well heres old waxman doing what politicians do best, slight of hand, dissembling, creating more anarchy to cover your own failings and attempting to damage others for pol. cover..great...etc.....Sorta like Kyoto, bang everyone else on the head while not even getting close to taking care of your own backyard...

Beverly Hillbully
May 19, 2008; Page A14
In politics, not everything is at it seems. And there's no better example than the case of the Congressman from Beverly Hills who is crying "pollution" as a way to protect his own district's polluting ways.

That politician is Henry Waxman, who is shouting at his usual 100 decibels that the Environmental Protection Agency hasn't imposed strict enough standards on atmospheric ozone. Never mind that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson recently imposed the toughest standard in history at 0.075 parts per million. On Tuesday Mr. Waxman plans to assail Mr. Johnson and White House regulatory czar Susan Dudley at a public hanging, er, hearing for "interfering with sound science" on the ozone rule.


Mr. Waxman purports to be upset because the EPA's science advisory board had endorsed a standard between 0.06 and 0.07, down from the current 0.084. Many others, including government and industry officials from around the country, had urged EPA to keep the current standard. Mr. Johnson split the difference, explaining that virtually all of the remaining human health risks from ozone could be eliminated at 0.075 parts per million.

This is a reasonable judgment given that ever-tighter ozone standards cost a great deal to meet but yield ever-smaller gains in public health. The big problem with the science board's recommendation is that nearly 90% of U.S. cities would have been in instant noncompliance. They would then have had to limit vital economic activity – road building, factory production – to meet the standard. And unemployment is bad for public health too. The Congressman is also protesting that Ms. Dudley and President Bush influenced the EPA's decision, as if the President shouldn't control the executive branch.

As it happens, Mr. Waxman's own 30th California House district is already in gross violation of even the 1997 Clinton Administration standard of 0.084. This is part of the wealthy automobile mecca of Santa Monica, Westwood and of course Beverly Hills. In fact, Southern California is the only area in the country that has been designated by the EPA to be in "extreme noncompliance" with the ozone standards, which conveniently means it has been granted 20 years to clean up its act.

The odds are close to zero that Mr. Waxman's district could come anywhere close to complying even with the new EPA standard, much less the one the Congressman wants to impose on the entire country. According to Joel Schwartz, a clean-air scientist with the American Enterprise Institute, "even if Southern California abolished every automobile in the metropolitan area, it couldn't meet these stricter rules." We'd love to see how many of Mr. Waxman's constituents would give up the keys to their Lexus convertibles and hop on a Los Angeles bus in exchange for a minuscule improvement in air quality.

Ah, but here's the rest of the story: It is precisely this Los Angeles pollution failure that is Mr. Waxman's real motivation for his anti-Bush air pollution yapping. According to EPA records, the politicians who lobbied most strenuously for the strictest ozone standards are from cities and states with the dirtiest air. New York and California pols were especially vocal. Meanwhile, the places that are generally meeting clean air goals were more likely to request that the existing rules continue.

What explains this paradox? States and cities like California that haven't met the clean air guidelines have been losing factories and new businesses to places that can. So one way for greens and their political allies to create a "level playing field" is to make the clean air standards so unachievable that virtually all U.S. cities can't comply. It's a classic beggar-thy-neighbor political strategy.

And it punishes all of those cities that worked hard over the years to reach attainment, most of them far less affluent than Mr. Waxman's tony environs. That's the real story behind the phony ozone outrage he is staging on Tuesday. The Congressman from Beverly Hills is all for cleaning up the air – except in his own backyard.

Beverly Hillbully - WSJ.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I wonder if Mr. Waxman has been lobbying our California governor? He could request that our states' executive department transition to alternative fuel vehicles to help with air quality.

Our state, could request financial assistance from the general government of the Union to promote and provide for the general Welfare of the United States, by implementing better waste water management systems that are capable of processing industrial wastes, instead of venting them into the atmosphere.

Also, since fire season is around the corner, making available California Guard transport craft and ensuring water cargo capability could help prevent more pollution and limit property losses and associated costs. Future Guard cargo capable aircraft could employ modular systems that incorporate fire suppressing capability as a multi-role function. In-flight resupply of water or other fire suppressant material could be a possible consideration that could be factored into the design of new craft.

uhm what do you mean waste water venting? Vapor? The waste is treated to 99.9% purity , natural evaporation does the rest....

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

What state has any national guard equipment left in the US? My state, which formerly used national guard men and equipment for fire fighting on state and federal lands, has contracted everything out ever since the national guard was thrown into Iraq duty. Our national guard, in a country where defense is supposedly the primary military duty, is being as misused as the regular military.

according to whom or what?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Any reasonable person.

sooooo its an opinion?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I could throw in 70% of Americans with the same opinion.

I believe that Schwarzenegger has the best intentions as governor, but as a person he is quite embarrasing to say the least. I saw a documentary about action heroes the other day where they interviewed Schwarzenegger, and he strongly stressed the importance of foreigners in America learning english as fluently as possible in order to be integrated. The putz himself has now lived in America for 40+ years, and he cannot even pronounce the name of the state of which he is governor. That idiot!

__________________
January the 20th 2009. The day I started to respect America!

I may not have explained the concept very well. I meant, wastes that are currently being vented into the atmosphere could be processed through industrial waste water management systems.

Does anyone have an opinion regarding how US senators are elected to Congress?

It used to be that they were selected by the state legislature. That was changed to popular elections after a media mogul found out how easy our state representatives to government can be.

From the perspective of states' rights, I am of the opinion that California may be better served if our senators to Congress were selected by the state legislature as it was previously, but with better provisions against media moguls manipulating their media for private fun and profit, at public expense.

From one perspective, being accountable to fellow politicians actively involved in state politics may provide a better framework for cooperation between the general government of the Union and that of the several states, and California specifically.

I am not implying that media moguls should be prohibited from being selected for glorious patriotic duty in the Congressional senate, but only that they be selected by a higher majority than non-media moguls. An example would be four-fifths of the state legislature versus a simple majority or three-fourths.

What if nobody could get a supermajority? The minority party could benefit their national interests by denying representation.

As for your typical liberal tripe about big business and "moguls", sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a thing called the First Amendment.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

You seem to be implying that only media moguls would be manipulating our state representatives to government for private fun and personal profit. Other non-media moguls could also campaign for federal office without any stricter requirements.

I am not suggesting anyone be denied their First Amendment rights and powers. Petitioning for redress of grievances and running for elected office are two different things. Simply having stricter requirements for people who own a controlling interest in mainstream media would be not much different than having non-similar age requirements for different houses of congress and should be disclosed as a matter of course during any campaign for elected office.

Actually, you are the one who seems irrationally fixated on media moguls. Why single them out if others can exercise similar influence?

How do you feel about McCain-Feingold btw? Doesn't that legislation itself increase the power and influence of "media moguls"?

Of course you are, I defy you to come up with a single "provisions against media moguls manipulating their media" that doesn't violate their first amendement rights.

You will have to elaborate, because this seems like a meaningless point in the context of this discussion.

It is completely different, if you bother to read the Constitution that would be clear. The former is prohibited by the First Amendment, the later is mandated by Article I.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I thought the point was that mainstream media moguls have a conflict of interest in reporting news and manipulating public opinion to suit their private profit motive.

Consider that my capitalism friendly version would automatically qualify industry moguls like Mr. Gates and Mr. Grasso for elected office, if they choose to run for public office.

Nothing I am advocating for should be construed that any citizen of the Union should be denied or disparaged in their petitions for redress of grievances.

Running for public office has always had criteria for eligibility. Why should the populace of the sovereign state of California be required to endure the mistakes of the past, when market friendly public policy could ameliorate the standard of living of the populace of the US.

Are you also implying that our representatives to government have no power to legislate and enact laws and regulations not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?