Anti-Government Groups

A story ran today that described an "anti-government extremist organization" who plotted to kill police officers and members of the officers' families as a battle in their war against the government. This comes on the heels of several death threats hurled at members of Congress who voted for the health care reform bill, which also comes on the heels of the Southern Poverty Law Center releasing a report that indicates that "patriot"/"militia" groups have increased 244% since President Obama has taken office (even if you are questioning the validity of the source - which some believe to be political - it is hard to imagine that there hasn't been some increase in "militia" groups - assuming the definition of "militia group" presumes the group is seeking to work outside of the law).

What is there to make of all this, and what are we (reasonable people) to do about it?

First, let us not be fooled into thinking that "anti-government groups" are the same as groups who are for "smaller government." There are those who philosophically believe that government works best and most efficiently when focusing on a few core tasks: 1) establish Justice; 2) insure domestic Tranquility; 3) provide for the common defense; 4) promote the general Welfare; and 5) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

These tasks are in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Items 1-3 are pretty straight forward and generate few (if any) gripes from small government folks. Item #4 can mean many things, and is often the battleground between conservatives and liberals as new programs are debated in the public square and in the halls of Congress. As a conservative (and speaking for myself), I tend to view the operative word in #4 as "promote" the general Welfare, NOT "provide" the general welfare.

But that's an aside. The point I want to make here is that "small government" groups out there are not "anti-government" groups.

The "anti-government" groups are the wingnuts who have gone so far right, they have actually circled around into the territory of the wingnuts on the left - the organized anarchists. These are the enemies to the reasonable folks who reside on both the right and left side of the philosophical spectrum. And make no mistake about it, they are enemies, not allies of our respective philosophies. They represent and advocate for no government. Those who work outside of the law, and, indeed, attack the very symbols of it (law enforcement, elected representatives, etc), are assaulting the same objectives our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution. Government serves a noble purpose, and can and should do certain things. Those things are....

So, then, what can we do about all of these "anti-government" and "anarchist" groups?

First of all, don't become one of them. If you disagree with the health care bill, the bailout bills, the "stimulus" bills, throw the bums out! Vote, volunteer for a campaign, donate some money good candidates who share your views, put a sign in your yard, etc. Work aggressively within the law...as the Founders designed it.

Second: support the cops and their families. When a cop pulls you over, turn off your engine, put your hands on top of your steering wheel (so they can see them as they approach you car), be considerate, and even express your gratitude for them doing their thankless job (even if you think the light was still yellow when you went through the intersection). Donate to a fallen officer fund in your community.

Third, Members of Congress (Mayors, Governor, elected officials in general): When you write an e-mail blasting your Member of Congress for a vote or a position, take the time to thank them (and their staff - who have to read and respond to the mail) for their service to the country and their community. You may not agree with them, and it is absolutely within bounds to point that out to them, but there is no reason you can't be civil about it. The blessing of living in America, is that we established a standard and tradition of disagreeing with someone without resorting to pulling out our six-shooters. Tell them you disagree, perhaps offer an alternative proposal, then stick out your hand (literally or figuratively) and shake theirs, thanking them for their time.

And if you stumble across "anti-government"/"anarchist" groups and they're up to no good, report them. They don't have to have a bandanna over their face and a Molotov cocktail in hand before you can call the cops and let them know something awry might be afoot. Use your common sense and pitch in.

Lastly, for those reasonable conservatives out there who may feel unjustly piled on because of all of the attention the "right wing anti-government" groups are getting - correct those who imply you're guilty by association, and vocalize your disdain for the nutjobs who happen to be wearing the same colored jersey as we are. Boehner's doing it, so can we.

What To Do With The George Costanzas Of The World

So, as a certifiable Seinfeld nut, I own all of the DVDs, have watched all of the episodes many times, in addition to the commentaries, and DVD extras.

In one of them, Jerry Seinfeld (the actor) was commenting on George Costanza (the character). He observed something like the following: "George believes that life has already robbed him. So, when he cheats and schemes, he's just trying to get back a little of what he believes is rightfully his."

I sat and pondered that, and found that there is a great deal of truth in it; not just in George Constanza, but in many other people out there. There are all sorts of people out there who game/manipulate/cheat, or otherwise take advantage of the system in an effort to get back what they truly believe to be just a portion of what is rightfully theirs.

(Of course, there are real dirtbags out there who know exactly what they are doing, and are abusing the system knowingly not because they have a deep-seated belief that they've been cheated, but because they are indeed dirtbags, and have themselves as the sole priority in their lives.)

But, I'm not talking about those folks. I'm discussing those who feel they have been robbed, and they truly believe the only way to break even (let alone increase their lot) is to employ the tactics of cheating and unethical behavior. There's the employee who threatens a discrimination complaint because s/he didn't get the big bonus that someone else got; there's the person in authority who abuses that authority and seeks to exercise power outside his or her bounds; there's the public servant who seeks to use their position for personal gain (beyond that of a paycheck). There are examples galore, and we all have seen them.

I saw one recently go on and on about how he had gamed the system with absolutely no shame about the matter. Indeed, he was quite proud of what he had done in "getting his." I didn't say anything at the time because the situation wouldn't have permitted it, but should I have?

Does calling "foul" on these people work. Does pointing out the errors of their ways do any good? My world view views that kind of behavior as an absolute abomination, a precursor to anarchy, and the fall of civilization. But his (our George Constanza) world view truly is that he had been cheated, and therefor he is justified in taking such actions. Does sitting down with these Georges and patiently explaining to them the implications of their actions really do much good?

I think the change in world view of this variety is a bit like having a religious conversion. It isn't something that can (or should) be forced, but is rarely stumbled across solely through personal introspection. One can determine that their way of seeing things (philosophically or religiously) isn't working or correct, but rare is it ever that a person abandons a faulty logic or world view in the absence of a replacement.

So let us (those of us who reside within the realm of reason) do what we can to place another world view in front of the George Constanzas of the world, hoping, one day, when they are reconsidering the lack of honor and integrity, and utter shamefulness of their lives, they will have an alternative to consider as a replacement world view.

And for those who cheat and steel because they can, and not because they feel like they themselves have been cheated - let the swift arm of justice be their fate.

Leaving His Lane And Swerving Into Oncoming Traffic

So I was reading The Hill this morning, as any good former Hill staffer would, and happened across a headline: “Obama defends ‘Louisiana purchase’”. The issue of legislators using add-ons to persuade their colleagues to vote for a bill they otherwise might not support – setting that issue aside for a moment, I sit here firmly planted on my couch and imagine myself as a presidential spokesperson, or perhaps an advisor to the President before he goes out to exchange blows with the press. I wonder to myself, what would I say, or how would I advise him to respond to such a loaded question?

The answer is quite simple in my mind: “I will not seek to support or defend the methods of negotiation and compromise that takes place in the Legislative Branch of government. The Constitution grants that body the right and authority to define its own rules of operation, and dictates that it is Congress that legislates, and the President who implements the laws that are passed by Congress and signed by the President. I think the better judge of Congress’s activities and means of negotiation are the people who elect the Members to represent them.”

That type of answer may easily come to my mind because I am in the midst of reading about Abraham Lincoln. I just finished a book on Thomas Jefferson, and prior to that Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington. These are all Presidents who saw a clear line of separation between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. To varying degrees between each of these presidents, they all pretty well stayed out (at least, publicly) of the day to day tussle of Congressional activity. They set forth their views on a matter of national policy, and encouraged Congress along those lines, but then stayed above (or outside of) the fray while Congress duked it out. So, as one who is generally satisfied with staying in his lane (the lane, in this case, being powers delegated to the Executive Branch by the Constitution), the response to the question about the Louisiana Purchase seems quite simple. “That’s their business, and the business of their voters.”

Then there’s the political reason on why the President should keep himself out of it. This one is even easier. Congress, as a body, has a magnificent ability to never shine. Can anyone (other than professional pollsters out there) recall when Congress’s approval rating has ever been above 50%? Certainly, there have been the “Profiles in Courage” instances when individual Members have stood out with a sterling performance, but the body of Congress, as a whole, is remarkably unremarkable.

This is not a slap at Congress on my part. Indeed, few people understand, let alone appreciate, the tedium that is policy making, the struggle that is political compromise, and the ugliness that is sausage making. All of this is necessary, but to the uninitiated it is pure ugliness. And few people, I think, in the general American populace, have the experience of getting 218 people with diverse backgrounds, opinions, experiences, interests, and constituencies on the same page (in the House), then reconcile that collective compromise with another body of decision makers who make decisions based on another set of rules, considerations, and concerns. Shoot, I can’t even to get 5 random people to agree whether or not the Cubs are a team worth rooting for (seems obvious to me). So why, as a Presidential advisor, would I advise my boss to step into the ugly, but necessary, mess known as legislating?

But, the temptation to condemn such obviously misguided tactics as the “Louisiana Purchase” or the “Cornhusker Kickback” may just be too difficult for a modern President to resist. The honored and esteemed station of the President of the United States can do no wrong in taking a stance against the legislative version of “the ends justify the means” rationalization. However, as I read on in the article I found that President Obama actually did try to justify it. He did get into the mess.

Do the ends justify the means? That is a philosophical question whose answer lies within the wiring of every individual’s own mind. Were the “Louisiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback” means to buy votes, or were they matters of policy that could stand on their own, but for the sake of legislative efficiency, added to the Health Care Bill?

I, as a voter, have my opinion on those questions, as well, I suppose, do all the other voters. But President Obama did himself no favors in getting mixed into the matters outside of his Executive Branch lane, and inside the ugly mess that is the Legislative Branch.

NIMBYism

NIMBY: Not In My Backyard. This is the poison that contaminates the wellspring of democracy in the United States.

Alexis De Tocqueville put it this way: “A democracy ... can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

An example of NIMBY is school districts across the country that have a hard time closing down old, small, expensive to maintain, and crowded school buildings to consolidate students, and save the tax payers mounds of money. Every time a school board gets up the gumption to announce its intention to close down some old schools and send the students from those small old schools over to a new, large, and modern facility a couple neighborhoods away, the response in predicable.

The parents troop their kids into the cold weather, making their kids hold hand-painted signs that read: “don’t close my school!” They get their kids testify before the community hearing on it, reading statements about how they love their school and their teachers, the local news station puts the picture on the night’s broadcast, and the insensitive boneheads on the school board have nothing to say in response to the kid who asks, “why are you doing this horrible thing to me? ” and the school board member has really nothing really to say in response, because how do you explain economies of scale, seismic instability of buildings built in the 1940s, and the significant savings of tax payers money to a 3rd grader anyway?

So the parents manipulate their kids, the kids paint some misleading signs, shed a few tears, the school board member looks like a deer in the headlights on the news, and the community gets all riled up because the local school board is going to kick that cute 3rd grader out of school and directly onto skid row.

Why? Because the parents who take their kids to the school down the road (the very school the parents went to when they were kids) don’t want to lose the nostalgia of having the neighborhood school in the neighborhood, nor do they want to have to drive their kids an additional 15 blocks to the larger and more modern school.

The result of all of this? Schools districts continue to be short of money, and the burden of keeping those little, old, and inefficient schools is shifted onto additional tax payers. (Now, for those of you who are sensitive, let me be clear that there are many other examples of NIMBYism. I'm not picking on you old school building lovers. I just picked you as my example.)

Now, our friend De Tocqueville described what I like to call "reverse NIBMYism". That is, instead of saying “everybody else, but not me,” we say “for me, but not anyone else.”

This is where earmarks come into play, and voting oneself largesse out of the public treasury. How many of you curse the very existence of earmarks that Congressmen write into the federal budget for their home districts as “buying votes”, etc., while praising your hometown Congressman for getting a lane added to the crowded highway near your home, or providing money for your community police to buy modern communications equipment, or funding youth drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs at your schools?

This is reverse NIMBYism, and exactly what De Tocqueville was talking about. The answer to this lies in the character of the American people. Does selfishness prevail in our population? Of course it does. It seems to be the guiding light for most on our society. So it shouldn’t be any surprise that folks are looking out for themselves, and nobody else.

I submit that we must consider what’s best for ourselves (only natural and responsible) and what’s best for everyone else (somewhat unnatural, but also responsible). So, in the case of the school down the road, while I would prefer to have a nice small building a couple blocks away, I can suck it up for the good of everyone else (school budgets) and live with the inconvenience of having to take my kid a couple neighborhoods away to school. In the case of earmarks, if I demand that Congressmen keep their hands out of the public trough and leave the micro-spending decisions to the folks in the Executive Branch of government, then I must also voice opposition to earmarks that would benefit me and my community.

Who's prepared to do that? If you are, stop trooping your kids in front of school boards when they're just trying to make good use of tax payers money. And if you're not one of those parents, then be one of those people who shows up and supports the beleaguered school board members.

If you say you are, then go to your congressman's web page, look for the press releases that tout all the earmarks they got in your community, then call the recipients of those earmarks (Mayors, city councilors, police chiefs, transportation managers, rehab clinics, etc), and kindly ask them to no longer badger their Congressman for earmarks. While you're at it, also voice to your Congressman that you would prefer Congress to determine the overall program budgets, but to leave the micro-spending decisions the Executive Branch of government.

Googling One's Self

One of the neat perks of having a unique last name is that when you Google yourself, most of the stuff that comes up is related to you. Have you ever Google’d yourself? It’s very interesting what comes up. I had never done it until I was chatting on the phone with a work acquaintance a couple years ago, and he made a reference to seeing something about me on a Japancycling.com web site message board.

“Huh?”

He said he read my question about camping in Japan while cycling, and the handful of answers that came of it. He had Google’d me, wanting to know what he could learn about me before doing much business with me.

At the time, I was working for Gordon Smith, so most of what came up was my name listed in the minutes of varying meetings I had attended. Boring stuff, even for me. However, every so often, as I Googled myself periodically, I’d stumble across a newspaper article quoting me at this event or that event. Sometimes, upon such discoveries, I’d think “I didn’t even know a reporter was there.” But, for the most part, whatever it was that I said was usually pretty innocuous.

I had learned the lesson that was seared into my mind when my chief of staff (shortly before sending me off to Pendleton to represent Gordon) said to me: “Everywhere you go, everyone will know who you and who you represent. You’ll be watched at every meeting, on main street, and at the gas station.” That instilled in me a healthy dose of paranoia (just a little bit of it, not too much).

And while most of my public utterances were innocuous and boring, barely reaching the threshold of notable, at one point I actually said something worthwhile that found its way into a paper:

"The eyes of the nation's leaders are on Oregon, in particular Lincoln County," said Richard Krikava from the office of U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "At the White House, the Department of Justice, and in the halls of Congress, they're impressed with what's going on here. We're all paying attention and crafting policy around what you're doing.”

I remember this one vividly, also being surprised to see my comments reported, because I didn’t know a reporter was there. But, the organizers of the event asked me to get up and offer a few words, so I shot from the hip and obliged.

While digging through the numerous hits on my name, I also saw that someone (haven’t figured out who, because of the vague usernames some people have on message boards) betrayed common sense and a trust that I have with people with whom I exchange e-mails, by making public my take on a matter that hadn’t fully developed. The information wasn’t about me, nor was it embarrassing, but my name was cited as a source providing an insider’s perspective on an issue of great interest by outsiders. This was a disappointment. I would have hoped that private e-mails between a handful of friends would’ve remained private.

There are also a number of hits detailing “earmarks” I worked on with communities. While it is a staple of stump speeches across the country to trash earmarks as “pork projects”, “legalized bribes” , and signs of graft and corruption, can I defend the earmark request I briefed an Oregon State Interoperable Committee on? Can I defend the 1000s of other earmarks I sifted through, evaluated, supported, and worked for, and, in some cases, got awarded to local communities and organizations over a 10 year career on the US Senate? (For more on earmarks, see my Sept. 14, 2008 entry.)

I’ve got this blog up, a facebook page, and a link’d-in profile. What do I have on them? Do I have things on them that I would be embarrassed about? Do I post pictures of myself doing embarrassing things? Are there pictures of me or e-mail conversations with me that other people have possession of that could prove embarrassing to me (and I’m not talking about that picture of me dressed up as Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer – that, by the way, is in a very safe place)? Will a colleague, a potential employer, my parents, my wife, my future kids, the Boy Scouts I work with, whomever; will they find something I’m ashamed of (or should be ashamed of) on the Internet when they Google me?

While someone can find me to be a doofus within about 20 seconds of talking to me, will they find cause to condemn me as something worse after a 0.27 second Google search? I’ve been surprised by some of the things that come up on Google. Fortunately, I’m not scared by any of them.

So, I think the better consideration is whether or not the life I’m leading, conversations I’m holding, pictures I’m taking, activities I’m participating in, and things I am typing are things I should be worried about, or something I should be proud of (in a non-bragging kind of way).

I’m striving for the latter.

Day 13 In Okinawa

So, as the last little "to do" item on our list, we wanted to swing by the Okinawa Grande Castle Hotel in Shuri (on the way down the hill to Naha) for dessert on the top floor.  I had been looking forward to doing something like this since King and I (I think it was King) went up the glass elevator to the top and watched the city of Naha just drop to our feet.  It's quite a view, but we didn't stick around on the top floor lounge as we really weren't patrons, and we didn't want to dilly dally too long.

So, Miwa and I went there.  They stopped serving desserts about 10 minutes before we got there.  So, we went across the street to the Miyako Hotel in search of a decent dessert.  This is the hotel that Quackenbush and I went into as a kyukei just to check out.  This particular hotel, tonight, was taken over by recent high school graduates and their party.  So that was not good.  We asked the hotel guys in the lobby if they knew of a good dessert place in the area, and they were predictably useless, suggesting Kokusai Dori.  No thanks.

With nothing but our wits arming us, we hit the roads of the Naha Higashi area looking for a cafe where we could find something sweet to eat.  We found none.  We did find "O-Haka-ville" (as I called it) in Hantagawa, one of my old stomping grounds.  But, for the most part, we were hopelessly lost in Higashi.  We gave up, headed up to Shuri (on the way back to Nishihara), stopped off at the Ryubo, and got some hyaku-yen ice cream.  It was kind of natsukashii wandering through this particular Ryubo, getting the cheap ice cream I had partaken of so often in the past (ice cream cone with swirled soft serve chocolate and vanilla).

We got in the car, began eating the ice cream and I promptly turned right into the right-hand side lane as we pulled out of the parking lot.  We actually went about  50 yards before we (Miwa) realized that I had made my adjustment back to driving in the United States one day too early.  No matter.  We swerved into the left lane, and we survived this one and only detour into on-coming traffic.  Now I'm prepared for driving in America!

A few other notes about my last day in Okinawa.  Zebra bread: it is still good.  So is melon pan.  Coco Curry Houses still dot the island, making missionaries barf every time they go in for the challenge.  Heated "shower toilets": I think I'd like to have one in my home in America.  

Okinawa: changing in good ways (I think), remaining the same in good ways.  There appears to be a tremendous amount of development taking place in Okinawa.  More bridges, highways, consolidated villages into new cities, new city halls, a monorail, and resorts.  But the villages out in the boonies are still out in the boonies. You can still find the sugar cane fields, the quiet beaches, obaas playing gate ball, shrines/monuments in the most unexpected spots, and missionaries in the Shuri apartment.

All is right in the world.

There are about 20 missionaries total on the island of Okinawa.  That's a decent number, I think.  96 from the Okinawa dendobu jidai was just too many.  The handful of missionaries I met here are good Elders.  The type I'd feel comfortable referring my friends to.  

In speaking with some other missionary buddies back in the States, they mentioned some level of anxiety about returning to the battleground of Okinawa.  Certainly, my mission in Okinawa was a battleground for me.  A refiners fire.  It is where I had to do a lot of growing up, figuring myself out, then figuring out how to deal with others...all while sharing the gospel that I was still sorting out in my own heart.  

But I had no reservations about coming back here.  Indeed, I set about coming back here in earnest in January 2007 when swapping e-mails with Santos Shimai, musing about a visit to this sacred place.  Planning around typhoon season, summer, winter, monsoon season, and finally my own work schedule, there were only a few windows of opportunity, and I chose March of 2009.  In February of 2008 I met Miwa.  In March of 2009 we got married putting off my planned visit for another year.

But there is no better way to visit Okinawa than with a local (and wife) who understands what a battleground a mission field can be to a missionary, and how special it is to return to it, lo, these many years later.