Goodbye Mike & The Monitor Editorials

I read with sadness that Mike Pride is exiting the Monitor. I seldom agree with Mike but I have to admit that most of his editorial positions were balanced and demonstrated an understanding of the world and left the door open for debate and other points of view. I want to thank Mike for his work on the WWII initiative and for bringing the many great stories of those to heroes to life. Thanks Mike, you will be missed.

That brings me to analysis of some of the editorials of late. I could be dead wrong but it seems as if the baton has been handed on to a group of less seasoned, more partisan agenda driven writers. The views are very slanted, often parroting talking points of the DNC and written in a sophomoric tone that reminiscent of a pie eyed college student, enamored by the inspirational yet biased teachings of a doctrinaire college professor.

Two recent Editorials really raised my ire, “The Fat Lady is Singing Songs of the Open Road” and “Offshore Drilling Won’t Lower the Price of Gas”. Both concern the oil shortage and both ignore a multitude of facts and come to conclusions that offer little in the way of solutions.

The Fat Lady is Singing Songs of the Open Road

In the “Fat Lady” editorial the writer stated that Jim Lundberg claims that we have reached ‘peak oil’ but for every Lundberg there is an expert saying that we have 100 years or more of oil left under our feet. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma’s School of Geology and Geophysics states: “No one can predict the future, but the world contains enough petroleum resources to last at least until the year 2100. This is so far in the future that it would be ludicrous for us to try to anticipate what energy sources our descendants will utilize”.

So, are we operating within our sphere of influence or are we reacting irrationally to our sphere of concern. Surely, we should develop alternative sources of energy and the budget and research for that ought to be aggressive. We should not, however, be reactionary and accept the Monitor’s premise, “There's not much time to adjust to what appears to be the new energy reality.”

Like the global warming debate, politically savvy individuals attempt to define the oil debate as ‘settled’. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many things that we can do to balance fuel prices and plan for the future beyond conservation, beating ourselves up and taking cover as we play the role of Chicken Little. The editorials of late promote this viewpoint.

The Monitor editors wrote on: “The Bush administration and Congress, like their predecessors, squandered the opportunity to rebuild America's rail and mass transit systems by raising a federal gas tax that's an insignificant 18.4 cents per gallon.”

A noble thought but rail is not an ideal way to travel. No one who has traveled on the “T” ever referred to it as a memorable experience? Take a ride on New York’s subway and explain how that is nothing short of disgusting, cold and defensive.

The rail experience is like herding cattle and most who pine for that alternative envision it like Amtrak’s Acela. Others have a vision of some nostalgic experience of retro America. Both scenarios are a departure from the reality of the situation. Public rail would be closer to a bad Greyhound experience with graffiti laden, urine scented capsules taking commuters on a dreaded daily excursion.

The stress of having to plan your day around public transportation could be far more angst filled than your average workday.

The Monitor made several valid points in "Fat Lady", which illustrated their understanding of economics and the impact that gas prices have on hard working Americans which was both surprising and refreshing.

Their analysis of the impact that rising fuel prices have on schools, meals on wheels, commuting to churches and employment in the service sector, was right on the mark. Maybe the Monitor editor’s really do understand how the economy works.

The ‘fat lady’ in the room is a manikin propped up by politicians, lobbyists and speculators whose real agenda is to cause panic, doom and gloom and hysteria while ignoring common sense solutions.

Offshore Drilling Won’t Lower the Price of Gas

Like the education funding debate over the past few weeks where the editorials focused on the need for taxes, the editors at the Monitor are now concentrating their focus on the oil dilemma. This editorial talks about easing the price but offers no solutions to the hardship that New Hampshire citizens are facing. They accuse McCain of pandering (Hillary as well) and state: “Set aside concerns with environmental issues and the possibility of oil spills.”

Let’s stop there for a minute. When has there been an oil spill over the last 25 years form an oil rig in the ocean? Even through the winds and destruction of Katrina, no oil was spilled into the Gulf. Other countries drill off of our coast, yet we can not by decree of Congress. I would trust our own companies over the Russians, Chinese or Japanese, not to cause a spill.

The editor goes on to say that drilling will not have a meaningful impact on the cost of gasoline, diesel fuel or heating oil-“not by November”. Well, because we took that approach under Bill Clinton, ANWR was not developed and if it had been, 1 million barrels of oil daily, would be flowing today through a pipeline in Alaska that is only 30% utilized. There has to be a starting point and that time is now. The longer we delay, the longer Americans will suffer.

The Monitor goes on to state that OPEC nations are believed to have about 84% of the world’s remaining oil. That is according to the Department of Energy but recent discoveries in states like North Dakota and Brazil seem to disprove this.

That data also refers to “proven” reserves which is misleading. “Unproven” reserves are those found by exploration and offshore drilling could yield quantities 10 times as large according to petroleum companies. Many of those reserves are off of the continental shelf and many oil producers believe that there are trillions more gallons of oil in the Gulf.

The editorial piece goes on to say that due to our smaller population that we basically will need to suck it up and pay the price. I think this speaks volumes about the lack of resolve of those who take this viewpoint.

FDR took the initiative to rally the population and drive back our enemies in World War II. This struggle is no different and throwing up our hands, using arguments of absolutes solves nothing.

One of the most blatant statements in this editorial was: “Thanks to the enormous profits they’ve been earning while consumers suffer, they have money to burn. “ That is a DNC talking point and no matter how often you show a pure partisan that oil companies earn 8 cents a gallon while the government takes around 43 cents, they refuse to discuss the point….instead avoiding the argument all together.

Beyond that, the oil companies are owned by our fellow citizens who risked their pension funds, personal funds and hard earned money to expect a return on their investment. Economy is dependent upon the “profits” that the Monitor editor(s) find so distasteful and squeezing the oil companies will have a devastating impact on retirees and those investing for retirement.

The editor(s) show naiveté and a lack of facts; replacing honest debate with partisan talking points from one political point of view, stealthfully dismissing any dissenting opinion.

The editors ignore the fact that there we have more than an either / or choice in these matters. There is neither “settled” science nor “settled” opinion. To declare that there can be no debate, exchange of ideas, compromise of approach or give and take will do a disservice to the citizens of this country. To state that we should just accept this fuel dilemma and get used to it is lazy and foolish.

People on both sides of the aisle are fed up with the politics; they want answers and cooperation between both sides of the aisle. That means compromise!

I do a lot of writing; on this blog, on other blogs, in other publications and often send responses to the Monitor columns, letters and editorials. My hope is that they welcome the challenges to their opinions and will continue to do so, in the spirit in which Mike Pride has in the past.

I get many responses printed in the Monitor but BlogsNH also allows many of us an outlet. From time to time when I feel passion to write a piece on a strongly held opinion and answer an editorial or column and it looks that it will not be printed; I like to post it here.

I know that my writings raise the ire of many, including those at the Monitor, perhaps to the extent that some of the Monitor editorials and columns raise mine. In the end, it is all good.............