Candidates

I’ve stated repeatedly that I for one am not real impressed with the Presidential candidates currently parading themselves before the voters. For the most part they strike me as being little more than a mob of Ho-Hum “kinder, gentler” wimps with not a lot of leadership traits, which, considering the global mess we’ve managed to get ourselves into during the course of the last few regimes is about the last thing we need in the White House! The concept of a kinder, gentler world is all well and fine I suppose, and would probably be a very nice place to live, as long as they leave the socialism part out of it. But to make that happen, the rest of the world has to agree with the idea, and everyone would have to work towards that lofty end. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it’s also an unachievable goal, and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future for that matter. Comparing today’s geopolitics to the sea, those are shark infested waters out there, and certainly no place for a peaceful little sardine to be swimming around in if he hopes to survive. In today’s world you had better be the biggest shark around if you don’t want to be somebody else’s supper! As a sop to the bleeding hearts among us I’ll add that the big shark doesn’t necessarily have to be an aggressive bully either, just big and bad enough that nobody else wants to pick a fight with him. Unfortunately the United States no longer meets those standards, instead we’ve become little more than the biggest, fattest, juiciest sardine in the sea, and the real sharks are quickly gathering ‘round.

The president of the United States is inevitably faced with two broad categories of problems, usually defined as Foreign policy and Domestic policy, and he’d better be an expert on both subjects. Then of course he has a few other concerns such as a congress that seemingly can’t agree with anybody about anything, bloodthirsty political opponents, a sensation seeking media that has learned to make immense mountains out of minor molehills, a politically ignorant population, special interests, and a bureaucracy that’s out to grab everything they can. To be successful he’s got to be brilliant, courageous, a master of diplomacy, an expert in the military sciences, an economist, a world class administrator, an accomplished public speaker, and a “man of the people” preferably with the Wisdom of Solomon. I also think it would help to have an extensive background in tightrope walking.

All the current candidates claim to have “experience” of course, although none of them have ever occupied the Oval Office, or faced the problems that come with the job. Instead we get some with experience in congress to one extent or another. A few have been the governors of their home states or big city mayors. Some have assorted corporate executive experience as well. One is even a medical doctor. Hillary is the only candidate that’s actually lived in the white house, but as “co-president” she seemed to spend most of her time firing the travel office people, and apologizing for Bill’s interest in interns and his difficulties in understanding the simpler words in the English language. None of the candidates are very charismatic, and for the most part are hardly known outside their home states. While I hear a lot of talk about how they’re going to do this, that, or the other thing, I don’t hear much about the important things, like how they plan to get all these bright ideas past congress and other special interest groups, nor of how they figure to finance things.

I found an interesting internet website that’s a computerized matrix combining the various candidates and their stance on the primary issues. It’s open to the public, wherein you can “vote” on how much you agree or disagree with the particular position of any candidate. On a scale of nine, with “one” being strongly agreed with, “five” being indifferent, and “nine” being strongly disagreed with, all the candidates were rated at a more or less “Blah” four, five, and six by the respondents, with some being only a bit more popular on certain issues than others. For viewers with a mathematical bent the voter statistics are given, but for the rest of us the results are color coded, with bright red being strongly disagree, and bright green being strongly agree. The five issues considered are; the economy, energy, health care, immigration, and the war in Iraq.

The condition of the national economy generates a lot of bright ideas and instant cures among the candidates, but the respondent rating is a more or less indifferent “five” in all cases. Energy independence seems to be about the same, with Bill Richardson’s ideas being the most popular at a three. The response to health care proposals is also rather indifferent, with Chris Dodd being the least popular by a very small margin. The immigration issue is much the same, with Ron Paul having by far the most popular stance at a resounding three, and Chris Dodd the least popular. Despite all the media coverage, the proposals for ending the war in Iraq can only be analyzed as varying levels of indifference! Here, Joe Biden and Ron Paul’s ideas are tied for being the most agreed with, and Tom Tancredo leads the pack in disagreement. Keeping in mind that the ratings change with every vote, Obama is the most popular Democrat at the time of this writing, and Ron Paul is the leading Republican. However, no candidate is yet a clear winner on any issue.

Perhaps these presidential hopefuls should start looking for a different set of issues to pillory their opponents with? How about things like the burgeoning bureaucracy, looming national bankruptcy, public education, tax reform, our worn out highways, and the rather run down condition of the military? Perhaps they could explain their position on homeland security, domestic spying, constitutional law, and our slowly disappearing Bill of Rights. Personally I’m very interested in what we’re going to do about manned space development as well, although I don’t hear much from any candidate on that subject.

All in all I guess the somewhat mediocre quality of the candidates we’ve been offered over the last few years is really a blessing in disguise. If we think about the congressional powers that have been meekly surrendered to the president, along with the powers of the Patriot Act and the long standing Executive Orders law, it’s not the least bit unimaginable that a strong and ambitious president could make himself dictator in short order. Nor is that unprecedented, remember that Adolf Hitler went from being the lawfully elected Chancellor of Weimar Germany to absolute dictator of the Third Reich, completely in accordance with existing German laws, and seemingly did it overnight.

As the great hot air machine on capitol hill seems to be little more than a debating society nowdays, perhaps our next President should make an issue of insisting Congress repeal some of those laws, and take back the authority granted them by our constitution.

Police State

“The Constitution of the United States was written by 55 men—and one ghost,” wrote military historian Dave R. Palmer. The nation’s Founders were quite well aware of Oliver Cromwell, who led the revolution that deposed King Charles I and established civil government in Great Britain. That democracy was short lived because when the newly formed Parliament refused to meet Cromwell’s demands, he used the army to seize power, establishing himself as Great Britain’s “Lord Protector.” To America’s Founding Fathers, the lesson was obvious: standing armies threaten liberty. Which explains why our Constitution divides control of the military between the executive and legislative branches of the government.

What America’s Founders did not foresee was the cold war era, where war could break out in a matter of moments, and widespread death and destruction was only a missile launch away. The war powers act was passed to allow the sitting president the authority to defend the nation (read “vaporize the Soviet Union”) in the event of a nuclear attack, where time would not allow Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I suspect that if the cold war had turned hot, whatever was left of Congress, hunkered down in the national command bunker, would have been asked to issue a declaration of war, just to make things nice and legal of course. However, the War Powers Act was not intended to allow the President to indiscriminately start wars on his own. Just to confuse the issue even more, congress has not seen fit to rescind the war powers act in the seventeen years since the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there’s even a movement afoot within the executive branch to militarize our borders, and to rescind the “Posse Comitatis” laws, which would give the president unlimited power to do anything he wants with the military, inside the United States.

In addition to handing their military authority over to the President, Congress also happily allows the president to control a small army of civilian police. The Secret Service, the National Park Police, the Transportation Security Administration, FBI, ATF, US Marshals Service, and dozens of other executive agencies act solely at the president’s behest and under his authority. It’s also been my understanding that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any law enforcement powers, instead leaving that authority with the Several States. The US Marshal Service was founded to police the vast western territories before they gained statehood. The FBI was only intended to be an investigative agency to assist the various state law enforcement organizations, and without any powers of arrest. The Secret Service was formed to chase down counterfeiters, not to protect the president! But instead of checking the expansion of executive police powers, members of Congress have virtually abandoned their oversight responsibilities, and allowed the president to become the virtual dictator of a shadowy Federal police state!

Although the growth of federal police powers began well before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorism is now used to justify their continued expansion. Restrictions on individual freedom are completely unchallenged as long as they are called “security measures.” After 9/11, the president closed the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island has since reopened, but people can no longer go inside the statue to overlook New York City and the harbor. The statue that stands as a beacon of courage and freedom has now been closed off because of fear. Independence Hall in Philadelphia now resembles a heavily guarded prison facility. In Washington, D.C., entrances to public buildings are blocked by metal detectors and armed guards. Drivers near the Capitol can be randomly stopped by police on city streets and their cars searched by bomb sniffing dogs. Visiting museums requires waiting in long lines while backpacks and pocketbooks are searched. The Park Service has turned the Washington Monument into a surveillance tower, placing cameras on its observation deck that record activity on the National Mall and beyond. The Park Police fence off the National Mall before such events as the Fourth of July festivities and herd visitors in through checkpoints, which they no longer pretend are purely anti-terrorism measures. Park officials have admitted that they search picnic baskets and coolers for contraband, “alcoholic beverages, glass bottles, fireworks.”

In October 2001 Osama bin Laden boasted that terrorist attacks would achieve their purpose:
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The United States government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Life in the United States remains fairly good so far, and is a far cry from bin Laden’s “unbearable hell.” But some recent changes are rather worrying. Long lines, insistent searches, and odious identification requirements are becoming routine. Unwarranted intrusion and inconvenience are becoming the American way of life. To counter this insidious push for diminished liberty, we must examine the arguments behind it. The most common of course is that 9/11 “changed everything.” But life was also changed forever with the invention of gunpowder, aerial warfare, and of the atomic bomb. History is in large part the story of aggression, and restricting our freedoms certainly can’t stop that aggression.

Another argument used to justify excessive security at public landmarks is that police are merely “protecting the symbols of democracy.” But the symbol of democracy is an open society, not an ominous police presence. Terrorists have already hit our national monuments through the years, the difference being that after those earlier attacks, the government did not respond with hysteria. The war against terrorism is in large part a war against fear. To win this war, all Americans must accept the reality that our society will never be able to afford an environment that is totally free of risk from terrorist attacks. Nor would most Americans want to live with the restrictions that such a risk-free environment would demand. Then too, our nation’s leaders must be willing to demonstrate courage. Freedom prevailed in other times of national emergency only because our leaders did not succumb to fear. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated during the worst days of the Cold War, many in his administration feared his death was the start of a coup. If so, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson, would likely be the next target. Yet when Kennedy’s widow announced her intention to walk from the White House to her husband’s funeral, Johnson helped lead the procession that marched through the streets of downtown Washington rather than hiding out in the White House war room.

After winning rather vicious wars against the empires of Great Britain, Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Union, will America now lose its freedom to a handful of religious zealots? “Terrorism succeeds,” said the late senator Patrick Moynihan, “when people become terrified.” Sadly, such success looms, unless America’s leaders begin defending our freedom and our Constitution, rather than giving in to their fears.

Climate Change

So far the presidential candidates haven’t had much to say about climate change or global warming. However, as the election draws nearer I’d expect to hear a lot of bright ideas about the subject, although I’m not real confident that they can pass an effective law against long hot summers. Oh well, somebody will try I’m sure.

The blame for the present global temperature rise is generally laid at the feet of western industrialized civilization and its genius for generating clouds of greenhouse gases that trap sunlight in the atmosphere. The world’s incessant demand for more and more energy has pressed us into consuming the fossil fuels that nature required millions of years to lay down, in little more than a hundred years. Consumption of these fuels, (oil, coal, and natural gas), primarily by burning them, releases a number of waste products that are popularly called “Greenhouse Gases”. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others), allow the suns visible and ultraviolet light to enter the atmosphere freely, but when sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat), acting as a balance to maintain a steady temperature. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. These gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, leaving a few scientists and many non-scientists believing this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases. People call this climate change “Global Warming.”

But another possible culprit is fast emerging. For centuries, scientists have known that the Sun is less steady than sunbathing and casual observation suggest. It has seasons and storms and rhythms of activity, its sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth -- first tenuously, and more solidly of late. Today, a growing number of scientists contend that the Sun's fickleness might rival human pollution as a factor in climatic change. And some research, though sketchy and much debated, suggests that the Sun's variability could account for virtually all of the global warming measured to date. Others dismiss the possibility of such an influence, even while they agree the solar factor should be studied more thoroughly.

Global warming skeptics freely admit that earth’s climate is changing for one reason or another. However, they also challenge many of the claims that it is solely due to the activities of humankind over the last 150 years, stating that those claims are based on “junk science” and are heavily biased in favor of the desired results. Junk science can often be detected when the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. Then we have the politicization of science, which occurs when government, big business, or special interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which might differ from their prefered viewpoint, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Please note that these special interest groups can range from the local power company to the Serria Club.

Fears are that if humans keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, causing severe changes in the Earths climate. It’s claimed by alarmists that these changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as a lower level of general health and decreasing economic development. At the same time, we have climate records that indicate we’re presently coming out of a mini ice-age, and that the Earths “normal” temperature is several degrees higher than we see at present. During the time of the dinosaurs the global mean temperature was approximately 35* F higher than today, with the tropics extending nearly to the current polar regions!

The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement, despite the fact that they emit even more greenhouse gases than the United States. Essentially, the Kyoto agreement severely penalizes the western nations, while doing nothing about the rapidly increasing emissions from industries of the developing countries. Under Kyoto, China is free to continue producing unlimited greenhouse gases even though it has recently become the world’s single largest producer.

While the environmentalists weep and wail about the soon to be announced total collapse of nature (for which Al Gore will probably win another Oscar), many countries and much of the multi-national corporate world are making money hand over fist buying, selling, and trading “carbon credits” issued under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol. These credits are issued for not producing greenhouse gases. Al Gore castigates President Bush for not signing the Kyoto agreement even while visiting his Hollywierd friends in a gas guzzling, smog generating SUV. Environmental activists collect outrageous speaking fees for telling the rest of the world how environmentally insensitive Americans are. The Sierra Club leaders fly around in private jets while drawing six figure salaries from their membership for “directing” the clean air and water drive. The rest of us are supposed to pay for everything while living a stone-age, non-technical existence I guess.

Dunno about anybody else in this neck of the woods, but my poor old aching joints definitely support global warming!

Issues

With the presidential election fast approaching, the politicians are all making fine sounding pronouncements of what legislation they hope to pass, and of what they’ll accomplish once in office. Some of these things they could actually do, if they can get a majority of congressmen to agree with their ideas, and if they can find the funding. A lot of the things they promise, they simply can’t do, for any number of perfectly sound reasons.

The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.

Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!

Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!

The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?

The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.

Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!

Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.

Candidates

Since I started writing this column I’ve had several “discussions” with a couple of aquaintenances over my perceived misuse of the words “Liberal” and “Conservative” when referring to the political left and right, or rather to Republicans and Democrats. In the interest of keeping open warfare to a minimum, I did an internet search for the definitions of these two words. So, with my apologies to the original writer, I’ll present a rather abbreviated version…

Liberal; the dictionary definition of “liberal” is now almost exclusively used to mean someone from the political left, or simply a synonym for a Democrat. As such, “liberal” has undergone an about-face from someone who is open-minded and non-traditional to someone who seeks to maintain the status quo in the face of efforts to undo the program of past liberals. In addition, the word “liberal” has acquired a negative connotation as spend-thrifts of government money.

Conservative; an old-style conservative was one who is skeptical of change, and who prefers a “go slow” approach to change. “Conservative” is now simply used to mean someone from the right, or simply a synonym for a Republican. As such, “conservative” has become one who demands change from current forms or ways, toward a set of restrictive social mores coupled with an economic program designed to strengthen the current class system and maintain the power of the existing ruling classes.

(Honest, that’s what it said in the book!) As a long time Independent I can’t say that either description really fits my attitude towards our political system. I rather think I could best be described as on “old style” conservative that thinks we need to do a lot of study on whatever subject before we start changing things around.

I’ve also been following the seemingly endless rhetoric of the current crop of presidential hopefuls with a lot of misgiving. We should or we should not withdraw from Iraq. We should or we should not come up with a nationalized health care plan. We should or we should not allow abortion. Private schooling is/is not a good idea. We need more/less government surveillance. We need a bigger/smaller government. Do we increase taxes, or reduce them? Sheesh, it’s enough to drive a normal person crazy trying to keep track of all the options we’re being offered! We’ve got Republicans, Democrats, Moderates, Independents, “Greens”, Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, several groups of Theocrats, Isolationists, States Rightists, a Neo-Nazi or two, Anarchists, wannabe Communists, “Know Nothings”, and a bunch of folks I don’t know how to describe, all running for President, and of course they’ve all got their own bright ideas. There’s at least one young feller out there in internet land that thinks the United States should adopt the diplomatic policies of Attila the Hun! In my case I can scream, preach, and do all the finger pointing I want, because I have no intention of ever running for President, or even dogcatcher for that mater. But if we suddenly find the need of a “Dictator for Life”, I could be talked into accepting the job…

One thing most Americans fail to understand is that government is a self perpetuating industry these days. It is not in the best interest of government or government employees to be limited in size, or to have its income (taxes) reduced or restricted by statute. Governmental authority is usually considered to be the right to collect taxes, enforce obedience, and delegate power or influence, based on control of the police and army. (If anyone other than the government tried to do that, it would be called extortion, and they’d justifiably spend quite some time in the hoosegow.) We all realize of course that we don’t operate our “government” in quite that manner here in the United States. Instead, every four years we vote for whatever individual we want to have controlling the police and army, so they can collect taxes, enforce authority, etc. etc.

The problem is in deciding whom, of all the people making campaign promises they have no intention of keeping, do we vote for? Most Americans solve that problem by watching TV, and selecting the candidate they think the most handsome, or the better public speaker, or perhaps whoever makes the most outrageous promises. But we also forget is that insincerity is hard to detect on television or even in the printed media. Sound bites and shallow reporting see to that. Our two-party system further complicates the issue by severely limiting our choices to the people selected by vested interests, with the alternative being the assorted fringe elements.

I used to think the European political scene was a confusing madhouse until I started looking at the fringes of American politics. For the moment I’ll define “fringes” as anything that isn’t an integral part of what is commonly considered Republican/Democratic “mainstream” politics. I understand that there are more than 200 distinct political parties or movements active in the United States today, each with their own political agenda, and each with somebody that wants to be president, which gives us a lot of fringe movements!

The political fringes seem to be populated by any number of lunatics at first glance. But the further you look into them, there are a few people out there with some pretty good ideas, at least from my viewpoint. Some of those fringes actually think we need a smaller government and lower taxes! Some of those crazies actually oppose the growing “big brother” state with its endless surveillance of the citizenry! Some even oppose the “Nanny State” so beloved of the mainstream left! If you stop and think about it for a moment, what’s so “fringe” about thinking that our government is supposed to be a constitutional republic with limited powers, instead of a welfare state democracy, or a “safe and secure” police state?

Ron Paul of Texas, and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, appear to be two of those “fringe” politicians standing in opposition to whatever it is that mainstream politicians have in mind for the future of our country. Ron Paul seems to think we need a smaller government and lower taxes, less government surveillance, and that we should pull in our horns and tend to our own knitting for a change. Tom Tancredo opposes our “open borders” policy, unlimited federal spending, and activist judges. I rather think that both of these guys are worthy of a long look before they’re dismissed as crazies without a chance of winning.

After all, Ross Perot was considered a crazy fringe politician by the mainstream, but American voters thought he was serious enough that he wound up with 19% of the popular vote. How many more didn’t vote for him, but later wished they had?

Vandals at the Wall

The Vandals are upon us again, and I don’t mean the athletes from Moscow either. Real ones this time, honest to Gawd barbarians that have no respect for other people, civilized behavior, or much of anything else except their own personal desires. They can’t yowl loud enough to become rock music stars, they’re not pretty enough to be movie stars, and they aren’t smart enough to be crooked politicians. So instead, they find other means to draw attention to themselves, in this case defacing public memorials.

Friday, the 7th of September, a “light, oily substance” was splattered on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall panels and paving stones in an act of vandalism. The vandals appear to have walked along the wall while squirting an oil based substance on the lower sections of the panels. The liquid discolored the polished surface of the stone memorial and was absorbed into the porous parts of the stone where the names of our fallen warriors are etched into the stone. Many names have become unreadable due to the absorption of the fluid.

At the same time, Washington was deeply involved with the reports by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which the Democratic leadership had already condemned as more “Bush lies” well before anything was said. At the same time, ANSWER and a number of other anti-war groups including moveon.org were planning massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, events that seem entirely too coincidental to assume that Friday’s discovery was an act of vandalism unconnected with the demonstrations. Jan Scruggs, who is the founder and president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund said that there is a belief that the recent vandalism was motivated by "MoveOn.org type of people" but he hopes that no one is accusing them at this point. “I just can’t image that this was an organized activity or a conspiracy involving more than one deranged person, or that anyone would have done this to score political points for their cause -- it would have just the opposite effect.”

Col. Harry G. Riley (US Army, Ret.) who is heading up the “Eagles” veterans group said that “When you see there is some type of a substance on the wall down and on the base for 50 to 60 feet, its pretty hard for me to rationalize how that could be anything other than purposeful…” “Who ever did this, if they were trying to enrage the Vietnam Veterans, they did.” In response some veterans groups planned to parallel the anti-war demonstrations with lines of volunteers blocking access to the Vietnam Wall and other memorials they believe may be targeted for defacement. Col. Riley’s right you know, this wanton act of vandalism has certainly infuriated this Vietnam vet, and not in a manner that would meet with the approval of the anti-war crowd!

The week of anti-war events is intended to trigger a nationwide demonstration against the war in Iraq, and is set to begin Saturday with a 1,000-person “die-in” at the U.S. Capitol. The die-in is planned to be the high point of a march and rally. Organizers hope the event will spur people in the antiwar movement to move from protesting to performing acts of civil disobedience that “get in the way of the war machine”. For some reason this is beginning to smell like the mess we found ourselves facing in the 1960’s, where sensless rioting and wanton destruction became a common fact of American life.

Certainly anti-war protests are nothing new in American history, with some protests becoming rather bloody riots in both New York and Baltimore during our Civil War. Unlike places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Red China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, protesting is the right of all American citizens. However, I see a distinct difference between protesting the war in Iraq, and purely destructive vandalism!

That someone would deface this place is beyond me. They dishonor the dead, they dishonor those that came home, having left too many of their friends-not to mention part of themselves-somewhere in Vietnam. They also dishonor the families of the dead. For what? So they could make some sort of juvenile statement? Whatever statement they were trying to make was made in cowardice. While I despise those idiots who took it upon themselves to make asses of themselves during the Congressional Testimonies, at least they had the nerve to do so in public and risk arrest. The slime that defaced the wall made their statement in fear, and in a city full of monuments with which to make a bad decision, they made the worst decision possible. That place is hallowed ground to so many. Many more will now come to defend it, because it is as much theirs as it is anyone else’s. My advice to the anti war crowd: Stay away from The Wall. It may belong to all of us, but trust me when I tell you that right now, you will not be welcome there. You will now be met by a group of people that will be justifiably angry.

So far I’ve been fairly quiet about this savage act because I haven’t been able to say anything that wouldn’t be considered a criminal act, to whit, advocating vigilanty justice. To say that I am mad as hell doesn’t even begin to explain the rage that I feel about this. I’ll join my voice with many veterans in saying that those who defaced the wall should be hunted down, drawn and quartered. Their heads should be posted on pikes on one side of the wall, and the rest of them scattered to the four corners of America as a warning to others who would do the same. There is no reasoning with the kind of people who deface war memorials to further their warped cause; they can only be likened to insane people who are possessed by a rage that knows no bounds. It takes a really sick individual with no moral conscience whatsoever to violate the rights of the dead.

The young men and women whose names cover the wall gave their lives for their country in Vietnam. They did not run away from their obligations as American citizens, they did not hide behind some conveniently assumed morality, they did not mindlessly parrot the lies of those who would destroy this nation. Those young people didn’t start the war in Vietnam, many didn’t agree with that war, and certainly they weren’t here to start the war in Iraq. They were simply young Americans, who, as American soldiers have throughout our history and in accordance with our law, went where their country sent them… and there - like the three hundred Spartans - they died, doing their duty.

Fire Policy

The world, as I knew it for decades, is coming to an end. While not quite as serious as the second coming threatens to be, the world of wildland firefighting is undergoing some earthshaking changes. Many of these changes are probably justifiable, but I’m not sure if I like all this or not.

When I started firefighting oh so many years ago, at the first sign of smoke every able bodied man in our rural neighborhood grabbed a shovel or axe, and ran off to help Smokey Bear defend the forest, thereby saving their jobs, and probably their homes, and the town as well. At the same time, the Ladies started making a small mountain of sandwich’s and what seemed like a million gallons of coffee to sustain the firefighters. Hand lines and ‘dozer lines were the rule, the old timers could fall a tree in amazingly short time with an axe (us younger guys much preferred a chainsaw), and we probably did more damage to the ecosystem with our efforts than the fire did! Those were the days when it was almost a “badge of honor” to bring your engine back to the station house with half the paint burnt off, as that showed you were “tough” and could take it.

As time went on, things changed considerably, and certainly for the better. What had been an extremely hazardous occupation became much more professional, and through extensive training was reduced to being only “very” hazardous. Dozens of firefighters were still killed each year, equipment was lost, huge amounts of money was spent, and hundreds of thousands of acres of forests burned every year. However, “the times they are ‘a changing” I’m afraid.

For decades most of the justification for aggressively extinguishing forest fires was based on the idea that if we saved the forest from burning, the trees were then available for logging, and there was nearly always a high demand for lumber. In this modern day however, lumber is no longer a local or even national market, but has become a globalized big business. If you buy a board today, it could have come from nearly anywhere, the United States, Canada, Europe, Siberia perhaps… Here in the states, the days of Paul Bunyon are long gone, and I’m afraid they’re not coming back, thanks to the efforts of the radical environmentalists and the federal courts. So, we’ve now lost our primary justification for extensive fire fighting. Then too, as we’ve been told countless times over the last few years, the firefighting efforts during the twentieth century have allowed a tremendous fuel load to build up in the woods, a point I’ll quickly concede. With those fuel loads we get some very large and quite intense fires during the summer months, long duration fires that require a lot of effort and expense to contain, and even more expense to rehabilitate afterwards. The 1940’s saw the begining of the use of prescribed fires to control that excessive fuels accumulation, a practice that soon spread across the nation. But still, firefighting was an expensive proposition, and the costs grow every year. I understand that the Nez Perce National Forest has been spending nearly half their annual budget over the last few years just in fire related operations. Looking at the individual cost of these fires, that’s a lot of money out of the taxpayer’s pockets!

To make a long story short, something’s obviously got to give, and in this case it was traditional firefighting.

After much soul searching and brain storming I’m sure, the Forest Service has again changed their approach to wildland fires. Certainly a lot of fires will continue to be aggressively attacked, but not as many as we’ve seen in previous years. A lot more of the marginal fires will be used as WFU (wildland fire use) burns, and I suspect the majority of fires will be handled in a manner similar to what we’ve seen on the Rattlesnake, Concord, Raines, and Loon-Zena fires this year, they’ll be “managed” to achieve land use objectives. Rather than surrounding a fire with control lines and then extinguishing it, I expect we’ll see a lot fewer fire crews and engines during the summer, the judicious use of only a few fire lines, and a lot of helicopter bucket drops to cool hot spots and slow a fire’s advance. As we saw on the Rattlesnake fire, “high value” exposures will be protected as happened in Dixie, but the majority of the fire will be allowed to burn. The forest service insists this isn’t really anything new, but rather is a further development of their existing policies. The new decision criteria includes considering things like the property value at risk, potential hazards to firefighter lives, and the expected costs of extinguishment. It’s not a “Let it Burn” policy according to the forest service, but I suspect we’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference in many cases. I certainly can’t say I’m very happy with this change, but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and I can see where the Forest Service managers feel they have no other option.

Still, I drove to Boise Monday, by way of Highway 55. As I left town early in the morning, I noticed that there was a lot of smoke in the sky. Guess what… that smoke plume continued all the way to Boise, making driving, and breathing, rather difficult. I also noticed that the Boise VA hospital had a lot of elderly veterans sitting around suffering from respiratory problems… brought on by that smoke I understand. Is this what we’re going to see every summer, for weeks on end? Considering the impact local citizens wishes have on the doings of the US government, we’re going to have to learn to live with it I guess.

The big impact will be on private land owners. Protecting private property adjacent to forest lands is expensive, particularly so if the land owner hasn’t made any previous effort to prepare for a fire. Far to many property owners have ignored the possibility of fires right up to the time it crossed their boundaries, and then they expect the firefighters to save everything for them. With this new policy the land owner will have to assume a large part of the responsibility by removing those excessive fuels, assuring that his buildings are at least somewhat fire resistant, and probably installing a minimal fire fighting capability as well. From a fire tactics viewpoint I see no reason why this policy wouldn’t work, but it’s going to be mighty hard to tell dedicated firefighters to “back off” when a fire starts moving on someone’s home. From a purely economic viewpoint however, I guess it makes good sense.

People are going to have to get real serious about the objectives behind the “Fire Wise” and “Fire Safe” programs on their private property. Yes, brush and dead trees can be cleared from the property. Yes, excessive trees can be thinned out. Yes, tall grass can be mowed. And yes, buildings can be made more fire resistant as well. In some cases this can get pretty expensive for the individual, as well as requiring a summer long ongoing effort to maintain that fire safe condition.

Still, I don’t think I’d want to bet the farm that we won’t have a fire in any particular year either.

TSA Stunts

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." -- President James Madison: 1751-1836

Hang on to your hats folks, the “Thought Police” are coming! Those wonderful folks from Homeland Security, whose job it is to secure your safety and well being, are at it again. I suppose it was inevitable, but now even a frown or grimace can get you in trouble with the cops. The federal Transportation Security Administration’s “specially trained” security personnel will soon be watching travelers for “micro-expressions” that reveal insidious intentions at airports. These agents, in their incessant search for potential terrorists, and who hold your fate in their hands, have been given the name of "Behavior Detection Officers."

There really is a field of study called “Micro-Expressions” (and it’s apparently called a “science” by some), that has decided when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. Oh-Kay, that makes sense… I think. The experts have also determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception. Still... if these government specialists are really so talented, wouldn't they be working in ‘Vegas, instead of staring at a bunch of ugly people at the airport?

Fear and disgust in an airport terminal building!? Or even at the bus depot? I guess the genius that thought this one up hasn’t used public transportation very much over the last few years. It’s bad enough that we could be trapped in a crowded airplane with no food or water, and with nonworking toilets, for hours on end. Add in the unwashed bodies, screaming kids, marginal drunks, and the gossiping stranger that wants to tell you all about her neighbor’s terrible grandkids. And that’s on a good day! What about the woman who is getting on a plane for one last visit with a dying relative? Or the man traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist? Or how about the guy who just had a fight with his wife? What kind of mood are you going to be in when the baggage agent tells you your only clean clothes are on their way to Pretoria, while you’re heading for Paducah! So while TSA employees are confiscating your nail clippers and water bottle, they’re going to be secretly looking for some telltale sign of terrorist intent in a grimace, a sigh, a crinkled nose?

The face police, already working at more than a dozen U.S. airports, aren’t identified as such. But the watcher could be at the baggage counter, the ticket counter, or near the metal detectors and X-ray machines. The Transportation Security Administration hopes to have as many as 500 “Behavior Detection Officers” on the job by the end of 2008. One scenario is that an officer might move in to “help” a passenger retrieve their belongings after they’ve been screened. And then the officer will ask where the passenger is headed. If the passenger’s reaction sets off alarm bells in the officer’s well-trained mind, another officer will move in and detain them. Dunno about anyone else, but if a total stranger moved in on me like that and started asking a lot of questions, I’d probably tell them where to get off at, and throw in a few choice expletives for good measure as I stomped off. Of course, I probably won’t be stomping very far.

I suppose that in light of the inept, kneejerk reactions and poorly thought out airport security rules since 9-11, something as silly as a Behavior Detection Officer isn’t too much to be expected. Personally I'm of the opinion that the Transportation Security Agency is a world class joke, and will do little to stop another terrorist attack. It's little more than another case of Government throwing money at a problem, providing additional pork to friends of the administration, and trying to lull and pacify the public into believing that we’re safe. That sounds like a serious violation of the public trust to me.

It's difficult enough to travel given the snafu at the airports, lousy service, and lack of consideration by the airlines. Now we are to be detained for our thoughts! This is terrifying, yet the American people will accept it in the name of security. Ben Franklin was right you know, those who would give up liberty for some small measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security. After all, how can we be a free people if we can be detained based on no more evidence than a facial expression?

I believe that it’s definitely time to terminate the TSA. It a waste of time, money, and our freedom. It wastes thousands of man years waiting in line for a nearly undetectable gain in security. It created hundreds of thousands of parasitic federal brown shirts that will take a huge nation wide political effort to eliminate. (Incidentally, our current use of the word “homeland” is quite similar to Hitler’s use of “Fatherland”, and Stalin’s use of “Motherland”). In the name of security we have instituted a Soviet style system of internal passports for airline travel called the “Real ID”, and now we get the TSA thought police as well!

So this is what the government passes for "science," nowadays? What’s next, hiring out of work psychics? That probably would be much more efficient and accurate than reading facial expressions. I suppose this really shouldn't be surprising, coming from the knuckle-draggers that populate the federal government. To them, science is for those weirdo’s that do something like work for a living, instead of playing official government video games all day long. It’s nice to see that our government has all the extra tax money to spend on a science such as this.

I think this is probably the most insidious assault on the "American way of life" since 9/11! Part of our freedom relies on our personal duty and honor, and part of it relies on our being able to kick over the traces when the government does something really stupid. After all, the Constitution itself states that if it doesn't work anymore, Americans have the responsibility to throw it out and start over. Nothing is said about turning our country into a Soviet style big-brother state.

Welcome to America under the “New World Order”, and remember to think only “Happy Thoughts” whenever you’re outside the confines of your house, hopefully that will save you from being added to the Terrorist Suspect List.

Politics and Larry Craig

One of the problems of writing for a weekly paper is that no matter how hard you try, you’re almost always a week behind the times. For that reason I generally don’t have much to say about whatever shenanigans the politicians are up to today, but rather I growl a lot about the various situations they let develop, and of course the various political views that I consider downright dumb. Right now however, I think I can fit a current event in with my usual soapbox rant.

The great American political campaign season is upon us, whether we’re ready for it or not, and I fear a bit early as well. In our usual circus sideshow manner, the Republicans are happily slamming the Democrats, the Democrats are hurling insults with the best of ‘em, and the mainstream media is flaming everybody in sight. The religious right is calling down fire and brimstone on evildoers, the utopian left is screaming that everyone in the world is wrong except themselves, the Libertarians are shaking their fists at almost everybody, and the talk show hosts are happily sharpening their fangs in hopes of improving their network ratings.

When I started writing this column I wrote an “introductory” piece in which I claimed that “a few of my ‘pet peeves’ are hard core environuts, left wing bleeding heart liberal utopians, opinionated people, loud music, lawyers, and the bureaucracy.” For the most part I’ll stand with that list, but as happens every other year during political campaigns I’ll temporarily add “Political Candidates” as well. While I generally get along fairly well with most individuals, I do think that humanity as a group is probably the dumbest bunch of ignorant “sheeple” ever to come down the pike, and when it comes to politics P.T. Barnum was right, there’s a sucker born every minute. I learned a long time ago that in political campaigning it doesn’t matter what you actually think or believe, it’s that you tell this crowd, right here, right now, what they want to hear, and they’ll follow you anywhere.

It seems that we’ve got an entire herd of professional politicians running for president next year, all are busily telling us how great they are, how good their ideas are, how they’ve got so much political experience, how terrible their opponents are, etc. etc. ad nauseaum. But rather than telling us how they’d solve the problems facing the nation, they’re happily picking on the opposition and little else. The mud slinging in our national political campaigns is, in my view, utterly uncalled for, and also quite demeaning to everyone involved, slinger and slingee alike. We can all remember the accusations tossed at both candidates in our last presidential campaign, and unfortunately I’d expect to see more of the same next year. The fuss extends to congressional seats as well, witness the constant witch hunts and sometimes wild accusations in the mainstream media. The current commotion about Sen. Larry Craig’s problems are a good case in point, where, because he’s a Republican, the Democrats are thirsting for blood, and the left wing media will settle for nothing less than his head on a platter. Were he a democrat I’d expect the republicans to be out sharpening their skinning knives, and the media to be stumbling all over themselves in explaining that it’s “really nothing to be concerned about”. This constant warring between the radical right and the looney left does nothing more than keep everyone in a turmoil, confuse the issues, and is a great disservice to the American voter.

On a more local level, here in Idaho at least, there’s plenty of glowering, grumbling and growling of course, but fortunately we don’t usually see the massive character assassination efforts that seem to be the stock in trade elsewhere. At least I haven’t heard of one candidate calling another a horse thief lately. Personally I’d think that a simple “he’s got the job and I want it” along with “I think I can do the job better” statements would suffice. Heck, I know I could do a better job of running NASA than the current crop of bureaucrats and political appointees, but then I don’t really expect the President to offer me that position in the immediate future either.

In a recent news article, James Weatherby, a political science professor at Boise State University, reportedly said that “Idaho Republicans possess a fiercely independent streak, characterized by a healthy dose of libertarian values and distrust of the federal government and the media. They generally hold deep religious beliefs and conservative social values. It all makes it hard sometimes to predict exactly how Idahoans would vote or how Idaho politicians will act on certain issues”. I think that he could say much the same for most Idaho Democrats as well. ‘Course we’ve got our share of nuts from both sides, although thankfully not as many as the more populous states produce. I’ve lived in several states through the years, and managed to get myself involved with the fringes of the local political scene in both Arizona and Nevada. As an interested observer of the situation here in Idaho, I think I much prefer the way things are done here. In the Arizona I knew thirty years ago, a mob of democrats would be running the streets with tar and feathers right now, looking for Sen. Craig. In Nevada they’d have been measuring him for a neck-tie party based purely on unfounded rumor! So far at least, most Idahoans are keeping fairly quiet, and I hope waiting for the final results of whatever investigation comes of this. But please keep in mind that even after months of investigating a few unsubstantiated allegations, the Idaho Statesman has yet to find a “smoking gun”. If the allegations can be proven, then yes, Larry will have to go. But “innocent until proven guilty” is a cornerstone of our justice system, and nothing has been proven yet.

Personally I don’t know what happened. Thanks to the internet I’ve read the police reports, a number of raving news reports, a lot of vague political forecasts, and of course the inevitable rabid commentary from the looney left and the gay community. The police report seems rather ambiguous, and everything else seems to come from people with an axe to grind. At present the situation looks to me like a minor incident (and a bad mistake on Larry’s part) that’s being turned into a mountainous event in the name of political advantage. I do know that I’ve met and spoken with Larry Craig on several occasions, and in general he appears to be a sincere, straightforward individual who really is interested in solving problems facing Idaho and Idahoans. At least he’d listen to us, unlike a lot of other politicians I’ve known. And personally, I rather liked him. I also think that whatever the outcome of this sorry situation, the people of Idaho owe him a vote of thanks for past services rendered.

I will make one recommendation to travelers though. If you’ve got one of those portable music machines plugged into your ear, don’t, under any circumstances, tap your foot in time to the music. Lord only knows what kind of signals you might be sending, or to whom!

Fire Problems

So far I’ve made two trips to the Dixie area to report on the Rattlesnake fire efforts, and two trips down to the river looking over the Poe Cabin fire. From that, I think I can safely say that nobody from the area residents to the firefighters are all that happy with this weeks old situation, and that everyone involved is making an effort to resolve the problem. Certainly the rest of us in the county aren’t very happy with choking, coughing, and hacking on the incessant smoke clouds that blanket the prairie, no matter where the smoke comes from.

While it’s not a unique situation, the extensive grasslands on the river make fighting the Poe Cabin fire difficult but not impossible, and thus we see this fire at least is nearly contained. Unfortunately for us all, the terrain, fuels and our summer weather patterns make any direct suppression efforts (and thus quick extinguishment) very different on the Rattlesnake fire, as well as being extremely hazardous to the firefighters. Much the same situation exists to the south where the Loon-Zena fire, and the Raines fire are having the same problems. (All in all, with twenty going fires we’ve lost nearly half a million acres so far this summer.) Remember that these fires are generally burning in very steep terrain difficult if not impossible for motorized equipment to operate in. The fuels include deep grass, heavy brush, and dense Lodgepole Pine jumbles in which a high percentage of the trees have been killed by bugs. You might also keep in mind that handline crews would have to work upslope of an active fire, with unburned fuels between them and the fire, something that is never a very good idea! All in all, we have the necessary ingredients of a firefighter’s nightmare, with the potential of making the 1994 South Canyon fire (Storm King Mountain) tragedy seem like child’s play!

The primary firefighting efforts on the Rattlesnake fire are intended to protect the communities of Dixie, Comstock, and now Orogrande from the fire if, or should I say when, it comes boiling out of the canyons. In addition, helicopter bucket drops are being used to cool hotspots in an effort to keep the fire from moving out of those same canyons, a very good idea considering that we can’t with any degree of safety put people in there to actively work on the fire.

The question that quickly comes to my mind however, is how did we get into this sorry situation in the first place? Consider the problems that the fire crews are facing. The steep terrain features we can blame on the action of the Salmon River over quite a few thousand years I guess, and there isn’t much we can do about that. Nor can we do much about the weather conditions, as much as we’d like to. The fire fuels on the other hand are something we could, and should, have done something about long ago. It’s my understanding that those dense stands of Lodgepole Pine are partly the result of the disastrous 1910 fire, making these trees nearly 100 years old. Generally these dense stands should have been logged, thinned out years ago, but weren’t for various reasons. For that I blame the environmental activists, and the federal courts, which seem to know little more about forestry than I know about the finer nuances of law, despite all the weeping and wailing about our country’s mistreated forests.

Next, enter the infamous Mountain Pine Beetle. The beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, is a member of an insect class known as bark beetles. Except when the adults migrate and attack new trees, the mountain pine beetle completes its life cycle under the bark. They attack and kill lodgepole, ponderosa, sugar, and western white pine by tunneling under the bark, where over a short time (sometimes as little as two weeks) the trees are overwhelmed as the phloem layer is damaged enough to cut off the flow of water and nutrients, leaving the tree to starve to death. Beetle outbreaks frequently develop in dense stands of pole-sized pines, where outbreaks often kill millions of trees. During epidemics, tree mortality can alter the entire ecosystem, where often the beetles have almost totally depleted pine forests. The profusion of beetle-killed trees can severely affect wildlife habitat as well, by changing the cover available and hindering wildlife movement. Even worse, the dead trees left standing are a source of fire fuels that well, as forests are prone to do, burn, unless they’re somehow removed. After all, a lightning strike in the top of a dead, pitchy, lodgepole is somewhat akin to striking a kitchen match in a pile of gasoline soaked tinder!

High-risk lodgepole pine stands have an average age of more than 80 years, an average diameter of more than 8 inches, and a climate suitable for beetle development. According to numerous studies, thinning those stands of lodgepole and ponderosa pines will generally prevent, or at least minimize, beetle-caused tree losses. However, once a large outbreak has developed, salvage logging of infested material to reduce future tree mortality generally will not be effective. It’s possible to prevent infestation with specialized sprays on high value trees, but they need to be applied before the tree is infected and the cost of such treatments is excludes any large-scale application. Once a mountain pine beetle outbreak begins, it can often only be stopped by thinning the trees ahead of the outbreak. More importantly, infestations can be prevented by thinning those dense stands before crown closure, an operation that not only increases the vigor of the remaining trees, but also prevents the spread of an outbreak if individual trees have already been attacked.

Mountain pine beetles are a natural part of the ecosystem, and will never be completely eradicated. To keep the beetles at their normal numbers however, the causes of an outbreak must be removed. First and foremost, overstocked stands of timber need to be addressed by foresters, as overstocking causes trees to become highly competitive for the limited water, light, and nutrients available, and this quite naturally stunts their growth along with weakening their defenses against beetle attack. The beetles also carry spores of bluestain fungus which colonizes the sapwood and defeats the natural defenses of the tree. When lodgepole is young, it is able to resist infection by the fungus, with resistance increasing to about age 60, and then rapidly declines. The decline in resistance to bluestain fungus occurs when lodgepole pine is considered mature, and just when beetle outbreaks typically develop. Logging these dense lodgepole stands is one proven answer, which would make everyone happy if the logging of such small timber can be made economically viable. If standard logging isn’t an economical operation, then perhaps we could give the excess trees to somebody who could use them, forestry economics be dammed, just get them out of there! I know a lot of pole cutters that would be quite happy to remove as many of these excess trees as they can get if they don’t have to pay an arm and a leg for them! If, for one reason or another, thinning isn’t acceptable or possible, then the stands should most likely be burned out, with the general recommendation being a “patchwork” burn of six to ten acres per plot.

If nothing else, that sure would reduce the vast amounts of secondhand “government smoke” we’re being exposed to for much of each summer!