Newsweek Mocks GOP Congressman's Religious Beliefs with 'Creation of Adam' Photoshop
Apparently the sophomoric folks at Newsweek are getting a bit giddy during the short work week leading up to Thanksgiving.
To accompany David Graham's November 23 The Gaggle blog post, Newsweek editors included a photo manipulation featuring the face of Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) on the body of Adam in Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam"
The photoshop was inspired by a March 2009 comment Shimkus made that reflects his religious beliefs, a comment that Graham apparently finds suitable for mockery and as evidence that Shimkus would be a poor choice to chair a committee that might deal with climate change-related issues and legislation:
![]()
John Shimkus, candidate for House Energy and Commerce Committee chair: While [Rep. Joe] Barton simply ignores scientific data, another contender for the same post disputes it with recourse to other written documentation—to wit, the Bible. Illinois's Shimkus says climate change is real, a fact he observed while traveling to Greenland. However, he told Politico, there's no reason to worry, since God promised Moses after the great flood that he wouldn't deluge the world again. "I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God," he said. "And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood." Whether Shimkus will have the opportunity to drive policies based on revelation remains to be seen, though: he's mostly seen as the third candidate in the race.
Of course Graham left out another quote from a recent Politico article where Shimkus insisted that:
The question is more about the costs and benefits and trying to spend taxpayer dollars on something that you cannot stop versus the changes that have been occurring forever. That's the real debate.
Elsewhere in his post, "Meet the GOP Science Skeptics Likely to Hold Top House Science, Energy Posts," Graham lamented that Rep. Fred Upton's support for a ban on incandescent light bulbs may doom his chances to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee:
While Upton has had a more moderate record on the environment, he's recently been trying to spruce up his conservative credentials. Instead of denouncing global warming as a hoax, he has focused on attacking the Obama administration. Complaining that White House climate-change "czar" Carol Browner hasn't testified before Congress frequently enough, the Michigander has promised that he'll make her a regular presence—and punching bag—if he wins the chairmanship. Writing in the archconservative Human Events, he said, "She was the Obama administration’s point person for a massive economy-killing national energy tax in the form of a cap-and-trade scheme." But some influential conservatives—from Rush Limbaugh to Erick Erickson—aren't buying Upton's road-to-Damascus narrative. The reason? It's Upton's cosponsorship of a 2007 bill that mandated the phasing out of incandescent lightbulbs in favor of more energy-efficient, longer-lasting bulbs (the bill's other major sponsor was Rep. Jane Harman of California, whose husband, Sidney Harman, owns NEWSWEEK). While seemingly harmless, that law has earned the ire of conservatives, mostly on the principle that government shouldn't be meddling in lighting (coming from the left, Kate Sheppard wrote a good rundown of the controversy in September). If Upton doesn't get the chair, that law could be the major reason.
While Graham dismissed the measure as "seemingly harmless," the fact is that one of the highly-touted replacements for traditional lightbulbs, compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), contain mercury and are hence much more hazardous in household use, particularly when they require disposal after breaking.
From an April 2008 article at the website of Scientific American:
Compact fluorescents, like their tubular fluorescent precursors, contain a small amount of mercury—typically around five milligrams. Mercury is essential to a fluorescent bulb's ability to emit light; no other element has proved as efficient.
As effective as it is at enabling white light, however, mercury—sometimes called quicksilver—is also highly toxic. It is especially harmful to the brains of both fetuses and children. That's why officials have curtailed or banned its use in applications from thermometers to automotive and thermostat switches. (A single thermostat switch, still common in many homes, may contain 3,000 milligrams (0.1 ounce) of mercury, or as much as 600 compact fluorescents.)
The problem comes when a bulb breaks. Mercury escapes as vapor that can be inhaled and as a fine powder that can settle into carpet and other textiles. At least one case of mercury poisoning has been linked to fluorescents: A 1987 article in Pediatrics describes a 23-month-old who suffered weight loss and severe rashes after a carton of eight-foot (2.4-meter) tubular bulbs broke in a play area.
[...]
The important thing is not to touch the heavy metal. After airing out the room, the larger pieces of the bulb should be scooped off hard surfaces with stiff paper or cardboard or picked up off carpeted surfaces with gloves to avoid contact. Use sticky tape or duct tape to pick up smaller fragments; then, on hard surfaces, wipe down the area with a damp paper towel or a wet wipe. All materials should be placed in a sealable plastic bag or, even better, in a glass jar with a metal lid.
"If it gets in the jar, that's pretty good containment," Berlow states. "We've found that the plastic bags actually don't contain any mercury fumes, so absolutely, if you've got the plastic bag, get it outside when you're done." Vacuums or brooms should generally be avoided, as they can spread mercury to other parts of the house.
Intact bulbs can be a headache to dispose of, too. In many locales it is illegal to throw fluorescents out with regular garbage, but the closest recycling or take-back facility may be miles away. (And, given the number of bottles and cans that end up in landfills despite the prevalence of curbside recycling programs, it seems likely that any barrier to recycling will make for relatively low reclamation rates; in 2004 the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers estimated a residential mercury bulb recycling rate of 2 percent.) Many municipal waste facilities and some vendors accept fluorescents; the EPA and Earth 911 maintain online directories of collection sites. Among major retailers of fluorescents, IKEA offers to take back compact fluorescent bulbs in its stores free of charge.
"Our first preference is not to see them go into landfills," Berlow says. "Recycling really closes the loop on this as best we can right now. But on the other hand, we also don't see huge risks from them going into landfills, either."
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Remind me again why no one
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:57pm.
Remind me again why no one pays attention to Newsweek any more? I forgot...
Somehow, this is a sophmoric
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:01pm.
Somehow, this is a sophmoric put-down of the guy, yet a photo-shopped image of Boy Blunder looking God-like, with the rays of the eternal sun behind him, and a wisened gaze looking down at all of his fawning followers is.........................a media vision.
The photo manipulation is
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:14pm.
The photo manipulation is ugly. But if Shimkus says global warming is real, but we shouldn't worry because of something he read in the Bible, then it's reasonable to question his qualifications.
Quick, before you give birth
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 3:46pm.
Quick, before you give birth to another thought, run to your dictionary and look up "non sequitur". Yeesh."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Sorry if the connection
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 4:39pm.
Sorry if the connection wasn't clear. I was referring to paragraphs #2 and #4 in the above story.
Well I know I can't be the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:34pm.
Well I know I can't be the only person hesitant to give a chair position to someone who believes strictly in creationism.
Rather give a chair position to someone who believes in---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:11pm.
communism?
MD
More and more Newsweek
Submitted by needle on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:41pm.
More and more Newsweek resembles a Sophomoric college magazine.
And it looks as if Time --"Who needs marriage?" = "Who needs Time?" -- is anxious to "catch up" with Newsweek. So I guess that makes Newsweek an avant guard trend setter.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
"Science Skeptic"
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 2:46pm.
Notice the headline. Not "Man Made Global Warming Skeptic", or "Man Made Global Climate Change Skeptic", no. John Shimkus, GOP, is skeptical of Science itself!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Just as apprently...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 3:30pm.
“Apparently the sophomoric folks at Newsweek….”
Well, apparently sophomores have better sense than the folks at Newsweek…
In all honesty I'd rather see
Submitted by scarebear83 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 4:26pm.
In all honesty I'd rather see someone who would be skeptical of global warming be put there and who better than a creationist? At least a skeptic has a better level head to point out the flaws instead of taking in and believing every biased result out there.
You're not at all concerned
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 4:36pm.
You're not at all concerned with someone in a position of scientific importance who relies on Biblical scribe in predicting the end of the world? Or that fact that creationists believe man is only 10,000 years old?
What's wrong with believing the Bible?
Submitted by nkviking75 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:14pm.
I'd rather the committee is chaired by someone who doesn't buy into the phony premise that the Bible and science are mutually exclusive. I'd also have more confidence in someone who believes that some sort of Supreme Being created life than in someone who accepts the endlessly changing conjecture associated with evolution, and buys into the implausible string of incredible coincidences (which in other circumstances we might call "miracles") necessary to make evolution work. (Wow, that's a long sentence.)
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Hey, those pesky scientists
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:36pm.
Hey, those pesky scientists and their ongoing studies, changing hypotheses, and frequent break-throughs... It's almost enough to make a sane person crazy.
Of course, the flip side is based on zero scientific evidence and relies entirely on faith.
Once it was believed the earth was flat, and it was only through discovery that we learned otherwise. Which do you believe? The Flat Earth Society is still seeking new members.
Ted -
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:41pm.
As an agnostic atheist (I don't believe but don't discount the possibility) your comment makes no sense what so ever. I won't try to project my interpretations of what your post means on this board but wanted to know if you are implying the Bible states that the Earth is flat?
It was a simple statement of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 6:56pm.
It was a simple statement of what science has given us. There are many such examples throughout history, and to take such a strong stance against science (Creation teaches that man is 10,000 years old, despite everything we know to the contrary) means ignoring important information vital to our existence.
Once we knew the earth was flat, and now we know otherwise. Science prevails over faith.
Hmmm...
Submitted by Rukus on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:33pm.
"Science prevails over faith."
How is that? Can you dis-prove faith? In fact, you have faith in that statement, yes? Many things in science can't be proved, or dis-proved I would think. As an atheist you have faith in science, ok, no problem there. Are those of us who have faith in a higher being any less than you? I don't think you can declare science superior to faith any more than the reverse, I'll call it draw.
Science
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:38pm.
I am a firm believer in Evolution. And when I say that, I mean the Evolution of Science. What man knows, through science, is constantly changing. The belief in a flat earth is not as simple as you make it out to be. Some ancient cutlures believed the earth was round, some believed it was flat. Past belief in a flat earth was by no means owned by Christians, or other types of religions. Aquiring the knowledge that the earth is round did not refute religion. Neither did aquiring the knowledge that the earth was not the center of the universe. And if we ever discover that life exists somewhere else in the universe besides the planet earth, it will not mean that God is dead, (or never existed).
Science once held that everything was made up of only four elements, earth, water, air and fire. Science evolves, it does not "prevail".
Religion and science are not incompatible.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Again, I'm not suggesting the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:42pm.
Again, I'm not suggesting the Bible discusses a flat earth in any way, shape or form. I'm arguing that beliefs held not so long ago have been debunked through science, and a politician who believes the earth won't flood because the Bible said so has no business chairing a science based position.
Debunking
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:52pm.
Are you talking about the debunking of differing scientific beliefs?
Your world of not allowing people who have a faith based belief system participate in our political system is a scarry one.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You're not being honest with
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:57pm.
You're not being honest with my statements. I never stated that the faithful should not be a part of our political system. What I did say is that a person who relies on the Bible as scientific proof has no business making science based decisions that will effect our country and our world.
You're misrepresenting what
Submitted by mattm on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:08pm.
You're misrepresenting what creationists believe. We don't rely on the Bible as proof, we rely on scientific evidence. If it just so happens to coincide, in a general way, with what the Bible says so be it. The scientific evidence is against materialistic naturalism.
Don't take my word for it: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
I'm always honest
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:20pm.
Ted Naturalist said: "...a politician who believes the earth won't flood because the Bible said so has no business chairing a science based position".
How isn't that excluding someone from our political system, based on their religious beliefs? I have a hunch that Mr. Shimkus's belief system is getting a little exagerated. But even if he believes what you assert, as long as he is duly elected and works his way through the politcal process, he has as much "business" to chair this committee as anyone else.
And regarding people who rely on the Bible, in just what part of the political system would you allow these people to participate? I'm guessing something short of chairing committees?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
If Shimkus' only basis was
Submitted by mattm on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:43pm.
If Shimkus' only basis was the Bible, the Naturalist might have a point, but then it begs the question: If someone believes in Global Warming because Al Gore said it was true, should that person chair the committee? Personally, I wouldn't need the bible to know that if Al Gore says it, the opposite is probably true.
When you get to the flood issue, according to the hydroplate theory, the pre-flood earth was smaller, and had a more level surface, as a result of the geological processes associated with the flood, the earth expanded in size, the ocean floors spread out and deepened and mountains were formed on dry land, thus allowing the flood waters to run off and providing a place for them.
Whether this theory is "true" or not, the facts (deep oceans, limited supply of water, etc) still provide a scientifically-based reason to think that there will not be a(nother) global flood - and a more scientific basis than Al Gore has for believing that there will be. That the Bible agrees with the facts is simply more reason to believe what it says, rather than what the Globalarmists say.
You wouldn't put Barbara
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 10:02pm.
You wouldn't put Barbara Boxer on a committee to eliminate social programs, now would you?
Same idea - don't put a man on a committee who uses Biblical references as a basis for a scientific argument.
10,000 years old
Submitted by Norto on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 10:46pm.
you doubt this, Ted? Were you there?
10,000 years old
Submitted by Norto on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 10:45pm.
you doubt this, Ted? Were you there?
Yes, I am a time traveller
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:34pm.
Yes, I am a time traveller who seeks out historic events in order to debunk myth.
committe
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 10:53pm.
That Biblical reference, was it historical, faith based or scientific? To my knowledge, limited though it may be, there aren't many books of the Bible establishing scientific inquiry.
Ted - like the new name
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 10:03pm.
Not defending creation - not my place or in my realm of knowledge to do so. But from your comment you seem to be ignoring the fact that many scientist have believed some very off the wall things including that the world is flat, earth was the center of the Universe, etc. I'm not sure it is fair in any way to attack non-scientist (i.e. people trying to get on with there lives and not studying the world around them for a living) for being a little behind.
More importantly many of the great scientist of the ages were greatly supported by the church. Some scientist - not so much. Historically, the church has brought forth much in the way of science and documentation.
It does no good to attack the church for the history of scientific endeavor because they both funded and suppressed science. Science has also done this to itself over the years with its natural blunders in the wrong direction as well as its great leaps forward. Usually after those leaps they get questioned if it is too much. Can't win!
I've been learning more and
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:32pm.
I've been learning more and more about the subject lately. As soon as I finish Evolution and Religion (G Graffin), I'll report back with more useful/useless knowledge. Actually, Anarchy Evolution is first, then Evolution and Religion.
You would call it a draw
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:38pm.
You would call it a draw because faith gives you 100% of the answers. If science hasn't answered it yet, well let's just credit God. Yes, you have that luxury.
Do you believe in Creation? Just curious, do you also believe man is only 10,000 years old?
Stuck
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:47pm.
You should define "Creation" a little better. What do you mean by "Creation". Are you talking about the literal interpretation of the Genesis account where God created the world in six, 24 hour days, and then rested on the 7th?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I'm not sure I can define it
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 7:54pm.
I'm not sure I can define it any other way than its' own meaning. Can you pick and choose which parts of Creation to believe? Creationists believe man has walked the earth for a mere 10,000 years, while the common scientific belief is that homo sapien has roamed somewhere between 250,000 - 400,000 years.
Off topic a little...
Submitted by Rukus on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:04pm.
Naturalist? Are you sitting nekkid at your desk? Never mind, don't answer that! : )
Time to dust off that old
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:56pm.
Time to dust off that old polysyllabic dictionary.
Fun discussion
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:08pm.
But if you can't give some hints as to what you mean by "Creation" then it's pretty hard to say whether or not I believe in it.
And I don't subscribe to your notion that everyone who believes that God "created" the earth and heavens believes in your litteral 10,000 year timeline.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
My understanding is that
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:54pm.
My understanding is that Creation is based on the premise that God had 6 days of creating, and one final day of rest. Just the same, Creationists believe man is roughly 10,000 years old.
Of course it seems the 24 hour day is up for debate. To consider the Bible literally, one must make compromises in time - did God in fact create the universe in 6 "24" hour days, and if not, which Biblical timeline are we to follow?
But then we're not discussing the faithful, only those who adhere to Creation.
I'm glad you acknowledge
Submitted by ant on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 9:31pm.
I'm glad you acknowledge there is a difference between the faithful and those who adhere to a strict, literal interpretation of the Old Testament, a lot of so-called "journalist" don't seem able to understand this. But while I'm here, I'd much prefer a chairperson with a belief in a higher power than someone who believes America needs a socialist face-lift, or that a fetus is a parasite feeding off a ":host", or, as another already stated, anyone who buys Al Gore's 100% certified BS, a misanthropic latino socialist feminist, an affirmative-action useful-idiot community agitator....sorry! Got carried away.
Zippius, Toss in some Time Dilation...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:22pm.
What point in space did the clock start ticking?
Multiply that by gravity..
Looks like there are some strings attached..
6 "days" may be 13.7 billion years..
D’Souza reveals:
Why Christianity explains the universe, and our origins, better than atheism does
Why Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be
Why the alleged sins of Christianity—the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair—are vastly overblown
Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief
Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory
Why Christianity is the ultimate defense of man’s free will
Why ultimately you can’t have Western civilization—and all we value from it—without the Christianity that gave it birth
You Didn't Build That.
Proudly I disagree with
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:35pm.
Proudly I disagree with D'Souza on all points.
Deddy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:18pm.
Not so sure you should say "roamed".........to me it is more likely that for some they could only.........."lean forward"
Ho hum. Another day, another identity.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 8:23pm.
But he's as honest and straight-up as the day is long.
Just ask him.
In the begining
Submitted by davehm on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:30am.
In the begining, (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said "let there be light" (energy)
There you have it.
time
space
matter
energy
Thank you for letting me share.
There is no contridiction between sound proven science and what the word of God teaches.
In the begining
Submitted by davehm on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:36am.
I don't know why I keep double posting