San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 15, 2013

The Republicans Have Turned Into Democrats

One of the more interesting things I have been able to observe in my short life is the political transformation of the Republican party.  As a young man I remember asking the son of a local politician what the difference was between Republicans and Democrats.  His answer stuck with me throughout the years.  He told me that Republicans stood for limited government, low taxes, non-interventionist foreign policy and free market economics.  Conversely, he told me that Democrats stood for expansive government, high taxes, interventionist foreign policy and socialistic economic practices.  As you can probably guess from his definitions, his dad was a Republican.  As I looked around at representatives from both political parties it seemed to me as if his definitions made sense so I adopted them as valid distinctions between the two parties. 
Somewhere along the line things began to change.  I think it started with King George I.  As a Republican he ran for the office of King with the promise of "no new taxes".  He instructed us to "read my lips" while he told us that he would not raise taxes.  Then, immediately after his coronation, he raised taxes.  His chances for a second term were shot.  Bill Clinton, a Democrat,  followed as the next King and, despite his inability to remain faithful to Hillary, he enjoyed enormous popularity.  Under his reign we experienced a high level of peace and prosperity.  With a few minor exceptions he left the rest of the world alone.  Our economy boomed and his reign was the last time the Socialist Democracy of Amerika actually experienced a balanced federal budget.  In fact, we had a surplus during King Clinton's reign. 
When King George II assumed the throne things took a dramatic turn for the worse.  It was as if King George wanted to be as popular as King Bill had been.  In order to be that popular he knew he had to give the clamoring throngs what they wanted.  Taking a play out of the Democratic playbook, King George expanded Medicare coverage to include prescription drugs, spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money in the process.  It was shocking to see a professing Republican behave in that fashion.  Expenditures for the new coverage are expected to total $727 billion from 2009-2018.  Now that is a new law that a Democrat would be proud of!  What was happening?  Why were Republicans doing things that Democrats used to do?
King Obama, as a good socialist, promised the world to the electorate in order to get reelected.  His opponent, Mitt Romney, promised a little less than the world.  As a result, Obama became King for a second term and Romney went home.  At the end of Obama's first term most Republicans believed it would be a simple matter to unseat him.  They were wrong.  What they did learn, however, was that if they were going to get elected they needed to behave more like Democrats.  They learned that they needed to abandon their political principles and pander to the envy of the majority of the electorate.  They needed to jettison limited government and the principles of the free market.  Indeed, they realized that if they were ever going to get the power that they so earnestly lusted after back, they would have to become practical Democrats.  They now know that in the SDA he who promises the most wins.  They know that a career politician does not actually have to deliver the goods, he just has to promise to deliver the goods.  They now know that in the SDA you rise to power by pandering to envy and promising the 51% of the citizens who make the least money that you will transfer the money of the top 49% to them.  And since all politics is, in the final analysis, really about nothing but obtaining and keeping power, they quickly cast aside their traditional principles in favor of a series of principles that would work better in a socialist democracy.
A couple of weeks ago I spent a few days in Alpine, Texas.  Alpine is a town near the Big Bend area of southwest Texas.  I assumed that I was traveling into a Republican stronghold so I made a mental note to myself not to tell any jokes that would make the Republicans look bad.  I sure didn't want to get into s scuffle with any of the tough cowboys that lived in that area.  What I discovered about the Republicans of west Texas surprised me.  Let me tell you what happened.
I was eating my breakfast one morning when I noticed a copy of the Jeff Davis County Mountain Dispatch sitting on the table next to me.  I picked it up expecting to enjoy reading stories about the local area.  I turned to the "Letters" section of the paper to see what the locals thought about current events.  This was during the federal government shutdown period.  I was shocked by what I read.  The first letter was written by a man who identified himself as a Republican.  I expected that much.  Here is a part of what he wrote, "The Republican Party has abandoned not only democracy as a governing system, but also all pretense of truth in their desperate doomed effort to take health care away from scores of millions of Americans.  The Republican Party has allowed itself to be taken over by an extremist anti-democracy right-wing anarchist minority.  This minority closed our government and threatened to crash the world economy.  The same anarchists were ready to demolish the world economy by stopping all payment on American obligations.  The madness must stop; Americans must unite together to save our nation and the world's economy from the radical anarchists in control of the Republican Party."  Wow! That is a mouthful.  Of course the author of this letter is referring to the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party. 
A second letter also took on the Tea Party Republicans.  The author wrote, "Maybe if we make a statement our elected officials will be less afraid to offend the Tea Party wing nuts.   Those folks are not Republicans!  If we don't take a stand we will be telling our grandchildren what it was like when Republicans were a political party."  Still another letter writer had this to say about the Tea Party Republicans, "Look no further than our own political system to see the impending demise of democracy as we know it.  What is going on here?
The Tea Party Republicans believe in limited government.  They believe in balance budgets.  They oppose universal taxpayer financed health insurance.  They stand on principle and attempt, with various degrees of success, to vote without pandering to the envy of the masses.  In other words, they stand for what Republicans used to stand for 30 years ago.  Now, look at the response they receive from their own party members today.  Who has moved?  The amazing part of this story is that the majority of the Republican party, in a totally unprincipled sellout in pursuit of political power, have turned upon their own members, who take a principled stance on what the party previously represented, and declared them to be evil monsters.  Those men, who are behaving like Republicans of decades ago used to behave, are now allegedly responsible for the demise of society as we know it.  They are anarchists.  They are trying to destroy the economies of the world.  And all of this because they believe that we should not spend more than we take in.
I was shocked to see professing Republicans asserting their faith in "democracy".  Aren't Republicans supposed to believe in a republican form of government?  I was even more shocked to see a Republican writing that Tea Party Republicans were trying to "take health care away from all Americans."  That statement could have been written by the most left-leaning Democrat in the history of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  To top it all off, the Republican majority is accusing the Republican minority of being "right-wing"!  Isn't that what a Republican is expected to be?  
The Republicans have a political problem.  They are divided between the majority of them who have become functional Democrats and a minority of them who have remained traditional Republicans.  The media (Fox News, conservative newspapers) support the neo-Republicans in their attempts to paint the Tea Party Republicans as political heretics.  What this tells me is that the Republicans, for the most part, have sold out to the principles of democracy.  They are trying to outdo the Democrats when they promise to take the money of the "rich" and give it to the "poor", less 20% for government handling.  All they care about is getting political power.  All they care about is becoming career politicians who can retire with fat pensions after 20 years of service.  They are all miserable scoundrels and lying hypocrites. To be consistent they should all abandon the Republican party and become Democrats.  Now that I would like to see.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

The "Tides Foundation" Should Be Sent Out To Sea

 A Mr. Kaddiddlehopper posted a comment to my 11/07/13 post in which I argued that King Obama, with respect to Obamacare, is not a liar but merely stupid.  You might want to catch up on that string of comments if you are not aware of the issue.  His point was that King Obama does not have the intellectual ability to cook up a health care revolution and that he is more likely merely the puppet being manipulated by powerful groups behind the scenes.  One of those groups, according to Mr. Kaddiddlehopper, is the "Tides Foundation".  I was not aware of that group so I researched the term and discovered something that I consider to be worthy of a blog post.
I went to a website for the Tides Foundation.  This group is what is commonly known as a "think tank".  It is a place that receives donations from rich people (like George Soros) to pay for its own group of intellectuals to write papers and attempt to sway government policy in favor of its opinions and political goals.  It is a liberal group.  By that I mean it is committed to the principles of theft, robbery, envy, statism and democracy.  But don't take my word for it.  Here is a quotation taken directly from the website that describes what the foundation is attempting to promote:
"Tides actively promotes change toward a healthy society, one which is founded on principles of social justice, broadly shared economic opportunity, a robust democratic process, and sustainable environmental practices. Tides believes healthy societies rely fundamentally on respect for human rights, the vitality of communities, and a celebration of diversity."
Wow!  There is so much that is wrong with those two sentences that I just have to point out their many errors.  For a group of allegedly intellectual people, these folks are downright stupid.  Allow me to explain.
Tides, as they call themselves, believes in the personal "we".  Like all socialists and all statists, the Tides people believe there is an entity out there that has all of the characteristics of an individual person.  It thinks, feels, wants, votes and experiences grotesque amounts of envy for the property of its neighbor.  It is, in their opinion, uniform in all its desires.  They call it "society".  The Tides people believe that this person called "society" is sick.  It (a gender is never given) needs something to make it healthy again.  This is where the Tides come in.  They are here to "promote change toward a healthy society", whatever that means.  They are here to give society what they believe it needs, without regard to whether society really needs it or wants it.  After diagnosing society as being ill they decided to proscribe a program of seven different medications to cure society of its ills.  Let's take a look at those medications in the order they were presented.
1.  "Social justice" is allegedly a necessary block in the foundation of a healthy society. What is social justice?  Allow me to propose that social justice should be defined as the act of protecting the rights of all the individuals who live in a group, or society.  With true social justice no individual should ever have to give up or sacrifice one of his rights for another individual member of that society.  To do so would be unjust.  What rights do individuals have when they live among others?  They have three rights:  the right to their own life, the right to their personal property and the right to their freedom.  The state should exist to protect these three civil rights.  The state should protect the life of each citizen, it should protect the private property of each citizen and it should protect the freedom of each citizen.  Insofar as each citizen respects these same three civil rights in his interactions with each of his neighbors, he is free to do whatever he wants, where ever he wants, whenever he wants.  That is social justice.
Of course the definition I just gave is not the definition of social justice advanced by the socialists found at the Tides.  Their conception of social justice begins with the presupposition that life for some individuals in a society is inherently unfair.  Remember, society is "sick" and needs to be healed by government action.  This unfairness is the direct result of the activities of immoral rich people, who should have their rights taken away, and is clearly expressed in income inequality.  Social justice is therefore defined as creating a government program that will forcibly extract the income and property of the political minority that makes the most money and giving it to the political majority that makes the least.  At the Tides, social justice means state enforced wealth redistribution, the exact opposite of what it previously meant in the United States of America.  At the Tides, when it comes to social justice, there are winners and losers.
2.  "Broadly shared economic opportunity" is the second block in the Tides program.  Like their conception of social justice, this concept begins with the presupposition that economic opportunity is not "broadly shared".  Once again, the minority of the people in the society who have the most property are classified as being unjustly endowed with economic opportunities.  As a result, the state must enter the picture and take some of the wealth of the politically unprotected minority and give it to the politically connected majority.  Talk about a "level playing field", and other such nonsense concepts, fills the rhetoric of people at the Tides.  Under the conditions of a free market nobody is forbidden access to the economy.  Everyone has exactly the same economic opportunities.  The Tides folks ignore this fundamental truth and clamor for special access for the politically privileged at the expense of the politically unprotected prosperous people of the land.
3.  A "robust democratic process" is also necessary in a moral society, according to the Tides.  This hearty endorsement of the democratic process is to be expected.  Democracy is simply that system of government whereby the majority of the citizens can force, via the coercive power of the state and its complicit career politicians, the minority to pay for everything.  Of course this is the system that is in full operation in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today. We can all see how well it is working.  Isn't it wonderful when 51% of the citizens force 49% of the citizens to pay all the federal income taxes?  Can you think of a better system of fairness and social justice?
4.  "Sustainable environmental practices" are also crucial for our just society.  What that means is anybody's guess.  The concept of sustainability is never defined.  As I have argued in other posts to this blog, the key ingredient in all talk of sustainability is government intervention into the marketplace.  Anointed elites who supposedly know more than we do are expected to make pronouncements about how the government is going to save the earth and create a utopian society.  They believe they have the ability to create a pollution-less economy.  The one thing they all agree upon is that the free market is morally evil, profits must be squashed and government control of everything must reign supreme.  Lost in the confusion is the fact that the earth does not need saving and the free market is the only means by which prosperity for all can be attained.
5.  Healthy societies also have a "respect for human rights".  That is a strange thing to say when the Tides members universally believe that I do not have a right to my personal property or my freedom simply because I make more money than most people.  They gladly take away both my property and my freedom to give it to someone else.  I am forced to pay for my neighbor's kid's educations.  I am forced to pay for my neighbor's daughter's abortions.  I am forced to register my gun with the state and obtain permission to carry it.  Where is the call for the protection of my rights?  It does not exist.  When the Tides folks talk about human rights they mean such enigmatic rights as the right to live in a society where nobody ever says something mean to someone else, or the right to live in a society with no bullies in the government schools, or the right to live in a society where nobody ever makes more money than anyone else, or the right to free education, doctor visits and abortions.  Of course none of those things are really free.  In a democracy the upper half of the income population will be forced to pay for those things that can actually be purchased.  There is no respect for human rights in the Tide's idealized society, especially if you happen to be in the politically unprotected minority.
6.  The Tides foundation recognizes the "vitality of communities" as essential for a healthy society.  I have no idea what that means.  My best guess is that it is some sort of call for centralized government planning of all housing developments, much like we have in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today.  I know what Vitalis is.  And I know what a community is.  But I have no idea with a vital community is.
7.  Lastly, the ignorant fools at the Tides want to "celebrate diversity."  If you happen to be a part of the diverse group that is in the upper ten percent of the income population however, you will not be celebrated.  You will find your property confiscated and given to someone else.  You will find yourself blamed for all of society's woes.  You will be a social pariah.  If, on the other hand, you are a trans-gendered, unemployed, AIDS suffering, wheelchair bound, ex-soldier, Somolian-American who is on welfare and food stamps you will be honored and celebrated on a daily basis.  You will be told how great you are.  You will be told how essential you are to the health and prosperity of our society.  Like the Somalian pirates who are continually raiding ships at sea, those who work at the Tide foundation should be sent out to sea with them. 

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Polly Christensen Is A Bully And A Jerk

Polly Christensen is a Councilwoman for the City of Longmont in Colorado.  Longmont just had an election to determine who the Mayor of the town would be.  Christensen is a Democrat who supported Dennis Coombs, the Democratic candidate for the office.  The Republican candidate for the office was incumbent Bryan Baum.  Something interesting happened in Longmont during the mayoral election.  It was reported by Scott Rochat of the Longmont Times-Call.  Go here for the complete story.  Allow me to tell you what happened.
Polly likes pizza.  Because Polly likes pizza she will often go to a local pizzeria in her town.  The pizzeria is called Abbondanza and is owned by Bob Goff.  Bob Goff supported incumbent Mayor Baum in his race for reelection. He was such a vociferous supporter that the Mayor decided to use his pizzeria as headquarters for the election night returns.  During the campaign Mr. Goff had a sign up in his store front in support of Mayor Baum.  Councilwoman Polly did not appreciate the sign.
You need to know that Mayor Baum was not even going to run for reelection.  He is suffering from Stage IV cancer and had planned on not running for another term.  When nobody from the Republican party stepped up to challenge the Democratic offering, Baum decided to run merely for the sake of principle.  Apparently the biggest issue in the campaign had to do with a local mall and whether it could or should be remodeled.  I don't know how that issue is going to be resolved, nor do I care.  What I care about is the behavior of Polly Christensen, Longmont City Councilwoman.
When Polly noticed the sign in the window of her favorite pizzeria she decided to send the owner a letter expressing her outrage at his constitutionally protected right to declare his allegiance to one political candidate over another.  Although Polly professes to believe in free speech, she apparently also believes that free speech needs to be intimidated, especially when that free speech happens to disagree with her anointed words.  Here is some of what Polly wrote to pizzeria owner Goff in a letter:
"Putting up a political sign in a business is a choice.  You chose to put up a sign for Bryan Baum, the worst mayor Longmont ever had; an arrogant liar, incredibly divisive. Why?  Have you noticed a drop off in business?  Not a single Democrat I know is willing to set foot in your business, except me.  Over the years, I have given you hundreds and hundreds of dollars.  If Baum wins, it will be because of people like you.  And I will never set foot in here again."  Baum didn't win.  Polly's candidate, Dennis Coombs, won the election.
What do you think of Polly's letter?  She accuses the mayor of being "arrogant" and a "liar".  I read several news stories about the mayoral contest and saw none of the vitriol expressed by Councilwoman Polly in her letter.  In fact, the two men running for office seemed to respect each other.  They seemed to keep their disagreements over policy to the issues.  Other than Polly's comments I could find nothing personal in the campaigns of the two candidates.  There was no mud-slinging.  There was no name calling.  Other than Polly's comments,  I could find no evidence that Mayor Baum was ever accused by anyone else of being arrogant or a liar.  Did Polly's comments rise to the level of slander?  Should ex-mayor Baum sue her for slander?  I think I would like to see that.
I find it most interesting that Polly attempts to use her position as a Councilwoman to intimidate and harass a private citizen into taking down a political sign that she does not approve of.  I find it fascinating that she threatens to do harm to his business if he does not comply with her tyrannical wishes.  Perhaps most amazing of all I find her comment about her having "given hundreds and hundreds of dollars" to Mr. Goff over the years is sadly typical of the economic understanding of all career politicians.  Poor Polly is ignorant of economics.  Somehow she believes that her mere presence in a store is a beatific gift to the store owner.  She does not seem to recognize that the store owner provided her with numerous pizzas in exchange for the hundreds and hundreds of dollars she "gave" him.  Polly does not even understand the most simple concept of a business transaction. To her everything is personal.  To her everything is political.  Polly is incapable of thinking in terms other than those that presuppose that she is ontologically superior to everyone else in Longmont because she is a politician who happens to be a Councilwoman.  What an arrogant bully and a jerk she is.
Ex-mayor Baum's wife got wind of the letter.  She posted it on her Facebook page a couple of days ago.  That is how I eventually found out about the story of Polly's petulant posturing and political posing.  How did sweet Polly respond to the posting of her diatribe against the pizzeria owner?  She said, "it is unfortunate that something I wrote as a private citizen to another private citizen has become an issue."  What universe does Polly live in?  Is she really this detached from reality?  Clearly she is.  She is just like every other career politician in the SDA, she has no conception of what it means to be civil to another human being.  Her fellow citizens represent nothing more than votes that can potentially help her get reelected.  
Do you believe for one second that Polly wrote her letter as a "private citizen"?  Neither do I.  If she was truly acting as a private citizen she should have simply refused to patronize her favorite pizzeria, without any fanfare and without any threats.  But she didn't do that.  She clearly knew what she was doing.  She clearly was attempting to bully Mr. Goff into removing his sign by threatening to destroy his business if he failed to comply with her demands. That is not what one private citizen does to another.  It takes the coercive power of government to destroy the property of another.  Polly knew perfectly well that she was threatening to use the coercive power of her local government to harm the pizzeria owner if he did not kiss her ring and bow down before her Councilwoman throne. 
I have high hopes for Councilwoman Polly Christensen.  With the political acumen she has shown in this series of events I believe she is qualified for a much higher and more powerful office.  I would recommend she expand her horizons to Colorado state government.  Her skills are far too advanced to be wasted in a backwater town like Longmont.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Texans Are Nice Folks

Over the past couple of years I have had the privilege of traveling to several different states.  My wife and I spent a week in Death Valley during March of 2012 and we came to the conclusion that California is a crazy place filled with crazy people.  We also spent two weeks in Hawaii, only due to the amazing generosity of others, and came to the conclusion that Hawaii is a beautiful place.  This past summer my wife and I spent a week in Montana, to see what all the fuss was about, and we came to the conclusion that Montana's reputation for scenic beauty exceeds the reality of the place, although it does have some charm to it.   Two weeks ago my wife and I spent a week in Texas.  Let me tell you what I learned during that trip.
We spent several days in the Big Bend area of southwestern Texas.  We also spent a couple of days driving to and from the area.  Our goal was to climb some peaks along the way (goal accomplished) as well as spend a day getting to the top of Emory Peak, highest peak in the Chisos mountains and the Big Bend National Park.  Our base of operations was a town by the name of Alpine, where we spent two nights while visiting the local sights.
Alpine turned out to be a surprisingly charming town.  Bounded by the Davis Mountains on the north and the Chisos Mountains on the south, it sits in a pleasant desert valley that seems quite remote from the rest of the world.  Despite its remoteness it was a much larger town than I expected to discover.  It even had a local university (Sul Ross University) that was built with an eye to architecture that seemed very southern (lots of brick with large column entryways) to me.  The area appeared to be popular with cyclists and it was easy for us to discern why.  There were numerous roads that were lightly traveled and in good condition for bicycles that spanned out from town.  The Davis mountains were particularly surprising to me as they had lots of grass filled meadows near the top of the peaks.  We encountered one cycling couple that was just setting up camp in one of those meadows as the sun went down one night.  It was a beautiful place to spend the night.
The area was new to both of us and we looked forward to the new things we would see and learn.  Looking back on it now I find that three things rise to the top as far my learning experiences are concerned.  Those three things are:
1.  Some Texans can barely speak English.
2.  Most Texans can't climb a simple peak.
3.  All Texans are respectful and friendly.
Let me tell you about these observations.
If you have ever watched the animated television show entitled "King of the Hill" you might recall a character named Boomhauer (not sure if that is spelled correctly).  Boomhauer is famous for the fact that he is speaking English but he speaks with such a west Texas drawl that it is practically impossible to understand him.  I met Boomhauer's brother in Alpine.  We had just finished the drive to Alpine, after climbing the highest peak overlooking El Paso, and arrived in town hungry and thirsty.  We ordered a pizza from the local Pizza Hut and drove back to our motel.  As we were parking the car we noticed what appeared to be a man, standing in the shadows, with three dogs walking around on the grass outside the entry door.  As we approached we realized that they were not dogs.  They were javalina.   The man standing outside was watching them as they rooted around for acorns that had fallen from an oak tree.  He told us they were harmless so my wife went inside and I went next door to the Kwik-E-Mart to purchase a couple of adult beverages.  I told the clerk in the Kwik-E-Mart what had just happened to us and he proceeded to talk to me for about five minutes.  I think he was talking about the nature and habits of javalina and I also think he was speaking in English but I have no idea what he said.  I nodded my head knowingly while he spoke and made a quick get a way.  I concluded that some Texans can barely speak English.
The next day we were on our way to Emory Peak.  Emory Peak is about a ten mile round trip with about 2400 feet of elevation gain.  The route is a hike up an established trail all the way to the very top where the intrepid climber encounters a third class section that is about 50 feet high.  Although there is exposure all around the summit, the third class section to the top is not exposed.  As we arrived at the summit pinnacle we were surprised to see that the half dozen or so folks who had beat us to the pinnacle had not made the final climb to the top.  It is the most fun part of the entire trip!  We looked around for a bit, tried a couple of different routes just for the fun of it, and picked a line to the summit.  Despite watching us go up the third class section, none of the folks standing around the bottom showed the slightest interest in reaching the true summit.  Later, while reading trip reports about the peak, I learned that it is considered to be a difficult climb and many folks warn that it should only be attempted by expert rock climbers.  Others say that a fall could be fatal.  All of that is gross exaggeration.  It is not that hard.  I concluded that most Texans can't climb a simple peak.
I felt like I was in a different world for the couple of days we spent in Alpine.  I have never been called "sir" and addressed as respectfully as I was those couple of days.  It did not matter who it was.  Everyone was kind, polite and respectful when they spoke to me.  I am not exaggerating when I say that I believe I was called "sir" more during those three days than I have been the entire 34 years I have lived in Denver.  I talked to my wife about it and she, being an ex-Texan, told me that it is normal for Texans to be very friendly and very respectful.  I was amazed at how nice Texans were.  I concluded that all Texans are respectful and friendly.  Those Texans are downright nice folks.

Monday, November 11, 2013

Environmentalists Constantly Contradict Themselves

I get really tired of environmentalists.  Their self-righteous moralizing and green preaching is quite tiresome.  Perhaps most disturbing of all about these disconnected mental midgets is the fact that they can't construct an argument in favor of their wacky ideas that is not laced with multiple logical contradictions.  Allow me to show you what I mean.
All environmentalists that I know are believers in the religion of evolution.  I suspect it is possible that there might be some green-eyed wacko out  there who does not believe in evolution but I have never met him.  As believers in the religion of evolution they are also believers in the required doctrines of evolution.  Those doctrines include natural selection, genetic mutation and extraordinarily long periods of time.  The standard rule of evolution is that all specific change that has taken place on this earth is the direct result of genetic mutations that are then selected for by impersonal nature over vast time periods.  This rule has become known as "survival of the fittest" and that is an apt phrase to capture the essential meaning of the rule.  As species mutate and as the physical environment changes over time, those species which find themselves most readily adapted to the environment are those which will survive.  All others will die out.  Through this process the development of living organisms marches inexorably forward, or so say the believers in the religion of evolution.
Now if evolution is true, and I will grant that it is, then certain things necessarily follow.  First, matter is eternal.  This necessary truth always disturbs the evolutionist because he is so absurdly biased against believing in the eternality of anything.  When talk turns to those things that are eternal environmentalists start to wiggle in their chairs because talk about eternality is much too close to talk about God and that is completely unacceptable.  But still it must be true.  The matter that exists must have existed eternally.  If not, someone or something must have created it and whatever that person or thing is then must be eternal.  There is no escaping the logical necessity that if there is something in existence today, something must have been eternal in the past.  For the environmentalist, it is matter.
The second necessary truth is that the universe is totally impersonal.  Matter has no mind.  Matter is simply matter, or perhaps energy, but energy has no mind as well.  There is no personality in the universe.  This truth, of course, flies in the face of what we all see every day, but it is logically necessary.  Personality does not arise from the impersonal.  It arises from the personal but, once again, we are dangerously close to talking about God and environmentalists do not believe in God.
So we have an impersonal universe filled with matter and energy that somehow brings about a set of conditions in which a living entity is produced.  I will grant that it happened.  Some amino acids (don't ask where they came from) got together and evolved a protein which then evolved the ability to reproduce itself which then evolved into a living being.  Don't ask how this could happen.  I will just grant that it did.
Now, add billions and billions of years, quadrillions and quadrillions of genetic (don't ask where the genes came from, I will just grant that they evolved as well) mutations and a constantly changing physical environment and, voila, we have man. To sum up, there is no purpose (that would require some sort of personal entity with a will) and everything that is, is by nothing more than mere chance and accident.
Now along comes an environmentalist.  An article in the Sunday Denver Post had this statement introducing it, "Dozens of streams and rivers in 14 counties changed course during the Front Range's historic flooding, leaving behind, with the destruction, questions of how to put them back and who will do the work."  What?  Apparently the flooding caused the stream beds of many rivers to change.  Now, for some reason that I do not understand, the environmental engineers with the State believe that somebody has to "put them back."  Why?  This is just the normal process of evolution.  Why should man do anything about it?  Why should men be responsible for the chance changes of the physical environment?  Let the streams flow where they will flow.  Keep them natural.  Or at least that is what the environmentalist should be saying. 
That night, while I was watching television, a local news report came on about how the city of Denver is going to spend taxpayer money to "eradicate" the "emerald ash borer."  This bug, which has evolved alongside human beings, has evolved to the point where it bores into ash trees, eventually killing the tree and continuing its life.  Now, all of a sudden, the environmental engineers in the city of Denver believe the emerald ash borer must be eradicated.  What happened to survival of the fittest?  How can these environmentalists make the decision that the life of a tree is more valuable than the life of an insect?  Where do they get the right to play god?  Why must the trees survive and the emerald ash borer die?  They do not say.  Logically consistent environmentalists would leave the situation alone and let nature and evolution sort it out. 
The Colorado river snail darter is an endangered species that must be protected at all costs, or so the environmentalists tell us.  The fact that natural selection is rapidly removing them from the universe does not matter to the environmentalists, even though they vehemently disagree with anyone who denies the principle of natural selection.  According to the greenies, the snail darter must be preserved.  They never explain why.  If that means certain sections of the Colorado river must be quarantined and removed from economic use, so be it.  If that means human beings must suffer financial losses in order to protect a fish that is quite naturally going extinct, so be it.  But could some environmentalist please tell me how his position on the preservation of the snail darter is logically consistent with his view of evolution?  Why should taxpayer funds be used to preserve the life of a fish that nature is eliminating?
Environmentalists constantly tell me that I am destroying the environment anytime I go for a walk in the mountains off-trail.  Some of them get very angry and yell at me quite vociferously.  But if I evolved just like the plants and critters I am stepping on, and they believe that I did, then why do I not have the right to walk where I want?  Why should I be subject to man-made rules designed to impede my evolutionary progress?  It is survival of the fittest and I happen to be the fittest.  As the fittest I can do anything I want.  If I want to rape and pillage the environment, killing all the plants and animals I possibly can, what business is that to the environmentalist?  I am only doing what nature has selected me to do.  The anger of the greenies directed towards me for merely doing what I have evolved to do is highly illogical.
I could go on and on but I think you get the point.  Environmentalists do not care about the environment when they make arbitrary decisions about which plant or animal may live or die.  That is obvious.  When they grant life to the snail darter and death to the emerald ash borer they are being wildly illogical and contradictory, not to mention grotesquely hypocritical.  When they declare one innocent plant, that has evolved quite well in its environment, to be "noxious" simply because they do not like it, they have become totally irrational.  Clearly they cannot be motivated by concern for the environment that surrounds us.  Clearly they do not care about those plants and animals that have shown themselves to be the fittest, and therefore qualified to survive.  So what is their real motivation? 
Look no further than the oil and gas industry for the answer.  Environmentalists are united in one doctrine.  Environmentalists are logically consistent in their practice of one holy sacrament.  The one bit of dogma that unites all environmentalists is their hatred for free market, profit-seeking businesses and its corollary, a love for all things government.  It does not matter that they kill one species while protecting another.  As long as government is involved in the killing and protecting it is all a sacred activity.  It does not matter that what they are doing harms human beings (part of the environment the last time I checked) as long as corporations that make a profit are hindered in their business activities.  Greenies are really nothing more than socialists and communists and that is why they fit so well in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. 

Update: November 12, 2013

Two articles in today's Denver Post perfectly illustrate the wildly contradictory nature of environmentalist thought.  The first article described how the endangered Preble's mouse is suffering due to the changes in the river beds of so many front range streams and rivers as a result of September's flooding.  Apparently the mouse lives near rivers and environmentalists believe many of them may have been drowned by recent flooding.  Taxpayer financed environmentalists have descended upon the scene to survey the mouse population for damage.  Although impersonal nature brought about the changes in the stream flows and all the environmentalists studying the mouse believe in evolution and the survival of the fittest, they nevertheless believe that they now need to engage in some sort of protective action to ameliorate harm to the mouse population.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service declared that the mouse must be protected even if it means, "special management considerations or protections."  In other words, the greenies will spend taxpayer money to reroute some stream flows to protect a mouse that nature clearly wants to exterminate.  Hypocrites. 
The second article was about the damage being done to the environment because of the Obama administration's commitment to bio-fuels.  King George started all of the problems associated with bio-fuels when he mandated that oil companies use a specific percentage of them in their gasoline.  His royal decrees distorted the free market and made corn prices soar.  Farmers, responding to free market prices, planted more corn than ever before.  What was the result?  According to the article, "the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today....five million acres set aside for conservation have been converted on Obama's watch...the consequences are so severe that environmentalists have rejected corn based ethanol as bad environmental policy."  So there it is.  One day the environmentalists love ethanol.  The next day they hate it.  Do they take responsibility for their errors?  Of course not.  They blindly and irrationally stumble forward, making authoritative pronouncements about the environment that we are all expected to obey.  It does not matter that everything that spews forth from their mouths is harmful and contradictory.  What matters is that the government takes action on it, taxpayer dollars are wasted and environmental groups obtain funding for their boondoggles. 

Update:  November 13, 2013

As I wrote previously, I could update this post daily with new examples of environmental hypocrisy and contradiction.  The front page of today's Denver Post had a feature article on the plight of the previously mentioned emerald ash borer.  This insect is evolutionarily advanced and powerfully expanding its range.  It should be celebrated by the environmentalists as a supreme example of the survival of the fittest.  Instead, what do I read?  I read that taxpayer funded environmentalists are spending millions of taxpayer dollars to play god by trying to wipe out the borer in favor of some ash trees.  I say, let the trees die.  Survival of the fittest!  Let nature take its sovereign course.  Long live the emerald ash borer!