Random thought at election time

I've been reading other people's blogs again. It gets to be kind of a dangerous habit because most of the blogs I've been reading are those of people who hold vastly different political views than I do. Reading about all these other views made me stop and question why I hold the views I do. It didn't make me question my opinions, just the process that leads me to form those opinions.

My hot button issues are public lands use, private property rights, and gun rights. There are lots of other important issues out there that I'm willing to compromise on but these three are the ones that I use to decide who I'm voting for. Why those issues? Well, there were a couple of things that happened back in the 90's that stand out in my mind. The first was when the subject of wolf introduction in Idaho was debated by the environmentalists and politicians in Washington, D.C.

Every elected official in the state of Idaho told the other elected officials from other states that Idaho didn't want wolves introduced here. Wolves may have been here at one time, but our ecosystem was balanced and it isn't wise to introduce more predators at a time when the jackrabbits aren't multiplying at a rate that requires human intervention (that did happen back in the 70's). In a political move that plainly ignored any sort of state's rights wolves were introduced here anyway.

This might seem like a small event. After all wolves are magnificent. They're smart and beautiful. They raise families and play in the snow. How can Idahoans be so ignorant about how beautiful these animals are? It's not like they're going to come after your kids or anything... Is it?

If you're not from Idaho, and even if you are from Idaho but spend most of your time near the larger communities, you don't truly understand why this was upsetting to us. You'd have to travel in the backcountry to really grasp what it feels like to realize that you are foolish (let's not be negative and say stupid) to go out without carrying a gun. We don't worry so much about the human element as a threat. We worry about the predators. Humans may be the top of the food chain, but we're not invincible and our children certainly ARE small enough to count as prey.

It's not just the wolves that are a threat. Certainly I'm not advocating shooting all predators on sight. But it's just ridiculous to think that more predators are a good thing when the prey isn't multiplying in overabundance. In Moscow, where I went to college, the evening news had a 3 day sequence for wildlife programming education. The first day dealt with what to do if you encounter a moose (goofy looking, but can be deadly). The second day dealt with what to do if you encounter a bear. The third day educated you about what to do to scare away mountain lions and how to never leave your children undefended. Every night during hunting season they also ran a segment on hunter safety... you know... don't shoot at movement unless you have a clear view of your target, wear bright colors so other hunters can see you, always leave someone at home who knows where you went and when you should be back, etc. These programming segments would repeat in rotation all year.

Why do you suppose the news stations felt it was important to run these same segments over and over during the course of the year? Could it be because moose, bears, and mountain lions are an ongoing threat to human safety when humans are near their habitat? I still remember the time a mountain lion grabbed a 6 six year old boy by the head and dragged him off (not through personal experience but news coverage of the event). My first roommate recieved a call one afternoon from one of her friends asking if she should leave for class while a moose grazed in her front yard (NO!!!). The animals aren't walled off in some nice park, they're here, living among us. What makes it ok for someone who doesn't live here to tell us we need more predators among us?

There's also the infamous plan to manage the whole area known as the Columbia Basin as one ecosystem. When you look at a map it makes sense. Try traveling through the Columbia Basin and then tell me your opinion. The Columbia Basin encompasses everything from alpine forest, to meadow, to deserts. One proposal in the sage grouse recovery plan stated that the minimal stubble height allowance for grazing would be 9 inches. The majority of the bunch grasses in the Owyhee Desert only grow 6-8 inches tall. This proposal would have ended all cattle and sheep grazing in the Owyhees even though it's the grazing that keeps fire danger minimized and promotes plant diversity and growth there. A 9 inch stubble height on the Camas Prairie makes sense, grass there grows 24 inches or so. Nine inch stubble height requirements in the desert make no sense at all. It's an unattainable goal.

When you live in a city in the east it's easy to make assumptions about how we should manage public lands in the west. It's easy in the same way that it's easy to know all about parenting when you have no children. Amazing how different your solutions become when you actually know something about the issue you're pontificating about.

Quite a few folks are totally opposed to livestock grazing because they think it's hurting the environment. These same folks must have missed the days in class where we learned about the great herds of bison that used to roam here. If you have a view on grazing and have never actually raised an animal on range land I have an experiment for you to try. Section out a parcel of grass in your lawn. Rope it off, fence it, do whatever it takes to separate it from the rest of your grass so that you don't mow it accidentally. Now, let that grass grow for a season without doing anything to it other than watering. I predict that at the end of the season if you mow that section you will find that there are many fewer plants there. The tall grass will shade out the smaller plants. The soil will be packed harder and it will be more difficult for new seeds to take root. Once you finally mow the section you've "conserved" will look considerably sicker than the rest of your lawn. Not only that, if you didn't mow it and the grass died off in the fall (as grass tends to do) you would have a fire hazard. If you leave that old dead grass and let next years grass grow through it, the plants will be even fewer the following season. The build up of old grass will increase each season until it either prevents most new grass growth or the whole thing goes up in flames.

We're used to the flames out here. Every year thousands of acres burn. Usually the burns take root in areas with dead wood (trees that died but are left standing) or in range land that has an overabundance of dead grass. Because of the fires we now live with emissions testing here in the valley. The emissions testing doesn't do a darn thing to improve our air quality (since the majority of bad air quality days are due to forest and range fires around us). Federal regulators believe if we just control the human element the air will miraculously improve. I don't think the federal regulators realize that even if all the humans died and our cars composted the lightning would still rain down, the winds would still blow, and the range lands would still burn. Grazing is the only effective tool we have to slow or prevent wildfires.

For this reason alone I can never support a person running for office that wants federal officials to control Idaho lands instead of Idahoans. We live here. We want the environment to be healthy and productive. It's not in our best interests to abuse our resources. WE LIVE HERE.

Do We Hope For World Peace?

Every beauty pageant contestant wishes for it. Every political candidate endorses it. Most people in the world pray for it. But it doesn't happen. What, you ask, is it that we all desire? World peace. But is peace possible? If so, how to we obtain it? If not, why not? Well boys and girls, I have an opinion on the issue (startling, I know). I think men (and women) talk about peace but live for war.

The natural state of man is to be at war. We are made for war. Our brains are wired for war. Well, maybe not war, but we are wired to face extreme physical and mental challenges. Our bodies and minds are designed to fight for survival. In this time of plenty (at least here in the US) how do we provide that challenge which is as essential to our souls as love is? We go to war.

If we're not at war with another country we are at war among ourselves within this country. It's interesting that our society is much less militant when faced with famine and drought. Do you suppose we're too weak to want to fight? Or could it possibly be that we sink our energy into surviving the most immediate threat to our existence and not into badgering our neighbors.

There is an old Eastern proverb that states, "When food is plentiful there are many problems. When food is scarce there is only one problem." With modern farming methods we produce more food on less land than any generation before us ever did. Most of our population has moved away from rural areas. With urbanization physical activity becomes a choice you make, rather than a way of life. Somehow it becomes "uncool" to work physically to make a living.

No matter how miniscule the microcosm of society you examine is you will find that people need conflict. We need it. We don't profess to want to fight; but judging from the amount of fighting we do I believe there is a biological imperative directing men toward conflict. Look at the most innocent of societies and you will find this every bit as true as when you examine national governments. Is your local PTA, 4-H club, or church group any more peaceful than the governments of the world's nations? If you've been involved with any of those groups for long enough I'm sure you will agree... they love conflict. Even when people profess to want smooth waters there is always someone stirring the pot.

We like war. We don't like death and destruction, but we like war. We like to win. We like the endorphin rush that comes with a good fight. We love the energy it brings. We thrive on the race to be the best, to prove we're the best, to make others acknowledge us as the best. We like war. But only if we're winning.

Women everywhere should rejoice!

This evening I watched Sarah Palin accept the Vice Presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention. For several days now I have been reserving judgement about whether she is a good choice as McCain's running mate. Tonight I am certain... I like Sarah Palin. It doesn't matter what goes on in her personal life. This is one tough lady. She stands for reform. Not only does she stand for reform she has a track record that shows she can accomplish it. We live in a country rich in natural resources. She is for using them. What a concept. Her oldest child ships off to war on September 11th. She's for winning that war. Sarah Palin is not part of the old guard political machine- and that works in her favor.

In an earlier post I questioned how she would be recieved by other conservative women. Browsing blogs on the internet I've found that many think her place is at home with her family. I am a stay at home, homeschooling mom. I believe God called me to stay home and he gifted me with some special children who really need me here. I don't think God gives every woman the same calling. I don't think God gives the same calling to every mother. There are women out there who serve an even greater good. There are women like Sarah Palin.

Today I spent some time reading up on Darfur. The plight of the Sudanese people really moved me. We are so lucky to live here. In the United States we are incredibly safe compared to some other regions of the world. The day to day struggles we face are not usually struggles to simply survive. We take that for granted.

A mother in Darfur would most likely be willing to do anything to make her home safer. I celebrate that we have the opportunity to voice differing opinions on a wide variety of subjects in my country. How lucky am I that I can choose to stay home and educate my children in the manner I believe is best for them? How lucky am I that many people fought and died in order to give me the freedom to criticize my government? Not only can I criticize my government I can change my government. Yes, that's right; I have that power. And so do you.

Sarah Palin is one tough lady. Her campaign platform, while running for Governor in Alaska, was to reform corrupt government and give the power back to the people. And she did it. Motherhood doesn't make us weak and put us at the mercy of others, without our own voice. It makes us strong. Motherhood clarifys our purpose in life. It makes us question what we need to do in order to ensure survival and safety for our children. Sometimes it gives us reason to stand for something, and risk everything, because it's in the best interests of our children. I cannot criticize this woman for not staying home and postponing her career. She has a message, and an imperative to move forward in political office. She is a driving force for change, for honesty, and for common sense. She is working not just to raise her children, but to improve the world they live in, on a very grand scale.

What does it mean to be conservative?

It seems that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" are being thrown around a lot lately. One day I heard a young man at Wal-Mart ask his friend, "What does it mean to be conservative?" The first thought that popped into my head questioned his intelligence. Certainly we all know the definition of conservative and liberal, right-wing and left-wing. As the election season progresses I am forced to re-evaluate my beliefs about this subject.

Being a conservative means that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people believes that the people are intelligent enough, educated enough, and moral enough to govern their own actions. I think that true conservatives neither want, nor need, government intervention in most parts of their lives. I don't want the government to tell me how to live my life. I don't want the government to offer to improve my life. I don't want the government to step in and tell me which moral codes I need to meet. And I'm ok with the idea that if the government doesn't do those things for me, my neighbors might make different choices than I do. I'm ok with the possibility that I might create a mess that costs me everything. I'm ok without the government supplying me with a safety net to catch me when I fall.

I do think the function of government is to supply support for infrastructure (roads, bridges, and some technology). I think the national government is the perfect entity to coordinate a national defense. I think that there are a few offenses so heinous that there should be laws in place to prevent harm to innocents and provide recourse in the event someone commits those crimes. I do not think that most things short of murder and rape should be outlawed. I do think that the judicial branch of the government is incredibly important when it comes to interpreting laws and punishing criminals.

What I am opposed to is the belief that the government is responsible for the health and well-being of each citizen (and sometimes non-citizens). Medical decisions need to be left to doctors and their patients; the legislature should not be involved in any personal health decisions. Food choices should be left up to consumers; although I do believe that labeling laws are important. If the public is so stupid or irresponsible that they can't be trusted to make these choices for themselves then how in the world is a legislature composed of citizens from the same country going to do a better job of taking care of me than I do?

True conservatism is the belief that individuals bear responsibility for their own actions. Eastern philosophy has long held that the more laws you pass to regulate morality the less moral people become. When the people begin to rely on the government for everything they lose the ability to progress. America isn't losing her position in the world because we don't spend enough money on education. America's losing ranking because her people have forgotten that they are the government. Laws should be few and far between. Small differences of opinion require negotiation and tolerance. They do not require that a new law be written.

Whether the issue is running a business, educating our children, painting our houses, or defining a family - individuals need to decide how to proceed for themselves. Perceived harm vs. actual harm is a concept people need to revisit. Some people aren't nice, but if they're not evil (think rape, murder, burglary) then you just don't need to spend time with them. There are all sorts of ways to deal with adversity that don't involve the government at all.

Several years ago I was lucky enough to be with a group of women talking about homeschooling their children. My kids were still very young and I wasn't actually taking part in the discussion, but I am so glad that I did stay and listen. One of the mothers was talking about whether you need to make sure your homeschool is similar to what would be taught in a public school. Her argument was that while there are benchmarks we all need to meet, homeschool should not be like public school. It should be different and it should not be regulated by the government. Her reasoning- public schools are not producing a uniform, satisfactory product. Their benchmarks may be too low, and to bind yourself to them may keep you from achieving everything you should. "The government is not our saviour," was the end of her argument.

She is right. The government is not our saviour and to put all of our faith in it (when it's made up of people like us, whom we elect) is a recipe for disaster. Look at New Orleans. The government didn't get everyone out. There wasn't an adequate plan in place to cope with that magnitude of disaster. The conservative in me thinks that maybe, just maybe, individuals in the affected area should also be held accountable for how events played out during Hurricane Katrina.

So, to end my rambling post: Less is more. Remember the government truly is by the people, for the people and we are the people. The government is not our saviour.

Palin for Vice President

I grew up in a house where it was emphasized that not only were women equal to men- they were competitive with men. If a man could do a job then a woman could do it better. My mother was one of five women studying animal science at her university when she was an undergrad. One of five females in a large department taught only by men. She had a lot to prove. My adviser was also my father's adviser when he was an undergrad (or possibly the professor he worked under while obtaining his master's.. I get confused). Dr. Bull told me (also an animal science major) that there was a lot of competition in this field. There are not nearly as many jobs available as there are college freshmen majoring in animal science. He also told me that if you were the top of your field there would always be positions available to you. Mom never lacked for job offers (or higher education offers).

So, as I was listening to yesterdays news, and learning about McCain's choice of VP, my feelings were mixed. First, I'm thrilled to think there may be a woman in the White House. I'm even more thrilled to think that the woman elected may be an advocate of wise use of natural resources (vs. no use or overuse). It's a benefit even that this woman isn't a career politician. She's a real woman, like me. She's a business owner, a wife, and a mom. She's even the mom of a special needs kid. She is a lot like us (all the women in the 30- 40 year age bracket).

And therein lies my ambivalence. She's a mother of 5. One of them is less than a year old and has Down's Syndrome. When I think how much like the rest of us she is, I worry. I worry because her children will change so much while she's in office (if she's elected). I worry that the needs of a developmentally challenged toddler will be difficult to balance with the needs of a nation. I worry that her marriage will be strained by the demands of her job and her family. I worry about a host of issues that would affect me and my marriage if I were the woman running for office.

Is that fair? It did briefly cross my mind when I saw how young Obama's children are that he might be a little bit young to be President. However, I didn't have the myriad of concerns I feel when I think about Palin (Of course there's no way I'm voting for Obama either). I am disappointed in myself. Just because I choose to stay home with my children (and boy am I ever home with my children now) doesn't mean that other women need to do the same thing. I'm sure Palin has very good childcare (and probably more flexibility in her schedule than most working moms). I'm positive that she thought long and hard about the challenges running for public office would create for her family.

There's no reason to question her ability to balance family and work unless we're prepared to question Obama's ability to balance both as well. Why is it automatically assumed that women are the sex who need to accomodate everyone's needs? Isn't it possible that her husband could just as easily meet the children's needs while she's working as Michelle Obama can care for the Obama children? If I worked and my husband stayed home and cared for our lovely offspring would that make me less responsible as a mother? Would it make him less responsible as a husband? Heavy social prejudices raise questions in my own mind about how well this election will turn out. It should be interesting to see what the rest of the conservative moms have to say. Will it be possible for them to "forgive" this mother for being something that the rest of us don't even have the energy to aspire to? Or will the conservative women be able to embrace this woman, so like us and yet different, and really support her running for office?