San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 3, 2016

Smoke Gets In Your Eyes....Boo Hoo

The front page of the Denver Post had a featured story entitled "Cleanup Unclear" that detailed how the federal government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika continues to assert its deity by claiming to be able to make the air in this clean country even more clean.   Neither the man who wrote the story, Bruce Finley, nor the editor who approved it believe that the air in this country is very clean.  They believe we are suffering under the effects of unprecedented air pollution and that only massive expenditures of taxpayer dollars can fix the problem, coupled with expert government planners and managers of course.
To prove just how bad the air in this country has become they quoted Jen Clanahan, a member of Colorado Moms Know Best and a lady who testified at a hearing of the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year.  I don't know about you but I firmly believe that moms know a lot of things.  My mom was downright brilliant.  But I am not thoroughly convinced that talking to a member of a group called Moms Know Best is the best way to assess the quality of the air in this land.  Here is what Jen had to say, "Our protected natural areas are some of the few places where I thought I could take my daughter and not have to worry about pollution.  If I can't take her to our national parks to escape, I am not sure where to go.  It leaves me feeling like we can't escape the pollution we are breathing in all the time, like I can't get my daughter away from it.  As a parent, you want to protect your child and to feel like you can't is a frustrating and scary feeling....For the sake of my daughter, of all of our kids and their kids, please implement the changes that have been proposed to make the Regional Haze Rule stronger."  Well there you have it.  A brilliant mom has spoken.
I believe Jen was reading from a prepared statement and she, like, had to say, like you know, the word "like" in her message to the EPA.   I honestly do not know what Jen is talking about.  I have visited all of the National Parks in Colorado and never once choked on the air I was breathing.  Well, that is not completely correct.  I once sat too close to a campfire I had built in Rocky Mountain National Park and inhaled some smoke that sent me into paroxysms of lung and diaphragm spasms.  Fortunately, from what I could tell, nobody else was affected.  Jen says that she is not "sure where to go" to find clean air.  I can suggest about a hundred thousand places here in Colorado where she can breathe freely, provided she stays away from my camp fire.  I also must confess that despite being a parent of a daughter I have never once believed that I endangered her life and welfare by hiking with her in the mountains.  Let me continue to confess that I have also never been frustrated and scared because of some imaginary inability to find a place to hike with clean air.  In other words, Jen is a nut-job. That makes her a perfect activist to testify to career bureaucrats at the EPA. 
The Regional Haze Rule was created by the EPA in 1999 as a part of  the Clean Air Act and it was supposed to "put the nation on track to restore natural air conditions in parks and wilderness, removing the haze that is made up of sulfur dioxide, ozone, mercury, nitrogen oxides and other toxic emissions."  Remember the days, not so long ago, when we were told we did not have enough ozone and that man was responsible for its disappearance?  Apparently we now have too much ozone and man is responsible for that as well.  Nevertheless, as the newspaper article pointed out, "even with the rule visibility still is impaired."  As proof of that impairment the article cited data collected by the National Parks Conservation Association, whoever they are, which claimed that, "Colorado's four national parks have natural visibility of about 175 miles but combined have an average 47 miles of distance lost because of haze."  As I pondered that daunting statistical measurement I began to wonder to myself.....who took the first measurement by which the standard was set?  Was it some Ute Indian, standing in each of those areas destined to become federal property, who first said, "Hey, I think I can see 175 miles from this point today?"
Just what are the "natural air conditions" that existed in these four parks at some unknown point in the past and how does the EPA believe it is possible to restore them to that original state given all of the changes that have taken place in the world since then?  Even more interesting to me is why should this even be an issue?  If everything must be restored to some unknown level of naturalness why do we not simply destroy everything ever created by every human being on the face of the earth?  Even that would not work however as there would be enormous piles of unnatural rubble as a result of our destruction program.  Can we all just come clean and admit the truth?  All attempts to restore "nature" to some preconceived earlier state of naturalness are nothing more than programs motivated by socialist drivel and driven by an anti-capitalist mentality that also happens to bow down to the throne of civil government and the career politicians and bureaucrats who populate it. 
I found it interesting that, according to the article, "On Wednesday, EPA officials took action under the existing haze rule against two power plants in Utah -- PacifiCorp's Hunter and Huntington plants -- contributors to haze in Utah's Canyonlands, Arches and other parks and wilderness areas."  Ah...now we are getting close to the truth.  The EPA fined a profit seeking corporation an undisclosed amount of money, pocketing it to fund future fining operations, because of the inherent bias against fossil fuel power generation that exists in those who worship civil government.  I have spent large periods of time in those areas in Utah that are presumably filled with toxic air and suffered no ill effects.  In addition, I was treated to marvelous vistas that went on for as far as my eyes can see.  Let us admit that the EPA "action" was nothing more than a immoral, but legal, shakedown of a profit seeking business on the part of a government bureau. 
Praising themselves for their valiant efforts at cleaning the air the article reported that, "While the ability to see stars and mountains is impaired compared with pre-industrial conditions, data show that visibility in the Colorado parks improved during the past decade by, on average, 14 miles."  I am so excited.  Praise the EPA!  Praise the government!  Praise the environmentalists!  But condemn the top 49% of the income population who financed all of their efforts.  Those folks just aren't paying their fair share of the bill.
Not surprisingly, the rules and regulations associated with the haze elimination program specifically eliminate government agents who start fires, called controlled burns, to "manage" the forests under their authority.  I have lived in Colorado most of my life and I can assure you that the wildfires that have raged in this state over the decades have put exponentially more haze into the air than the combined impact of every power plant in the country.  I can also assure you that, like everything else man does to the earth, the earth quickly cleaned things up so that little to no trace of those fires remains today.  Also not surprisingly, the failed management plans of the Forest Service that have resulted in enormous swaths of standing dead timber and the associated raging wildfires were not mentioned as causative agents in the alleged increase in haze.  This is a fine illustration of the principle that your god can do no wrong. 

Thursday, June 2, 2016

How To Fix Long Security Lines At The Airport

I don't know about your part of the country but there has been a lot of talk in the media around Denver about the problem of long airport securities lines this summer.  Apparently there were a couple of days this past spring during which the security lines became so long a large percentage of the sheep standing in those lines were unable to get to their aircraft on time, thus missing their flights and ruining their days.  As is to be expected, everyone and his dog has a suggested solution to the problem.  I own a dog but he has not told me what he thinks should be done.  He is a 100 pound Doberman, sweet as a Dunkin Donut, and I suspect I could go to the front of the line if I showed up at the airport with him wearing a spiked collar (the dog, not me).   I have noticed that people with blogs about dogs get a lot more page views than I do.  With that in mind here are a couple of shots of my dog.  Here he is as a puppy, just prior to attacking Curious George:


Here is his leg after attacking a porcupine:


Here he is waltzing through alpine flowers:


And here he is guarding our campsite:


Be sure and tell your friends about my blog and the wonderful dog shots you can find here.
Larry Ellingson wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post in which he expressed his opinion on how to solve the problem of long airport security lines.  Allow me to quote some of it here:  "There has been a lot of chatter about privatizing airport security in hopes of speeding up the screening process.  Private companies are in business to make money and since the TSA does not make a product or sell a particular service the only way a company can make any money is through managing labor costs.  That happens when worker's wages are lower than what the outsourcing party, the federal government, is willing to pay....The only way to speed up lines at airports is to hire more people and have more security lanes open.  That requires people, and those people come at a cost.  Privatizing airport security will only expose the public to longer lines and potential security gaps in the screening process."  Man is Larry confused. 
Larry begins with the usual socialist diatribe against profits.  That tells us several things about Larry but nothing about the problem of long airport security lines.  Larry is a socialist who believes the lower 51% of the income population is entitled to a free ride when federal government "services" are involved.  Larry hates the free market and sees it as a hindrance to efficient airport operations.  Larry believes profits are immoral despite the fact a company can only make a profit when it serves the consumers by selling them goods and services for prices they are willing to pay.  Larry clearly understands very little about economics.
Larry is right about one thing when he writes, "the TSA does not make a product or sell a particular service."  That being the case, why is the TSA in the airports of this land?  That is not a trick question.  If the TSA really provides no goods or services to anyone at the airport, why are they there?  I know what the TSA would say.  The federal bureaucrats who infest the TSA believe they are providing an invaluable service to the citizens of this fearful country who decide to visit an airport.  They believe they are providing personal security services.  The fact that no TSA agent has ever actually protected the security of any specific airline customer in the entire history of the TSA does not deter them from believing that their security services are vital to the consumer and the entire airline business.
Larry then goes on to argue that a profit seeking company should never be permitted to operate airport security lines because they could never make a profit doing so.  Larry openly admits that the free market price for the labor services provided by airport security screeners is lower than what the federal government is paying those bozos for groping and harassing private citizens.  In other words, the consumers, who always set free market prices for everything,  value the employees of the TSA far less than the federal government is willingly paying them.  That being the case, I must ask once again, why are they there?
Larry concludes that the solution to the problem of overpaid and ineffective security line screeners is for the federal government to raise taxes and hire more of them!  Only a socialist could come to that conclusion.  Larry enthusiastically endorses the idea of forcing the top 49% of the income population to pay more in taxes to finance the activities of the overpaid and ineffective TSA.  As he says, "those people come at a cost."  I wonder if he expects to pay any of that cost?  I am most certainly not willing to pay any of it and I would not pay any of it were I not coerced by my government into doing so.
Larry takes a final pot-shot at the free market when he writes, "Privatizing airport security will only expose the public to longer lines and potential security gaps in the screening process."  Apparently Larry has not read any of the studies that show the "security" provided by the TSA is as tight as a sieve.  Security gaps, so feared by Larry, are abundant.  I am afraid Larry is wrong on this one.  The solution to every economic problem, including the TSA, is the free market.  Let me explain.
The TSA should be abolished immediately.  All employees of that bloated and inefficient bureau should be sacked.  All the machines associated with airport security provided by TSA should be removed from all SDA airports and taken to a gigantic dump where they can be blown to smithereens by all the bombs they have successfully discovered over the years.  Don't expect much of an explosion.  If the individual airlines operating at the airports want some sort of security screening process they are free to do it.  If they do not want to screen passengers they are free to do that as well.  As always, the consumers will reign supreme.  Whatever the consumers want is what the airlines will eventually deliver, if they wish to make a profit and stay in business.  I envision a future in which some airlines would provide security services for the fearful among us and others would be totally open, and cheaper, for the thrifty among us.  Regardless, the consumers would have choices, the airlines would earn profits and the federal government would be gone as a coercive presence at airports.  Oh yes, the problem of long lines at airport security checkpoints would also disappear overnight. 

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Hydrocephalus? Go To Washington!

I was watching a television show the other night, the name of the show already escapes me, that told the true story of a family into which a diseased child was born.  A couple had already given birth to two children when the third child, diagnosed with hydrocephalus, was born.  As you might expect the birth of a hydrocephalic child brought dramatic changes to their lives.  That is what I want to write about today.
Life is filled with sorrow.  To avoid the pains of life millions of Amerikans make the rational decision to medicate themselves with illegal drugs, government approved drugs or a wide variety of obsessive-compulsive behaviors that allow them to never have to confront head-on the pain that life brings.  Others make the state-worshiping decision to confront their pain by taking it to their god, civil government, whom they beseech and petition for relief with the full expectation that it has the power and ability to make everything alright.
I would never wish pain upon anyone in this life.  Life is filled with so many difficulties that we all must face at various times that we should pull together and try to help each other through them.  However, pulling together to help one another through the pains of life does not mean that people should be forced, against their will, to help someone in pain.  Our associations with one another must be voluntary if they are to be genuine and moral.  Because of sin, both actual and original, life has an almost infinite supply of painful situations that need remedial action.  Many times the pains of life are directly related to sinful decisions and behaviors previously engaged in.  I am not convinced those pains should ever be ameliorated.  Choosing which of the many painful situations encountered in life to render assistance to is a personal decision that should never be mandated by civil government and the laws it creates.
I felt sorrow for the family that welcomed a sick child into their home.  I wished that it did not have to be so but I am also enough of a realist to know that these things happen.  I do not have the financial ability to help them and, not knowing them personally, I have no ability to reach out to them in any way at all.  That is not a bad thing.  None of us, even Bill Gates, is capable of alleviating every desperate situation that exists in the world.  Sometimes, in fact most of the time, we simply need to let people suffer.
Not everyone sees things the way I do.  I know that shocks you to know but it is true.  In fact, most people do not see things the way I do.  Even more precisely, the bottom 51% of the income population sees things quite the opposite of the way I do.  They believe that "we" (defined as the top 49% of the income population) need to "do something" (defined as taxing the top 49% of the income population and giving that money to the members of the bottom 51% of the income population who have been diagnosed with some sort of government recognized special need)  about the sorrowful situations that come up in life.  In particular, the majority of the people in this country believe that "rich people" (defined as the top 49% of the income population) should be taxed to pay for 100% of the federal government programs that give money to people who suffer  under government approved illness, including giving birth to children with hydrocephalus.
My sorrow at witnessing the birth of the sick child was magnified many times over when the report went on to tell me that the mother became an "activist" immediately after her sick child was born.  An "activist," in case you do not know, is someone who runs to the god of civil government and begs the career politicians who operate it to send some tax dollars her way.  In other words, an activist believes that because she has suffered a painful situation someone else in the country should be required to pay for it.  She believes in theft by majority vote.  She believes she is entitled to cash because her life is harder than mine.  How sad it is that she has come to think that way.  How even more sad it is that so many would praise her for her activism.  I guess the old maxim is true, there are no atheists in foxholes.  People who have spent most of their lives not petitioning the government for cash will run to their god the moment something bad happens to them, fully expecting to be granted most privileged status and become future beneficiaries of taxpayer dollars. 
In the late 19th century, there was a book called The Forgotten Man and a famous lecture that went by the same name.  The author and speaker was a Yale professor named William Graham Sumner.  Please allow me to quote a portion of that lecture for you to consider in light of today's topic:
 "It is when we come to the proposed measures of relief for the evils which have caught public attention that we reach the real subject which deserves our attention. As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but what I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him....
Now who is the Forgotten Man? He is the simple, honest laborer, ready to earn his living by productive work. We pass him by because he is independent, self-supporting, and asks no favors. He does not appeal to the emotions or excite the sentiments. He only wants to make a contract and fulfill it, with respect on both sides and favor on neither side. He must get his living out of the capital of the country. The larger the capital is, the better living he can get. Every particle of capital which is wasted on the vicious, the idle, and the shiftless is so much taken from the capital available to reward the independent and productive laborer. But we stand with our backs to the independent and productive laborer all the time. We do not remember him because he makes no clamor; but I appeal to you whether he is not the man who ought to be remembered first of all, and whether, on any sound social theory, we ought not to protect him against the burdens of the goodfornothing. In these last years I have read hundreds of articles and heard scores of sermons and speeches which were really glorifications of the good-for-nothing, as if these were the charge of society, recommended by right reason to it scare and protection.
We are addressed all the time as if those who are respectable were to blame because some are not so, and as if there were an obligation on the part of those who have done their duty towards those who have not done their duty. Every man is bound to take care of himself and his family and to do his share in the work of society. It is totally false that one who has done so is bound to bear the care and charge of those who are wretched because they have not done so. The silly popular notion is that the beggars live at the expense of the rich, but the truth is that those who eat and produce not, live at the expense of those who labor and produce. The next time that you are tempted to subscribe a dollar to a charity, I do not tell you not to do it, because after you have fairly considered the matter, you may think it right to do it, but I do ask you to stop and remember the Forgotten Man and understand that if you put your dollar in the savings bank it will go to swell the capital of the country which is available for division amongst those who, while they earn it, will reproduce it with increase."
I am a forgotten man.  Maybe you are too.  Unlike the kind and gentle tone evidenced in Sumner's address, I am a bitter and angry forgotten man.  I am sick and tired of being taken advantage of by the majority.  I am frustrated and upset that I am forced to pay for every philanthropic program the political majority wants to enact but refuses to pay for.  I do not want credit for the fact that I, and other forgotten men, pay the entire budget of the federal government.  I do not want to be praised or receive a plaque (as if either of those two things would ever happen!) for giving large sums of my money to people who are on rare occasions true victims of life's pains and sorrows.  Indeed, I would appreciate it if, after paying the entire bill, the folks in the 51% would stop calling me a greedy monster and accusing me of not paying my fair share.  I just want for others to pay their share of federal taxes, for no one to be forced to pay for charitable endeavors and to be left alone when the time comes to determine who shall receive my charity.  

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Church vs State: The Flag Wins

The last post to this blog was about how the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika venerate the flag as a holy icon and religious symbol of the Amerikan empire.  Those who refuse to worship at the feet of the Beast by genuflecting to the flag are pronounced unfit to be citizens of this immoral and idolatrous country and subject to verbal harassment by self proclaimed patriots.  In the course of writing that post I attached a link to a page that describes some of the proper protocols associated with handling the holy icon known as the SDA flag.  One part of that list of rules says this, "When it is displayed from the same flagpole with another flag - of a state, community, society or Scout unit - the flag of the United States must always be at the top except that the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for Navy personnel when conducted by a Naval chaplain on a ship at sea."  Let's consider this protocol for a bit today.
Western civilization since the onset of Christianity had been concerned with the struggle for power that existed between the Christian Church and the various empires, states, countries and civil governments that have coexisted with the Church over the years.  For most of the history of the west it was understood that the Christian Church is the superior institution and that whenever a conflict came up between the two it would be the Church that would win and enforce its will upon the State.  History is filled with tales of how various Popes would excommunicate various princes and then force them to stand outside in the snow awaiting absolution for their sins and reinstatement back into the Church.  No Pope, as far as I am aware, ever did the same in the presence of a leader of a civil government.  It was understood by all, whether they actually believed it or not, that civil government dealt with matters of this life while the Church dealt with the far more important matters of eternal life.  My how things have changed.
I frequently describe how the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian society.  It is not the first country in the world to become post-Christian.  All of the western European countries became post-Christian societies prior to the spiritual devolution of the SDA.  Concomitant with the spiritual devolution of the SDA is the rise of the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent State, known as the federal government in our over regulated and idolatrous country.  Nature abhors a power vacuum so when the citizens of a land reject the God of the Bible and commit themselves to a pagan religion it is inevitable that something will take God's place to be worshiped as a god.  That is the place we find ourselves in the SDA today.  We are long past the point where a battle could rage between the Church and the State. The State has won and is now dictating all of the terms of the relationship between it and the Church.
Flag protocols are a perfect example of how the State now dominates over the Church and determines how the Church may function in the land.  It was inconceivable throughout most of western history, since the fall of the Roman empire, that a flag representing civil government would fly above the flag of the Christian Church.  Now the flag rules dictate that a Christian flag, called a "pennant" may only fly above the SDA flag when it is being flown during "church services for Navy personnel conducted by a Naval chaplain on a ship at sea."  Can it get any more statist than that?  Can the Church be any more subject to civil government than that?  I don't think so.
Let's get to the point in regard to state sponsored church services, shall we?   Church services conducted in a military setting are illegitimate and highly offensive to God unless the message of the service informs all of those present that they need to stop murdering innocent people in the name of the SDA empire and, in the case of  Evangelical Republicans, God Himself.  Furthermore, the message of the worship service should inform those present that it is their moral duty to get out of military service as soon as possible and never go back.  The God of the Bible is enraged when He is mocked by chaplains who pretend to represent Him to the world and who do so inaccurately by proclaiming the glories of the Amerikan empire and each soldier's place in it.  God's opinion has not changed....murder is still murder and expanding the Amerikan empire around the world by killing tens of millions of people who pose no legitimate threat to the national security of this country is a grievous offense against God for which all who participate will be judged harshly.
Flag protocols allow the Christian "pennant" to fly above the SDA icon only according to the strict restrictions shown above.  That clearly proves that the "church" being referred to is nothing more than a modern example of the False Prophet described in the book of Revelation.  The False Prophet, for those of you who know nothing of the Bible (which is just about everyone these days) is the pseudo-Christian institution that grows up around the State, called the Beast in Revelation,  that exists exclusively for the purpose of inducing religious worship of the Beast.  Anyone involved in the chaplaincy is an example of the False Prophet at work.  It is impossible to be a consistent Christian and a member of the military, a member of the chaplaincy or a member of any part of the military-industrial complex.  All Christians who find themselves in any of those positions must get out ASAP.  Perhaps going AWOL would be a good idea.
Because the Evangelical church in the SDA is dominated by false teaching, accompanied by a truth stifling worship of the military, the empire and the career politicians who pull the strings, it has now become fashionable to mock and ridicule the few remaining true Christians in this disgusting country.  True Christians have no civil power or authority.  True Christians are now fair game for all and the season is always open.  Make no mistake, the Church is the superior institution in society because it is the keeper of all truth, but in the SDA it is impotent.  Every career politician, every person in the military, every bureaucrat down to the lowest clerk in the municipal court, will be held accountable to the Law of God found in the Bible for the sin of rejecting God's most perfect and holy Word.  Men believe they are free to ignore and mock the Law of God but the day will come when their mockery will turn to terror and they will cry out for the mountains to fall upon them to protect them from the wrath of God that is falling upon them for their sin.
Yes, in the Amerikan empire the State has won.  Christian doctrine and practice is now considered, at best, to be wrong. It is no longer possible to hold to traditional doctrines and practices of the Christian Church and still be considered a good and obedient citizen.   In many cases Christian beliefs and practices are now illegal.  God's perfect moral standard has been rejected and replaced with a humanistic law that glorifies perversion, theft, idolatry, murder, lying and greed.  There is no fellowship between light and dark.  There is no such place as a neutral playing field where Christians and Statists can meet to discuss civil affairs.  The matter is already decided and the Beast has won.
Given these truths it is time for Christians to keep a low profile as much as possible and prepare for the wrath of the civil government that is to come.  Unlike the empire builders in civil government who believe they are free to kill whomever they want, whenever they want, Christians are forbidden from taking up arms against those who rule over us.  On the contrary, we are required to suffer persecution to the point of death at their hands, knowing that as we are slaughtered the wrath of God is being magnified against those who oppose Him and His Church.  So bring it on!  Kill us with a passion.  Persecute us with great zeal because those of us who are true Christians know how all of this is going to end.  You may kill our bodies but God will cause you to suffer eternal punishment of both your body and soul in the Lake of Fire for you statist actions and beliefs.  Fulfill your destiny.  Persecute God's people and fill up the Lake of Fire with a great hoard of people who will suffer throughout eternity for their refusal to acknowledge the God of the Bible.