Bucket List: Skydiving. Check.

A couple weeks ago my kids' school had a fundraising event, a spaghetti dinner/silent auction type of thing. I wasn't even planning to go, but we couldn't resist the challenge of entering hubby's spaghetti sauce in the competition. (He didn't win, alas. He was totally robbed.) Anywayyyy... for something I had no intention of attending at first, I ended up walking out of there the proud owner of -- drum roll, please -- a voucher for a tandem skydiving session!

You cannot believe how excited I am about this. I guess people think I'm crazy, because everyone I told about it asked if I got it for myself and gave me that "you're crazy" look when I said of course I did. But I can't wait. This (or something like it) has always been on my bucket list.

I'm going to try to schedule it for on or around my birthday in August, so I'll let you know then how it goes. If I make it. Hehehe

So hubby and I were talking about it this evening, and he says, "I don't really want to go." (I had told him that I want him to come with me, even though he'd just be waiting on the ground. I mean, it's not the kind of thing you do alone, right?)

"Are you worried about me dying?" I ask (thinking awww).

"No," he says. "Well yeah, but that's beside the point."

Aghast, I sputter, "Well, if dying's not the point, what is?"

"I don't want to be around to hear you hit the ground if the parachute fails," he shudders.

OMG, you guys, is that sweet or what?! I mean, what do you say to that, right?

That got us to talking about dying (we're just a barrel of laughs, I tell ya), and I admitted that if I'm going to die, that's the way to go. Might as well die having fun, right? Also, it would be relatively quick. I figure it's better than dying from cancer or some other awful disease. Yeah, I'm too young to die and I definitely don't want to go yet, but I'm not exactly afraid of it either. Not enough to keep me from experiencing something I think will be completely amazing.

You see her face? That's gonna be me. Minus the cleavage.
Look up "tandem skydiving" on Google Images--
every last person is smiling.

I think skydiving is going to be a blast. I'm a little nervous, but only about the falling sensation I'm expecting to experience, more than the landing part. I'll be hitched to an experienced skydiver, so I'll only be along for the ride, and I figure statistically speaking, I don't have much to worry about.

When I'm like 75, I'm going to tell my grandkids about the time I went skydiving. Their eyes will get all round, and they'll say, "You did? But you're old!" And I'll say, "I know, but I'm cool." That will be a fun conversation.

Would you do it? If you got to choose how to die, how would you go? Do you have anything "crazy" like this on your bucket list?

Thoughts on "The Hunger Games"

Now that The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins has become a hit movie and the book series is popular with teens, controversy is starting to form around the fact that the book and movie involve children killing children.

My own 7th grade daughter had already read the series through her school library, so even if I wanted to stop her, I couldn't have. She did see the movie as well, which she claimed she didn't like as well. But it wasn't until I saw parents posting their concerns on Facebook and elsewhere that I decided to read the book for myself.

I've only read the first book, but I'll be reading the full series soon (Catching Fire and Mockingjay). It's unlikely that I'll be seeing the movie.

Dystopian literature is nothing new. 1984 is the most famous and most prophetic novel of a tyrannic society that I have personally read, but there are many others, including Lord of the Flies, Atlas Shrugged, Fahrenheit 451 and so on. In fact, if you consider yourself an educated person, you ought to have read those four books at least.

What's different about The Hunger Games is that it's aimed at children and about children. Or, more accurately, teenagers. I think that's a significant distinction, because 16-year-olds who have been living with the responsibilities of adults for years are quite a different thing than innocent 7-year-olds. In fact, Lord of the Flies, which was required reading when I was in high school, involved younger children in a more frightening social environment than does The Hunger Games (THG from here on out). Another dystopian series aimed at children is the Shadow Children series by Margaret Peterson Haddix, which my 4th grader devoured. So the idea of making children, the most vulnerable in society, the focus of grim situations, is nothing new. What THG and Shadow Children do is to cast children as the heroes and empower them.

To be honest, I found THG to be a fascinating, well-paced, well-written book. I'm eager, as my daughter was, to find out what happens in the next book. The concept of "children" killing "children" would be disturbing to some, but I didn't see anything I wouldn't let any child of mine, middle school age or higher, read. The descriptions were neither graphic nor terribly emotional, allowing the reader to either skim the horror in his or her own mind, or fill in the blanks themselves if desired.

By focusing on the violent aspect, one ignores the larger themes of the book. Which is really a shame, because they're not that hard to pick out. The book addresses the larger themes of oppressive government, sure, but also prejudice and stereotyping, media's role in government and society, "killing" vs. "murder," sacrifice, staying true to oneself, how to live with your actions/consequences for even "heroic" actions, what you are willing to do to survive, trust, and of course the ubiquitous love triangle.

In other words, THG is a truly literary book, and it's not going away any time soon. It's sophisticated in a way that the Twilight series could never hope to be.

If it's the violence you abhor, then put away your Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn, Harry Potter, and The Outsiders, because those books contain scenes of sometimes very disturbing violence. To reject a book based on violence alone takes a lot of very important pieces of literature out of your repertoire.

If the question is how old should a person be to read THG, then my personal recommendation is middle school, depending on the child. I have no qualms over letting my 7th grader read it, but I don't think my 4th grader is ready for it yet. But as a parent, it's your job to figure out what your child can handle, and if a book has themes or scenes that concern you, the least you can do is discuss it with your child.

However, I am strongly against the idea of banning books outright. Yes, there are a lot of books I would not let my 7th grader read yet, but I have nothing in my library that I wouldn't let her read eventually. Many of them are more appropriate for high school or even college readers, mostly because of sexual overtones. I especially don't like the idea of Christians (they're the ones who tend to have concerns over popular books) limiting their reading material, whether their concerns are violence (THG), sorcery (Harry Potter), or vampirism (Twilight). First of all, those frameworks are usually just that--a framework of reference. They're what make the books entertaining. The "real" stories are contained within. But the themes are universal. Getting squeamish over the framework can unfortunately blind you to what the book is trying to communicate to you.

A Christian needs to be an intelligent reader, and while there are many books I won't read simply because they truly are gratuitous trash, I balk at the idea of refusing to read a book simply because parts of it are distasteful. A lot of books that are required reading today were on banned lists years ago. Perhaps you think that society is going downhill, fast, but I believe that no one, especially Christians, benefit from an entirely closed mind. If a book offends you, by all means, don't read it. At the very least, examine why it's unacceptable literature. If it causes you to lose your faith, don't read it. If your faith is strong enough to handle controversial themes, here's a secret--those are the most interesting, discussion-worthy books of all.

But to be honest, out of all the trash out there, THG hardly qualifies as faith-shattering literature. If anything, it's got several themes worthy of discussion. And I, for one, can't wait to read the next book in the series, Catching Fire.

Holy Hot Stones!

I've been neglecting my blog horribly, and for that I apologize. Of course, considering the size of my readership, I don't feel too bad about it. ;-) Every now and then I think of something to write about, but the urge passes and whatever words of wisdom I had disappear into the ether, never to be seen again.

I recently had an experience worth sharing, however.

I've never been one of those women who take the feminine arts of beauty regimes, cosmetics, and pampering very seriously, but when my husband bought a gift certificate to the Tallgrass Spa in Evergreen for my birthday last year, I thought it was time. Time to expand my horizons and see what this mysterious world of luxury and pampering is all about.

The actual view down Upper Bear Creek Rd. approaching Tallgrass.
The setting is half the appeal, of course!

Yeah, I was a spa virgin.

Considering my birthday was last August, and I only just now made my first appointment in March, I guess you could say I had other priorities. Finally, I looked over the offerings and made my appointment. I decided on the Hot Stones Massage because that always looked interesting to me, plus it looks relaxing.

Wow. I've never been so glad to join the ranks of the initiated. Melissa is a goddess. I didn't realize quite how much until it was over and she expelled the smallest of sighs ... until then she had spent 80 minutes of physical exertion on my body without so much as letting me hear her breathe. That it itself was impressive.

I confess, not the entire thing was relaxing. I found that my legs were very ticklish. It was no fault of Melissa's, but I just couldn't stop from tensing and a couple of times I was very worried I'd burst out laughing. Also, those pictures you see of stones balancing on the spine -- ha!

This is not a massage.

Never once did she balance stones anywhere on my body. Rather, she took those puppies and pushed them deep into my muscles. This is why I alternately experienced pain (knotted muscle, meet stone) and ticklishness on my legs.

On my back and elsewhere, however, it was heaven. I especially loved the feeling on my neck and shoulders.

Oh, YES!

When I left there, the tension was gone from my neck and shoulders for the first time in probably over a year. I wouldn't say it was life-changing, but I felt like my shoulders were hanging right for the first time in forever.

I don't know how Tallgrass compares to other spas, but considering it's "world-renowned," I'm guessing my first-time experience was about as good as it gets. The bucolic setting is one of a kind, and the staff was dedicated to providing a personalized, comfortable experience.

I'm looking forward to going again--because I totally am! There's still a large portion left on my gift certificate so I'm ready to experience something new. What shall it be this time: a facial? a body wrap? a mani-pedi?

What would you choose?

Perfect Kids Are Boring

Back when my kids were babies and toddlers, I made a lot of assumptions. Maybe you can relate to some of these:

• I assumed my kids would be a lot like me. Hello, Genetics!
• I assumed my kids were naturally gifted and talented.
• I assumed my kids would be driven to do their best.
• I assumed my kids would share some of my interests and abilities.
• I assumed a certain level of behavior.
• I assumed a LOT about my abilities as a parent.

In reality, I turned out to be:

• Wrong
• Wrong
• Wrong
• Wrong
• WRONG
• WRONG!!!

(That word looks really weird when you type it a few times.)

DATA: He doesn't make assumptions,
which is why he's not human.

I have to admit, it took me quite a few years to come to terms with all of this. I mean, the first time they don't live up to your expectations, denial is still strong. You know: "All this child needs to succeed is a little more encouragement." A little later, it's more like: "This kid is going to sit there until she tells me what I want to hear!" After a while it's: "What the hell???" And finally: "Whose child is this anyway? She certainly did not come from my loins!"

Anyway, after thirteen years a lot of adjusting of assumptions, I've finally figured something out.

Perfect kids are boring.

I totally get both the desire to express pride in one's offspring, as well as the pressure to produce perfect kids in the face of social expectations/maternal competition.

But here's a dirty little secret. Kids who are bold, sassy and even rebellious are far more interesting individuals than kids who are compliant, straight-laced, and high achieving.

As someone who is the latter and gave birth to the former, I don't say that lightly.

I mean, there's a reason I blog about my 13-year-old far more often than I do my other two children, and it's not just because she's an adolescent. The fact is, she was a kicker in the womb and she hasn't stopped since. I'll be the first to say she drives me nuts more often than not, but at the same time, I don't have to dig deep to find something interesting or funny to say about her. She's always good for a good time, if you know what I mean.

Stories about kids' achievements just do not elicit the same kind of response as stories about what I refer to as "adventures." A parent's brag on a good child is met with polite responses from a few people who actually care, and a lot of silence from everyone else who doesn't give a crap. A story of achievement always draws out comparisons in the reader's mind.

There are a few people I know who, every time the subject of their child comes up, I repress an eye roll and a sigh, listen politely, and then move the conversation on as quickly and tactfully as possible to something more interesting. When it's on Facebook, I scroll right on by. No offense, but when your child is involved in about 13 different activities a year and wins at everything, it gets real boring real fast. Makes me appreciate my little dynamo a little more every time.

The one on my car reads,
"My kid rides better than your honor student."

Stories about "adventures" brings out commisseration. And there is nothing better. People love hearing about what crazy thing the kid is up to now, and either laughing about it or offering up a story in like spirit. I love talking to my friends who also have difficult daughters. It makes me feel more human, and it gives us a lot to talk about. It helps to have a sense of humor about things, but even when things are going bad, you know that other parent can relate.

Besides, academic and/or talent proficiency in school isn't a reliable indicator of future success anyway. Force of personality has a lot more to do with it, and as you might have noticed, the most interesting people aren't always the ones on the honor roll.

So, if you're like me and have a story-generating child, embrace the bold, the sass, the weird, the rebellion, and remember, someday they will move out and you'll have to find your comedy elsewhere. If your kids are the boring, compliant type ... I'm sorry.

Adventures in Adolescence: Grades, Goals, and Gullibility

My thirteen-year-old daughter is not what one would call "studious" or "academic" or any of those other words she deems to be completely nerdy. She is smart, but she would prefer that no one knows that. This trait has clashed often over the years with my parental tendency toward high expectations. So when it appeared she was finally making an effort, I did what any parent would do. I became completely gullible.

Having wracked my brain for ways to inspire my smart but (let's be honest) lazy teenager to work for better grades, I did something I swore I'd never do (which pretty much describes my entire parenting experience): I offered her money for A's.

Even that was met with lukewarm effort, until recently. Suddenly, she just had to have a hoodie from what is apparently couture du jour for middle school girls, Victoria's Secret (already there are so many things wrong about this). "Under no circumstances," I flatly told her, "will I ever spend $50 on a hoodie of any kind. If you want one, you have to pay for it yourself."

How she sees it.

How I see it.

So I was actually a little pleasantly surprised when A said she was going to stay after school for tutoring to help bring up her math grade. This was a first, and I was only too happy to see a new level of dedication from her, even if it was about the hoodie and not about grades. She stayed after school a couple of times, and her new display of discipline engendered happy visions of college and career and an eventual empty nest.

Well.

Well, well, well, well, well.

The following week, I received this delightful voice mail from her Social Studies teacher:

"I just wanted to let you know," she said (she has one of those wonderfully dry voices), "your daughter has served detention twice in the last week. The detention forms have a very suspicious parent's signature. I gave her the opportunity to tell me the truth, but she only admitted it when I threatened her with a dean referral. Because she did finally admit that she forged the signatures, she has been given only a detention, so you should expect to see the form from her tonight." And so on and so on. It was quite lengthy, detailed, and informative.

Sigh. The voluntary tutoring was so out of character for her, I should have known. Hope springs eternal. Apparently.

To A's credit, her conscience just about killed her, and the girl who never cries was crying that night. Of course, I had to ascertain whether she was sorry for forging my signature or for getting caught, but since she looked pretty sorry in general, I believe that she really was sorry for doing it.

As for the grades, well, unless things dramatically improve in the next few weeks, she's going to fall short of her Victoria's Secret hoodie goal. But that's in her hands.

The moral of the story: Kids always stay true to character. Always, always, always. Meet any changes with deep suspicion. ;-)

Caucus Experience

Hubby and I just came back from our first ever caucus experience, and it turned out to be a lot more interesting than I expected.

We met at a large local high school, where I'd say some 20+ precincts convened. Based on the number of votes, I estimate a total of 550 people attended at that location. Each precinct was in its own classroom. In my precinct, there were 30 of us. It doesn't sound like a lot, but the room was full. But still ... 30 is not a lot. The precinct consists of I'd say about 500 homes. If roughly 1/3 of them are registered Republicans, then less than 20% of eligible voters showed up. And actually, if you assume there are two voters per household, then it's more like 10%.

Anyway, the first thing we did after the Pledge of Allegiance was to cast our votes. In our precinct, it went 16 for Romney, 8 for Gingrich, 4 for Santorum, and 2 for Paul. (I think. I'm only off by one or two in any case.) They announced the whole building totals as 280+ for Romney, 160 for Santorum, 80 for Gingrich, and 28 for Paul. I'm going from memory, so numbers are not exact.

Let me just say, this method of voting is wide open for voter fraud. In our classroom, we made sure to match up the number of votes to the number of people, but it is easy to see how a less vigilant precinct could cast more than one vote per person. We were handed slips of paper for voting and pretty much responsible for passing them around ourselves. Anyone could have taken multiple ballots without being caught.

After the vote, we were not done. I figured out the reason for caucuses vs. primaries, and it is to give people an opportunity to volunteer for other things. Things like precinct leaders, delegates and alternates. A delegate is someone who will attend county, judicial and congressional conventions here in Colorado and vote on which Republicans will be put on the ballots. An alternate is just that--someone who votes if a delegate doesn't show up.

We were supposed to come up with 4 delegates and 4 alternates. It took a while, but we finally got them. (Say hello to your new alternate. Hi!) Five guys put their names up for delegate, forcing a vote, so they all got to say a little bit about themselves. That was the most interesting part. They ranged from just a regular guy who had done this before, to an attorney who is wanting to get involved in politics, to military vets who just want to serve, to a college senior who wants to put this on her application for law school. And little old me, a housewife. :)

A few people tried to figure out what the caucus is all about and why we are doing it this way and what happens next and how the delgate path works, and pretty much, no one had the answers. No one really knows what the heck is going on, only that we knew where to show up to vote. So, um, Colorado Republicans? You might want to work on your messaging.

Anyway, it was an enlightening experience and even a little fun, once people started opening up a little. Hubby has a gift for making people open up, which involves egging them on until they turn purple faced and burst out. But once that was out of the way, people started talking at least.

If you haven't done it, you really should. Civic duty and all that. And not so bad.

And the candidate I support is...

Ugh.

I've been putting this off, but I guess it's time. The Colorado caucus is this evening and I'm going to be attending to cast my vote.

So what does a Republican do when none of the candidates is particularly appealing? The guy I initially supported, Rick Perry, has dropped out, so that leaves Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul.

And just looking at that list makes me feel irritated. It's not that these guys are the best the GOP has to offer. There are a lot of well-qualified, staunchly conservative, charismatic, smart and prinicpled Republicans out there, but none of them has decided to run. That in itself just kind of pisses me off.

But let me just point out, this primary race isn't about these four guys anymore. It's basically become a battle of the Republican Party versus Conservatives.

Before I explain that, let me categorize the four candidates as I see them.

• Ron Paul is not really a Republican, he's a Libertarian. He runs as a Republican because Liberatarians don't win elections. But pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is right in line with libertarian beliefs. I agree with Paul probably about 75% of the time, but it's the areas I disagree that I can't live with. Not the least of which is his isolationist foreign policy.
• Rick Santorum is the social conservative candidate of the race. He appeals to the Evangelical and Catholic portions of the Republican party. He's loud and proud about his social conservativism, and there are a number of voters who are going to respond to that. When it comes to fiscal policy, however, the waters are a little murkier. And considering that the Tea Party (whoever they are) gained traction on fiscal reform, this is an area that could hurt Santorum with conservatives (among others).
• Newt Gingrich is sort of the consummate Republican conservative politician. He has some personal problems (charisma being one of them, though the same can be said for all four), but he has a basically very clean conservative record--both fiscal and social. This is why he has been the sort of de facto conservative choice, although obviously he is having problems gaining traction since the Florida debates. But while conservatives may be willing to overlook some of his unfortunate personal choices and personality problems, the general election will be another beast altogether.
• Mitt Romney is the guy the Republican Party has decided to support because, theoretically, he can win Independents' votes and beat Obama. Also, he hasn't made enemies within the party like Newt did, apparently. Mitt is not a conservative. He is running as one in order to win primaries, but he is not, never has been, nor ever will be a conservative. He is a moderate, and his record consistently proves it. He also has lots and lots of money, something that Republicans know is required to win a general election.

Okay. So.

In my opinion, this primary race is about the Republican party and how they value conservatives. Oh, they pander to conservatives for sure, because they can't win without them. But they are pushing a candidate who can only be described as "Democrat-Lite" because "anyone but Obama" is their goal. Which is fine, except, they've calculated all this based on "electibility." The Republican party is telling us that Romney is the only "electible" candidate.

Frankly, I don't think any one of them is electible. I'm very pessimistic about anyone's ability to beat Obama. Why? Because this race is about one thing--MONEY. And Obama has one billion dollars to spend. So far. In order to beat him, Romney will have to run a very expensive and very smart campaign. Unfortunately, I can't remember the last time the Republican party ran a smart campaign.

(If he is smart, by some miracle, he will make the campaign about three things: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. If he lets the Democrats sucker him into focusing on social issues like gay marriage--and that's exactly what they'll try--it will be over.)

If you're wondering about 2010 and all the wins we had then, keep in mind that they were mostly "Tea Party" candidates who were supported at the grassroots level, not by the Republican party. And sometimes even undermined by the party. Interestingly, in Florida, an attempt is currently being made to redistrict the two most vocal and conservative Congressmen out of their seats--by the Florida Republican party.

Here are some fun numbers for you. 40% of voters in this country self-identify as conservative. Only 21% self-identify as liberal, and 35% are self-described moderates. (The rest don't care, I guess.) In order to win elections, Republicans need to win over only about 11% of moderates. By contrast, there are more registered Democrats (42 mil) than Republicans (30 mil), and the Republican party has shrunk since 2008. That doesn't mean the Democrat party has grown (they have also declined); rather, the "Independent" status has grown. And this is in spite of the highly motivated conservative activism that occurred between 2008 and 2010.

So what this basically means is that conservatives are leaving the Republican party because it is not conservative enough. Which is soon to include me, most likely. I'm not interested in being part of a Democrat-Lite party. Moreover, I'm sick of the attitude of "You're stuck with the candidates we choose; conform or your only other option is worse--Obama." And it works to a degree because conservatives really are terrified of four more years of socialism under the Democrats.

But I've had enough of the bullshit. As with everything in this country, the politicians work for me. If the Republican party wants my support, they're going to have to start listening to the base, and the base wants conservative candidates. I'm not afraid of losing to a more "moderate" or a liberal candidate, because I think anyone with a strong Constitution-first message can win support, enough to win elections. It the wishy-washy ones that nobody likes, and Mitt Romney personifies that like no other. He's getting fewer votes in the primaries this year than he did four years ago, even though he's winning, because no one cares about him. They know what he's about, and they don't like it. Yeah, they'll vote for him in the general, but only as an anti-Obama vote, not as anyone to be excited about.

And that's what frustrates me. After the 2010 victories, I really thought that the 2012 election would be a shoo-in. People were so fired up two years ago, and it has resulted in ... Mitt Romney? Damn it!

Anyway, I will be voting tonight, and not because I'm fired up but because it's what I do. I have never not voted. But the chances are good that I will not vote in the general election simply in protest. I am only one voice, but I am sending the message that the GOP better wise up. Soon.

(Sorry I didn't answer the tease in the title. But I bet you can figure it out.)

Proud, Pissed, Disgusted

One of the reasons I haven't blogged lately is that I've been in a rather cantankerous mood lately, and I don't like to blog when I'm angry. It doesn't turn out well. It's about a lot of different things. But today I am making an exception, because frankly, someone needs to speak out, and a little righteous indignation is called for sometimes.

I'm PROUD to be pro-life.

I'm PISSED that my tax dollars are funding abortions against my will.

I'm DISGUSTED with the Susan G. Komen Foundation for caving to pressure from the radical left.

I had decided yesterday to give a donation to SGK in thanks for doing the right thing. Now they will never see a penny of my money--or anyone else who supports Planned Parenthood or any other abortion-providing service.

Let's get something straight here. To be anti-abortion is NOT to be anti-woman. And I should know, I am one. To take it further, it's not to be anti-feminst, either. I'm all for equality of the sexes, and I thank my foremothers for the work they did to provide it to me.

But to suggest that the killing of innocent lives is somehow against feminist principles is outrageous. I've heard all the arguments, and yet I still cannot wrap my mind around it. How the HELL did we get to a place in this country where the most egregious form of slaughter--the killing of the innocent--somehow became okay?

Yeah, I'm mad. I'm furious. Look, I'm not some pro-life nutjob who goes around making that my pet cause. I don't go to pro-life rallies. I don't protest in front of abortion clinics. I don't condone the murder of abortionists, because it is just that--murder. I don't even read pro-life literature or visit their web sites or anything. But I know what life is, and I know that babies are treasures, not impediments, and I know that killing someone just because you can't really see it is wrong.

And I don't need to justify that to anyone. I know exactly what an unplanned pregnancy is all about, and I know exactly how radically a baby can change a young woman's life. I also know how babies get made and how important education is and also how important support is. So if you want to fight with me about all the reasons abortion should be okay, SAVE IT. I've already heard all the flimsy arguments, and I don't buy them.

But you know what I'm really mad about? I'm mad that when Komen cut off funding for Planned Abortion, they got excoriated--scorched-- by the pro-abortionists. The attacks were Over. The. Top. But that's not what I'm mad about. That's to be expected. That's how they always operate. No, what I'm mad about is the absolute silence by so-called conservatives and pro-lifers when Komen caved and changed their minds today.

Look, I get it that people don't want to rock the boat. As a professional conflict-avoider myself, I understand the desire to fly under the radar and live life quietly according to one's beliefs.

But the message that is getting sent is ... nothing. No message has been sent by the pro-lifers of my acquaintance, and I'm stunned. Disgusted. Angry.

Where is your voice? Where is the outrage?

Why I'm a Republican

...or rather, why I'm a conservative, to be more accurate.

With the elections coming up later this year, and all the nonsense going on in the Republican primaries, it's only natural that I would want to discuss politics on my blog from time to time. It's a subject I became interested in in 2000, and I follow things more or less closely depending on the political climate.

Oh God. These are our choices, folks.

Before I get into all that, though, I thought it would be helpful to explain exactly why I'm a Republican. Since many of my friends are Democrats, this might help them understand where I'm coming from; also, I'm hoping a few of my more open-minded readers might hold back on the knee-jerk reactions they sometimes may feel when they hear that word.

More than a Republican, I'm a conservative. It just happens that the Republican party most closely resembles my political beliefs. I might explain later, however, how the GOP may just be losing me, and many like me, if they don't stop the stupidity. But that's another post.

At the absolute core of my political beliefs is the value of liberty. Liberty is the concept on which we must hang all policies of government. Liberty as we Americans know it was a radical movement at the time the Constitution was drafted, but it has proven to be the basis for greatness. We are great because we are free. As we lose our liberties little by little, we will consequently lose our greatness.

This eagle doesn't need the government to know his greatness.

Some may argue that compassion is more important than liberty, but I would argue that liberty is the greatest form of compassion.

The video at the link (no embed available, sorry) contains the answer of a prominent and articulate Republican, John Bolton (former UN Ambassador) to the question, What is the greatest misconception that most Democrats have about Republicans?

He says (emphasis mine):

“The core misimpression is that a fundamental belief in liberty and its implications is somehow cruel and uncaring. When in fact, liberty is absolutely central to the most massive economic change in the history of the world that has brought more concrete material advantages to people in the last few hundred years than in millennia before that. And that understanding liberty means you have to value the possibility of failure as well as the possibility of success. Because if you don’t have failure as an option, you’ll never have success as an option.

It’s not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, it’s a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.”

So, to paraphrase, conservatives recognize that success and failure go hand in hand. Liberty allows even the most fallen to rise.

Where does that leave us with the less fortunate of society? Conservatives believe that helping the needy is an individual mandate, as opposed to a governmental one. It's very easy to say "let the government take care of them," because it requires very little personal sacrifice. I believe that anyone with a compassionate heart will make personal sacrifices to help the needy, whether it's through money or time.

This article gives evidence that conservatives are indeed more involved with the needy on a personal level than are liberals. An example: "People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."

I don't say that from a position of moral superiority, but to show how a difference in philosophy is played out in reality. Our family does give regularly to non-profits and charities, and believe me, I would love to give more if we could afford it. If the government would cut entitlement programs (most of which I disagree with) and return to us more of our own income, I could give more money to local programs that I really have a heart for reaching the unfortunate in our area. And that's not just theoretical.

A natural outgrowth of my belief in liberty is my belief in small government. I believe the Founders envisioned a small federal government, with more power going to the individual states. In the last 235 years, the federal government has grown much too large and deals with things that are really none of its business. Let people decide how they want to live within their states, but leave federal government out of our personal lives and business. Whenever the federal government tries to "help," it ends up doing more harm than good.

Of course, the larger the government, the less personal freedoms we have. The more money they take from people, the less people have for themselves. A large government tends to treat its people as dependents, and of course a fundamentally American value is that we are all in charge of our own lives. It is up to me and how I live my life whether I am a success or failure, and government needs to stay out of the way. We don't need more government to ensure our liberty; we need less of it.

Government does have legitimate roles, of course, and that is why I'm a Republican, not an anarchist or even a libertarian. While I have some libertarian tendencies, I believe government does provide some protections that are necessary and vital. I just think that government has become too invasive lately, and that capitalism, which relies on liberty, needs the freedom to do its job. When the markets are allowed to work, everyone benefits.

That's a somewhat libertarian view of things, however, when it comes to things like marriage, abortion, the legalization of drugs, etc., my opinion of protection goes to the conservative Republican side of things rather than libertarian.

For example: I don't care (or want to know) what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults, and practices that repulse me should not be illegal as long as they are consensual, but for legal purposes I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Anyway, there you have it. No mean-spirited jerk here, just someone whose political beliefs are rooted in the concept of liberty. As the primaries continue and things really start to get ugly, I'll share my feelings on the whole GOP situation going into the 2012 elections. You might be surprised. (Then again, maybe not.)

Happy Birthday, Mom!

Happy birthday to my mom!

I chose this picture because that's what we had yesterday. Angel food cake with strawberries and cream. Yum.

I might get in trouble for revealing her age, so I'll just say that today is one of the Big -0's. A milestone. Considering that I'm 35 and her middle child, she's not that old at all. Of course, she's always looked younger than her age anyway. What I'm trying to say is, she's got a lot of good years left.

I'll stop before I really get in trouble.

Now I realize that lots of daughters are close to their mothers, so maybe it's not all that unusual that I consider her my best friend. We don't talk on the phone every day, or even every week, (Digression: I don't get people who do. What the heck do you talk about all that time?) But when we do talk, it's kind of like sinking into a comfy old chair ... comforting and familiar.

What I love most about our relationship is that she is probably the only person on earth with whom I can completely be myself. I don't have to worry about how she'll judge me, or if she'll still like me if I say something un-P.C., or if a disagreement will be the end of us. I don't have to be "on" with her like I am with almost everyone else. Of course, she's better than most people in that she almost never says anything hurtful. How she does it, I don't know. I certainly didn't inherit that trait, much as I wish I did.

Mom is also the most disciplined person I know. When she sets a goal, she almost always achieves it. She sticks to daily routines like glue. I really admire this about her because, again, I'm not like that at all.

I have never known a single person who doesn't like Mom. Not only is she gentle and kind, but she shows a genuine interest in everyone she meets. She can learn more about someone in five minutes than I have in five years.

Perhaps the most amazing thing is she has faces just as many hardships as the rest of us (if not more), but never has anything tarnished her character. While I know how she really feels about some things, she still is not bitter, cynical or sarcastic. At the same time, don't be fooled by her gentle nature; she is the strongest person I know. You can't go through the dark places in life and maintain your goodness without strength of character, and she has it in spades.

Oh, we don't share everything with each other. There are some things you just don't tell your mom, ever (and vice-versa). And I do have a wonderful non-related best friend as well. But Mom is someone who "gets" me and loves me anyway. I am thankful that God saw fit to bless me with such a wonderful mother.

I love you, Mom!