10 global events we were all intrinsically part of.

What makes an event memorable? How does a “happening” sear into our collective mindset and take up permanent residence in our hearts and in our souls? Most often, of course, we are not personally there to witness or directly experience occurrences of global importance.

How many of us were in Cairo’s Tahrir square as protests raged earlier this year?

Who among us lost a loved one or ate radioactive food in Japan, or suffered pangs of hunger in East Africa?

In our media-saturated world, memorable events – indeed memories themselves – are delivered to us via an increasingly wide range of words and pictures, bits and bytes, accounts that stream to our attention, some touching us for a moment, some for a lifetime. Here’s a look at our Top 10 (in no particular order), with links to the stories and accounts that made them indelible to us.

1. March of Horrors: Japan’s Suffering

A tsunami generated by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake off the coast of northeast Japan killed nearly 20,000, caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage and triggered a nuclear power plant disaster that unleashed radiation into the environment. Within hours, videos of the unimaginable waves crushing the Japanese shoreline flooded world consciousness via YouTube and other Internet outlets.

2. The Harder They Fall: Arab Spring

Beginning with a small demonstration in Tunisia that grew to topple a regime, flames of unrest spread to Egypt, ousting dictator Hosni Mubarak, and then to Bahrain and Yemen. Eventually Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi would be dead, and even today, Syrian protesters remain caught in a bloody battle with dictator Bashar al-Assad. Did social media enable and perhaps even spark these events?

3. European Disunion: Economic Crisis in the E.U.

The global economic downturn wreaked havoc in the European Union where austerity measures in Greece resulted in riots and protest, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi was driven from office, and measures taken by Germany and France exacerbated an ongoing fissure between the E.U. and Britain. Meanwhile, disagreement about how to avoid a catastrophic meltdown flared across the Atlantic, as opinions about what to do remained as numerous as there are pundits and stakeholders.

4. Wanted Dead: American Operation Kills Osama Bin Laden

In May, American helicopters bearing a special operations team raided a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, killing the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, whose followers carried out the 9/11 attacks. Within hours his body was buried at sea, and images of the corpse suppressed. Instead, a powerful and now-famous image of White House personnel – including president Barack Obama and Secretary of state Hillary Clinton – remotely watching the mission was made public.

5. The Fruit of Invention: The World Mourns Loss of Apple Founder Steve Jobs

The world lost some great minds to cancer and health issues as 2011 wore on, including writer and polemicist Christopher Hitchens and Czech playwright, dissident and politician Vaclav Havel. But, despite the sense that “it was coming,” the loss that seemed to most deeply move our high-tech world was that of innovator, inventor and Apple Founder Steve Jobs. As news of his death spread across the internet in October – in part via millions of his own inventions – biographer Walter Isaccson’s iBio hit the presses, eventually to set new sales records.

6. From Wall Street to Main Street: Occupiers Take a Stand

Beginning with a September protest in a New York City park near Wall Street, what became known as the “Occupy” movement quickly spread to many major American cities and beyond. The “leaderless” protests are said to represent “the 99 percent” against the richest 1 percent of Americans, who benefit from corporate and political corruption and greed at the majority’s expense. In November, images of a campus police officer at the University of California Davis pepper-spraying students went viral over the internet, instantly becoming a rallying point for the movement.

7. Us vs. Them: Obstructionism Paralyzes Washington

Despite being fractured between party traditionalists and Tea Partiers, a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives shackled the hands of Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-led Senate. On issues ranging from the economy to the environment, American leaders reached a seemingly endless stream of stalemates. Most notably, the President unveiled a massive jobs bill that was labeled dead-on-arrival by members of both parties. The New York Times commented on the political gamesmanship, and EcoSalon presented the many rifts dividing America.

8. Weather, Weather Everywhere:  Climate Change Marches On

With drought in Texas, killer cyclones in the Philippines, and monster floods in South America and Thailand, 2011 was another year in what seems like an annual escalation of climate change and severe weather. Perhaps the most wrenching weather-related disaster was the return of drought to the Horn of Africa. Data continues to show the impact humans have on the world’s climate, yet deniers continue their war on science. In October, EcoSalon named names.

9. We are the World: All 7 Billion of Us

As the human population reached the 7 billion mark (with 3 billion more projected by the end of the century), debates about resources and birth control reheated. Can our planet sustain such exponential growth? In its inimitable way, National Geographic gave us the story in pictures.

10. Ask and Tell: End of Anti- Gay Military Policy in the American Armed Forces

After 18 years of controversy, the Pentagon repealed its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in September. After encouraging those who have been expelled under the policy to reenlist, President Barack Obama declared: “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” An MSNBC story covered a historic kiss.

Images: TenSafeFrogs, Official U.S. Navy Imagery, S a l e e m – H o m s i, PIAZZA del POPOLO, bkusler, lwpkommunikacio, bogieharmond, Alex Barth, kevin dooley, woodleywonderworks, Beverly & Pack

Gay rights, gay marriage, and Rick Perry’s war.

Rick Perry’s recent campaign ad, which makes an inexplicable connection between gay rights and religion, has tapped into the soul of the internet with over 660,000 “dislikes” on his YouTube video and a scant 21,000 “likes.” With Perry blaming Obama for a “war on religion” and promising to “fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage,” campaign followers can’t help but take note. Are there really so many sex-crazed gay men enabled by liberal pagans anxious to destroy life as we know it? Just who, exactly, is Rick Perry trying to unite? Certainly not every American.

We caught up with author and photographer Scott Pasfield, whose photographic survey of gay men in America, Gay in America, documents the lives of 140 gay men from all walks of life. According to the Gay in America site, the book is “joyful and somber, reflective and celebratory, each narrative and image is an enlightening look into the variety of gay life in the United States.”

Here’s what Pasfield had to say about the recent happenings with the Republican politico.

Perry’s ad criticizes Obama for reversing the ban on gays in the military. Do you think this ad helps him in any way with voters or just made him look ridiculous?

He certainly thinks that it will help him with voters. The sad fact is that he’ll probably get some to come out and vote for him based on this ideology. If his people did the research, they would see that the numbers just don’t add up, that overwhelmingly, by two to one in most polls, Americans support gays serving in the military. But a lot of closeted gays preferred the system the way it was; the military and church are two places that allow for men to exist, and flourish actually, outside of a normal heterosexual relationship.

As far as I’m concerned, him looking ridiculous is a fringe benefit to this all. It actually brings to light the absurdity of comparing gay rights and school prayer.

With gay right’s groups circulating a petition asking that the ad on YouTube get the “dislike” button, do you think this sends a message to Perry that he might need a new game plan with connecting to voters?

You know, I am not sure how this will affect him. He’ll try anything to climb back to the top of the heap. And I’ve found that often, one’s beliefs about gay rights are generally viewed along party lines. The problem however, is that historically those that shout the loudest against gays usually understand sexual attraction to the same sex all too well. After watching Perry’s new ad, it doesn’t seem that far fetched that he himself could be gay, as many people have noted.  I mean, he is wearing the “Brokeback” jacket that is very similar to the one worn by a couple of the guys in the book and used music inspired by a gay composer.

In your book Gay in America, you feature gay men of all ages, financial brackets, lifestyles and (the cover), a gay man in the military. Why do you think a man like Rick Perry sees an openly gay man serving in the military as wrong?

I can only imagine his reasoning. To me, Perry seems to indicate that he believes that having gays serve in the military is an immoral issue as a country. And since he compares it to prayer in schools it becomes clear his beliefs against gays are religion-based. We all know the religion-based arguments against homosexuals, no need to repeat them here. One can turn on the TV and see the hatred being served up daily if you have enough cable channels. The reality is that gays and lesbians are part of society. We are here for a reason. In an overpopulated world gays make perfect sense. It’s like Mother Nature checking herself a little, no?

And we make the world a much more beautiful place, especially considering we don’t usually have a family to take care of. We contribute a tremendous amount and just want to live with the freedoms that everyone has, and that should include defending the country.

Religion is a hot topic between Republicans and Democrats. Do you think it has any place in a presidential campaign? Should we be praying in schools?

Religion is a hot topic for so many Americans. And so many people in the world. It is the basis for so much love and hatred at the same time. It’s sad, really. I absolutely do not think it has a place in a presidential campaign. Our country was founded and exists today because church and state are separate. It certainly should continue that way. In my opinion, we should not be praying in public schools – let people pray at home. Let them be the religion their parents want them to be and hopefully become educated enough to question that religion at some point in their lives and come to terms with their own beliefs.

What about your book. How can it help people understand gay culture better?

The book serves up American gay men from all walks of life, with amazing stories, written in the first person. They are incredibly honest and revealing of what it means to be gay in this country today, especially outside of the urban areas most people think all gays want to live. Stereotypes are certainly put to the test and laid to rest at the same time. I learned an incredible amount from all these men and in turn learned a lot about myself, which anyone can do, straight or gay.

Times have certainly changed since the Bush years, but big business has only gotten stronger and would love another like-minded president that would favor the rich. I fear that they will stop at nothing to make that happen.

I just read this comment online about Perry’s ad:

“In a political system which is so corrupted by corporate cash, that a presidential candidate needs $1,000,000,000 to stand a realistic chance of getting elected, I hardly think Rick Perry’s absurdly offensive advert really matters. LGBT rights are a polarizing issue in the US. They take the spotlight away from the grim reality that democracy is dying in the U.S. The USA – a government of the people, by the people, for the corporations.”

In my opinion, that hits the nail on the head – that the government has basically been bought by corporations. And diverting attention away from that is key for the system as it exists today. Politicians know that using current decisive social issues is an easy way to swing voters to one side of the fence or the other. Perry is no exception.

From Gay in America by Scott Pasfield, published by Welcome Books. © 2011 Scott Pasfield. www.gayinamerica.us

With a science-hostile Congress moving into Washington next month, now – before reactionary attempts to turn back the nascent clock – is a good time to revisit the benefits of stem cell research.

By way of a quick review, work here in the United States is still in a relatively embryonic stage, so to speak, as it was only in March 2009 that President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13505 – “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The EO revoked one signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, as well as Presidential statement in 2001 that limited federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells. Obama’s order instructed the Director of NIH to “develop guidelines for the support and conduct of responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”

It’s that last bit about the law where the new Congress has the ability to stop and reverse forward motion. Here’s a primer on the progress and opportunities we stand to lose if backward thinkers have their way:

1.  Cures for common diseases

Topping the list is the role that stem cell research and regenerative medicine might – most researchers, in fact, say will likely – play in developing cures for disease that might otherwise be incurable. (Note that: otherwise incurable.) Here’s a short list:

• Parkinson’s Disease
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Heart Diseases
• Diabetes
• Cancer

Know anyone suffering from something on this list? Most people do. And how about this recent headline from the peer-reviewed journal Blood, a publication of the American Society of Hematology: “Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR5 32/32 stem cell transplantation.” Know what that means? Yeah. The AFP reported this just yesterday: “A US cancer patient who received a stem cell transplant has been cured of HIV.” Stay tuned on this one.

2. Reversing birth defects

Studies are showing that by injecting stem cells directly into the brain, neural birth defects may be reversible. This research into treating birth defects is pretty new, but teams have been developing therapies for rodents with real or simulated birth defects in the brain, says MIT’s Technology Review. “Even though most of the transplanted cells did not survive, they induced the brain’s own cells to carry out extensive repairs.”

3. Repairing stroke damage

Science Daily reports that according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, neural cells from human embryonic stem cells “helped repair stroke-related damage in the brains of rats and led to improvements in their physical abilities after a stroke.” This is big news. “The great thing about these cells is that they are available in unlimited supply and are very versatile,” said a senior scientist on the project. “The neural cells the group generated grew indefinitely in the lab and could be an ongoing source of cells for treating stroke or other injuries.”

4. Dealing with spinal cord injuries

Just this fall, a patient suffering from a spinal cord injury was injected with two million human embryonic stem cells. “The hope,” says CBS News Healthwatch, is that “one day this treatment may help the paralyzed walk again.” The procedure took place at the Shepherd Center spinal cord and brain injury rehabilitation facility in Atlanta. The idea is that the cells will become specialized nerve cells which can then be injected directly into the injured area of the spinal cord.  If the treatment works, the progenitor cells will produce new oligodendrocytes (cells that produce myelin, which allows impulses to move along nerves) in the injured area of the patient’s spine, allowing for new movement.

5. Organ repair and replacement

Growing whole organs and critical tissue is a seemingly sci-fi scenario that’s a lot closer than we think – with the help of stem cell research. This new technology could make possible “a virtually inexhaustible supply of organ replacements, thereby doing away with the need to wait for organ donors and removing the risk of rejection.” Entire hearts, lungs, etc., aside, tissue generation has an entire host of curative possibilities.

6. Burn victim relief

Here’s an area where there’s already been a significant payoff as cultivated stem cells are today being used to generate skin grafts. Also, patients whose eyes have been damaged in chemical accidents have had their sight restored using their own stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research plays a significant role helping scientists understand and put to use adult stem cells, as well.

7. Developing new drugs

New drugs can be tested on stem cells to test safety before testing on humans, or even animals, for that matter. In fact, as CNN reports, some researchers are saying embryonic stem cells could end animal testing altogether. Says one expert, “It could save a lot of time and effort of taking the wrong drugs through, or it may allow drugs through which are lost at an early stage, because they affect the animal cells but don’t have an effect on human cells.”

8. (If the science isn’t enough) It’s the economy, stupid

States that support stem cell research have seen significant corporate investment and job creation. Estimates in California, for example, are that $1 billion in investment in stem cell research is not unreasonable. The commercial potential is overwhelming, according those who are in the business.

9. It’s the economy, stupid II

Oh, and don’t we have a little problem with healthcare expenditures in this country? Don’t most experts believe that the amount of money we’re paying out as a society for the sick and dying is going to bankrupt us if action is not taken? How about more healthy people? Seems like something we should be looking into.

10. (If the economics isn’t enough) It’s just the right thing to do

Stem cell research is inherently innovative and efficient, and a practical and a conscious demonstration of caring for those who are sick. These people are not only taxing the system, but they are taxing themselves and their families with trauma and anguish. Scientific progress and human quality of life are inexorably linked in our times and acting to improve and care for the entire system, the whole connected fabric of our existence, is a moral imperative. Consider that more than 100 million Americans suffer from ailments and diseases that may be cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Alleviating human suffering. It’s the right thing to do.

Image: kaibara87

It’s no secret that anything resembling an environmental protection law that even nods to the possibility of human-induced climate change is under sustained and rabid attack by industry groups and the politicians who represent them. (Okay. Breathing.) The tactic over the last two years has been to go after the EPA, which is charged with creating regulations that abide by these laws. Myriad word bombs and legal challenges over the organization’s ethics and tactics have been lobbed at it by climate change deniers for years now.

Well, the Justice Department just made it clear in legal briefing that if you got a problem with the EPA, you should take it up with Congress. (Note: Today’s the day we take stuff up with Congress.) The government’s environmental watchdog is simply executing on existing law. If you’re a member of Congress, then take it up with yourself. Bottom line? If you don’t like what’s going down, change the law, and leave the EPA out of it.

Here’s the verbiage: As reported in Politico, the filing states that states, industry groups and other groups’ objections to EPA rules (here related primarily to the Clean Air Act) “is not really to EPA’s actions; rather it is to the decisions Congress made and to the strict requirements Congress itself imposed on sources of air pollution.”

So it’s the law, stupid. Well, it’s the law for now, anyway. The target on the back of these laws (and efforts to strengthen and update them) may be more attainable for climate change deniers when you get up tomorrow morning. To be fair, both parties have a problem with the existing antiquated Clean Air Act, though efforts to create new law didn’t make it though Congress as it was the last two years. (So keep in that going forward now, we’re not even talking progress. We’re talking about maintaining whatever footholds have been established in recent decades.)

Consider this: Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the favorite to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee if control of the House changes, says he’s geared up to investigate administration’s “poisonous regulations.” In fact, he told Politico that “If we have the gavel, I can assure you that the oversight subcommittee will be very busy. We’ll have a seat reserved for [the administration's top climate and energy advisor Carol Browner].” EPA administrator Lisa Jackon would doubtless be spending a lot of time on the Hill, as well.

Attempting to go with a non-partisan note here, we all have varied opinions on what needs to happen in the arena of federal environmental law. Just ask yourself what it is you want and keep that in mind when you, if you haven’t already, go act on your wishes, that is to say, Vote. Now, please.

Image: samantha celera

The White House is going solar (again). Two weeks ago, Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced at a “GreenGov” symposium plans to install solar panels and a solar hot water heater on the roof of the executive residence next spring. This, they say, is “a project that demonstrates American solar technologies are available, reliable, and ready for installation in homes throughout the country.” Nice. But while the Obama administration’s promotion and support of alternative energy is encouraging, if not exactly aggressive, I’m reading these greening of the White House stories and am not sure whether to be encouraged or depressed. To be sure, this solar panel installation is a good thing. Likewise, it was a good thing four presidencies and three decades ago – when we did it the first time.

Maybe it’s because we’re staring down the barrel, so to speak, of a 1994 redo; a tragic, almost identical backslide to the one that took place on the Hill in the midterms of 15-plus years ago. With this history repeating itself right now, the idea of traction on issues like solar power seems so fleeting. To wit, I bring you Jimmy Carter, who installed similar panels on the mansion to much fanfare in 1979.

It was a move supporting his energy policy, which he discussed in a famous televised speech a few years prior: “Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.” he told us. “It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.”

Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy put an end to that nonsense – immediately and completely. “The budget for the [Solar Energy Research] Institute – which President Jimmy Carter had created to spearhead solar innovation – was slashed [under Reagan] from $124 million in 1980 to $59 million in 1982. Scientists who had left tenured university jobs to work [on the project] were given two weeks’ notice and no severance pay,” Arthur Allen wrote in Mother Jones back in 2000, just months before another Big Oil president would take office. “By the end of 1985, when Congress and the administration allowed tax credits for solar homes to lapse, the dream of a solar era had faded”¦ Solar water heating went from a billion-dollar industry to peanuts overnight; thousands of sun-minded businesses went bankrupt.”

In 1986, when work was done to fix a leaky roof, President Reagan took down the panels. “By ripping the solar thermal (aka solar hot water) panels off the White House roof in the mid 80s to make a “˜statement’ against alternative energy – and for oil – Reagan was instrumental in killing the U.S. solar thermal industry,” says Lisa Margonelli, Director of the Energy Productivity Initiative at the New America Foundation. Sadly, she also informs us that the Virginia company that made the White House panels was out of business by 1991.

So here we are again, more than a quarter of century later, and Obama’s repeat of Carter’s gesture leaves us to wonder where we would be today “if only.” Think about 30 years of intensive, subsidized investment in solar power – or wind, for that matter. How different would our world be today? I’m not just talking about global warming and environmental issues here. I’m talking about jobs. I’m talking about geopolitics. I’m talking about war and peace.

Ironically, as recent as last month, in an effort to avoid comparison to the ill-fated, one-term Carter administration, the Obama White House looked like it was about to balk at installing the panels. So the turnaround (albeit symbolic) this close to election time does indeed show some alternative energy chops.

I hope they’ll still be there in 2015.

Image: Beverly & Pack

From the Hill…

Our friends at the Heritage Foundation (who think Jack Bauer is a real person) have deployed multiple teams of energy, environment, homeland security and response experts to the Gulf to study the federal response to the oil spill. They have visited the areas hit hardest by the crisis. They’ve spoken with response workers, affected oil crews, fishermen, elected leaders and BP representatives. Their finding? President Obama has turned the spill an oil and water equivalent to making a mountain out of a molehill. And you know what? They’re not far off.

From a recent article issued by the foundation’s Web site:

BP is (very) slowly taking accountability for its creation of this crisis. Tony Hayward was finally dismissed as CEO, and they have promised full financial restitution for direct and indirect victims. On Day 100 of the spill, it’s time the Obama administration followed suit.

And what exactly does the administration have to be held accountable for? An environmental disaster made worse by federal incompetence. An unnecessary drilling moratorium that has pulled the plug on a Gulf economy already on life support. A claims process that was negotiated in secret, leaving few answers to why claims aren’t being processed and transparency is lost. A slow response that wasted clear weather days as hurricane season fast approaches, and a decision-making structure led by politics rather than duty.

Environmentally, the President and his eco-left echo chamber consciously chose to ignore the damage caused by the oil in favor of focusing on future tax increases that would expand government largess. The President’s initial push for cap-and-trade taxes as a response to an oil spill was so disconnected and oblivious that it was quickly brushed off by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Even so, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday cap-and-trade taxes were still possible this year if any energy legislation passes the Senate and the bill goes to conference.

Here are some details that are difficult to ignore: the administration assured us that we would not be paying for BP’s mistake at the gas pump, but the recent Reid-Boxer bill moving through the Senate indicates that increased taxes are inevitable and there will be a “drastic increase” in the price of oil per barrel.

Says Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, ”Carol Browner, President Obama’s White House Energy and Climate Czar, recently said she thinks only Big Oil, which would include BP and a few others, should be drilling in the Gulf. With the Reid-Boxer oil spill bill, that’s exactly what will happen. And with this legislation, President Obama’s Gulf energy moratorium will become a permanent moratorium that will destroy thousands of good-paying jobs, restrict America’s ability to produce energy, and make America more dependent on foreign oil.”

BP is claiming a tax deduction worth roughly $9.9 billion. Congressman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) went on record stating this development was “reprehensible.”

This backlash is taking on the kind of viral reach that seems rivaled only by the widespread push for Hope just two years ago, when we as a nation took a look at the current state of things and paved a new path with a presidential candidate named Barack Obama. That kind of credit can never last. Someone has to pay for it when it comes due. It was unrealistic, juvenile and cockeyed to posit that one man – a good, fair and excellent communicator – would be able to Fix Problems Now.

Has President Obama failed us in the Gulf? Not really, but his and First Lady Michelle’s glamorous, nearly placating photo-ops on the beach haven’t helped.

But that doesn’t mean things are going well there, either. On the Louisiana coastline, barriers were delivered but wouldn’t get installed until permits were drafted, agreed upon and issued – that’s a legislative issue that would have benefited from an executive call to action.

The Heritage Foundation would have us believe there’s a superhero who can help in our definite time of need, much the way that progressives did in 2008. Our Hope has warped and exaggerated the candidate Obama’s cure-all promises for actual change. Inspiring, but potentially empty, rhetoric during election season cannot translate into action on the scale that we assumed it would. This isn’t a TV show; there isn’t a quick fix.

But if you’re out there, Jack, we’d really, really appreciate it.

Editor’s Note: This is the latest installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: John Griffiths

I’ll never forget the history professor who was a former Marine and almost certainly shaved with a hunting knife. Equally fluent in Latin and rifles, a class never went by without some outrageous bon mot, leaving us stunned, angry…and often delighted. There were the wildly inappropriate comments about women, women’s gams, whiskey, American cars, and vegans, but the finest insults were reserved for what he called “boys in the big club”: the super-rich or, the people who tell our Congress what to do.

One strikingly sober evening in class, he pitched his cowboy boot on the seat of an empty desk, stroked his jaw thoughtfully, and said, “Let me tell you something. If you want to break the law and avoid jail, break the law big. The more you cost, the more they want to keep you out of there. The lesson is: Go big, really big!”

Darth Madoff notwithstanding, this theory looks to be true. For here, today, we have elected representatives like Joe Barton of Texas outraged, positively seething with impotent fury by the oil spill destroying the economic and environmental viability of millions of…er, scratch that. They’re outraged by President Obama’s “shakedown” of British Petroleum (BP) for a $20B escrow account to begin to address the horrific damage to the Gulf. Nevermind that Team Oil hasn’t even stopped the leak yet or that criminal charges would surely be many times that sum. This nervy move is Chicago-style politics, whatever that is, and did you hear Obama wears fancy pants called khakis? Oh. Em. Gee. We are so not texting him anymore. And you just know he’s personally going to buy even more fancy pants with that undeserved largess.

Mr. Barton: Truly, farts are more useful.

As far as I can tell, “shakedown” in this case appears to mean “being held accountable for your actions,” and if corporations are persons as our Supreme Court holds, why shouldn’t they be? Please to enlighten, Mr. Barton. What you mean?

Perhaps it’s because they aren’t small enough. After all, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said, as quoted in The New York Times, “I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don’t care. But that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.”

Welcome to press conferences with Carl. How charitable of him, right? It got me thinking about small people and frankly, feeling kind of embarrassed, especially for all those pajama-pants bloggers freaking out. Facepalm! Small people just don’t get it. We don’t understand that oil is a natural thing. Because it’s from the earth! Also, accountability is mean and gross.

Carl must wonder what the small people are doing these days. Obviously not much, or they’d be big.

The main problem with the small people is that they are kind of ungrateful. All they do is take, take, take. They take the bus because gas is too darn expensive, they take being fired because they took six hours off to take their hormonally-imbalanced plastic-gumming toddler to the emergency room because their HMO doesn’t take these kinds of cases…see the theme here? Taking. Versus HMOs, which don’t take. Which makes sense, because HMOs are corporations!

It’s an intelligence gap. We small folk don’t understand that corporations are the best thing for us, and therefore should not have to take actual responsibility for bad things that happen as a direct result of their existence, unlike me and the tickets that were a direct result of some adventurous parking choices this spring. You could say I need heavy regulation. And you know what? It works!

But it’s different for the big people because corporations give us arrrrr jobbbbbs! Super awesome jobs with health insurance and vacations to keep us off Prozac and out of drive-throughs but most of all, the jobs from corporations that give us clear water and clean air and edible shrimp. Because this spill? It is a fluke! In the perfect world we don’t actually live in at all, this just doesn’t happen. The corporations and the rules are totally great just the way they are because, again, in the world we don’t live in, they work perfectly! And anyone who says differently is a Rush Limbaugh parody song.

Oh, me. If only my small-people brain were a big-people brain, it could comprehend these multiple universes and find the one where the Gulf is still clean.

Today, after initially complaining that he just wants his life back and subsequently being heavily shushed so Small People Svanberg could handle company communications, BP CEO Tony Hayward expressed his devastation live before Congress. That is terrific. As a small person, I could only feel more satisfied if it came with an order of fries. Give me empty words, or give me American Idol!

Not surprisingly, this whole mess is the fault of the engineers or something, and Hayward didn’t have any dealings with those people. Wait a minute. Engineers are small people! It’s just too easy.

Per his usual, Jon Stewart does the media’s job this week, with his team digging up archived footage of not one, not two, not three but eight U.S. Presidents – going back to Nixon – thundering on camera that energy independence is a priority and will be achieved by 1980 1985 1995 2004 2025…

It’s painful.

“Fool me once, shame on you,” Stewart said. “Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times — Am I a f–king idiot?”

There’s a wonderful line in the song “Backwards Walk” by the Scottish band, Frightened Rabbit, that goes: “You’re the sh*t and I’m knee deep in it.”

Indeed.

EcoSalon will be publishing a picture a day of the Gulf oil spill, every day, until the leak is fixed.

Submit pictures to us: spill at ecosalon dot com

Image: AOL News

UPDATE 2:21 PST: That was fast. Joe Barton formally retracts his apology to BP.

UPDATE 1:33 PST 6/21/10: Hayward spent the weekend on a yacht. Racing it.

It’s always a good time to install solar panels, buy an Energy Star rated appliance or swap your clunker for a hybrid. But we all know Federal and state tax credits and grants make it easier to get the gain without the pain.

“Solar systems typically run $20,00 to $30,000 for homes but with the credits, including  new grants coming available in California, you probably won’t spend more than $10,000,” says Noel Cotter of Luminalt, a San Francisco solar electric and thermal contractor.

Cotter directs visitors to his site to various city incentive programs, such as GoSolarSF for low income residential projects, as well as  the California Solar Initiative, a state rebate that when combined with federal tax credits can cover half or more of the system installed in San Francisco. It’s good to locate programs in your own city, whole checking out the federal programs.

Here are a few credits to entice you:

Home Energy Efficiency Improvement Tax Credits

U.S. Department of Energy: Tax Credit of 30% of the cost up to $1,500 (Cash for Caulkers). Encourages home improvements through rebates for  installing energy-efficient windows, insulation, doors, roofs and heating and cooling equipment in existing homes through December 31, 2010. Energy Star has a list of some of the appliances (furnaces, stoves, water heaters) and materials (panels, bulk insulation, metal and asphalt roofing) that qualify for the credits while also giving you great returns in lower energy bills.

Replacing Your Windows: Part of the IRS Stimulus and Recovery package signed into law Feb. 17, 2009: Raises the level of credits for windows, doors and skylights to 30% and increases the lifetime cap to $1500 for installations prior to December 31, 2010. Which windows get a break? They must have a combination of a less than 0.30 or less U-Value and a0.30 or less SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient). Window manufacturers are stepping up the ad campaigns now to get you to make the switch. You are advised to retain your NFRC certification label with their records, even though you don’t need to submit it with your tax return.

Home Buying Incentive

The Fed: In some cities, it’s challenging if not impossible to live the American dream of owning your first green home, but credits take a bit of the sting out of the process for those who can buy. Congress has extended the $8,000 credit ($4,000 for those filing separately) for first purchases. And an amendment added gifts a $6,500 break to current homeowners who have owned and lived in a home for any five consecutive year period during the last eight years (and must close a sale after Nov. 6, 2009 and before July 1, 2010). Naturally, there are other restrictions. The home’s price tag cannot exceed $800,000 and the income limit for individuals is $75,000 to $125,000 and for joint filers, $150,000 to $225,000.

State Incentives: CA Franchise Tax Board: States like California are desperate to stimulate the economy. That is why Governor Arnold has proposed extending and expanding the $10,000 homebuyer tax credit to include the purchase of existing homes in addition to new homes for first time buyers. The buyer must be a dependent and must buy a home that doesn’t belong to a family member. The tax board will extend the credit to buyers until the $200 million dollars in tax credits have been used up. Check with your state and learn what is being proposed to get taxpayers back on track.

Green Jobs, Too: California green industries putting jobs in place by 2014 could get in on hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits as part of President Obama’s $2.3 billion package to stimulate new clean energy jobs.

Buying or Leasing a Hybrid Car or Truck

The IRS: For vehicles in service purchased on or before December 31, 2010 that are primarily driven in the U.S. The amount of credit on new hybrid gas-electric cars or trucks depends on the fuel economy and weight of the vehicle. Sadly, Toyota and Honda hybrids no longer qualify. Hybrids that apply are those using less fuel than the average vehicle of a similar weight that meets an emissions standard qualify. These tax credits are phased out once the manufacturer has sold 60,000 eligible cars and trucks. A summary of the credit requirements for these cars is provided here. Various 2010 models can be found here.

Hybrid Cars says the biggest impact on green cars is the new tax credit for low-speed neighborhood electric vehicles, electric motorcycles, and three-wheeled vehicles. NEV’s – which cannot go faster than 25 mph – can earn the buyer a credit of up to $2,500, and has been slammed as “pork for golf carts.” Tesla Roadsters and a small number of other costly low-production plug-ins qualify.

Images: waynenf, jurvetson, Ian Muttoo, pfala

It has all the straight-faced sincerity of a legitimate PSA – the weepy, corny variety we usually see before a feature film.

But this mock Public Service Announcement – called Protect Insurance Companies – hits home with the kind of wake-up-and-smell-the-corruption sarcasm that makes you want to storm Washington and burn flags once again (even though we never really do it).

Written by Lauren Palmigiano, Chad Carter and Peter Koechley, it features Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm and other stars making the claim for why insurance executives shouldn’t have to sacrifice their profits and benefits for Obama’s health reforms.

The actors tells us as the health care debate heats up, we have to remember who the real victims are: the insurance companies, who have been looking out for us for so long. It’s time we look after their interests.

“Why is Obama trying to reform health care when insurance companies are doing just fine making billions of dollars in profits?” asks Ferrell. “Insurance company CEOs have the right to their American dream!”

Among the dreams cited, $500 million in your pocket, several homes and a zoo in your yard for exotic animals like white tigers and Pigmy horses.

Among the most laughable lines of this send up (sponsored by Moveon.org) is that insurance companies offer great variety. “They can change the price and terms of your plan at any time or stop covering you all together. Do you want to get rid of those options?”

Is this a good way to get the word out? You betcha!

Fighting for a hybrid in every garage is cake compared to the battle to allow an outdoor clothesline in every yard. Still,  advocacy groups like Project Laundry List are urging a return to the days before newfangled cleaning machines drained our electric bills and resources – a time when nobody flinched at the sight of a big bra or jockey shorts flapping in the wind.

Why do these soldiers refuse to fold?

The advocacy group New American Dream calculates that if every American home switched to cold water for four out of five loads, together we can save $6.7 billion per year and keep nearly 50 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere – the equivalent of removing 10 million cars from the road.

If only 40% of those households also line dried their clothes, the annual carbon savings would more than double.

Founded by Alexander Lee of Condord, NH, Project Laundry List has established a website that tracks states with ordinances banning outdoor clotheslines, such as Oregon. You can watch a compelling CBS video on the site of a feature Bill Geist did about a Bend woman engaging in civil disobedience in her subdivision by fighting for her right to conserve energy.

Nationwide, some 300,000 communities with home owner associations restrict outdoor laundry hanging, according to the Community Associations Institute.

Lee and others argue it is ridiculous to have to fight to hang clothes in your own backyard, and has spurred a national movement of likeminded enviromentalists. He has gone so far as to suggest the Obama White House reinstate clotheslines on the lawn as it once had in the early 1900s. You can vote for this as well, on the site.

Lee and his Laundry List have weight behind them with board advisors that include famed forward thinker,  Dr. Helen Caldicott and Dick McCormack, a former Vermont State Senator who re-introduced the Right to Dry bill in 1999, which his brother had introduced almost 10 years earlier. It resulted in passage this year, making it no longer a crime to do the right thing.

Helping push the bill along in Vermont was the owner of the wholesome Vermont Country Store. Owner Lyman Orton has written editorials in his national catalog and other media to egg on  homeowners to “set up a clothesline and hang your wash out even if you live in a neighborhood or subdivision where doing so is prohibited.” He asks rhetorically, “Is it not the height of snobbery to ban hanging clothes out to dry?”

Even before Vermont lawmakers got their act together, Orton was selling clothesline products, such as sheets specifically designed to billow in the breeze.

There are many such “Laundry Heroes” identified by Project Laundry List, including actress Daryl Hannah, Vermont Governor Jim Morris and Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario, Canada (above), who signed a rule allowing millions in the Province of Ontario to hang dry to their heart’s content.

To review more of the group’s accomplishments, check out the site and see what you can do to further the cause. Your backyard is standing by and waiting for you to feed it a line.

Ontario premier lifts outdoor clothesline ban (CTV.ca)

Images: Cyron, Vermont Country Store, CTV