Salon: Progressives Must Face Reality Of Hardcore Islam

Salon is typically a hotbed of Leftist insanity, which very much exposes the true mindset of Leftists, one that typically takes the side of those calling anyone who points out the problems in hardcore Islam an “Islamophobe”, which makes this article by Jeffrey Tyler all that more important

The left has Islam all wrong: Bill Maher, Pamela Geller and the reality progressives must face
Confusion over Islam and how to relate to it imperils free speech, without which no secular republic can survive

Whatever her views on other matters are, Pamela Geller is right about one thing: last week’s Islamist assault on the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest she hosted in Texas proves the jihad against freedom of expression has opened a front in the United States.  “There is,” she said, “a war on free speech and this violent attack is a harbinger of things to come.”  Apparently undaunted, Geller promises to continue with such “freedom of speech” events.  ISIS is now threatening to assassinate her.  She and her cohorts came close to becoming victims, yet some in the media on the right and the center-right have essentially blamed her for the gunmen’s attack, just as far too many, last January, surreptitiously pardoned the Kouachi brothers and, with consummate perfidy to human decency, inculpated the satirical cartoonists they slaughtered, saying “Charlie Hebdo asked for it.”

No.

Unsurprisingly, much of this is about the subhead, that Islam (I do wish Mr. Tyler would take more time to distinguish between those who are simply practitioners of Islam and the Islamists, who are violent and/or pushing hardcore Islam, things like Sharia law, which treats women despicably, kills gays, etc) creates problems for a nation that Leftists want to be almost without religion, at least in public.

What is it about Islam that simultaneously both motivates jihadis to kill and so many progressives to exculpate the religion, even when the killers leave no doubt about why they act?  The second part of the question is easier to dispense with than the first.  Progressives by nature seek common ground and believe people to be mostly rational actors – hence the desire to blame crime on social ills.  Unfamiliarity with Islam’s tenets also plays a role, plus, I believe, the frightening future we would seem to be facing as more and more Muslims immigrate to the West, and the world becomes increasingly integrated.  Best just to talk of poverty and the like, or a few “bad apples.”  But to respond to the question’s first part, we need to put aside our p.c. reading glasses and examine Islam’s basic elements from a rationalist’s perspective.  Islam as a faith would not concern progressives, except that some of its adherents choose to act as parts of its dogma ordain, which, to put it mildly, violates the social contract underpinning the lives of the rest of us.

That’s as good an excuse as I’ve seen. Why does the Left seek to defend hardcore Islam? Mr. Taylor may be correct. Or, it could simply be a knee-jerk reaction by Lefties to those on the Right highlighting the danger from hardcore Islam, which makes them incapable of allowing the distinction between the hardcores and the non-hardcores, making the Left protect them all. Of course, Lefties like to Blame The Whole when it comes to Others, such as lumping all Conservatives, all Republicans, all Christians, into one big pot when an individual or a small group does something the Left doesn’t like, so excusing the whole of Islam when there is a big problem within Islam from the hardcores.

Of course, Tyler has quite a bit of negative to say about Christianity and Judaism within the article, which he is free to do.

The meme “Islam – the religion of peace” might evoke snickering now, but it was wildly inaccurate long before 9/11 and the plague of Islamist terrorism.  For starters, the Prophet Muhammad was a triumphant warlord leading military campaigns that spread Islam throughout Arabia and initiated the creation of one of the largest empires the world has known.  His was a messianic undertaking.  He preceded his invasions by demands that populations either convert or face the sword.  Verses sanctifying violence against “infidels” abound in the Quran.  Even the favorite verse of Islam’s apologists, Surat al-Baqarah 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”), prefaces a warning that Hellfire awaits those worshipping anything besides God.  The real meaning of the word “Islam” is, in fact, surrender — to God and the inerrant, unchallengeable path He lays out for us.  Surrendering denotes war, groveling, and humiliation – not exactly the kind of behavior liberals tend to value.

I never thought I would see something like that in Salon, but, we can certainly chalk some of it up to the dislike, even hatred, many Progressives have towards organized religion. That said, Mr. Taylor has a point: it isn’t behavior that the Left should value, according to their own talking points. As for Progressives, their own dogma has them getting people to quietly surrender to the Will Of The Secular State. Hardcore Islam directly competes for the surrender.

All those who, à la Reza Aslan, maintain that Muslims today do not necessarily read the Quran literally have lost the argument before it begins.  What counts is that there are those (ISIS, say, and al-Qaida) who do, and they are taking action based on their beliefs.  To the contention, “ISIS and al-Qaida don’t represent Islam!” the proper response is, “that’s what you say.  They disagree.”  No single recognized Muslim clerical body exists to refute them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa: did he just say that those like ISIS and al Qaida are just following the text of the Koran?

Mr. Taylor goes on, discussing even more of the problem he sees within Islam as a whole, such as the poor treatment of women within the religion, even in more “moderate” Islamic countries. He also notes the continued spread of the hardcore viewpoint, that it continues to grow, turning more and more “moderates” into violent hardcores. The one thing he misses is that it is not just the violent Islamists, there are the Muslims who push a more hardcore Islamic lifestyle in a non-violent manner. Those who push for a worldwide Caliphate, who push Sharia law, and often using the trappings of Western culture, and the belief sets of Progressives, against Western society. They approve of violence, such as hanging gays, throwing them off buildings, stoning women, whipping them for being raped, etc, as well as others participating in jihad. The “calm and rational” softer version of the Islamists is used by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, who insinuate themselves into our culture, our government, and slowly move everything towards the harder version of Islam. Progressives need to wake up to this.

Of course, as mentioned, one of the points Mr. Taylor is making is that we can’t get to a society without religion if Progressives don’t wake up to the threat Islam makes towards that goal, because he, like so many Progressives, is just anti-religion.

And double of course, Mr. Taylor is being attacked by the oh so tolerant Progressives in the comments at Salon, as well as coming up with all sorts of ways to defend hardcore Islam, defenses we’ve seen time and time again. They seem to be the exact reason why Taylor wrote the article, but they will not learn.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Salon: Progressives Must Face Reality Of Hardcore Islam »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful field of nature that should have solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on liar filing a lawsuit.

Read: If All You See… »

We’re Saved! Poetry Will Help Stop “Climate Change”!

It’s all about making sure Other People don’t use fossil fuels. And not much about climate change. But, it does expose the viewpoint of the UK Guardian quite well, namely, that they are no longer in the business of journalism

An anthology of poetry on climate change

If information was all we needed, we’d have solved climate change by now. The scientific position has been clear for decades. Researchers have been waving a big red flag that has been impossible for our politicians to miss. Even Margaret Thatcher was giving speeches about global warming in 1988. So why have we made so little progress? Why do carbon emissions continue to rise seemingly inexorably? (gotta love that they forgot to mention Thatcher’s later position)

Information, it seems, is not enough. Journalists have transmitted the warnings of scientists, but they have sometime focussed too much on the mini-controversies and the unimportant disagreements and not enough on the big picture. That has often left readers confused.

As the Guardian’s editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger explained when he introduced the paper’s Keep it in the Ground project, journalism struggles with climate change. It may be the biggest issue of our generation but we feel individually powerless or that solutions lie somewhere in the future. As Rusbridger says, journalism is a “rear view mirror”: good at telling you what has happened but not so good at explaining what’s round the next bend.

And therein lies one of the problems: journalism is now activism. It’s one thing to have opinions on the opinion pages; it’s quite another to turn news reporting into activism, opinion, and make it all about being Social Justice Warriors. And the Guardian still hasn’t divested its own holdings from fossil fuels, and still uses fossil fuels to deliver its dead tree edition.

That is where this comes in. Alan Rusbridger asked me to curate a series of 20 poems that respond to the topic of climate change. The brief was to reach parts of the Guardian readers’ hearts and minds that the reporting, investigations, videos, podcasts and the rest had failed to reach.

I was wondering if the UK Guardian’s Carol Ann Duffy had forgotten that the article was supposed to be on poetry. There’s a link at the top of the article going to her first poem. Doesn’t have a whole lot of climate changey in it.

Read: We’re Saved! Poetry Will Help Stop “Climate Change”! »

Carly Fiorina Continues To Impress While Facing The Press

An interesting article by Mediaites’ Joe Concha

Carly Fiorina May Not Win, But Facing the Press Isn’t the Issue It is for Hillary Clinton

The candidacy of Carly Fiorina is a fascinating one from a media perspective. She’s a former CEO and political candidate…with both of those pursuits ending with her being dismissed.

The easy line of questioning of Ms. Fiorina has become apparent early and often regardless of the many outlets she’s appeared on since announcing her candidacy last week, and it sounds something like this:

If you got fired as CEO of a company, what makes you think you could be president?

If and when Hillary Clinton—the likely Democratic nominee—actually sits down for a major interview in any capacity, it will be interesting if she’s faced with the same scrutiny regarding her performance in her last job as Fiorina has endured. To that end, feel free to answer these questions: What was Mrs. Clinton’s signature achievement as Secretary of State for five years? And if we’re going through the full LinkedIn page…what was her signature achievement as senator? Why was she fired by Democratic voters in 2008 in favor of another candidate who wanted to be CEO of the party…and of the country for that matter?

Good questions. Will Hillary ever face any? Fiorina has faced over 200 questions just last week, while Hillary has faced just 7 so far since she sort of announced.

Concha goes on to list big time folks who have been fired at some point in the past. A great example is Bill Belichick, who was canned as coach of the Cleveland Browns, and is now one of the best coaches in the NFL, with a team that continuously is one of the best in the NFL, and has been to the Super Bowl 6 times as Patriots head coach, winning 4.

But playing a game of gotcha around getting fired? You might want to look at the list above again and especially Steve Jobs, who was fired from Apple itself before coming back to save the company and making it into one of the greatest—if not the greatest—American success stories of all time. On Meet the Press today, Chuck Todd asked Fiorina why HP stock went up seven percent after she was asked to leave. Well, guess what? Apple stock went up after Jobs was fired as well. As for the rest of those names above from Bloomberg to Blank to Iacocca, they’ve all been fired at some point of their careers, too.

Fiorina is making herself available, and not running from her record. Where’s Hillary?

BTW, do you know what the other big question is that Fiorina is facing? “Domain-gate”

(MSNBC) Almost immediately after former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announced she was running for president last week, her staff was dogged by questions about why they had failed to secure the Web domain carlyfiorina.org, which had been purchased by a Democratic activist who used it to post a message about how many people HP had allegedly laid off while Fiorina was the company’s chief executive.

She purchased sethmyers.org for her appearance on Late Night with Seth Myers.

“Many reporters were nearly giddy about what I’ve affectionately labeled #domaingate when it came to Republicans, but none had bothered to check hillaryclinton.net or hillaryforpresident.com. I’m now looking forward to all the stories similarly labeling this a major gaffe by the Clinton campaign,” Fiorina spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in an email.

That’s about someone purchasing HillaryClinton.net and redirecting it to CarlyForPresident.com. And then this

She may be a somewhat squishy Establishment Republican, but she’s growing on me.

Read: Carly Fiorina Continues To Impress While Facing The Press »

NY Times: Don’t Blame Obama For Not Fixing Race Relations

NY Times columnist Charles Blow is Very Upset that people, especially Rush Limbaugh, are criticizing Michelle Obama

Of Museums and Racial Relics

Recently, Rush Limbaugh lambasted the first lady, Michelle Obama, for bringing up the idea of diversity among museum visitors at the opening of the new Whitney Museum in New York.

According to Limbaugh, the first lady said: “Museums and concert halls just don’t welcome nonwhite visitors — especially children — the way they welcome white people.”

What the first lady actually said was:

“You see, there are so many kids in this country who look at places like museums and concert halls and other cultural centers and they think to themselves, well, that’s not a place for me, for someone who looks like me, for someone who comes from my neighborhood.  In fact, I guarantee you that right now, there are kids living less than a mile from here who would never in a million years dream that they would be welcome in this museum.”

Blow goes on to write

And, the first lady was right. A 2010 report by the Center for the Future of Museums (an initiative of the American Association of Museums) found that:

“African-Americans and Latinos have notably lower rates of museum attendance than white Americans. Why is that so? In part, it is the legacy of historic discrimination. A summary study of S.P.P.A. [Survey of Public Participation in the Arts] data from the 1980s on white and black attendance at arts events concluded that the measurable difference in participation could be tied to ‘subtle forms of exclusion.’ ”

Hmm, data from the 1980’s.

The report cited data that shows “historic patterns of segregation and exclusion as one reason that fewer African-American families instill museum-going habits in their young children. More recent studies have identified a distinct cultural psychology among African-Americans, rooted in historical and social experience, which has produced heightened sensitivity to stereotypes and real or perceived racism.”

So, why won’t Blacks and Latino’s go to museums in the 2010’s? Because of something that may (or may not) have happened 30+ years ago? Can anyone point to actual discrimination at museums? Does anyone think that lawsuits, protests, etc, wouldn’t occur if there was discrimination?

If it’s the content of the museums, which tend to be odes to the accomplishment of European Whites, along with things like, oh, simple natural history, then why do most of the “African-American” museums fail? Wouldn’t you think that Blacks would go to those? Almost no one visits the Underground Railroad Freedom Center. The Reginald Lewis Museum in Baltimore likewise has poor attendance. The Charles H. Wright museum in Detroit has very low attendance. This is repeated over and over again. You can’t blame Whites for racism, as Blow attempts, when Blacks won’t even go to museums dedicated to Blacks.

Here’s where it gets cute

Obama’s sin, using this line of logic, is that he failed to undo the system of oppression that he had no hand in constructing. It is that 400 years of damage was not undone in two terms. It is that he didn’t encourage silence about inequity so that its benefactors could enjoy the cumulative fruit of centuries of racial graft without current-day guilt.

Interesting. White people are blamed constantly for a “system of oppression” that they had no hand in constructing. There is not one person alive who own slaves in the United States. Well over 50% of the US population wasn’t even alive prior to the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act. A goodly chunk have no relatives who were even in the US when slavery was legal. Most of the others have no relatives who owned slaves. Yet, Whites are blamed for any perceived raaaaacism. Such as Blacks not going to museums and performing arts and concerts and stuff. Something that they can do if they want to.

And yet, all of America must face the reality that for as much progress as has been made, much remains to be made. America must face the fact that the electorate is an of-the-moment entity, but racial oppression is an of-the-ages monstrosity. It is a resilient relic. And it was never within Obama’s capacity to dismantle it. This structure must be demolished by its architects.

Is any White stopping any Black from going to any museum, concert, art exhibit? Of course, what Charles forgot to mention is that people feel that race relations haven’t been this bad since the 1990’s (weird how they seemingly got better in the Age Of Bush43, eh?).

If this is an issue that concerns Michelle O and Charles B, rather than whining about perceived racism in the past, they could have used the opportunity to challenge those in the Black community to go to museums, zoos, aquariums, plays, art exhibits, classical concerts, etc. Tell the parents to bring the kids. No one is going to stop them.

What is interesting is that so many in the comments at the opinion piece are simply assuming that most Blacks are too poor to afford the cost of attendance. These are Liberals, there is no doubt, based on the full flavor of the comments. If you want racism, why do liberals always assume Blacks are too poor too afford something, like driver’s licenses and the fee to attend a museum?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Don’t Blame Obama For Not Fixing Race Relations »

Doom: Alaska May Soon Be The Last Bastion For Skiing

In the future, of course

Fairbanks may be stronghold for ‘last skiers’: Climate changing bringing uncertainty to winter sports

Interior Alaskans have often joked about global warming, especially in the middle of winter.

The cartoon above by local artist Jamie Smith is a joke, but it has a kernel of truth. It appears that temperatures will rise in Interior Alaska because of climate change. It also appears that rise will be slow enough to allow snow to stick around, at least through this century. That’s good news for those of us who love snow sports. And there are a lot of us in and around Fairbanks: cross-country and downhill skiers, snowmachiners, mushers, skijorers, snowshoers and snowbikers.

But in other places, such as Southcentral Alaska, the future looks grim. By the end of this century, people in Southcentral might be talking about snow sports in the past tense or as something you do on vacation.

I learned about all this after reading an article titled “The Last Skiers: Climate science points to dying winter sports in Southcentral Alaska” by Charles Wohforth. It ran in the Anchorage Press in January. The piece is sobering and depressing for anyone who likes winter sports. The grim winter Southcentral just experienced looks to be a sign of things to come.

Know what else is “sobering“?

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000.

and

It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland. An article from the UK’s Guardian in 2004 quoted scientists and environmentalists predicting the demise of Scotland’s winter sports industry, including more remarks from Dr. David Viner, who had already predicted the end of snow in Britain.

The DC notes 3 other failed end of snow predictions. Of course, Warmists are now blaming big snowstorms and snow totals on…you got it…climate change.

Read: Doom: Alaska May Soon Be The Last Bastion For Skiing »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful field that would be perfect for a wind turbine farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Blogmocracy, with a post on cop’s lives matter.

It’s country girl week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! Another fantastic Mother’s Day in America. You remembered, right? This pinup is by, I believe, Arthur Sarnoff, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Blazing Cat Fur covers yet more abhorrent behavior by ISIS
  2. American Clarion discusses why the Left hates entry level jobs
  3. A.P. Dillon (Datechguy) discusses exploding NC Democrat heads
  4. Director Blue covers leftists casting the victim as the person to be blamed
  5. Fausta discusses identity politics
  6. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes what Obama did Saturday
  7. Flopping Aces catches some Lefties doing something right
  8. Free North Carolina has a bit more on that Confederate flag picture
  9. Jihad Watch notes that the media is proving Pam Geller’s point
  10. Legal Insurrection wonders if hating Mother’s Day is anti-woman
  11. Moonbattery notes that the Obama admin won’t allow an Iraqi nun into the country
  12. Pam Geller notes an event featuring Geert Wilders was cancelled due to fear of Islamist jihadis
  13. Patterico has more insanity from feminists
  14. protein wisdom features Leftists freaking out in Britain
  15. And last, but not least, Public Secrets notes that small government is efficient

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Did You Buy Flowers For Mother Day? Well, That’s Bad For “Climate Change”

The Cult of Climastrology is renowned for linking virtually everything, including holidays, to “climate change”. Up till now, I don’t recollect them linking the mostly/solely political issue to Mother’s Day. Till now, as brought to us by Jennifer Grayson at the Washington Post (BTW, there are some actual ecological/environmental issues involved, beyond “climate change”)

Flowers may be nice for Mom, but they’re terrible for Mother Earth

How’s this as a gesture of love for the woman who bore you? Chop off the reproductive organ of a plant and send it to her in a box tied up with a pretty bow.

No, it’s not a weird botanical twist on the van Gogh woo-a-girl-with-a-severed-ear legend. It is what millions of us (67 percent of those celebrating the holiday) will compulsorily do to mark Mother’s Day.

This year, we will spend a collective $2.4 billion to buy Mom flowers. I understand the appeal. I’m a mom of two little girls, and my heart melts anytime they surprise me with a handful of dirt-clumped dandelions from our back yard. But while giving flowers may seem like a good way to show how much you love your mom, it’s a terrible idea if you care about Mother Earth. (snip)

The truth is that most flowers are organic only in the truest sense of that word: highly perishable and thus susceptible to decay, as well as vermin and disease. Up to 80 percent of the 5.6 billion stems of flowers sold in the United States each year are imported. Of those, 93 percent are grown thousands of miles away in production greenhouses in Colombia or Ecuador. And it takes an awful lot of energy and artificial tinkering to keep those flowers fresh.

To preserve the blooms once they’re cut, they’re stored in an energy-guzzling refrigerated warehouse, flown via cargo plane to the United States, brought to yet another refrigerated warehouse to await distribution, and — just to tack on a bit more to the carbon footprint — shipped via refrigerated truck to your mom or to the refrigerated display case at the supermarket or florist. There, the flowers lie in wait for a harried son or daughter to grab en route to Mother’s Day brunch, where still another bouquet of imported flowers makes up the table’s centerpiece.

Add in the cellophane wrap, those annoying little plastic stem tubes and the bouquet’s fate a week later, emitting methane in a landfill, and you may have gotten a gift with a bigger carbon footprint than if you’d driven four hours in a Hummer to visit Mom in person. While it’s difficult to calculate the carbon footprint of a single bouquet, experts estimate that sending 100 million roses (the number believed to be given in the United States on Valentine’s Day, another big flower holiday) produces some 9,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from field to florist. The average American household has a carbon footprint of 48 tons a year.

That schtick continues on throughout the rest of the opinion piece, but, I think you get the idea, namely that you, dear reader, are helping to skyrocket the temperature of the Earth (sometime in the next 50-100 years, of course, since there’s essentially been an 18+ year pause in warming) and killing Gaia, all because you purchased flowers for Mom. Warmists are especially Evil, since they constantly yammer about the threat of “climate change” but still do things like this which causes an increase in their carbon footprint.

In fact, the movement for local flowers is becoming so strong that this month, the Senate passed a resolution supporting domestically grown flowers for Mother’s Day. (And while it’s nice to see Congress getting involved in something mom-related, it’s too bad lawmakers can’t make any headway on what mothers really need: paid protected maternity leave — the United States is the only developed country without it — or a national fine for anyone who tries to kick a breast-feeding mom out of a restaurant or off an airplane.)

Isn’t it interesting how an article on Hotcoldwetdry includes links to other pet Progressive issues? It’s almost like “climate change” is actually all about Progressive (nice fascist) politics?

But why not sidestep commercial flowers altogether? This Mother’s Day, I sent my mother-in-law an online gift card for heirloom seeds to plant in her cherished garden, and I’m giving my mom what she really wants: quality time with her only daughter at a “girls” lunch. As for me, I’m more than thrilled with dandelions from my daughters and my husband’s promise that on Sunday, I’ll have the morning off to luxuriate in bed.

But, why not sidestep being a climate hypocrite altogether, and give up fossil fuels, energy usage, and anything else that creates a carbon footprint, Ms. Grayson? That gift card creates “carbon pollution” through energy usage. How are you going to travel to that “girls lunch”? Fossil fueled vehicle, perhaps? I hope y’all are eating vegan! She should call for the Washington Post to stop killing trees to publish the paper, stop using fossil fueled vehicles to distribute it, and, hey, stop publishing altogether, since it requires energy, including on the Internet.

This is all just another in a long line by Cult of Climastrology cranks, heavy on preaching, scolding, assigning guilt, and extremism, demanding that we Do Something because they are Offended. Bunch of cranks.

The comments are hilarious. Hard to pick my favorite, but, this one

Environmentalists seem to live in the fear that somebody somewhere is having fun.

That seems to be the view of most Progressives.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Did You Buy Flowers For Mother Day? Well, That’s Bad For “Climate Change” »

If You Care About Baseball, You Have To Care About Climate Change

Yet another case of a Warmist having to link their pet cult with a completely different subject

Baseball, hot dogs and saving the planet

April has always been a significant month for me, and this past April was no exception. We marked the annual celebration of Earth Day, committing ourselves to being responsible stewards of the planet. But more important, April signalled the beginning of the baseball season.

I’m embarrassed to confess I am a Philadelphia Phillie fan. Someone has to be. So I eased my pain by listening to the classic Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s On First?” But this led me to another Abbott and Costello skit and how we must save the planet.

So here is Bud Abbott chewing out Costello for refusing to put mustard on his hot dog. “Don’t you realize,” Abbott pointed out, “if too many people stop using mustard, the people who work in these factories will lose their jobs. And the people who make the bottles for the mustard, their jobs will be gone, too.”

But that wasn’t all. “Do you care about baseball? All the vendors selling hot dogs — where will they get the mustard for those who want it? And then they will be out of work.”

By the time Abbott was through, Costello had caused a full-blown depression. But the skit led me back to thinking about the future of our planet. For there are indeed unintended consequences of the choices we make. This is particularly true of our reliance on fossil fuels and its impact on climate change.

And what is the solution?

But here in Oregon, we have an opportunity to take bold and meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuels — the primary cause of climate change. The Oregon legislature is now considering House Bill 3470, known as the Climate Stability and Justice Act. If passed, this bill will set up an action plan to reduce greenhouse gas pollution 10 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2050.

That’s right, more Government. You know what I’m thinking about practice and preach, right?

Read: If You Care About Baseball, You Have To Care About Climate Change »

Pirate's Cove