San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 8, 2013

Supreme Court Should Declare All Prayer Illegal

The Supreme Court of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is presently hearing a case about the right to pray prior to a governmental legislative session being held.  The case came up from a dispute in the city of Greece, New York.  As is the practice of many local governments, the city of Greece would have various religious types come to their town council meetings and open their sessions with some sort of prayer.  Because most of the people who live in Greece identify themselves with Christianity the prayers tended to be Christian in nature.  Not all of the prayers were Christian however.  A Jewish rabbi once opened a session.  I assume he prayed to Yahweh.  A Wiccan Priestess also once opened a session by calling upon the god Apollo to guide the government agents in their deliberations.  Nevertheless, most of the prayers were at least vaguely Christian.
A militant, overweight female with a serious butch haircut objected to the presence of allegedly Christian people making allegedly Christian prayers at her town council meetings.  She did not identify herself as a homosexual but I suspect she is.  She also did not identify herself as being Welsh-phobic, but I suspect she is.  Regardless, she took great offense at what she heard so she brought suit against the town council.  I don't know who is paying the attorneys involved in the prosecution of this case but I seriously doubt it is the radical fat woman who talked about it on the television news report.  She looked like she didn't have two nickles to rub together.  As always seems to be the case in issues that make it to the Supreme Court, there has to be big money on both sides lobbying for a ruling favorable to their cause.
Prior to making it all the way to the Supreme Court, a Federal Appeals court in New York had ruled that "the town of Greece, NY, had improperly identified itself with Christianity through the prayers offered at its meetings over a ten year period."  A television news report captured a couple of those offensive prayers.  It appears that various people had been praying at the start of the town council meetings for years but they had never uttered the highly offensive word "Jesus".  Prayers that addressed "God" were fine. Prayers that addressed the "supreme being" were fine.  Prayers that addressed the "great power" were okay.  Prayers that addressed the "great spirit" were just dandy.  Prayers that addressed the particular god "Apollo" were newsworthy.  But then one day an evangelical Christian had the audacity to use the word "Jesus" and all hell soon broke loose.  In particular, this man prayed a prayer that recognized the theological doctrine of  the "saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross."  How much was this militant fat woman expected to take?  She filed suit.  We are still awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.
I would like to help the Supreme Court Justices out.  They have a heavy case load and most of them are so old I suspect they sleep about 18 hours a day.  How are they ever going to get their work done?  If anyone needs help rendering judicial decisions it would be a group of tottering geriatrics with way too much work to do.  So, without asking for payment of any sort, I offer up my solution to the problem of praying before sessions of government.
Most all branches of civil government in the SDA have some sort of Chaplain.  Most all branches of civil government have some sort of prayer or religious activity prior to their official meetings.  The situation is Greece is by no means unique, although it is representative of the nationwide problem.  My solution to the problem is simple.  Ban all religious activity whatsoever.  Completely separate all overtly religious activity from all overtly civil activity.  Religion and politics should never be combined.  They are the proverbial oil and water.  Religion is about one of two things.  Either a person is worshiping the true God, the God of the Bible, or a person is worshiping an idol.  It is most certainly the case that idol worship should not be a part of civil government.  On that most reasonable people, who do not worship idols, would agree.  Making the worship of idols illegal at all government meetings is a no-brainer.  Making the worship of the true God illegal at all government meetings is a more controversial decision, but it must be done.
Government is about power.  Government, as it operates in the SDA, is about the majority who make less income stealing the income of the minority who do not have enough votes to protect themselves. The majority elect "public servants" to act as their thieves and those thieves who happen to be in the legislative branch make up laws declaring the robbery to be legal.  It is a perfectly immoral system. People who work in government are about keeping power over the lives of others.  Their goal is to be continually reelected and they accomplish that goal by keeping the system of wealth transfer operating smoothly.  The very nature of civil government is contrary to biblical religion.  There is no middle ground between the two.  How a civil government can employ a Christian minister as a Chaplain is a mystery to me.  They serve two different gods.  The true Christian serves the God of the Bible.  The politician serves the god of himself and the State.  Everything that the Christian God stands for is repudiated by the State god.  That is why career government agents become so upset when the offending word "Jesus" is uttered in their presence.  It is nonthreatening to use the word "god" in a prayer because everyone who hears it can interpret it in his own incorrect innocuous way.  Using the word "Jesus", however, does not give them that luxury.  When Jesus is invoked to "guide" a government council the government agents sitting on that council become highly agitated.  Why?  Because they know that what they are doing is diametrically opposed to what Jesus would do.  They know that Jesus is angry with what they are doing.  And, most importantly, unlike the other gods that are addressed in those perfunctory prayers, they know that Jesus actually exists.  That is too much for them to take.  It must be stopped.
So, you ask, why should real prayers that address Jesus be banned?  If He really exists is it not a good idea to pray to Him, whether our rulers like it or not?  Absolutely not!  Do you care about the eternal souls of our government rulers?  I do.  I do not want them to experience a Hell that is any hotter than it has to be.  Of course I assume that the great majority of them will end up in the Lake of Fire.  That is a given.  But why make it worse for them?  Why make their portion of that Lake any hotter than it has to be?  God is quite clear about the prayers of those who hate Him.  God is angry with the wicked every single day.  God is angry with those who presumptuously come into His presence without permission.  Psalm 50 says it best when God says, "What right have you to tell of My statutes, and to take My covenant in your mouth?  For you hate discipline and you cast My words behind you.  When you see a thief you are pleased with him, and you associate with adulterers.  You let your mouth loose in evil and your tongue frames deceit....These things you have done and I have kept silence; you thought that I was just like you....Now consider this, you who forget God, lest I tear you into pieces, and there be none to deliver."
I believe that all Christian prayers in government meetings should be banned.  I believe they should be banned to protect the hypocrites who say them and the hypocrites who say "Amen" when they are finished.  God is not pleased with the prayers of hypocrites.  They make Him angry.  The more they pray the more angry He becomes.  To help keep the amount of torture these reprobate government rulers must suffer in the Lake of Fire to a minimum, please, for their sake, I ask the Supreme Court to ban all prayers in SDA buildings.  It is the only compassionate thing to do.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Obama Is Not A Liar, He Is Just Dumb

I tuned into the late night local news yesterday.  The opening story consisted of a couple of video clips of King Obama declaring that "If you like your policy, you can keep it.  If you like your doctor, you can keep him" followed by a report on how many tens of millions of people have had their health insurance policies cancelled over the past couple of weeks.  Curious about the issue, I flipped over to Fox News to see what was being reported there.  As has been the case for the past week, Fox News has turned into a network that reports the Obamacare failure pretty much around the clock.  I watched it for about 15 minutes and saw three consecutive reports on the failure of Obamacare and the cancellation of health insurance policies.  Nothing new here. 
Becoming even more curious I switched over to CNN to see what was being covered there.  I was not surprised to discover that the problems associated with Obamacare were not being reported on CNN.  Their feature story, which I also watched for about 15 minutes, was on the scandal involving the Mayor of Toronto where he allegedly smoked crack in office.  Now bursting with curiosity I quickly switched over to CNN Headline News and was treated to a split screen showing six different talking heads discussing in great detail all aspects of the Toronto Mayor's crack scandal.  Interesting, I thought out loud.
About three weeks ago I received a letter from my health insurance provider telling me that I was "grandfathered" under the rules of the Affordable Care Act and that there would be no need to make any changes to my policy. I breathed a sigh of relief.  Last week I received a booklet from my health insurance provider telling me that "because of changes related to health care reform, your 2013 plan will be discontinued as of January 1, 2014."  As I have learned since then, I am not the only person receiving this type of letter.  Apparently tens of millions of citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are discovering that their current health insurance plans are illegal under the new laws.  I just happen to be one person in a very large group of people.  I didn't take it personally.
I decided to compare my present policy with the 8 options my current health insurance provider was offering me.  All 8 of the new policies were compliant with the rules of Obamacare that had caused my current policy to be terminated.  To help me with my decision the insurance company sent me information about the specific option they are recommending for me that most closely approximates my current policy.  Here is what I noticed about my proposed new policy.  The new policy has a deductible that is 50% higher than my present policy.  The new policy has a annual out-of-pocket total expense that is 69% higher than my present policy.  The monthly premium for my new and improved health insurance policy is 66% higher than the one I presently have.  Wow, I thought to myself, this is really a rip off!  Then, I looked at the fine print and noticed that I was getting so much more with my new policy.
I printed a copy of my present coverage and lined it up with the proposed new policy.  Indeed, there were several significant changes in coverage between the two.  The new policy did have additional coverages that were not available to me under the terms of my current policy.  "That must be the reason for the 66% increase in my monthly premium," I said to no one in particular.  As I investigated it further, I discovered that my proposed new policy has three additional coverages that I could not obtain under my current one.  The good news is that starting next year I have dental coverage.  I asked my agent about my dental coverage.  She knew nothing about it.  I asked her if there were particular dentists I had to use.  She didn't know.  I asked her what the terms of the coverage were.  She didn't know.  But, by golly, I now have dental coverage, whatever that means.  I think I will just keep going to my current dentist.  I like him and he does a good job.  I see no reason to change.
I also have coverage for my frequent visits to the psychiatrist.  That surprised me since I have never been to a psychiatrist.  I don't know why I should be forced to pay for coverage of my "mental health" when my mental health is just fine and not likely to change.  In fact, the only thing I can think of that will make my mental health deteriorate is being forced to pay for mental health coverage when I do not need or want it.  I asked the agent on the other end of the telephone line why my new policy will have mental health coverage and she joyfully informed me that all policies must have mental health coverage to be in compliance with the Obamacare rules.  Of course, she didn't call it Obamacare.  She called it the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact it is going to cost me 66% more per month for coverage that I do not want.
The most hilarious part of my new health care coverage might surprise you.  It certainly surprised me.  I did not realize that it was physically possible but what do I know about medicine?  Apparently the Obamacare rules require that I be covered for maternity!  You read that correctly.  Starting January 1st I can have a baby and my new health insurance policy will pay for the costs associated with my pregnancy, birth and well-baby care, after I pay a 50% higher deductible and a 69% higher co-pay, of course.  Does that excite you as much as it excites me?  I never realized that a man in his mid 50s could become pregnant.  This opens up a whole new universe for me. 
I asked my insurance agent why I had to have all of these extraneous coverages and she informed me that they had to be included in my policy to be compliant with the rules of Obamacare.  As she explained it to me I came to understand that the insurance company cannot exclude anyone based upon their relative health risks.  Everyone who applies for coverage must be given coverage.  Furthermore, they cannot charge different amounts for different people.  All people have the same coverage and pay the same amount, with variability for the various deductibles and co-pays of course.  She did inform me that I could calculate how much the federal government might subsidize my monthly premium payment and she showed me how to do so.  It was then that the light came on and I realized how Obamacare really works.  It is really just another wealth transfer scheme.  Those who make more money pay for those who do not.  It really is just socialized medicine, and nothing more.  So now I have the privilege of paying for my neighbor's wife's visits to her shrink and her OB/GYN.  I guess the Supreme Court was correct....Obamacare really is a tax.
Is King Obama a liar?  Did he tell me that I could keep my current policy and my current doctor while knowing full well that it would not be so?  I don't think so.  Even though I believe that career politicians lie all the time, I think they are better liars than we give them credit for.  If Obama was overtly lying about Obamacare it would be easy to catch him in his lie, as we have all seen.  Even King Obama could not be so stupid as to lie knowing in advance that he would be caught by tens of millions of angry taxpayers and voters.  No, I don't believe our King is a liar on this issue.  I think he is just amazingly stupid.  Our King really does believe in the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and beneficent State.  He really does believe that all the State has to do is make a law and the market will immediately produce exactly what he tells it to.  He has no comprehension of unintended consequences.  He has no understanding of how the free market really works.  I believe that he really thought he could wave a magic wand and make everything turn out just as he promised it would.  What was obvious to all of us who have brains was not obvious to our King and his Court because they are blinded by their belief in the deity of the State.  Equally true is the fact that those who have defended, and are presently defending, Obamacare are also totally blinded by their faith in government to the fact that Obamacare will not and cannot work.  The only question now is how long this charade will go on.  It really doesn't matter to me though.  Starting January 1st I am planning on getting pregnant.  If I am unable to conceive I am not worried.  I have mental health care.  My shrink will fix everything.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

WelshmanCare: Universal Insurance For All

I was watching Fox News last night.  The various shows on Fox News have been obsessing on the failure of Obamacare for the past week or so.  They are reporting on very little else.  I tuned in to see if the song had changed and it had not.  While I watched for a couple of minutes the lady host of the show had a guest on who was pro-Obamacare.  He argued that despite all of the problems associated with the implementation of the immoral and unconstitutional law, Obamacare was necessary because every citizen in the Socialist Democracy of America has a "right" to health insurance.  He claimed that excluding people from health insurance coverage because they were sick or had pre-existing conditions was immoral.  He claimed that employers and insurance companies have to be forced to do the right thing and insure the uninsurable.  That is an interesting argument.  The notion that there are more than three civil rights seems to be axiomatic these days.  The belief that SDA citizens have a right to have their health insurance bill paid for by their neighbor predominates.
Peter Wessel, of Denver, wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post earlier this week in which he said, "The right thing to do in a modern, civilized country is to provide universal care.  Everyone in the country should receive a basic level of health care paid for by the government and funded from income taxes..."  I am sure Peter was aware of what he was saying when he wrote that.  He knows that 49% of the citizens of the SDA pay all of the taxes.  He knows that 51% of the citizens, a slim majority, receive the benefit of all the taxes paid by the politically unprotected minority percentage of taxpayers.  So, in essence, Peter believes that the majority of the citizens of the SDA have a moral claim on the income of the minority of the citizens of the SDA in order to pay for their health insurance premiums and health care services.  He believes that the majority has a moral and legal right, in this civilized country, to steal the income of the minority to provide for their needs.  But why should we stop with health insurance alone?  Certainly the majority has additional needs the minority can be forced to pay for.
Most of the historically illiterate people who populate this land are unaware how health insurance came to be seen as a civil right.  It all began under the administration of King Franklin Roosevelt.  Roosevelt, as you all know, was a socialist and a practical communist.  He nationalized as many domestic industries as he could and he regulated the remaining ones into unprofitability.  One of the means used by King Roosevelt to garner popular support for his socialistic thievery was to pander to the envy of the masses.  One such example, very similar to today by the way, was to enact legislation that made it illegal for companies to pay their CEOs more than what the federal government believed was "fair".  The law was known as the Stabilization Act of 1942 and it regulated CEO compensation so companies were forced to grossly underpay, compared to the free market value, their CEOs.  To try and get around the law companies started offering what we know today as "fringe benefits".  One of the most popular fringe benefits to be offered was comprehensive health care plans.  Over time the offering of health insurance plans for employees became standard practice and today we have come to view it as a civil right.
My point is that companies could have offered anything to their CEOs and those items would today be viewed as civil rights.  Imagine what life would be like if corporations had included swimming pool memberships as a part of their fringe benefit package.  The world we live in today would be very different as people would be clamoring for universal pool memberships for all citizens of the SDA.  We would have to suffer through endlessly listening to bleeding-heart liberals tell us how they have a right to a pool membership.  What if corporations had offered their executives company cars?  All we would read about today is how everyone in the land has a right to an employer provided automobile.  In other words, the conception that universal health care coverage is a basic human and civil right is nothing more than an accident of socialistic history. 
I am thinking about running for political office.  I have finally seen the light.  I realize I can procure a cushy high paying job and a lifetime pension simply by being elected to some political office.  While in office I will be praised by men and women alike for my humanitarian stance on the various issues.  I will align myself with the common man (read "majority") and agree that the minority needs to be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth.  I have a plan that can guarantee that I get continually reelected and that will ceaselessly pander to the envy of the majority.....universal insurance for all!
Why stop with health insurance?  Evil profit-seeking corporations are making huge profits as they rip off their customers on a daily basis.  It is time to take some of that profit back.  It is time to force those corporations to "give something back", even if they don't want to.  I propose that all corporations be required to provide life insurance to their employees.  It does not matter if an employee generally endangers his life by engaging in life threatening activities.  No person should be excluded from life insurance coverage simply because he routinely puts his life in danger.  Those who run with the bulls in Pamplona should receive the same coverage for the same rate, paid by the employer, as those who sit on their sofas and watch the television coverage of the running of the bulls.
In addition there must be universal auto insurance.  No person should be excluded from automobile insurance coverage, regardless of his driving history and ability.  It does not matter if he has had fifteen accidents in the past twelve months.  The employer must be forced to pay for his automobile insurance coverage so he can get to work.  This is a basic civil right.  Everyone has the right to go to work and no employer can disregard that right by refusing to pay the auto insurance premiums of his employees.
No civilized country can prosper and develop a healthy middle class if it does not have universal homeowners insurance.  Housing is the backbone of the economy.  The right to a home is unquestionable.  Every man or woman in the SDA has the right to a home and that home needs to be insured.  It does not matter if the homeowner has a habit of walking away from his house with the doors left wide open.  It does not matter if he has been robbed fifteen times in the past twelve months.  Universal homeowner insurance is a civil right and all employers must be required to provide it.
I can go on and on but I won't.  The multitude of parasites and government worshipers in this land will quickly come up with additional insurance coverages they consider to be a right and that must be paid for by employers.  Vacation insurance, dental insurance, right to watch a sporting event insurance, legal insurance and an entire host of other entitlements will spring up if we are just creative enough to figure out new ways to force our neighbors and employers to pay our bills.  So, vote for me!  I will provide universal insurance for all and make you feel good about getting it.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Let's Just Execute All Smokers On Sight

I have posted articles in the past about smoking.  The county in which I live has an immoral and unconstitutional ban on smoking.  Tobacco companies, which are doing absolutely nothing wrong or immoral, are villainized and demonized by government agents seeking to feather their nests and advance their careers.  Even King Obama has declared that people who smoke are sub-human and absent of basic human rights.  According to the King, we can pretty much do whatever we want with smokers because they are all worse than Hitler.  I do not think it will be long before people will be permitted to freely execute all smokers on sight.  Who will miss these despicable people anyway?  Who will care if the earth is populated by one less infidel who refuses to repeat the government mantra that smoking is evil and all who smoke must die?   You think I am overreacting?  Hardly.  Consider this.
According to this report in the Washingtonian, "In late June, Reston became the first town in Washington to address the use of e-cigarettes when the Reston Association board of directors voted unanimously to ban them from public spaces."  Why did this community association decide to ban the use of e-cigarettes?  "The issue arose after residents expressed their discomfort and confusion with the use of e-cigarettes at the local pool."  That little bit of wisdom was extracted from Kirsten Carr, director of communication with the Reston Association Board of Directors.  She went on further to say that, "People didn't quite understand the vapors.  They didn't know whether or not they were real cigarettes."  Now that creates quite an interesting little puzzle, does it not?  Let's consider it for a moment.
Those who want to ban smoking from the face of the earth almost always argue that second hand smoke is physically unpleasant and harmful to their health.  They tell us that they can detect the smell of burning tobacco from miles away.  Furthermore, they tell us that smoke densities of about one part per billion are sufficient to increase their chances of contracting lung cancer.  They are experts in sensing and sniffing out sources of sinful smoke.  Now, if this is true, why are they having such a hard time discerning what they smell when someone lights up around the community pool? Either it is a cigarette or it is an e-cigarette and these experts should have no problem distinguishing between the two types. 
How could these odor experts not know if the aroma they were detecting was cigarette smoke?  How could they possibly have been confused by what it was they were detecting?  I can just imagine the situation.  Some smoke police are sitting by the pool, admiring their physiques as they slowing tan in the afternoon sun.  Suddenly, across the pool, they see the image of smoke in the air.  Their radar goes up and they begin to diligently whiff the air.  There is a reprobate in their vicinity and he is going to have to pay for his sins.  They sniff and sniff.  The more they sniff the less they smell.  Pretty soon they begin to hyper-ventilate.  They quickly order a Michelob Ultra and drink it down, to calm their nerves and restore their sense of equilibrium.  Still, they cannot detect the aroma of tobacco.  What to do?  What to do?
Of course there is only one thing to do.  They could not detect the offending aroma of tobacco smoke so, instead, they scamper up to the nearest member of the Board of Directors for the association and "express their concerns" about the smoke that they just saw.  These poor little busy-bodies are confused.  They don't know what it was they saw.  They "didn't understand the vapors."  But they are filled with the blood-lust and they want to kill a smoker.  The problem is they can't find anyone to kill.  Poor, poor pitiful them. All worked up and nobody to kill.
If it is impossible to detect the aroma of tobacco, why should a product that appears to be tobacco be banned?  If it is impossible to inhale allegedly harmful second hand smoke from a product that looks like tobacco, why should that product be banned?  If there is no evidence whatsoever that a product is doing anything to anyone other than the person using it, why should that product be banned?  If there is absolutely no harm being done, why should a foul be called?  These rational questions have no answers in the minds of those who hate tobacco users.  If it looks like a tobacco product it is evil, even if it is not a tobacco product.  That is how far the hatred has grown.   That is how deep the animosity and bias goes.  Tobacco-phobia runs rampant in this land and it is encouraged by both rulers and the ruled alike. 
For those who do not know, the article defines an electronic cigarette.  "Electronic cigarettes are battery-operated products designed to look like real cigarettes.  The devices turn nicotine and other chemicals and flavorings into a vapor."   The "smoke" that appears when an e-cigarette user exhales is mostly water vapor.  It is not harmful to anyone, even if they are sitting inches away from the user.  Many brands of e-cigarettes do not even include nicotine in the product.  Those brands exist to deliver a pleasurable flavor to the user.  Of course, none of this matters to the smoke-Nazis.  They have seen smoke coming out of the mouth of a human being and that human being must be punished.  As a result community associations are banning the use of innocuous e-cigarettes.  It does not matter that they are no more harmful than chewing a piece of gum or drinking a Coca-Cola.  They look like smoking and smoking is the greatest evil a human being can engage in.  They must be banned, forever, amen!
The city of Duluth, Minnesota, went so far as to declare all e-cigarette use illegal in all of the same places traditional cigarette use is illegal.  Now a worker cannot take a puff on his e-cig and exhale water vapor into the air unless he scurries to the government designated smoking zone, usually located near a dog park and exposed to all of the elements of the harsh winter weather.  Even worse, Utah, New Jersey and North Dakota have banned the use of e-cigarettes completely and without a shred of scientific evidence as to why they should be banned.  The mere fact that a product has the appearance of being a real cigarette was sufficient cause for the oppressive rulers in those states to declare that product illegal.  How can that possibly be constitutional?
All of the nanny-state arguments that we are accustomed to hearing are being dragged into this issue.  E-cigarettes are a "gateway drug" that will cause people to become hopelessly addicted to nicotine.  E-cigarettes are marketed to children to ensure a new crop of customers for future tobacco purchases.  It is all nonsense, of course, but it plays well to the ignorant and emotional.
Why don't we just admit it to ourselves.  All societies need a scapegoat class.  In Stalin's Russia it was the"intellectuals".  In Hitler's Germany it was the Jews.  In Obama's Socialist Democracy of America it is smokers.  Smokers are responsible for all of our problems.  Their health issues drive up health care costs and raise taxes.  They pollute our air and damage our health. I even hear that most of them steal babies under the cover of darkness.  Let's just agree that from now on we will just execute all smokers on sight.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Support Human Sustainability - Fight The Earth

Environmentalists continually inform us that everything we do is harming the earth.  According to them the earth is a fragile place that is easily destroyed by any human activity whatsoever.  When I take a walk in the woods I am somehow destroying the ecosystem.  My mere presence on the earth is allegedly doing harm to it.  When I step on a piece of tundra I am told that it will never grow back again.  When I start a campfire I am told that I pollute the air, destroy the soil beneath it and waste a precious resource, the decaying wood.  Driving is one of the most harmful things I can do as it destroys the ozone layer and contributes to global warming.  Eating and drinking are no better.  The foods I eat have been prepared on for profit farms that use fertilizers that contaminate the water supply as well as destroy the soil.  The water I draw from my well reduces ground water supplies, thus endangering the aquifer that some rare creature is dependent upon.  Over and over again we are presented with this image of the earth as the most extremely fragile thing in the universe and mankind as the proverbial bull in the earth's china shop.  What utter nonsense.
Before the onset of the overtly religious, state worshiping environmentalist movement all people understood that human beings are regularly threatened by the earth.  It is the human race that is endangered.  The earth is constantly throwing things at us that kill, maim and harm us.  Our relationship with the earth is a constant struggle for our survival.  Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods and severe weather conditions like heat and cold make our lives a never ending struggle for survival.  It is the earth that is trying to kill us.  We are doing it no harm whatsoever.  Consider some of these truths.
What happens if you cease mowing your lawn?  How long does it take before your back yard reverts to jungle like conditions?  What happens if you stop weeding your garden?  How long is it before it is filled with weeds?  What happens if you stop watering your lawn?  How long is it before it is overtaken by native species that are adapted to the natural amount of water your lawn receives?  All gardeners are aware of the simple and obvious fact that without the continual tending of their gardens, they are quickly taken over and conquered by the earth. It requires eternal vigilance to keep the earth at bay. 
What happens if the highway department does not maintain the roadways?  How many times have you cursed the highway department for lax maintenance that resulted in potholes and serious cracking of the roadways on which you drive?  Without continual human effort the earth will quickly reclaim all roadways.  In fact, without continuous human effort the earth will quickly reclaim everything men make.
Environmentalists shed streams of tears when they talk about trails in the mountains.  They tell us that we are "loving the mountains to death" because there is evidence of humans walking around above timberline in the various braided trails that can be seen here and there.  Are these crackpots insane?  Do they have any idea how many trails were found in these exact same areas when the miners were working in the gold and silver mines of the mid 1800s?  Look at old photographs.  Many of the mining areas looked like Grand Central Station.  Today the only things left remaining from that era are some dilapidated mine buildings and some old tailings piles.  And even these items are being gradually recovered by the earth.  Another hundred years or so and I doubt that anyone will be able to tell that a commercial mining operation was once present.  Very rarely can I discover any of the old pathways the miners used to get around.  When I do they are inevitably overgrown with weeds and tundra and littered with debris from avalanches and rock slides.  The earth always wins.
Anthropologists know what I am writing about.  Ancient civilizations are all buried under dozens, sometimes hundreds, of feet of dirt.  How did that happen?  Enormous cities and entire civilizations are no longer visible.  They have been buried by the shifting sands of time.  Only detailed and meticulous excavation allows us to see where previous civilizations once existed.  The earth has essentially wiped them out.  Civilizations that were found in the jungle are, for the most part, eternally lost.  The jungle grows so fast it reclaims everything and anything that is not maintained on a daily basis.  Only extensive aerial surveys have been able to allow anthropologists to see where some ancient jungle dwelling civilizations existed in the past.  Once again, the earth wins and men lose.
The few remaining structures we have from ancient civilizations like the Greek and Roman coliseums only exist because man continually maintains them.  If men did not continually maintain these buildings they would be gone.  The entire Greek and Roman empires would be obliterated from the face of the earth.  The only thing we would know about them is from the ancient writings we can read.   The earth quite literally destroyed the entire Roman empire.  How could it possibly have done that if it is mortally endangered when I go for a simple walk in the woods? 
I once was lectured by a shrill female environmentalist about a fire pit I had left in a wilderness area.  She informed me that I was worse than Hitler because my fire pit was rather large.  I like building campfires on the open ground and feeding logs in from various sides.  That allows me to conserve my energy by not gathering rocks for a fire ring as well as not having to cut or chop wood for the fire.  The only "problem" with my method is that it makes a longer, non-circular fire scar on the top of the earth.  When this particular environmentalist discovered my fire scar she went apoplectic on me.  I sat quietly until she shouted herself out and then went on my way without saying a word.  About a year and a half later I returned to my campsite.  Guess what?  The earth had reclaimed the fire scar.  All evidence that I had ever been there was obliterated by the ever advancing earth.  The only thing that remained was the echo of the shrill voice of that female environmentalist bouncing off the canyon walls.  Once again the earth won.
Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that human beings are the endangered species in this world.  Anybody who thinks about it rationally for a moment must admit that sustainability of the human race is what we need, not vain attempts at sustaining the earth, whatever that means.  Our relationship with the earth is a constant battle.  The earth, if I might anthropomorphize it, is bent upon our destruction and it has infinitely more resources for battle than we humans do.  All of our attempts to pollute it are quickly cleaned up and pristine natural conditions are returned.  All attempts to pour oil into the Gulf of Mexico or upon the north shore of Alaska are quickly met with a proliferation of oil eating bacteria that consume all of our chemical weaponry.  When we remove the ancient rain forests, they quickly grow back.  When we pour pollutants into the air, it quickly filters them out and restores fresh air.  We simply cannot win this war.  The earth is too strong, too powerful for even our most aggressive environmental attacks.  Every weapon we launch is swatted away like superman deflects bullets.
Despite the fact that we are fighting a losing battle we must continue the fight.  We will never accomplish dominion over the earth but it is our right and out duty to continue to try.  It is a two steps forward, three steps back sort of battle but we must continue to try to exploit the resources of the earth for our advantage and profit.  We cannot give up and declare the earth the victor.  Are you with me brethren?  Together we can fight this war.  And when we are all rotting away in our graves we can collectively declare that we fought the good fight, even though we lost the war. 

Update:  October 5, 2013

I was reading my Denver Post this morning when I spied this letter to the editor.  Carol Carpenter, of Denver, wrote the paper in support of a carbon tax and in favor of legislation banning the use of oil, gas and coal.  She asserted that "most people understand air-polluting fossil fuels are ruining our planet."  How the "planet" came to be collectively owned by "us" was not described.  The last time I checked I was a member of "most people" and I certainly do not believe that fossil fuels are ruining the earth.  I would prefer that Carol not speak for me on this issue.
She concluded by saying, "We humans are the stewards of the Earth, and we have to do a better job. If not, the Earth will disappear in ugly ways..."  I have seen the earth take out many humans in some very ugly ways.  Tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, starvation and disease have all taken out humans in ugly ways.  I have never seen a human, or a collection of humans, take out any of the earth.  Even our best efforts, like huge open-pit strip mines, are quickly taken back by the earth when they become filled with ground water and turn into beautiful new lakes.  Once again I say, save the humans by declaring war on the earth!