Christina’s Common Sense

Pat Robertson founded a fine university, but he’s still a major loose cannon and I’m hardly a fan of his. Now, I’m less of a fan.

Recently, Robertson joined the Christians embarrassing themselves by jumping aboard the environmental bandwagon with the likes of Al Sharpton. The two have even made a commercial for wecansolveit.org where they get all buddy-buddy on a beach talking about how important it is to protect the planet.

Now, before anyone accuses me of littering along the highway and driving a Hummer just to waste gas, let me defend myself. I do believe it protecting the environment. As a Christian, God has commanded me to be a steward of the environment. Plus, it’s not exactly in my best interest to live on a polluted planet. However, Christians need to realize that protecting the planet does not mean using the government to compel others to do it—and it certainly doesn’t mean allying ourselves with thugs like Al Sharpton to get it done.

And, though I’m not a basketball fan, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Boston Celtics on winning their 17th NBA title on Tuesday, and their first in my lifetime.

If I told you that researchers in Silicon Valley have found bugs that poop crude oil, you’d probably think I was quoting some bad Saturday morning filler on the Sci-Fi Channel. What’s next, you wonder? “Soylent Green is people!” (it is, by the way)?

I’m not quoting bad Saturday morning filler on the Sci-Fi Channel for two reasons. First, anyone up early enough on a Saturday to actually catch it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Second, it’s not bad Saturday morning filler on the Sci-Fi channel. It’s real.

Yep, it is. Some of these researchers have found that if genetically altered bugs eat agricultural waste (ie, wood chips), they excrete oil. Black gold. Texas tea. The same stuff Jed Clampett ran across while shooting at some food.

Of course, this is far from becoming the next big thing. There are all sorts of things that need to be considered, figured, and financed before crude oil in the form of bug poop could become the savior of the oil market. But still, it’s a promising solution—and one devised without one iota of government intervention. Advocates of a free market solution to our energy prices have one more feather in their cap.

Well.

I didn’t have a high opinion of Time Magazine before. Now it’s so low it would need to go up to reach zero.

In an upcoming issue, Time has ditched the red border in favor of a green one. The reason, of course, is to make green “the new red, white & blue.”

That’s dumb, but really nothing new from the eco-freaks. But what has me en fuego is the picture on the cover, which depicts the famous Iwo Jima flagraising photo with a pine tree in place of the flag. According to the magazine’s editor, “There needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat climate change.”

Yes. Your monitor is working.

I’m not hopping mad about this just because Iwo Jima happens to be my favorite WWII battle (but I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t a factor). I’m not even hopping mad because the idea that global warming is a crisis on par with Pearl Harbor is ludicrous (even though it is). I’m hopping mad because this picture puts environmentalists In the same category as the Marines who fought on Iwo. They’re not, and only a fool would think they are. Time has some nerve belittling the sacrifice that allows them to make such wrongheaded statements. I hope they hear from some Marines about it. But somehow, I don’t think I have to worry.

My friends in the service have a saying: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. If you can’t figure out what it means, Google it. It’s about the best thing I can think of to describe the latest shenanigans of the environmental movement.

There has perennially been a call to outlaw/ban incandescent light bulbs because of their supposed drain on the environment. Unfortunately for the likes of GreenPeace and Earth First!, too many people are sensitive to fluorescent light, the only viable alternative at this point, to make a ban on incandescent viable. Now we’ve got compact fluorescent bulbs, which are like a fluorescent bulb except smaller, hence the name. These bulbs burn 70% less energy and last much longer than incandescents. But they have one catch: they contain mercury.

Mercury, of course, is toxic. This isn’t really a big deal since there’s only a small amount of it sealed up in the light bulb anyway, right? That’s true—provided the light bulb doesn’t break. If it does, the room will resemble a CSI episode. According to health professinals (didn’t we used to call them doctors?) you should ventilate the room for 15 minutes, get everyone out of there, and clean it up with duct tape while wearing gloves. Then you should seal the offending toxic metals, along with your gloves and the tape, in a glass jar.

And of course, since mercury is toxic it is therefore HazMat, so you can’t just toss a compact fluorescent bulb should it burn out. You’ve either got to recycle it or wait for HazMat pickup days. And as that old and useless air conditioner still on my bedroom floor will attest, HazMat pickup days are few and far between.

Now, I like energy efficiency. I like being a good steward of my money and the environment. But I don’t think it’s right to put our families at risk in order to do so. Pregnant women and small children are warned to stay away from salmon because of possible mercury contamination. Doctors can’t even use mercury thermometers anymore. And we want to put light bulbs with this stuff in our houses and around our kids?

If this were anything but a light bulb, there would be a huge outcry over the dangers of mercury should the light break. But America’s become so sold out to the eco-freaks that we think it’s OK to put harmful materials in our homes if it might help the planet. The environmental movement is no longer pro-earth, it’s anti-human. The idea that we must sacrifice ourselves so the planet can live is a sad testament to just how far the loony environmentalists have led us, and how blindly we have followed them.

How would you feel about paying $0.50 more a gallon for gas?

If you greet that concept with mixed feelings—dread and angst—you’re hardly alone. But if you live in my adopted home state of Michigan, it could become a sad reality.

Michigan is already in an economic jam, and now Con. John Dingell wants to make it worse by raising gas taxes $0.50 a gallon. Last time I gassed up, I paid $3.45 a gallon. A $0.50 tax would mean almost $4 a gallon! Ouch!

But there’s more to this story than a hit in the wallet. Dingell’s rationale is that this tax will encourage people to consume less fuel and therefore be more environmentally friendly.

What do you call using money to change someone’s behavior? Extortion, that’s what you call it. It’s kind of illegal. But then, so’s theft, which is what the government does when it takes your money and gives it to someone who hasn’t earned it. But I guess the law only applies to those of us who don’t hold elected office.