John Shimkus ranked second most lethal legislator

According to NRDC's blog Illinois Congressman John Shimkus is the second most lethal legislator in Congress. They created the list based on "how much they’ve taken from polluters during their congressional careers."

John Shimkus (IL-19) has taken over $939,000 from polluters and supports Lethal Legislation that could put as many as 56,200 lives at risk.

Anyone who follows John Shimkus' facebook page will notice that I occasionally respond to his misleading anti-environmental posts. His pro-pollution posts have become more frequent lately. Shimkus has always been a coal industry stooge but I'm going to guess his uptick in attacking human health has something to do with the millions of dollars the coal industry is dumping in the laps of House Republican leaders. Shimkus is being a good soldier in the House Republican war against EPA.

At least Shimkus and John Boehner can take pride in knowing that they don't come cheap. They're classy, high priced hookers for polluting special interests.

Because there's nothing more important to do

Hey is there anything important going on in Washington? I thought there was a near crisis caused by House Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling. I thought there was more work to do in order to reach a compromise.

I must have been wrong because this is the facebook state update of House Republican leader John Shimkus on Friday.

Walked in the Troy Homecoming Parade this evening. Pretty toasty out there.

Well, at least there's nothing more important to do. And yes, this is the same John Shimkus who pushes conspiracy theories about global warming being a hoax.

Illinois Tea Party freshman Randy Hultgren had similar plans. He left Washington to walk in the Kane County Fair Parade. Now we know how Tea Party Republicans deal with an economic crisis of their own creation. They go home to walk in parades.

Illinois legislature helps Shimkus stay in Congress

I'm glad the legislature drew a new Congressional district which includes Springfield, Champaign, and Decatur. The new 13th isn't as monstrously misshapen as the old central Illinois districts and it can be won by either party.

But, I can't understand why the legislature would change it to give Shimkus a free ride, and make it more likely that Republicans win the new 13. Shimkus was at first drawn into 13 but is now in the safely Republican, rural 15th district.

Moderates in college towns like Champaign and Bloomington aren't going to tolerate Shimkus' increasingly extremist, anti-science crusade. Having Shimkus as the Republican nominee in 13 nearly guarantees a Democratic victory. Instead, the legislature drew Tim Johnson into 13. Johnson sounds more moderate and has already won elections in Democratic Champaign/Urbana.

Why does the legislature want to keep John Shimkus in Congress and why do they want to increase the odds of the new marginally Democratic 13th district being won by a Republican? I'm baffled.

Letter to the editor on Shimkus

This week's Illinois Times includes a letter to the editor I submitted:

I often appreciate the statements Congressman John Shimkus makes to area news outlets about the environment. He speaks in favor of protecting public health and supporting real science when developing environmental policies. He sounds sensible when he’s back home in the district. That’s why it’s so disappointing to read national blogs and press outlets which report on what Congressman Shimkus actually does while in Washington, D.C.

Although he speaks in favor of science while in Illinois, he has become known as an anti-science extremist in Washington. One congressman even had to ask why Shimkus didn’t include any actual scientists in committee hearings about climate change. He rhetorically supports public health while in Illinois, but in Washington, his attacks on environmental regulation would threaten the lives of thousands of adults and children. He claims to support agriculture in Illinois, but in Washington, he refuses to acknowledge the terrible impact climate change will have on Illinois farmers. How do we get the extremist Shimkus in Washington to start acting more like the sensible-sounding Shimkus I read about back home?

Will Reynolds
Springfield

Shimkus, Emerson see their Congressional districts hit by climate disaster. Will they admit there's a problem?

Catastrophic flooding stories have become more routine for anyone living in the Mississippi river valley. The latest one is setting up a battle between Cairo Illinois and Missouri farmlands. The St. Louis Beacon summarizes the conflict well.

This week, the corps has been considering what it has avoided doing for 74 years: busting a gap in the Birds Point levee to flood as much as 130,000 acres and relieve some of the flooding expected when the swollen Ohio River crests near Cairo, Ill., this weekend and surges into the Mississippi at the rivers' confluence.

They haven't been forced to do this in seventy four years. Rainfall and flooding in the area is matching and breaking old records. But that's a story we're used to hearing every year now, isn't it? It may not always be the same region but a "historic" flood disaster is now part of the annual weather report.

This is a point when scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others get to say "I told you so." More frequent flooding and catastrophic weather events are exactly what they warned us about.

The areas being impacted right now are represented in Congress by modern day Neville Chamberlins who are doing their best to ensure that we don't confront the problem. John Shimkus is touring Illinois flood sites. Yet, as chair of the House Environment and Economy Subcommittee he has become one of the nation's most visible deniers of the science behind climate change. Will he see the connection?

The Missouri side of the river is represented in Congress by Jo Ann Emerson. Earlier in April she bragged about supporting a bill that would bar the US from funding scientific study on climate change by the IPCC. That's the same group which warned that heavy, unpredictable rains would lead to delayed planting seasons and more frequent flooding in the Midwest. Maybe she should have paid more attention to their last report. Her press release stated: "I don’t feel the U.S. taxpayer should be asked to shoulder this burden in addition to the economic damage their policy recommendations would inflict on us.”

At this moment, her constituents are shouldering the burden her anti-science policies would inflict on them into the future. Refusal to deal with climate change will only result in more frequent catastrophic flooding and all of the economic damage that goes with it. Does she want to invest in more clean energy jobs for Missouri or does she want to keep paying even more for flood relief?

Ironically, she doesn't mind asking U.S. taxpayers for help when it's time for the Corps of Engineers and FEMA to deal with the impacts of flooding. I wonder if Emerson and Shimkus are ready to apologize for voting in favor of the Paul Ryan budget that cut emergency disaster funding. It's a shame that people in these districts have to face the consequences of the extremist anti-science, anti-government ideology of their Congressional Representatives.

Not surprised - unsubscribed

I got a good laugh out of the automated email I received from the Shimkus Congressional newsletter this morning.





No, I didn't unsubscribe myself. I guess his office doesn't appreciate a little public scrutiny about what they're sending constituents? Well, maybe it was just an error. haha

John Shimkus spreads delusional claims about internet

I would prefer not to write a series of outraged blog posts about my Congressman, but he continues to find new ways of making himself a national laughingstock. John Shimkus has outdone himself yet again by claiming in an email to constituents that the internet is an invention of the free market with no help from government.

An official Congressional email sent to constituents in March begins with the subject line: "Hands Off! Stopping the FCC Internet Takeover"

It claims that: Everything the internet is today has been made possible without the heavy hand of government mediation or regulation.



His talking points, which he cut and pasted from telecom industry lobbyists, continue with this.

Unfortunately, some in Washington now want to put the brakes on the internet's development by regulating it through the FCC. They would put the future of this national treasure in the hands of bureaucrats rather than the proven hands of the same free market that fostered the internet's incredible expansion. I do not support this.

That's interesting but things are a little different back here on planet earth. Searching the internet will reveal that its a creation of government, not the private sector. The research and investment to create the internet was done by the US Department of Defense, PUBLIC universities, and non-profit research institutions that received government grants.

The private sector had no short-term profit motive to make the investments necessary to create the internet. In fact, commercial use was initially forbidden. The investments made later by private companies are merely piggybacking on years of public spending by we the people. The internet wouldn't be what it is today without the heavy hand of government intervention.

I really wouldn't care that Shimkus is living in a world of make believe except that he sits on an important committee which oversees telecommunication policy.

Let's reflect on that for a moment. One of the Congressmen with the most influence over telecommunications policy is either completely ignorant about the internet, or is shamelessly lying to constituents on behalf of his telecom campaign contributors. Or both.

It's bad enough that he's using his Congressional newsletter to mislead constituents about the attempt by telecom giants to forever change the internet for their own financial gain. It's even more insulting that he does so with populist rhetoric as though he's actually standing up for the people.

Once again, I'm ashamed that this man represents me in Congress. And there's no one who deserves more blame than the Illinois Democrats who guaranteed his re-election for the past decade by drawing him an incumbent protection district. I can only hope they choose to restore democracy for the 19th district by drawing a new map that allows us to choose our Congressman instead of allowing a bad Congressman to choose his district.

Shimkus Supports Polluters Over Health of Children

Environment Illinois issued a press release about Congressman John Shimkus under the category of "what else is new?" You can check it out at their website if you missed it.

Congressman Shimkus Supports Polluters Over Health of Children

More than 85,000 Illinois residents in and around Representative Shimkus’s district with asthma, including 21,829 children, are at increased risk of adverse health consequences if he is successful in preventing the US EPA from updating Clean Air Act standards, according to data compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council and released by Environment Illinois. Representative Shimkus has received more than $889,695 from polluters, many of which have made stopping the EPA a high priority.

Underscoring the severity of the problem, 1,061,329 residents statewide suffer from asthma including 299,285 children. EPA scientists have determined that carbon dioxide endangers public health, in part because it contributes to warmer temperatures, which make it easier for smog pollution to develop and harder to reduce it. Smog is particularly dangerous to asthma sufferers. Warmer temperatures are also associated with increased morbidity and mortality due to increased severe weather events, such as hurricanes and floods; the spread of infectious disease; and heat-related illnesses, all of which incur additional health care costs.

Representative Shimkus has cosponsored legislation intended to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting air pollution. In addition, he voted in favor of a funding bill (HR 1) on February 19 that, among other things, blocks the EPA from limiting carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources. This bill amounts to the biggest attack on the health and environment of Illinoisans in recent history. By blocking new air pollution limits, he would put the public’s health at risk by allowing polluters to continue emitting unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air.

Environment Illinois also released a report last week about the political influence of Big Agribusiness groups like the Farm Bureau. "Giant agricultural companies are throwing around millions of dollars to fight to continue polluting our rivers, lakes, and streams."

Coincidentally, Shimkus just received the Illinois Farm Bureau's Silver Sow award. No, wait. That's Golden Plow Award. I thought "golden plow" was slang for a liaison under the Golden Gate Bridge but that's really what they call their award.

Remember when Shimkus made a nonsense comment about the EPA's non-existent new regulation of tractor dust? It turns out that it wasn't his own original hallucination. He was repeating the talking points of a Farm Bureau lobbyist. It's becoming clear that the Farm Bureau is focusing less on representing farmers and is instead becoming a tool of the oil, coal and chemical industries to mislead farming communities.

John Shimkus impostor wages war on science!

I'm concerned that there's an impostor posing as Congressman John Shimkus in Washington. I don't know how else to explain the dramatic contradiction between what he tells newspapers back in the district and what he actually does when Congress is in session.

Two articles will illustrate my concern. In January, a paper back in his district interviewed Shimkus about his new role as chairman of the subcommittee on Environment and Economy. He expresses a concern for defending real science.

"I’ll mostly deal with the EPA, making sure that what they claim is real science actually is real science, and that their restrictions are focused on the health and welfare of the public, not just a political agenda," Shimkus said.

That sounds good! We need environmental policy based on science and public health and not written by those with just a political agenda.

But then something odd happened when Shimkus' committee held hearings in Washington about the clean air act.

"Do you find it strange that at this hearing of this importance we have no scientists?" asked Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking member.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) swept aside such critiques, telling ClimateWire, "This is about jobs. This isn't about science. The science committee may turn it into that and get into these issues, but we want to address how this affects jobs."

EPA administrator Jackson, held her ground, pointing out, "Chairman Upton's bill would, in its own words, 'repeal' the scientific finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions."

Back in his district Shimkus said he would focus on science and public health. But the impostor Shimkus in Washington doesn't include real scientists in the discussion. Not only that, but many of those chosen to testify before Shimkus' committee represent organizations who place their company profits and political agenda ahead of public health needs.

Shimkus then suggested that EPA might regulate plumes of dust behind tractors. No one has ever proposed anything remotely like that so its something he just pulled out of his ass.

Also, the real John Shimkus should know that most of the new energy jobs being created back in Illinois are from wind farm construction and energy efficiency projects, not coal mines.

Shimkus often speaks about his Christian faith, so I know he wouldn't tell his constituents he was going to do one thing and then do the exact opposite. That would be hypocrisy. Or a lie. The only logical explanation is that the man in Washington is an impostor. Someone please look into it!

Shimkus responds to question about "worthy of death" post

John Shimkus' office responded by email to my question about the post on his Congressional facebook and twitter page the morning Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Since my email to his office mentioned that I'm writing about it on my blog I'm going to post his response in full.

Thank you for contacting me with regard to my tweeting of my daily devotions and political rhetoric. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Every morning I tweet the verse from my daily devotions. I think it's important for my constituents to know what I'm thinking and how my faith guides my life as their representative.

In regard to my devotion from January 8, I personally believe as the Bible says that the wages of all sin is death yet no sin is unforgivable for those who put their faith in Christ as their savior.

Despite no supporting evidence, some continue to float theories and opinions that certain politicians, heated rhetoric or even guns are to blame for the shooting in Arizona. The only person responsible for this tragedy is the young man who pulled the trigger.

I hope I've addressed your concerns. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

JOHN SHIMKUS
Member of Congress

It was nice to receive a response since his office knows I'm not likely to write anything flattering.

It would be interesting to have more insight into how the Congressman's faith guides his life as my representative. But for me, this response doesn't clear up how he represents constituents who don't "put faith in Christ as their savior," especially since the verse comes from a chapter of the Bible that's often used to justify bigotry against gays and lesbians.

I made no suggestion that Shimkus is partly to blame for the shooting but his defensive response regarding that is revealing. I've never seen a public statement in which he expresses concern for how violent, inflammatory rhetoric creates an environment of hate. The posts haven't been removed so he must not agree that quoting a verse which says unbelievers are worthy of death is inappropriate on a day when the first Jewish member of Congress from her state was attacked.

I have to wonder what the public reaction would be if a Muslim elected official had posted something similar. Twitter and Facebook aren't the best places for theological discussion. I understand that Shimkus isn't literally wishing death on anyone. But, would any amount of explanation be accepted or understood if a Muslim member of Congress wrote that those who reject Allah are "worthy of death?"

If that wouldn't be tolerated from a Muslim then it's also unacceptable from a Christian who's elected to represent people of all faiths. And yes, there's a Bible verse about that.

Congressman Shimkus Bible post on morning of Giffords shooting says unbelievers and gays are worthy of death

My Congressman, John Shimkus, regularly posts Biblical verses on his official facebook and twitter page. I was reading his facebook page today when I noticed the unfortunate verse he posted on the morning Gabrielle Giffords and others were attacked.

Romans 1:32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, they which commit such things are worthy of death, doing same, and having pleasure in them

It appears that the verse was posted earlier in the morning before the shooting.



I wondered what "they" the verse was referring to so I looked up the first chapter of Romans. The preceding verses focus on those who "knew God" but turn from him. It names a long list of sins, but the chapter is more well known for being one of the few Biblical references to homosexuality.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I emailed Shimkus' office asking if he feels posting that sort of language on his official site is appropriate after the attack and whether he believes the verse he quoted applies to homosexuals. I'll write again if I receive a response.

Shimkus sometimes responds that he's being attacked for his Christianity when questions like this are raised. So, I want to be clear that I don't take issue with him being Christian.

Still, it's grossly offensive for a Congressman to post a Bible verse that says many of the people he was elected to represent, including non-Christians, gays and lesbians, are worthy of death. I'm amazed that no one removed the post after they learned of the attack on Congressman Giffords.

I hope Shimkus will apologize, and in the future not contribute to violent rhetoric by posting more death-to-the-infidels verses. Otherwise, I suggest he move to a country that approves of violent anti-gay rhetoric and elected officials who only represent the views of their own narrow religious sect. Perhaps he could run with Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Shimkus earns a detention

Progress Illinois linked to the post I wrote yesterday morning about the behavior of John Shimkus and other Republicans during Obama's speech. The Shimkus walk-out got more attention after a Chicago Tribune blog posted a response from his office.

"Congressman Shimkus was frustrated that the president was not offering any new ground and left with just minutes remaining in the speech.''

Since I didn't notice anyone talking about this before my post, it makes me wonder if the Tribune reporters who follow me on twitter noticed my twit about it yesterday morning.

Shimkus was a high school teacher and still speaks to government classes (one can only hope he isn't teaching them his belief that a compassionate monarchy is the ideal form of government). We know West Point didn't teach him to publicly disrespect the Commander-in-Chief, so I decided to look at the student handbook for Metro-East Lutheran High School where he used to be a teacher.

Maybe the school code has changed since Shimkus was there but it has some good advice he should consider.

As representatives of our Lord and of our school, all students need to behave in a manner that reflects integrity upon themselves, upon any school activity, and upon the school itself.

Oops.

Among the behaviors subject to detention are: "disrespect, dishonesty, disrupting class, and tardiness."





I know that sometimes it can be frustrating to sit still and listen to teacher, but if high school students can learn to not be disruptive in class then I'm sure members of Congress can learn too. Clearly, John's bad example warrants a visit to detention hall.

The handbook has some helpful advice for how to deal with these situations.

The purpose of applied discipline is to assist each student in developing the self-control necessary to function appropriately in all personal and social relationships. Our standards and policies are based on commonly accepted social behaviors and the Word of God. ...Consequences are warranted when students repeatedly and/or willfully disregard school guidelines/rules or otherwise bring discredit to their Lord, their school or themselves.

Joe Wilson, John Shimkus and some other partisan congressmen could use help learning how to function appropriately based on commonly accepted social norms.

The school code of conduct begins with a Bible verse.

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." -- Matthew 5: 16 --

The world has seen the works of Shimkus from his role in covering up the House page scandal to his ridiculous statements about global warming. I don't believe the word "glorify" applies in this case.

A party of children

I only read a few news stories today but I guess everyone is writing and talking about the Congressman who yelled "liar" during Obama's speech. I couldn't make out what he said so that's not what bothered me at the time.

It really got on my nerves that after years of Republicans scolding people about respecting the Presidency while Bush was in office, there they were waving papers and heckling Obama during the speech. These are supposed to be adult members of Congress. That wasn't an attempt at discussion or debate. It was cheap theatrics.

Personally, I have no problem with cheap theatrics or acting out in the right context. I went to rallies and protests of speeches by Bush or Cheney at least six times during their Presidency. Of course, they never let us protest close enough to be seen by either one of them.

At one Bush visit I saw someone get arrested for going outside the "free speech zone" where they corralled protesters. She carried a sign that said "America is a free speech zone!" Apparently, you can now carry a gun directly outside Presidential speeches without getting arrested so freedom is on the march.

I only saw George Bush speak in person once when he came to the dedication of the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield. I was pretty annoyed that he sullied the occasion with his presence so I knew I had to make a statement. I wore a t-shirt with Bush's image that said "not my President."

But you know what? When Bush spoke, I sat down and listened. I didn't do it for Bush, who I have no respect for. I did it out of respect for the occasion and the people who came to hear him. If you have the chance to hear a President of the United States speak, the least you can do is shut up and listen, even if you think he's full of crap.

I thought Bush's attempt at using Lincoln's name to justify the invasion of Iraq that day was incredibly disrespectful to Lincoln's legacy and offensive to the people who didn't come for a political rally. But, I still think he deserved the chance to be heard.

These adult members of Congress haven't learned the basics of common courtesy and they disrespected all Americans who tuned in to hear a serious discussion. Who raised these people? Someone call their mothers!

And why on earth did they just sit there stone-faced when Obama denounced the lies about death squads? Do they believe the death squad accusations are real? Are they afraid of standing up to the talk radio hosts who spread that garbage? I can only interpret their failure to condemn the lie as a sign of approval.

Added on edit:

I shouldn't be surprised that my own Congressman, John Shimkus, joined the playground of partisan pouters. After heckling Obama with the paper-waving stunt he actually walked out during the speech.

Maybe he needed a potty break. Or maybe was in a hurry to help protect a colleague from being caught harassing underage male pages...again.

Republican State Fair tantrums

As I was walking to my volunteer shift at the State Fair last week I heard repeated shouts of "Just Say No!" when I passed by the Republican rally. I learned from people who went and later read on a few blogs that it was John Shimkus leading the chorus of obstruction. Shimkus says it will be the GOP chant "from now until Election Day, because we've been saying no for a long time."

That's at least worth a laugh after years of Republican leaders compulsively repeating talking points about "Democrat obstruction" on the few occasions when the entire Congress didn't roll over and play dead for George Bush. Republicans removed it from most of their sites, but I still found a copy of an old GOP press release titled "Democrats: The Party Of No!"

A Republican spokesperson indignantly charges that "the Democrats have defined themselves as the party of ‘no’ in responding with obstruction and pessimism." Funny that they've finally found virtue in being the "party of no" now that they're in the minority.

In this case Democratic leaders were saying "no" to putting social security funds into the stock market. Has anyone heard a single Republican leader apologize for what a stupendously bad idea that was since the stock market crashed? Would it kill them to admit they were wrong about something? Even just one little thing?

Schoenburg quotes Shimkus protege Aaron Schock as saying at the rally,

"In fact, we have seen a level of partisanship and a level of arrogance by this administration and by this Congress never (seen) before in America,”

My first reaction was to think, "except for the time Newt Gingrich Republicans refused to compromise or negotiate on health care in 1993 because they saw political advantage in defeating it and later shut down the government." Amazingly the article goes on to say Schock,

predicted that, just as in 1994, Republicans may take control of Congress thanks to the overreaching of a first-term Democratic president — then BILL CLINTON.

In 1994 they learned that unreasoning partisan obstruction is good politics and they're determined to do it again. I guess it isn't partisanship when Republicans do it. After running on the slogan "Country First" Republican leaders have proven what an empty promise that was every day since the election.



(haha! Just kidding!)


I did a google search that turned up a book called "Achieving Success with Impossible Children" with some interesting advice about dealing with tantrums. It says:

Tantrums are not restricted to children, adults have them all the time. People throw tantrums for a variety of reasons but the most common is to express to people around them that things are not going the way the person throwing the tantrum prefers.

Sounds right. Shimkus and Republican leaders are frustrated that the people voted them out of power and gave a mandate to a President with a progressive platform. They're acting out because they don't like how things are going.

The best tantrums (from the child's perspective) are those that bring the environment to a halt and disrupt everyone and everything. For this reason, tantrums in public places are personal favorites of some children.

That pretty well sums up the strategy from talk radio, the health insurance lobby and their conservative allies. The goal is to disrupt everyone and everything because they know that an informed, civilized debate will lead to the success of Obama's agenda on health care and climate change.

Check out the rest of the book's section on tantrums for some handy advice on how to deal with them from both children and Party First Republicans.

More bogus numbers in Shimkus letter

I called my Congressman, John Shimkus, on the day of the Waxman-Markey ACES vote. I know it won't change his mind but I won't allow him to claim that everyone in the district agrees with him.

I received a quick, courteous email response on Saturday, June 27. He starts by stating his support for "renewable and alternative" energy (that's what they all say) "including solar, wind, nuclear, ethanol and biodiesel."

He continues with two misstatements of facts in this paragraph:

Currently, 85% of electricity generated in the United States comes from carbon based fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Therefore, any cap on these sources of energy would essentially be a tax on everyone who uses electricity. This new tax could total up to $3,128 per household annually. As family budgets are tightening around the country in this recession, higher electric bills are the last thing Americans need.

The US Department of Energy reports that in 2007 only 72% of US electrical generation came from coal, oil and natural gas. Fossil fuel sources, and coal-fired generation in particular, are even lower through March of 2009, while wind generation is growing rapidly.

More bothersome is his use of the widely discredited $3,128 estimate trumped up by Republican leaders. They claim to base the number on a study that wasn't about the ACES bill specifically. It has been widely reported by FactCheck.org and others that an author of the report called the number "simplistic and misleading."

Coincidentally, Al Gore wrote this morning about the cost of the ACES bill.

In Washington, the CBO is considered one of the best sources for the cost of legislation. They wrote: "On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economy wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion-or about $175 per household."
That works out to approximately the cost of a postage stamp a day.

I enjoy linking to Gore because conservative bloggers and talk radio fans have a big crush on him. Why else do they bring him up so obsessively?

Shimkus' letter mentions nothing about job creation and residential efficiency programs to lower monthly electric bills that are part of the legislation.

I can only assume that the same claims are made in all his constituent letters about global warming, plus his Congressional website links to a debunked study from the corporate advocacy group, Heritage Foundation. Why does Shimkus feel the need to make his case by misleading his constituents?

Aaron Schock joins Shimkus fringe?

Aaron Schock is a new Congressman, so even though his previous environmental record isn't very impressive, I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Soon we'll find out if he was serious about the windmills and promises to protect rivers that appeared in his campaign ads. It isn't looking good so far.

Although Schock appeals to some as the kind of reasonable Republican his district historically elects, like Ray LaHood and Bob Michael, on energy issues he's gravitating toward the Shimkus fringe of his party. I've read that Schock will likely oppose the ACES global warming bill.

Even worse, he's co-sponsoring the "American Energy Act" which comes from the Republican energy group co-chaired by John Shimkus. The bill is full of measures to weaken environmental regulations and increase corporate welfare for polluting industries.

Schock echoes Shimkus by bragging that the bill threatens ANWR. His press release admits he supports "lifting restrictions on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the Outer Continental Shelf, and oil shale in the Mountain West."

Schock is a politically ambitious freshman so I still hope that he'll choose a reasonable path to represent his constituents rather than following Shimkus and the polluting interests into national disgrace. That will only happen if he hears from people who live in his district.

Who's to blame for disappearing coal jobs?

Polluters love to blame environmental regulation for job losses and the debate in Congress over the ACES bill to reduce global warming emissions is no exception. John Shimkus' fear-mongering over the destruction of the Illinois economy includes a failed amendment that would have nullified the entire ACES bill if it resulted in two coal mines closing.

How would we know if the energy bill is responsible for mines closing instead of some other factor? I guess every mine closure should be blamed on environmentalists in Shimkus' world.

A coal industry lobbyist echoes Shimkus saying,

"Following the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Illinois coal industry suffered greatly. We went from 36 coal mines producing 62 million tons of coal with 10,000 employees to just 15 coal mines in 2003 producing 31 million tons of coal with only 3,500 employees. I am very concerned about what the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will do to the Illinois coal industry."

Tree-huggers make an easy scapegoat but even that lobbyist knows better. What I find interesting about his numbers is that productivity is cut roughly in half but jobs went down by almost 2/3rds. It's true that there are fewer coal mining jobs but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics gives a reality check about why.

Employment in mining will decrease. The growing U.S. and world economies will continue to demand larger quantities of the raw materials produced by mining, but the increased output will be able to be met by new technologies and new extraction techniques that increase productivity and require fewer workers.

They further reiterate that,

Employment in the mining industry has been affected significantly by new technology and more sophisticated mining techniques that increase productivity. Most mining machines and control rooms are now automatic or computer-controlled, requiring fewer, if any, human operators. Many mines also operate with other sophisticated technology such as lasers and robotics, which further increases the efficiency of resource extraction. As a result, mine employment has been falling over time, particularly of workers who are involved in the extraction process itself.

Even future increases in demand, they state, will not result in new coal mining jobs because "rising demand for coal is met with productivity gains from more efficient and automated production operations" including longwall mining methods being used in Illinois. A report on job growth in the 90's states that, although Illinois was at a disadvantage for having high-sulfur coal, job losses in coal mining were slower than in the 80's, and productivity increased even while jobs decreased.



(Where's the miner?)

Let's be clear about this. Under no circumstance will coal mining ever be a major source of new job growth in Central and Southern Illinois! Even if every environmental regulation is taken off the books and there's an inconceivable rise in demand for coal, it won't result in added jobs because new mining methods require fewer workers.

Every politician who promises to revive the regional economy with coal mining has been fooled or is a gutless panderer for King Coal. That's the hard reality.

It's time for Illinois leaders with any vision to stop making empty promises about reviving coal with even more wasted taxpayer subsidies and instead find new energy industries to recharge the downstate economy. It has been done elsewhere and it can be done here.

John Shimkus doesn't speak for us!

Tuesday night's viewing of Burning the Future was a powerful reminder that there's just no such thing as clean coal. Whether its mountaintop removal in West Virginia or longwall mining of farmland in Montgomery County Illinois, rural landscapes and people will suffer as long as we remain over-reliant on coal.

We watched the film in John Shimkus' Congressional district and most of the attendees are his constituents. Shimkus sits on the House Energy Committee, which is considering a major, comprehensive bill this week to reduce global warming emissions.

He's one of the most outspoken, and most ridiculous, opponents of any serious action to confront the climate change crisis. Congressional Republicans present him as a leader on energy issues but the rest of Congress should know that Shimkus doesn't speak for many of the people in his district.

I invited everyone to sign two open letters. The first one asks Shimkus to support serious efforts to reduce global warming emissions and create green jobs. The second asks top state Democratic leaders not to draw another gerrymandered incumbent-protection district that makes it impossible to unseat Shimkus. Even two former coal miners in the audience added their names. The text of each letter is below the picture.




None of my pics turned out too well but here's one table from the brew & view Tuesday.

Dear Representative Shimkus,

As Central Illinois residents, we’re concerned about job creation and the climate change crisis. We’re shocked by your statements denying the scientific consensus behind global warming and calling legislation to address the problem “the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.” Our regional economy can best be recharged by green jobs through renewable energy and efficiency projects. Please support tough legislation to combat global warming and diversify our energy economy. Your extreme statements don’t represent us.

Dear Governor Pat Quinn, Senator John Cullerton, and Representative Michael Madigan,

Residents of the Illinois 19th Congressional district are repeatedly disappointed as Congressman John Shimkus has been the center of embarrassing national stories, including his failure to disclose the sexual harassment of Congressional pages, suggesting a dictatorship
for Iraq, and calling legislation to combat global warming a greater assault on democracy than the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Residents feel disenfranchised by a district drawn to guarantee that Shimkus can’t lose, regardless of his performance. Please give Central and Southern Illinois a fair chance to choose our own Congressman by not supporting an incumbent protection district for Shimkus after the 2010 census.

I left a space for people to add their own comments and got some strong ones like these: "Accountability!" "It's not junk science!" "You are an embarrassment." "CO2 can kill. It's a matter of degree. Ask Apollo 13."

The letters won't be an ongoing petition drive but there will be another chance to sign them next week at the montly Sangamon Valley Group Sierra Club meeting. Illinois conservation chair Joyce Blumenshine will speak about the impacts of coal mining and especially longwall mining in Illinois. It's this Tuesday, May 26, 7:00pm, in the Carnegie Room of Lincoln Library, 326 S. 7th St., Springfield.

For those who couldn't make it Tuesday night, please contact your member of Congress, even if it's Shimkus, to support making the Waxman-Markey ACES bill stronger and oppose efforts to water it down.

Upcoming Clean Energy vote and Shimkus

One reason why it's so important to speak out against John Shimkus' crusade for the fossil fuel industry is that he sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They're expected to vote this week on the Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act" which is a comprehensive bill to reduce global warming emissions and create green jobs.

As one of the leaders of the flat-earther crowd, Shimkus is already giving us more gems. After a career of representing fossil fuel and telecom industry CEO's, he's suddenly shedding crocodile tears for the rural poor.





If Southern Illinois is still dependent on coal it's largely thanks to politicians like Shimkus who spent the last decade pandering with empty promises about reviving the coal industry instead of diversifying our energy economy with renewables and energy efficiency projects.

Given a choice, most people would rather have a job that doesn't give them black lung, destroy acres of farmland, or cause their neighbors' children to have more asthma attacks. Shimkus is doing his best to ensure that Southern Illinoisans don't have that choice by keeping them solely dependent on king coal.

Coal companies propose new plants in poor rural areas instead of rich suburbs because they know rural areas are desperate enough for jobs to tolerate the damaging environmental and public health consequences. It's spectacularly cynical for Shimkus to claim concern for the rural poor while he helps the coal industry use them as a dumping ground.

Anyway, environmental groups are encouraging people to contact Congress in support of passing the bill, keeping out weak amendments, and making it stronger.

Shimkus has trouble with numbers

Progress Illinois has a post about John Shimkus' continued use of a thoroughly discredited claim that a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions would cost each American family roughly $3,100 a year. The number keeps making the rounds among Congressional Republicans even after an author of the report they reference informed them that their claim is wildly inaccurate.

Shimkus repeated the same preposterous number Tuesday morning to the Springfield Citizens Club. I noticed several people in the audience shake their head in disbelief and mutter to those around them that it isn't true. Since Shimkus likes quoting the Bible maybe he should refresh his memory of what it says about bearing false witness.

I appreciate what Progress Illinois is doing to point out Shimkus' outrageous and misleading statements in Congress. They're finally doing the job that news outlets in the district should have been doing for years.