Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Letters to the editor

In his own words?

Editor:

Steve Pearce has again (Saturday, April 23 El Defensor Chieftain) addressed Socorro and nearby communities with a down-home, personalized message via its smalltown newspaper, the El Defensor Chieftain. This time it is about the Republican energy bill that is really close to passing.

However, some of the text from the article in question bears a striking similarity to that in an article by Charli Coon at Heritage.org:

For instance, Pearce says, "I have received numerous constituent complaints about high gasoline prices and the summer driving season has not yet started. While government policies are not the sole reason for these high prices, they do contribute to regional and seasonal price fluctuations that increase costs and reduce flexibility to meet consumer demand."

The article by Coon states: "Members of Congress have already received complaints from their constituents about high gasoline prices and the summer driving season — with its increased demand — has not even started ...While government policies are not the sole reason for these high prices, they do contribute to regional and seasonal price fluctuations that increase costs and reduce flexibility to meet consumer demand."

Other passages are almost identical as well. Because Pearce does not give the source, this is plagiarism, which is a lie. (Recall that Pearce also lied when he said that FDR was in favor of social security privatization.)

Heritage is, of course, the right-wing advocacy tank that "wrote the book on how to market and popularize political ideas" (Will Marshall).

Its president, Ed Feulner, has said, "We conduct warfare in the battle of ideas." (And, he should have added, we have lots of money to do it with, being the recipient since the Reagan administration of large gifts from corporations whose self-interest is in promoting lower taxes and less regulation.)

With regard to the message (not so personalized, after all!) that Pearce is trying to convey, he says that:

1. Ssomething must be done to lower gas prices.

2. Taxes on gas and the lack of crude oil are the reasons for high prices.

3. If we had drilled in the Alaskan National Wildlife refuge 10 years ago instead of allowing Clinton to nix it, we'd now be getting 1-2 million barrels per day.

4. We should deregulate refineries so we can build more of them, because more US oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Pearce doesn't mention providing incentives for alternative energy sources because the energy bill barely addresses the issue. And to the above four items, I have the following comments:

1. Some of us actually want higher gas prices to stimulate alternative vehicle design and slow down the exhaustion of a non-replenishable resource.

2. The oil and gas industry will be glad to hear about those lowered taxes, though they're bad news for the huge national deficit.

3. He doesn't mention that ANWR will only provide about 180 days of gas for the entire nation. (The 10 years he mentions is the lag between the start of development and when production actually begins.)

4. A lot of those refinery regulations are for the purpose of protecting local environments (as are the state fuel-additive regulations the bill also intends to do away with).

A part of the bill, which Pearce doesn't mention, is intended to centralize, streamline and secure the generation and delivery of electrical power. This isn't a bad idea. It would seem somewhat out of character coming from the people who want as little government as possible, if one didn't realize that they don't want the kind of government that makes individuals depend too much on the state, and that they do want as much government as possible of the kind that fosters corporate dependency on government. Since efficient electricity helps corporations, including the oil and gas industries (electicity production is powered by fossil fuels), they'll go for it.

Jan Deininger

Socorro

Over the edge

Editor:

As I was watching the Monday night meeting (April 18) of the city council meeting, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. While discussing a motion o the subject of removing our police chief from office, Councilor (Gary) Jaramillo and our mayor, Ravi Bhasker, threatened to come to blows over the issue.

While I'm not taking sides, because I don't have facts in the issue, I find it totally out of order and an embarrassing display of poor tempers on both sides. There was a young boy in the audience, as the mayor so proudly pointed out. I'm sure that not only was he taken aback but also the many students of high school age or college age, who happened to be watching on television. There are many young people in our community who watch our council meetings to learn more about how local government works. Needless to say, I for one am totally embarrassed by the display of our local elected officials. I can't believe they would act this way. One could compare them to two junior high boys wanting to "duke it out" behind the building after school.

Is it not enough that our local leaders have been convicted of DWIs? That alone is a despicable example for Socorro's youth. Do we then have to broadcast childish behavior all over town for the whole community to see? These men are supposed to be an example of leadership for our youth. If this is leadership, then I believe we need a complete overhaul of the system.

Mr. Jaramillo and Mayor Bhasker should both strive to grow up! If differences arise, as they will I'm sure, they should take them into private quarters and discuss them like gentlemen, not children fighting over who is the biggest and toughest. I've never been so ashamed of our council and I, like many I'm sure, will think twice about voting for either of them again.

Marilyn K. Combs

Socorro

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version