To the Editor:
I noticed The Free Press Standard removed “one letter per month per person” from its letter policy appearing strategically implemented toward the May 2010 Primary Election. Is that policy no longer enforced? Was it intended to manipulate an election by keeping citizens from conversing? If yes, then ironic, the FP wrote this allegorical editorial: “It’s not right, not justifiable, not ethical, to change the policy in mid-year.” (Valedictorian change before graduation.)
In the case of FP’s silence of the lambs policy is still in place, I file this letter in their timely fashion, not even at snail mail’s pace, but by the tick’s sweat, who is burrowed beneath a saddle bag on a pack animal in a mule train attempting to cross the line between the protestors protesting the rights of the protestors protesting even though the land protesting upon is a public highway shut off by said toothpicks (miners of data in speech) or in government red tape short, “Harry Reid is Tom Delayed” (what is a prompt read delayed by I’m -uh-grey- (matter) – shun).
To wit: how can a former EMA director locally be irate at citizens due concerns over the drilling for oil in Perry and Center townships.
Consider this Ralph: (extracted from Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling) “We now have a worst case scenario at the Clearfield County (PA) site…a catastrophic release of gas and contaminated water from Marcellus well drilling (An explosion from a methane pocket flared at 50 feet high for four days) This is a public health issue…and would be derelict if it doesn’t act quickly.
In response, Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo (also ironic as in government furloughs) announced a one-year moratorium. “We need to take a step back and re-examine the impact on our environment, on our state’s tourism industry, our labor force, our water resources and on our communities and residents.”
However, the paper reported drilling could bring billions of dollars into the state and create thousands of jobs.
Why do you argue job creation: is it more important than people?
Was government oversight created to ensure the responsible safety of: A.) the people, or B.) the pocketbook of a corporation?
If the people are contaminated, sick and permanently can’t work, how does job creation rationale apply?
Are the people expendable but old manufacturing methods aren’t?
If the village of Carrollton tolerated such drilling, would your letters then argue for the safety of your drinking water and your property? Or would you still be satisfied that a government agency was created to put out the fires that the government tolerated instead of proactively prohibiting by wisely weighing the true costs?
Like a ton of asphalt, reaction is a short stretch that doesn’t last.
There, the sounds of Orwell’s 1984 sequel threat though eminent dissuasion perhaps to hide their participation by some low means like electronic crime leaving a tangled web of swine flu. Do you buy the awareness ribbon, stock in the ribbon factory, get inoculated against rash reaction or all three?
Toward the tradition of Silence DoGood, I opine this lesson: The question of need is only ever answered by Narcissus’ Echo: self-preservation.
Ann Yeager
Amsterdam OH
Editor’s Note: The FPS policy of limiting readers to one letter per person per month and limiting letters to 500 words remains in place. The policy was instituted to prohibit one or two people from monopolizing the reader’s write section and to allow everyone a chance to voice their opinion.
<<back>> |
