 Dec. 2008. (Yes, Heritage is seriously slanted conservative - no "unbiased" there, but their numbers are usually reliable.)

I also found this article on the Washington Post: GM still no. 1 but not by much, 24 January 2008, with a fun quote:

"Among the automakers, analysts have said, GM is in the best shape and possibly the only U.S. auto company strong enough to battle Toyota over the long run."

Really. Less than a year later, that's not the song GM is singing. Now they're supposedly the US company in the worst shape and the closest to completely folding. So what happened, car companies? Maybe you were not in such great shape in January and were just fooling yourselves and everyone else? A $38.7 billion loss on the year for GM doesn't sound like "in the best shape" to me.

The sales numbers also got my attention. For the past few weeks, I've been hearing this and that which led me to conclude that the American car companies haven't been selling anything, and that's why their financial numbers are so skewed. But obviously that's a new development. Last year, they did just fine with their sales. It's this year, when gas prices spiked that people stopped buying behemoth trucks. But now look - high gas prices or low, low sales numbers or high - GM was still posting a multi-billion dollar loss even when selling more cars than any other company, American or foreign. Call me Captain Obvious, but that is not a profitable company. In the brutal world of free market capitalism, that's the company that goes under and disappears. No government bailouts that include partial government ownership. Tell me again who is supposed to be President Socialist? Barack Obama? Or George W. Bush?

This article was in this morning's Washington Post: Auto bailout clears House but faces hurdles in Senate. I am not confident in Congress that the Senate will stop another taxpayer funded bailout of a company that has somehow been run into the ground. Congress got suckered into the $1 trillion bailout for Wall Street and AIG with nothing to show for it in the name of "saving" the economy. (Fat lot of good that seems to have done so far. You're welcome for your hunting trip to Scotland, AIG.) I guess we'll see how it goes.

Christian response

I've still been reading a lot of websites about reforming the Republican party and looking for something legitimate and genuine to participate in, but something is just not sitting right with me about the various groups. Everything I've found is antagonistic and contentious. The commenters in particular are insulting to anyone (Democrats or "out of favor" Republicans) they don't agree with and use all kinds of pejoratives and innuendos in reference to them. It's quite offensive to me, even though I agree with a lot of the political opinions presented.

Elder Robert D. Hales, one of the leaders of the LDS Church, just talked about Christian courage and responding to disagreements with the Spirit of the Lord in the October 2008 General Conference of the Church. This stands out in particular:

As we respond to others, each circumstance will be different. Fortunately, the Lord knows the hearts of our accusers and how we can most effectively respond to them. As true disciples seek guidance from the Spirit, they receive inspiration tailored to each encounter. And in every encounter, true disciples respond in ways that invite the Spirit of the Lord. Paul reminded the Corinthians that his preaching was “not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1Corinthians 2:4). Because that power resides in the Spirit of the Lord, we must never become contentious when we are discussing our faith. As almost every missionary learns, Bible bashing always drives the Spirit away. The Savior has said, “He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me” (3Nephi 11:29). More regrettable than the [LDS] Church being accused of not being Christian is when members react to such accusations in an un-Christlike way! May our conversations with others always be marked by the fruits of the Spirit—”love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] temperance” (Galations 5:22-23). To be meek, as defined in Webster’s Dictionary, is “manifesting patience and longsuffering: enduring injury without resentment.” Meekness is not weakness. It is a badge of Christian courage.

He wasn't talking about politics in particular, although it can certainly be applied. It's sad that Republicans, so many of whom claim to be born-again Christians, behave in such an un-Christlike way toward people they disagree with politically such as on all the websites I'm finding. No wonder Christians have a bad reputation these days - the most public faces of Christian religions are overbearing and accusatory about moral behavior. They're also hypocritical in excusing bad behavior by someone in favor but condemn instantly when the evidence is against someone not politically affiliated with them.

More practically, how are Republicans going to get independents and moderates to see things their way if they insist on marginalizing any remote deviation from the party line with insults? That's not Christian behavior and it hurts rather than helps the promotion of good morals.

Of course I realize that this kind of behavior has dominated American elections since the Declaration of Independence was signed, but that doesn't make it right or permissible. Insults and contention should be frowned upon and rejected by Christian people as strongly as any of the moral issues such as abortion or gay marriage.

At this point, I have no intention of registering for any of these Republican reform groups or attempting to participate in any way with them. I'll stick with my own non-angry blog.

the national blender

One prominent feature of people's outside perceptions of Washington DC is that the federal government is just one big catfight. Pushing and pulling and pulling hair and scratching eyes ...

This is true. But it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Washington is the national blender. This city is the collision point of all kinds of people and all kinds of priorities and all kinds of ideas. Then we hit puree and see what comes out. Sometimes it's pretty disgusting and you want to dump the whole thing and start over. (I wish to heaven that were utilized as an option sometimes, instead of "reforming" a program that no one likes. Just start over, already.) But sometimes it actually works and we get something decent.

The procedural process to pass legislation is lengthy and difficult on purpose. The Senate in particular has mechanisms in place - like the filibuster - to prevent a simple majority from slamming through whatever they want with little to no input from the opposition. Can you imagine what would happen if everything passed? What a mess!

Even the Founding Fathers mixed it up pretty good. A number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention never signed the Constitution because they didn't agree with it, and ratification by the states was not unanimous by any means. The Vice President and the Secretary of the Treasury had a duel over political trash-talk, for crying out loud, and the Secretary died. (Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.) John Adams and Thomas Jefferson couldn't stand each other when they were both involved with the federal government.

There's a lot of give and take in government because there are so many competing ideas. Even if there's one idea that everyone actually agreed on, there are still a billion different ways of implementing that one idea. There's no one way to do anything. We just hope that what we do end up with tastes all right.

what's real around here anyway?

During the election, Sarah Palin said a couple of things about Washington DC that I know a lot of people believe ...

At the Vice Presidential debate on October 2, Palin said this: "I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C."

In the middle of October, Palin also said this: "We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation."

Now I've come across the same sentiment in the Rebuild Our Party group's plan outline: "The challenge is daunting, but if we adopt a strongly anti-Washington message and charge hard against Obama and the Democrats, we will energize our grassroots base."

Bad Washington! You're the home of the federal government, but you're unAmerican, lazy, divorced from all perception of real life in the rest of the country, and we are anti-Washington!

Right.

"Main Street reality" is already in Washington. Anne Applebaum wrote a column in the Washington Post right after the debate making a pretty good case for Rural America already running the show. Look at who the most senior members of Congress were until last month - Republican Ted Stevens from Alaska, and Democrat Robert Byrd from West Virginia. Not exactly bastians of urban elitism there. And while these 2 men certainly have traits of being sucked into the "Beltway Bubble," they also looked out for their home states. Alaska gets more federal earmark dollars per person in the state than any other state in the country, and tons of buildings, bridges, and roads in West Virginia are Robert Byrd Memorial this or that (more federal earmarks). Our current President and Vice President are from middle-of-nowhere Texas and Wyoming. Small-town America is quite well-represented here.

Applebaum also made a great point that we don't need more provincial small-town thinking people here. We need less. The federal government needs more people - elected and staff - who think on a national scale rather than only looking out for their own little corner of the country. Members of Congress were indeed elected to represent their individual districts, but the job of Congress as a body is to govern the entire nation.

I would also state unequivocally that "hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America" people are already here. Congressional staffers aren't here for the money because the pay scale doesn't go particularly high (especially in light of the cost of living around here). There are also thousands of people here working at non-profits for various causes. They don't have a great pay scale either, but they work their butts off.

And what about the substantial portion of the DC workforce that doesn't get paid at all ... there are thousands of interns here who do the same job as staff and don't get a dime. They pay through the nose in expenses for the privilege of working with Congress or the Pentagon or any of the agencies or non-profits for a semester or a year. If that's not one of the definitions of "hardworking and patriotic," I don't know what would be.

And what's up with one of the political parties being "anti-Washington"? They want to run the place, but they're "anti-Washington." Of course they're not. It's a dumb line and a scare tactic to manipulate people who just don't know.

I don't know what these various Republicans are talking about. Whatever Washington DC they seem to have dreamed up isn't the one I've lived in for 5 years.