I think that Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Boxer should be given fondest greenhouse wishes.  Let's make Californial the model state for carbon taxes and greenhouse gas restrictions.  If it works, the rest of the country can follow.

I propose for California

1. A ban on the construction of all power plants (except solar and wind)
2. A ban on any  new carbon emitting industrial facilities
3. Strict price controls on the cost of electricity.
4. A surcharge on any  plants which emit CO2
5. A registration tax on cars which use "fossil fuels"
6. A pay at the pump gasoline tax of $4.00 a gallon.
7. Mandatory installation in all homes of meters which restrict electrical use during "peak" periods.
8. Banning the sales of motorized vehicles which use an internal combustion engine.
9. Ban on the removal of foiliage or trees, except trees in the way of sacred solar panels.
10. A tax surcharge to fund tax credits for the use of solar panels. Your 100K investment could yield as much as 200Kwh/month.
11. A tax on overweight people who emit more carbon.
12. A tax on blowhard politicians who emit too much carbon.

Let's call it the "Boxer-Schwarzenegger Experiment". Go for it Barbara and Arnold. Enjoy.

In all honesty I don't know of anyone that claims she is the brightest light in the harbor. That belongs to Hillary.

If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard

A better question is...what's the difference between Barbara Boxer and doing nothing?  Answer: A hell of a lot of damage is avoided by doing nothing.  Barbara Boxer ignores the fact that her original election to the Senate was simply an embarrassing anomaly of the mythical "Year of the Woman" and her subsequent re-elections were due to no-name opponents running with no money.  She is under the delusion that she is wildly popular and highly powerful...of course if she was as popular and powerful as she thinks she is, her own party's leaders wouldn't go to the lengths they do to marginalize her.  I am so ashamed that this poor excuse for a human continues to misrepresent my home state.  You'd have thought she'd keep a low profile in an election year when the sister of her deadbeat dad son-in-law was running for President.  But she loves the camera attention. 

Boxer and Feinstein both come from Northern California, specifically the San Francisco area, [as does Nancy Pulosi] so please don't paint the conservatives in Southern California with the same brush. We don't have the numbers to elect a Senator that represents our interests, or the water to secede from the state and become the 51st state, so we keep getting stuck with those loons. Thankfully, we have the good sense to elect men like Duncan Hunter and Brian Bilbray to the House, so we have some hope.

Chai

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. – Thomas Sowell

Resolution Welcoming Pope Hits Abortion Snag in Congress Before Passing

A resolution welcoming and honoring Pope Benedict XVI to Washington hit a temporary rough patch on the way to its eventual approval — and the rough patch involved the always-nuclear topic of abortion.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., crafted a resolution "Welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States and recognizing the unique insights his moral and spiritual reflections bring to the world stage."

But when the resolution was circulated for approval of all the members, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an outspoken "pro-choice" advocate, put on the brakes.

The offending language: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life."

A Boxer aide pointed specifically to the last 10 words of that sentence, saying it points directly to "pro-life" language.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351613,00.html

Every human life has value?  Who woulda thunk it? 

Certainly not the Democratic Party.

Was Eilperin incorrect to state that Bush's speech was "widely criticized by Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists"?

Or to note that "senior GOP lawmakers, including Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.), the ranking members on Boxer's and Markey's committees, both continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions"?

You criticize Eilperin for not telling readers that "not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be," and you tell us that "There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story."

Well, I believe - so what IS the rest of the story, that Eilperin so shamelessly left out? Who are all of the other critics of Bush? You don't tell us here, and I've looked at your blog - but there's no extra story there, either. Are you not a critic of Bush, or are you simply too busy writing criticizing the Post for leaving out the critics from the right to actually take the time to be a critic of Bush? And I've looked at what Sen. Inhofe has to say - and is he critical of Pres. Bush? Nah ... this is what Sen Inhofe has to say:

“I applaud the President for outlining a bold alternative climate initiative that rejects the concept that the United States must adopt economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill ....

"I have long advocated a technology approach that brings in the developing world nations such as China and India as the only viable approach. ... The President’s approach serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and, along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases.

"Importantly, I believe the President’s proposal is the right one for Oklahoma. We have a proud tradition of leading the country in energy development."

http://epw.senate.go...

Sure, I distrust the liberal media, too. But if there's a huge story about criticism of Pres. Bush from other than the "anti-energy left" that PaPo just glaringly missed, maybe you could be so kind as to point it out? And if you're not happy with the speech, then why not venture to critize it yourself - instead of the Post's coverage?

After all, if the speech deserves criticism from the right, then why don't we criticize it too, directly, instead of just the messenger?

What's the difference between "standing by" while the President advocates policies you don't like and "doing nothing" but criticize the media for not reporting criticism from the right?

Any difference at all?

Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.