First up is Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL). He’s decided that there is no Global warming, because God promised us he wouldn’t destroy the earth again. Nope, not even pretending to be scientific. Here’s the video. God promised us, so it must be true. Not like he’s saying the planet needs even more carbon dioxide, not at all. Ooops, that, too. And here’s that article. Shimkus must be trying out for a talking head spot on FauxNews or something.

Then there’s the Catholic Priest with his panties in a wad about a statue of a woman pirate. Yo ho ho! She’s got a bit of cleavage there, and Father Edward Commoly thinks this is immoral, soft porn, and enough so he should curse bless them, each and every boobs! I’m thinking the guy is a bit bitter and needs to console himself with something other than a campaign against a legitimate local business. Here’s the article.

Pam Spaulding has a story about how Oklahoma legislators, mostly, but sadly not all, Republican, are all up in arms because the University of Oklahoma invited an expert on evolution to speak on campus. Yeah, they’ve got a problem with real science at a university. All hail David Boren for defending academic freedom and, well, truth. The Oklahoma legislators in question probably know that their constituents are so stupid that they will be rewarded with another term for opposing real science. The article is at Pam’s House Blend.

The noted poet is Glenn Beck of FauxNews, who’d better watch out or John Shimkus will get his job. There is in fact competition out there to see who the whackjobiest of whack jobs is. Beck shouldn’t sit on his ass, laurels or whatever. Salon has several examples of Beck’s poetry, taken verbatim from his broadcasts. Please, go read the Glenn Beck Poetry Collection at Salon, but I’ll put my favorite here:

MEATBALLS AT THE FURNITURE STORE

Somebody said let’s make Swedish meatballs at the furniture store
And somebody else said, that’s a stupid idea; nobody’s going to want meatballs at the furniture store.
And the first guy on that first day, his ass was on the line.
And so one customer came for lunch, he knew he had to get rid of the meatballs
And he was like, yeah, you want meatballs from the furniture store?
And they’re like, yeah, I guess; my wife has been dragging them around forever.
Anything. Just whatever. I was thinking about eating an ottoman
A little while ago but then meatballs has actual meat in it
And then the guy behind the counter said, well, I’m not really sure
But ya, ya, sure. So then he takes the meatballs
And he has to put them on a huge plate
Because he has to get rid of them.
Otherwise, you know, the big Swede is going to say
That was the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
And so now that one fat guy who had the big bowl of meatballs
Now buys all of his furniture there and has told all of his fat friends,
Buy your furniture there because your wife will walk around
And you’ll have an hour worth of eating meatballs
And that’s what happened.

(”The Glenn Beck Program,” Premiere Radio Networks, Nov. 21, 2007)

It’s Tuesday. Is that the day all the religious whack jobs come out? Does Beck fit in with them?

Let me preface this with a few statements. #1: I am not a fan of Madonna, so much not a fan that I wouldn’t blink an eye if they carved “Not a fan of Madonna’s music” on my tombstone. #2: The adoption of any child who needs a family is a very good thing, especially when that adoption is by someone who has proven to be a good parent. #3: Poor countries sure do need help. I also want to note that none of those statements are connected in any meaningful way to make a controversy. But on CNN’s “American Morning” yesterday, host Kiran Chetry sure allowed Dominic Nutt, representing Save the Children UK, to kick off a faux controversy. Here’s a little bit from the CNN transcript:

Chetry: You heard Madonna … say it’s no one’s business. Over the weekend, you came out, though, and urged Madonna to rethink this adoption. What is your biggest concern?

Nutt: Well, our biggest concern is that we believe that in the most — in the majority of cases, orphans, so-called orphans, in fact [are] not orphans — they have at least one parent living — and even those that don’t, have a wider family that can look after them. And we believe that children in poverty should be best looked after by their own people in their own environment. And that people like Madonna and organizations like Save the Children are best off helping those families by building schools and supporting them to look after these so-called orphans and not transporting them to live across the world in mansions, in pop stars’ mansions, that sort of thing.

Chetry: Now, Madonna also is doing both, I guess you could say, because she founded that organization, Raising Malawi, right, back in 2006, did a documentary as well, trying to bring attention and money to the plight of the children there.

Nutt: Well, absolutely right. So she’s obviously accepted the logic of the Save the Children argument, it’s help children on the ground. If you really do love a child and you want the child to do well, then help them in their own world.

Now, look … something like 10 million children a year die across the world because of poverty before the age of 5. You cannot possibly help all those children by moving them.

So, what we’re saying clearly is not that Madonna is wrong or families and parents or want-to-be parents who do go for international adoption are wrong. But it must be a last resort.

They must make sure there is no family network to support them, and if they don’t help that child, that child is in peril. The life of that child is in peril. Otherwise … you are better off supporting that child in its own environment.

There are some bottom lines here that Save the Children’s representative, Mr. Nutt, overlooks as he grandstands for a few minutes of face time. Those kids adopted by Madonna and Angelina and the one(s) to be adopted by Cole Hamels (and here) are going to get wonderful advantages they could never have expected int he orphanages where they were previously. That there is the need for orphanages in places like Malawi is sad, and I fully support international support to help ease that difficult situation, but the two issues just are not connected.

I am experienced in the world of adoption. That’s my boy on the left. But lest we dismiss this post as yet another attempt by Steve to post a picture of his undeniably cute little boy, let me discuss adoption for a minute. I was in the world of foreign adoption, with the idea of adopting from Vietnam, for 18 months. We worked with the same agency Angelina Jolie worked with. Every single person I met seeking to adopt from Vietnam was doing so with the deepest, most heartfelt reasons. They wanted a baby and there are babies in Vietnam that needed parents. Unfortunately, Vietnam had irregularities in their processes, and we ended up moving our goal from Vietnamese adoption to open adoption here in the US. Would that it were so simple for everyone.

In the US the majority of domestic adoptions are open adoptions. That means there is ongoing contact between the birth mother and the adoptive family, from a minimum of letter to a maximum of visits. I’ll be honest and say that nearly every parent who first considers open adoptions at least acknowledges that there can be pitfalls. What if the birth mother finds out where we lives, has second thoughts years later, and tries to take back our child? Hey, there have been enough sensationalized stories out there that we are wary of openness, at least at first. This is not to say that my wife and I are uncomfortable with open adoption, only that we are cognizant of that first reaction. Still, if I were a celebrity, I’d likely keep that first reaction at the front of my mind. This is a country where celebrities are routinely stalked, and open adoption, as fine an institution as it is for the child, just may be a huge risk not worth taking for a celebrity. They can avoid all that with an adoption in Malawi, or in some other country, by adopting a child whose life otherwise would be bound to an orphanage. To my mind, that answers Roland Martin’s question about why celebrities aren’t adopting US kids.

The bottom line here is that there is simply nothing wrong with adopting children whose lives would otherwise be an endless uphill battle, no matter where that adoption originates. This is not a controversy. But it stars Madonna, so CNN wants to cover the non-controversy. They want ratings and Madonna is always good for a few viewers, or so their logic goes. And Save the Children UK always wants donors, so getting Dominic Nutt in front of viewers worldwide is a good thing, even if what he talks about is neither a controversy nor news. Yeah, this isn’t news, it is gossip and whiney gossip at that. They are finding fault with the fine acts by Madonna in order to get viewers and donations. That is something akin to criticizing Michelle Obama for organic gardening, a good example for the world, but simply not a controversy, nor even news.

This is really a disgusting story. The plane crash in Butte, Montana the other day Killed the parents and children in three families. Seven adults and seven children died. That’s a true tragedy. The families were coming up to meet Irving “Bud” Feldkamp and his wife for a ski vacation. Feldkamp’s two daughters and their children were on board the plane, as well as some family friends. That’s the stark tale of the crash, with no editorializing, as reported by insidebayarea.com.

But there’s more to the story, and that more is what the anti-choice people are focused on. Irving Feldkamp is evidently a dentist, but he owns a few other things as well, including a race track, Glen Helen Raceway Park in San Bernardino, and Allcare, which may be a holding company for Family Planning Associates, a for-profit provider of family planning services, including legal abortions. There’s a woman named Gingi Edmonds, an anti-choice activist, who writes about Mr. Feldkamp, most of whose family just died in a tragic plane crash. Despite her disclaimer, it appears Gingi Edmonds is dancing on the graves of Feldkamp’s grandchildren. From the Gingi Edmonds blog:

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp’s mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp’s dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God’s blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

We warned him, for his children’s sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if “you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you”. (Ezekiel 35:6)

A news source states that Bud Feldkamp visited the site of the crash with his wife and their two surviving children on Monday. As they stood near the twisted and charred debris talking with investigators, light snow fell on the tarps that covered the remains of their children.

I don’t want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual “I told you so” moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp’s - Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow - and I think of the haunting words, “Think of your children.” I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the ‘Tomb of the Unborn’?

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

“I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then.” (Deut. 30:19)

Wow! Sure, Gingi tells us she doesn’t want to use the tragic deaths of children for her own ends, but that’s exactly what she does. It shouldn’t surprise us that her words are repeated at LifeNews and ChristianNewsWire, among other places. Perhaps the most egregious place is at Hannity’s web site forums, where the comments about the story are truly disgusting, but where at least some people are trying to point out that cheerleading the death of seven children isn’t appropriate behavior no matter the circumstances.

The children died here. Fred Phelps is likely headed to protest at the funerals of those children and their parents. From the words spinning throughout whack job extremist Christian web sites, Fred Phelps could get a whole lot of joiners to witness, too.

I just don’t get right wingers. They can take an issue that has some degree of resonance across the political spectrum, come up with a kicky idea that has PR punch, and then turn it into a steaming pile of fetid compost. (Check that - we all know that dittoheads would never compost their waste.)

You simply must check out this photo gallery from a “protest” in Stamford, Ct. over the weekend. Here’s a taste:

And here’s a link to a story on the tea party protest.

Anyone remember the post-election Brooks Brothers Riot in Miami, Florida in November, 2000 that stopped the presidential vote recounts? Yeah, these tea parties feel a lot like that.

(h/t to Bob Cesca’s Awesome Goddamn Blog)

Barack and Michelle Obama are given, as is every President, a budget with which to redecorate the White House. $100,000. There’s also a nonprofit that helps with projects, the White House Historical Association, and Barack and Michelle Obama will not be calling on them for help either. But Barack and Michelle Obama, after hiring a bigtime designer, have eschewed public monies in redecorating a very public home. They are going to pay for it themselves. From New York magazine:

At a time when people are having trouble holding on to their houses, Barack and Michelle Obama have sensibly decided not to use taxpayers’ money to renovate theirs. New presidents are allotted $100,000 to overhaul the White House residence and the Oval Office, and the Obamas hired Hollywood decorator Michael S. Smith (known, per his site, for mixing “Old World classicism with very contemporary settings”). But the First Couple isn’t spending that money. They “are not using public funds or accepting donations of goods for redecorating their private quarters,” says Camille Johnston, director of communications for the First Lady. Nor is the couple, who reported $4.2 million in household income in 2007 tax returns, using money from the White House Historical Association, a privately funded foundation that paid for a $74,000 set of china shortly before Laura Bush left town.

Yeah, this is admirable and it shows that the Obamas truly understand what people in the country are going through financially. And, yeah, this is what we have come to expect from the Obamas. They are not fat cats who rely on the public to do their bidding or to subsidize their lives.

The big question here is how the Republicans are going to whine about this turn of events. I’m guessing there will be speculation on two fronts. First, the big GOP radio whiners will turn their expert designer eyes to the redecorating projects and trash them. Not a doubt they will use the word “trash,” no matter the project. Then they will speculate that since Barack and Michelle paid for the improvements, they will try to take those improvements with them. Of course they’ll make it up as they go along, paying no attention to facts. Par for the course.

Further, the ugliness on the Republican side will whine about the Obamas, rather than taking nonprofit money from the White House Historical Association, they are snubbing the group. Again, that will be completely made up and fictional, but most Republican whines have basis in fiction.

The most important point to make here is that redecorating the White House is not all that big a story. I’m predicting that the Republican talking heads will make it so, or try real hard. To them a story that belongs in House Beautiful is fair game for their whining. That’s their nature, after all, to whine whenever possible.

When I reflect on my trip to AIG’s headquarters in NYC two weeks ago, the most important takeaway that I get from my effort is that one person can indeed make a difference. My peaceful, lone man protest forced a disruption on one of the world’s largest firms.

When I reflect on the issue of climate change and global warming, it almost seems overwhelming, and that one person’s efforts would be so small in the larger scheme of things so as to be useless. But then I think back to my hours in the canyons of New York City’s financial district, and the impact that it created. Yes, I can make a difference. And if thousands (or millions) join me, in whatever the issue or endeavor, then the statement becomes powerful and hard to ignore.

Tonight, between 8:30 and 9:30PM, regardless of your time zone, you have the opportunity to create a synergy with millions of other people by turning off your lights for an hour, in observance of Earth Hour. The picture to the left is downtown Sydney, Australia earlier today. Quite an impact, huh?

Yes, Earth Hour is a largely symbolic gesture. The message that it sends, though, is visually unique and emotionally compelling: there is power in numbers, irrespective of the cause or issue. The idea started as the brainchild of one single person, and has grown to a global movement, much the same as my lone protest in NYC was one person’s effort to express his own dissatisfaction with the status quo.

What’s the difference? With Earth Hour, the personal inconvenience to participate is near zero; the only requirement to participate is flipping a light switch to the “off” position. It doesn’t get any easier than that.

If you believe in the cause of climate change and global warming, will you please join me this evening and and make a statement? Step into your power, and kill the power for one hour.

Update, 3/30/09:You simply have to read this post on Earth Hour (and the comments) at Bob Cesca’s Awesome Goddamn Blog. Hilarious!

Certainly the Republicans in the House stubbed their collective toes this week when they put forth a plan that had no dollar figures within it and no specific proposals. Politico had noted that the plan was being prepared to counter accusations that the GOP has become the “Party of No.” Politico describes the Republican train wreck:

Even before Barack Obama double-dared them to cough up their own budget, House Republican leaders were quietly drafting a set of conservative budget principles to convince voters – and their own rank-and-file – that they aren’t just The Party of No.

Minority Leader John Boehner, Minority Whip Eric Cantor, GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence and Rep. Paul Ryan worked for weeks on a plan, staffers say, without any serious philosophical disagreements.

But over time, Cantor-Ryan and Boehner-Pence camps split over questions of tactics and timing.

Pence, with Boehner’s blessing, wanted to unveil an abbreviated “blueprint” Thursday to counter Obama’s criticism and arm members with new talking points heading into this weekend – even if it meant that their plan wouldn’t have much in the way of details.

Cantor and Ryan wanted to wait until Ryan’s staff produced a fully-fleshed-out alternative to Obama’s $3.6 trillion spending plan, with specific numbers on spending and tax cuts – even if it meant waiting a few more days to get it out.

Cantor and Ryan ultimately caved in, and what they got was the worst of both worlds: a thin, glossy “blueprint” that was ridiculed by Democrats and cable news anchors, and a nasty internecine scrap that culminated with one GOP aide telling POLITICO that Pence had thrown Ryan “under the bus” in an “egocentric rush” to grab the spotlight.

Privately, some Republicans are worried that the split over the budget blueprint portends the kind of internal squabbling that afflicted the party during the height of its power at the beginning of the Bush administration.

First Republican whine? “But Politico is biased!” Hey, guys, the freaking right wing Washington Times also makes fun of your proposed budget. As a Republican you know you’ve really screwed the pooch when the Times is making fun of you. It is going to be harder to weasel out of this one than to merely crawl back under the partition at the airport restroom. Boehner offers the “budget,” but it has no substance, which to most Americans seems perfectly consistent with Republican performance over the last eight years or so.

This time there seems to be infighting among the Republicans. That’s brilliant. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan caved in to the old guard, as represented by John Boehner (rhymes with “loner”) and Mike Pence. From my outsiders perspective, rising stars in the Republican Party are its only chance of suvival over the cruxial next few years. Sanford and Jindal and Palin are rising stars bumbling around on their own, without significant help from the incompetent Republican powers that be. Now the old guard is abusing young guns Cantor and Ryan. In short, the GOP is showing itself to be disfunctional on the level of Greek tragedy. No, wait, formal definitions of “tragedy” imply a fall from greatness, and not about to imply greatness for the GOP anytime in the last 50 years. Umm, it sounds like a WWE cage match. Yeah, that’s the metaphor!

And what’s a meta for, anyway? It’s just a handy thing to use to make fun of Republicans who, as usual, can’t get their shit together. I propose a tag team cage match between Eric Cantor/Paul Ryan vs. John Boehner/Mike Pence. The winning team gets to make decisions for the GOP in the House, and more importantly, I’ll donate a whole slew of tanning products. Sound good?

They are ecstatic, I hear, that the Vermont Senate has passed the Marriage Equality Act, and can’t wait until the Vermont House does the same. I also hear they are lobbying the Republican Governor of Vermont to sign the bill once it passes.

Don’t they look beautiful in their blue dresses? Sure, some are saying those “snuggies” are sweeping the Republican world, but we all know that Tucker and Joe look special together and this is truly their “something blue.” What, they don’t come in red? Leave it to these two crazy guys to eschew the traditional white gowns.

Well, I’m sure they’ll make a happy couple. I hope we can all celebrate with them soon.

It goes like this. Sarah Palin was making a rambling speech the other day to a GOP Dinner in Alaska. Well, don’t ya know, those Alaskans surely wanted to know what was going on down in the lower 48, so Sarah set off on a little whine about the campaign. Then she tells the story about looking for someone to pray with before her debate with Joe Biden. Here is a little bit from CNN:

“So I’m looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra,” she said of the moments before the debate. “And the McCain campaign, love ‘em, you know, they’re a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray.”

As the audience laughed, Palin noted that she meant no disrespect to the McCain campaign and that ended up saying a prayer with her daughter Piper.

It is not clear exactly why Sarah Palin snubbed the staffers at prayer time. Perhaps she has a thing about germs and they didn’t have very clean hands. Or maybe Sarah Palin has supernatural powers and can see into the souls of McCain campaign staffers. What is obvious, though, is that Sarah Palin made a bad choice.

Sarah Palin ended up praying with her daughter Piper. Now Piper is a darling little girl, but Sarah Palin settling on her to pray with ended up costing her that debate with Joe Biden. Yes, Palin was right that she needed to pray, given her inexperience and tenuous hold on facts. So she picked Piper, who might have the best intentions in the world and a cute outfit from Nordstroms, but evidently doesn’t have much pull with the Almighty. The results are the results, after all — Palin lost that debate badly, and it was one any MILF worth her salt could have pulled off, if just she’d chosen a prayer partner with a little clout with the guy upstairs.

I’m guessing Sarah Palin chose Piper to pray with again just before Redoubt exploded last week. What we may have here is a woman with dreadful judgement as concerns choosing prayer partners. Heck, if I’m going to a tea party, or maybe looking for someone to skip stones with, then Piper is among my top choices. Not a doubt. But as a prayer partner? I’m thinking she may have cost her mother the debate, and maybe the election as well.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about here (the recent GOP embrace of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged), no need to read any further.

From Hey Jenny Slater:

…Ayn Rand [author of Atlas Shrugged] is to libertarianism what Fall Out Boy is to punk rock: It’s what you get into before you grow up and start actually thinking…

From TBogg, via Twitter: