Bike Tours - NOVA/DC/MD

This post begins periodic chronicles of my various bike tours of the US National Capital Region (NCR) of northern Virginia, the District of Columbia and western Maryland. Because I work in government, I will be freely using (make that "utilizing") as many acronyms as possible in my various documentaries.

The DC-metro area is one the most dynamic places in the US. One of the best ways to explore it, I believe, is to get out of the car and enjoy the beautiful climate and scenery, whether it be walking or biking. In my case, cycling. I stay on the bike paths and go off-road when it's possible, but typically stay on the bike paths. I hate riding in streets or on roads, because it's extremely annoying for traffic and dangerous anyway from my perspective.

Anyway, the first "long ride" I started was The Loop, which is basically around Arlington County. Total trip length is roughly 13.6 miles.

The one I went on this weekend was along the bottom boundary of Arlington County and Alexandria County south along the Mt. Vernon trail to the Capital Beltway. From there I crossed over the new span to Maryland. Total trip length was 26.8 miles.

Next weekend I will likely be heading to Mt. Vernon, which is an additional 6 miles to the south after passing the Beltway. Mt. Vernon is a typical destination for native cyclists in the area.

Limbaugged-Down: GOP's Survival as Dicey as Obama's Health Plan

dsa
A glimmer of hope has surfaced as the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats have managed to jeopardize, at least so far, President Obama's trillion-dollar, paradoxically deficit-reducing plan to fix healthcare. The glimmer of hope, however, isn't about fixing healthcare, which is likely to implode no matter what our beloved Congress does. No, the glimmer of hope is with the future of the Republican Party. Don't care about the GOP? Think they're irrelevant? Out of touch? Totally stupid? Doesn't matter, because anything's better than a one-party system. Just ask the Chinese.

The GOP has an opportunity to transform itself into a relevant, positive force in the American political universe. But it has oodles of its own demons to exorcize before a sunrise, rather than a sunset, appears on the horizon.

Over the past few years I have observed the Republican Party tear itself apart. I watched as a presidency with all the right intentions repeatedly botch implementation of policy at every concievable level of government—from routine White House public relations disasters to unarmored Humvees in Iraq. I observed a Republican congressional majority implode through scandal, intellectual lethargy and myopic idealism. I have watched Ronald Reagan's conservative ideal get dragged through the toxic mud of Washington, DC, placed on trial with the American public, and clamped into political stocks for further humiliation under the new Democratic monopoly.

Indeed, I have watched my beloved party morph into a political freak show, starring a half-baked circus performer from Alaska and an adulterous narcisist from South Carolina who can't seem to remove himself from the media spotlight. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

What. Has. Gone. Wrong?

The Republican Party is at a precipice. I think everyone knows this, whatever your feelings are on the matter. For many, the malignant ideology peddled by Republicans is myopic, irrelevant, out-of-touch, negative and has led to nothing but boondoggles in Iraq, recessions, a mismanaged federal government, and...well, we don't have all day, do we? And symbols of apparent Republican dysfunctionalism abound: Democrats say environment, Republicans say “drill, baby drill.” Democrats say separation of church and state, Republicans say America is the Christian God's country. And in the end, the American future to Democrats is a sunrise, and for Republicans it's a sunset. And we're not just talking politically.

But for others, the Republicans have simply fallen on some hard luck. Sure, maybe Mr. Bush wasn't the best choice after all, but then again, what would we have done if we were president on September 11th? Can we blame him for making presidential decisions based on his unwavering principles and commitment to conservative values? And at the same time, plenty of Republicans want to save the environment, want to help the poor and needy, want to keep the state out of the church. They also see the future as an opportunity to make America stronger, not weaker. Republicans were also victims of Bush's war in Iraq—hey, most of the Democrats voted for the war too! And the Republican scandals that keep cropping up? They don't represent the vast majority of real, moral Republicans. *COUGH*

The problem with both these views is that both are partially true and partially false. Americans of all stripes want what is best for America—they just disagree on what that is. Yes, conservative values have fallen on some tough times, but if you have an IQ above 50 and know a little history, this does not mean conservatism is inherently backward or misguided. Quite to the contrary, the Republican values of less government and instead greater community reflects some of greatest principles instilled in our nation by the Founding Fathers: Great Britain—like Washington, DC—wanted to run our lives from afar, meddling, tinkering and restraining our freedom at every turn until embers of revolution ignited, giving more freedoms to a people than any government in history. Sadly, the inevitable expansion of the federal government, energized now by our new president, seems to be, once again, a return to the old days of high regulation and curtailment of state and regional autonomy. No, it's not a Democratic conspiracy to take over America, like some Republicans may think. It's the conspiracy of well-meaning intentions. These occur on both sides of the aisle.

Other conservative values also have their place, like faith. More and more unpopular in our secularizing culture—religious beliefs have found success in helping the poor, the lost, the sick and the disabled throughout the thousands of churches and faith-based nonprofit groups that serve throughout America. “Republicans don't care about the poor” is one of the most ignorant, callous and unforgivable statements I have ever heard. These hard-working groups just don't get credit for it like the White House or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. No—they're stuck groveling for money from the incredibly-shrinking pot of private charity donations.

But there is a reverse to this picture.

For much of their ailing, Republicans have themselves to blame. After defeating Al Gore in 2000, the Republicans in the White House and in Congress could have tackled a variety of mushrooming issues that loom ever larger today: healthcare, social security, immigration, energy, et cetera. True, the Democrats fought them at every turn, but where were the Republicans when real immigration reform seemed plausible? I remember Sean Hannity, for one, screaming that the immigration “amnesty” bill would somehow destroy the fabric of American society. Unforgivable douchebaggery! Instead of taking the lead on issues and using the legislative processes for it's purpose, they backpedaled, clinging to the status quo on issue after issue while claiming to be saving America from misguided liberal policy wonks. (You decide: Doing nothing about a problem is: a) a great idea or b) a recipe to lose elections so that whatever ideology you think is right is even less relevant. I think Charles Darwin could tackle this one.). For me, Republican objections to Bush's immigration proposal were beyond infuriating. The objections were also ridiculously short-sighted: President Obama plans to make a similar proposal next year, and it seems this time likely to become law.

So in the end, September 11th became an obsession of the right-wing, helping Republicans get elected at first, then throwing off course the entire Bush presidency and subsequently launching Republicans out of Capitol Hill where they provide even less of a check on the Democrats' drunken-sailor domestic spending binges. It's like in life: Republicans have provided zero legislative leadership and initiative, and have gotten nothing but failure in return.

The Palin Problem

Infatuation with ridiculous political figures are also an unwelcome malaise for the Republican party. Former governor of Alaska Ms. Sarah Palin, for her part, has graciously furnished us with an example of where Republicans have veered off-course. When I first heard her speech to the Republican National Convention, I was initially impressed. The attractive woman made some good points about Democrats' obsession with government control and intervention, but, after about 10 minutes, she seemed incredibility naive, and incredibility arrogant: a mixture of two powerful forces that typically result in utter failure. Does a governor with fewer than 3 years at the head of a “large” organization really have what it takes to be Vice President? President? And more importantly, in these times of an ever-growing chasm between liberal and conservative America, should Republicans even consider someone so obviously divisive, negative and inexperienced in such a crucial election? Against someone like Barak Obama? Tellingly, Ms. Palin's subsequent forfeiture of the governorship in Alaska says more about her interest in serving America than anything else.

But the Palin problem, you see, isn't really about her. Sarah Palin will never been president, and neither deserves to be. Rather, it was the overwhelming support of Republicans who, like George Bush, cared more about ideology than if the individual actually knew how to run a national government and be the chief legislator. Ideology, it seemed, regardless of how it was implemented or whether the rest of the country would buy it, ruled the day. John McCain and the GOP's decision in this context basically elected Barak Obama. (Something I will never understand: Why did John McCain turn into a nasty old man during the campaign, when that's not who he is? He's the one running for president, not his idiot Republican political consultants.)

But even with these sobering incantations, all is not lost with the GOP. The debate of the future of American healthcare is a prime time for Republicans to inject new ideas and leadership, and sell it to the American people. And yes, new and conservative can go together, it just takes some focused brainpower. Just because Barak Obama's health plan sounds good, doesn't mean it is. Just have a chat with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). If Republicans truly want to “take back America”, they will need more than idiotic town-hall crashings and absurd arguments that Barack Obama isn't a natural-born citizen. They will need to listen more to Collin Powell and less to Rush Limbaugh. And they will need a good dose of intellectual stamina, and a few shots of reality. The first round is on me.

Notes:

1) My personal calculations show Rush Limbaugh is 20% responsible for bringing the GOP down the road to oblivion.

2) Considering VA health care, the largest health care network in the country that happens to be a federal agency that actually does a good job at providing care. Proceed with caution.

Living in Reality Has Never Been a Better Strategy

For all the hub-bub in the news about Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, emphasis has decidedly focused on what he will accomplish during this artificial timeframe. As things ramp up, my interest has been on his policy stances more than on silly "accomplishments" after only a few months in office.

One of the best attributes of the newly-elected president during the campaign was his talent for mixing an idealistic message that appeals to hundreds of millions (70%) with pragmatic, down-to-earth policy stances (30%). What I hoped for when he became president, and indeed partially gambled on, was not only a change from Bush-era exclusionary, Bible-thumping, often hypocritical conservative dogma, but a change in Obama himself: once elected, Obama would be a president that represents everyone, not just the often self-righteous, Apple-product brandishing, over-educated members of the perpetually dissatisfied left. In effect, this meant switching his approach: 70% reality-based messages to 30% idealistic. This first inkling of this switch in tactic was display when he was elected back in November, during his acceptance speech. Indeed, my decision to support Obama was a carefully calculated guess: Obama would, after becoming president, adopt a much less radical change from George Bush as he might have alluded to during his campaign, to the excellent chagrin of many of his supporters. So far, my calculation appears to have been correct. 

A good rule of thumb in politics is that if most people love you, you are probably not crafting very good policy. Mr. Obama, for one, is quickly departing the hysteria and love of so many and getting down to business, in which good policy always ruffles feathers of all stripes. Indeed he left many, many loopholes in speeches throughout his campaign that gave him wiggle-room to steer legitimate policies more towards reality should he become president. Indeed, each day Obama has wiggled more to the center on issues, due to the realities of public policymaking, I have to grin, because that means each modified policy stance upsets many of his most adamant left wing supporters. This is a good thing, because the left, for all its education, doesn’t and will never have a monopoly on what characterizes fair and good government. 

The first example of this shift was the most satisfying by far: before becoming president, Obama had said he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center as one of his first priorities in office. I remember watching, for example, ecstatic utterances from members of the ACLU proclaiming how wonderful it would be for it to be shut down immediately when Obama became president. “He has to!” proclaimed one on the Colbert Report. Once elected, however, Obama heavily modified what appeared to be his policy during the campaign, to shut down the detention center within a year. If you know anything about the clowns who work for the ACLU, they were none too pleased. This was great for me. It meant not only that Obama realized the danger posed by releasing the detainees willy-nilly, but it meant that it would upset so many on the left who just can’t get it: the detainees are dangerous, and there's really no good way of dealing with them without critically exposing the US and its allies to attacks. For me Obama passed Test #1, because you know Obama's done something right when he pissing off his own supporters. Just this week, he made another swing to the middle on detainees held at an American base in Afghanistan. Without much room for interpretation, the US Department of Justice stated in a document filed in federal court in Washington, “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated [Bush administration] position.” 

Another example confirming my election-year speculation involves a pet subject of mine: China. Let’s put it out there: I’m not the biggest fan of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but I’m prepared to give her a chance. Headlines yesterday discussed apparent shock by some about her remarks during her meeting with Chinese leaders in Beijing: 

“Amnesty International USA said Friday that they are ‘shocked and extremely disappointed’ by comments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that human rights would not be at the top of the agenda during her current visit to China,  reported US Today.” It might’ve been funnier if Amnesty was “shocked and awed” by her comments. 

Why is this a good move for Clinton and Obama? Two things: for one, another instance where the Obama administration is pissing off some of its less-than-mainstream supporters is a good sign of a healthy, balanced foreign policy that promotes US interests first. After, this is the point of every government’s foreign policy. Secondly, it shows maturity and an embrace of reality when it comes to dealing with China. Pissing off China right off the bat (as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner did) at a time when China is the main benefactor for our off-the-charts deficit spending, is a stupid idea. $787B doesn’t just fall out of the sky! Obama has also considered another dose of the real world: improving human rights in China, while certainly a goal we cannot ignore, isn’t a strategy for battling the growing recession, which is most people’s (and Obama’s) first priority. For leveraging human rights in China, what might have been a stick before, is now more like a twig. The carrot, equally, is more like a baby carrot you get in those bags at the grocery store. This situation is of course, dynamic, but like most strategies, timing is everything. 

So my mood for the time being is positive. While Obama is surely more left-of-center than I would like, he is showing maturity, pragmatism, and a respect for the best ideas available, not predefined notions harbored by many on the right or the left. The Republicans in Congress could learn a thing or two from him. Sadly, after their disappointing displays and refusals to compromise over the stimulus package, they seem a lot like a kid who refuses to play the game because he doesn’t like his teammates. In life and in politics, that’s a recipe for failure if I’ve ever seen one.