Thursday, May 22, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Letters

Stop Bush from rolling

back clean air laws

Three decades ago a bipartisan group pf senators led by Edmund S. Muskie guided the landmark Clean Air Act to the president's desk. That law was unique. Not only did Congress tell the auto industry to clean up pollution from cars by a certain date, but Congress said the American people were entitled to healthy, breathable air. Moreover, it said where air is clean it should be kept clean, and that new sources of pollution ought to meet rigorous pollution-reduction requirements.

Citizens were granted the right to sue the government and polluters for failure to implement the law. Government rule-makings (or failures to make rules) were subject to judicial review to be sure the tasks set out were accomplished. In 1977, the Clean Air Act was made more specific and yet again in 1990, during the presidency of Bush I, the demand for clean, healthy air was reinforced. President Bill Clinton and his environmental team impemented those laws with much vigor. Polluters were brought to the bar of justice. Health-based standards were tightened to reflect a new science. And the air actually got cleaner.

Times have changed since the Clinton presidency. Clean air is not an objective of the new President Bush or his majority in Congress. His leader in the House, Tom Delay, authored a bill to repeal the 1990 law the president's own father ushered through Congress. Key committee chairs in the House and Senate come from the so-called "toxic triangle" of Texas, Oklahoma and Louisana. And this president has offered a bill that does even more harm to clean air than Delay's bill to repeal the 1990 act.

George W. Bush wants to repeal the basic mechanism by which investments in new or improved pollution sources add clean air technology. And the Bush adminstration is trying to do it by a legerdemain of misinformation about the efficacy of their initiative. Bush II would weaken existing law, eliminate the basis for future (and maybe current) enforcement, and delay the current law's cleanup requirements for at least a decade.

Propelled by the president's affinity for the oil industry but more by his vice president's almost stooge-like obeisance to the mining industry, the Dirty Air Act would cripple current plans to significantly reduce toxic mercury emissions, delay smog-forming controls of nitrogen oxides from 2010 to at least 2018, wipe out rules to protect the scenic vistas of America's parks and wilderness areas AND, worst of all, make it far more difficult to ever achieve healthy air for all Americans. In fact, according a March 3 Knight-Ridder article, "The number of times the air was smoggy enough to voilate the federal health standards soared 32 percent from 2001 to 2002, up for the second straight year." Taking into account newly revised EPA standards, the number of unhealthy days and the quantum of pollution are rising. This is very disturbing news, given the Bush adminstration's relentless push to weaken pollution rules for smog-producing power plants. We are more likely to see smog increase with Bush's push for weakening of the "New Source Review" standards, if we as concerned citizens don't stop him.

--John Marchese

Rock critic made

a good call

Jesus...I mean Jonny Christ! Is this for real? I can't even begin to count the number of truly awful bands I have seen over the years. It's just amazing that no band is ever willing to admit it just might not be good. It's always some mean journalist who's out to get them! Why? I find Jonny Christ's personal stabs at Newt Briggs ["Critic Doesn't Like Band; Band Upset," May 15] to be what is "downright uncalled for and rude." Grow up, Jonny! Nobody should be expected to blindly "stand by the local scene." Maybe more people would stand by it if it wasn't such a joke. The gimmicks are old! Thank you, Newt, for telling it like you see it! I'd rather blow my money on cocktails than a cover charge to see yet another below-average sideshow.

Shame on you, Jonny Christ! Shame on you for coming off like such a whiny bitch. Shame on you for blaming others for your shortcomings. You should never write in to respond to a review that doesn't agree with you! Anybody who's ever been in a band knows that! If you don't want to be criticized, then just stay home. And, as far as that dozen or so people go...most people listen to crap and certainly wouldn't know a good band if it punched them in the Holey Moley.

--A. Moneypenny

Rhodes is about

money, not environment

In recent weeks Las Vegas has been the target of Jim Rhodes' spin marketing campaign. Rhodes would have us all thinking he wants to develop land adjacent to the Red Rock conservation area for our own good. His planned development will destroy the quality of Red Rock.

Rhodes' project will only add to the current traffic problems, noise and air pollution. There are no current roads to support his project. The added cars will only increase the ozone and carbon monoxide pollutants. The added traffic will increase the noise. We are not just talking 5,400 homes, but grocery stores, gas stations, fire and police services too. A city the size of Boulder City is just too large for Red Rock. I bet the casinos would like to be in this development too.

Rhodes say's he's building these homes for the teachers and policemen to afford. Did these people get a raise at work? Do the math, Mr. Rhodes.

If Rhodes wants to do the right thing, he would sell his land to the government and leave Red Rock for future generations. It's a sad day when we have to trust developers with the quality of life in Red Rock. After all, Jim Rhodes is about the money, not the environment.

For these reasons and many more, I am opposed to any private development in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area or those areas surrounding it.

--Chris Fleharty

Cannabis has holy

truth on its side

Yes, the Marijuana Policy Project people are on a rampage ("And Another Thing...," May 8) because responsible cannabis users are tired of the discredited government-sanctioned persecutions. With the holy truth on our side, wolves in sheep's clothing are exposed. Credible cannabis law reform is certain, bet on it.

Would Nevada even have a Las Vegas if it were up to the John Walterses of the world, since gambling, alcohol and prostitution would be prohibited?

--Stan White,

Dillon, Colo.

Will Iraq war vets

get same treatment?

Referring to your April 24 issue, I have several arguments to offer about the article about veterans ["Neglected Warriors"]. I wonder if the Iraq war veterans will come home to a similar attitude? I refer to the "forgotten war" of the '50s. Since there wasn't a "war" as such.

--Larry Hammer