Opponents of 'Clear Skies' Bill Examined

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Feb 19, 2005.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clear19feb19,0,5649063.story
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #2
    My heavens, yes! We wouldn't want any outside interests influencing government policy, would we? [​IMG]

    Damn straight! Hooray for Waxman for speaking out.


    This administration just keeps setting new lows in slimy behavior. :mad:
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    Everybody who donated money to the Kerry campaign better lawyer up now for those IRS audits.
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    pseudobrit's "Everybody who donated money to the Kerry campaign better lawyer up now for those IRS audits." has been a standard tactic that was refined by Lyndon throughout his career. I hadn't heard as much about that tactic, these last dozen or twenty years. :)

    Isn't it correct that not-for-profit corporations are not supposed to lobby? That would explain Inhofe's questions. Looks like poor staff work...

    "The measure would set new emission standards for three major pollutants and introduce a market-based approach favored by industry. Proponents say it would reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions by 70%. Opponents say reductions could be achieved faster through tighter restrictions or other approaches, including existing Clean Air Act regulations."

    I read one critique which focussed more on the time element, rather than the reductions. A major issue is getting the process out of the courtroom. Right now, legal delays are a major problem. It strikes me that it's very similar to the Super Fund situation, where most of the $30 billion which was appropriated has been wasted in legal squabbles instead of being spent on cleanup. There is no way anything "could be achieved faster" when the lawyers get involved.

    'Rat
     
  5. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5
    Be careful your answers haven't already been predicted and spun. Good propogandists don't take action without accounting for possible retorts.

    [​IMG]

    Avoid spin now, make your replies Administration specific.
     
  6. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #6
    How do you label something clean air when it makes the air dirtier?
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Take some time out to reread 1984. I think we should just cut to the chase and demand everyone sign a public loyalty oath to the fearless leader. Perhaps we could follow that up with a law that all must bow to the ground in his presence. Whatever we do, it is time to stop all this questioning of his wisdom and if it takes a little ... persuasion, well so much the better.

    Am I getting it right, now?
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    In all seriousness, how do you judge/determine who is ultimately to blame here?

    While I definitely do not agree with Bush's activities in the WH, I do not think he is necessarily a bad man, or a megalomanic, or an evil bastard.
    I also do not think he is an idiot or a nut.

    If I was to bring in references (literary or popular) I tend to think more "machurian candidate" or "the candidate" (iirc, the Robert Redford flick) when thinking of Bush.

    Ultimately, I am just confused as to who to assign accountability to, for what, and in what circumstances. This seems to me to be more of an enevitable product of the nature of the modern Political system, which seems deliberately byzantine either as a function of certain interests or as a byproduct.

    Specifically related to this thread-topic, who named the "clear skies act"? Who approved it? Who even read it? Repeat ad infinitum.

    I do not mean to let Bush off the hook here, and you may say as head of the Government, the buck should stop with him regardless, but at the same time, I have a hard time figuring out whether this is indicative of deliberate policy, or a series of accidents/unintended-consequences and who is complicit here - the system? The President? The Senate leadership? Corporations/special interests? The pundits?The people?

    Somehow I believe that the ship is steering us as much as the other way around.

    last time I post coming home from the bar, hope this makes sense...
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    It seems to me that the corruption of the language is commensurate with the corruption of the politicians who abuse it. If they had any honest principles, they could be described in honest language.
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    If you look close Bush and his cronies republicans are using phrase that are just the opposite of what they do. this is one, no child left behind is another, ever hear of the Patriot act? its anything but patriotic. This is George's spin. Ignorant americans are dumb enough to latch on to his catchy phrases of spin thinking these bills do as they are named when in reality they do the opposite.
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #11
    I agree with Don't Hurt Me.

    But if Bush isn't necessarily the one coming up with these Orwellian names, then somebody else is. Probably Rove, Cheney, or the Republican leadership.
     
  12. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    No, it is not correct. Nonprofit companies and organizations lobby all the time. A not-for-profit organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code can lobby all they like. If they are organized under 501(c)(3) they can lobby also, but with stricter limits.

    Still, this is clearly not what the Senator's inquisition is all about. He's trying to get at who funds one particular organization and is using the levers of governmental powers to do it. He's essentially accusing them of lying about who they represent. I looks like old-school harassment to me.

    But I know, I know, they all do it. Life is good. Etc.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    And yet if you asked for information on just who was even sitting at the table and what they said during the meetings to formulate energy policy, you'd probably get a stonewalling from this guy and nearly every other right-winger who'll sit here and tell us why we need to know who's funding these groups.

    Who know's they might be the dreaded environmentalists, monsters so hideous they make Hillary Clinton look like a sweet old-fashioned woman ready to put two steaming pies on the windowsill before heading back to her place to care for her 12 children. And nothing makes a conservative froth at the mouth like HRC...
    ;)
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    Now, now, it's "clear skies," not "clean air" they're championing.

    They're perfectly okay if the skies go from clear blue to say, clear brown.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    perhaps 'clear' refers not to pollution, but regulation.
     
  16. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    I've always understood the "Clear Skies" program meant clear of birds. A goal that is well within reach.
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    (Now that my phone line is back working...)

    Thanks IJ. I don't care who lobbies, just as I don't care who gives money to candidates: I just wanna know who's the money behind whomever.

    Seems to me the only way there will ever be clear skies is to quite burning hydrocarbons.

    Skies clear of birds? Yeah, well, let's keep on adding towers for radio and TV, as well as wind generators. And remember that cell phones are radios.

    Somebody interviewed a janitor for a Tallahassee TV station. (Dunno why.) Anyhow, he mentioned that a daily chore was picking up bird carcasses at the transmitter tower. And, there was a lengthy three-part article in the Atlanta Constitution three or four years ago about the impact of tower technology on birds--and it's apparently worse during migrations...

    'Rat
     

Share This Page