Where’s the oil?

To the editor:

In an August 19 letter to The River Reporter, Clem Fullerton chided young Marygrace Kennedy for “erroneous thinking” in her thoughtful August 12 column about “the ethics of our relationship to technology.”

Kennedy asked, “If we have the ability to harness the wind and sun, why has the Gulf of Mexico been turned black?”

Fullerton rejoined that “the Gulf is not black, and is indeed quickly recovering from what… was a minor industrial accident.

“The people of the Gulf were damaged more by our national press and the actions and statements of the president than by the relatively small amount of light crude oil that leaked from that well.”

But how reliable is Fullerton’s account?

A United Press International article of August 19 cast doubt on U.S. government and BP assertions that “oil leaked from the damaged gulf well has either evaporated or been dissipated.”

“Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts said they have detected an oil plume at least 22 miles long more than 3000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico’s surface… The scientists say the plume from the spill is 1.2 miles wide and 650 feet high.”

The next day The Scranton Times-Tribune summarized research by scientists from Georgia and the University of South Florida with a headline: “Gulf Surface Clean; Woes Below.”

The Georgia group calculated that “as much as 80% of the oil from the spill remains in the Gulf”—principally “below.” Scientists “also found poisoned plant plankton—the vital base of the ocean food web.”

And by week’s end, researchers from the Center for Biological Diversity were noting that seemingly cleaned-up beaches often “sit atop massive amounts of oil.”

“We’re getting all these reports that the oil is gone… Being down here, you can see it’s not gone. You touch the beach and it starts bubbling up.”

It’s not Marygrace who is misinformed

To the editor:

After reading the condescending chiding in Clem Fullerton’s August 19 letter on the BP oil calamity, it seems it is he who is misinformed on the responsibly for this debacle. Mr. Fullerton’s arguments have been lifted straight from the propaganda playbook BP manufactured in its frantic efforts to cover up and deflect blame for the catastrophe it caused in the Gulf of Mexico. With references to a “minor industrial accident” and “relatively small amounts” of leaking light crude oil, Mr. Fullerton promulgates BP’s attempt to trivialize and dismiss what is, in fact, their responsibility for the huge, horrific befouling of the land and waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

This devastating oil disaster was not caused by statements or actions of government officials, or by manufactured figments of misleading media hype. The cause of this ecological and economic catastrophe was the unbridled avarice of BP, another huge business conglomerate run by people with the sole motivation of making obscene amounts of money as quickly as possible, and hang the consequences to everyone else. (Fracking advocates, are you listening?) The money BP spent on its damage control propaganda blitz would better have been paid directly to those people affected by this disaster, where it might actually have helped mitigate the destruction and devastation caused by BP’s greed motivated mishandling of deep sea drilling technology.

Young, intelligent Marygrace Kennedy was right on. It is writing like hers that keeps me a solid River Reporter subscriber. Keep up the good work.

Star D. Hesse

The Partnership should obey the existing rules

To the editor:

Your editorial “Transparency” states that in small communities like ours, it may be impractical to require board members of organizations like the Sullivan County Partnership to abstain from voting every time a decision may affect their personal business interests. After all, virtually any decision is likely to affect the business interests of some, or all, of the board members, and widespread abstentions could lead to paralysis.

This is an excellent point—and one that seems to have been anticipated when the bylaws of the Sullivan County Partnership were adopted. Article VII, which addresses conflict of interest, does not require a board member to abstain from voting on any decision. It does require members to disclose conflicts of interest, in writing in the minutes, before voting.

The partnership bylaws, like your editorial, recognize that transparency is the key to ensuring that taxpayer-funded entities like the partnership operate “in order to benefit the general public” as they are required to do.

Perhaps the partnership doesn’t need new rules, perhaps it needs new leadership that will enforce and obey the existing rules and give the public an opportunity to see how it’s spending our money.

(By the way, achieving transparency on the part of the partnership remains an elusive goal. Seven weeks after I asked the partnership to provide me with the minutes of its 2009 meetings, I still haven’t been able to obtain them.)

Sager more innovative on gas

To the editor:

In response to a letter to the editor in the August 19 issue, I also appreciate the current state senator’s belated acknowledgement that gas drilling has negative consequences for New York. But at this time, we need leadership. David Sager is an innovative thinker—he recognizes that gas drilling will lead to long-term economic costs and adverse impacts to the social fabric. He understands that our area consists of various farm operations, a strong recreational, hunting, fishing and tourism economy and many second homeowners who benefit our community.

David Sager, as our next state senator, will rid Albany of its stagnation and paralysis. His campaign may not have the big funds of his opponent, but Sager has ideas and ideals that surpass most entrenched politicians. He thinks of what his constituents need, not how to preserve his power. He cares about an open and transparent government, renewable energy, taking the government back from big interests and big money, and giving hope to all citizens—issues we need our representatives to value.

An accomplishment to be celebrated

To the editor:

Well, G.W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq about seven years ago, and we know how that worked out. A veteran myself, I watched for several hours on MSNBC and CNN, (it wasn’t carried on FOX) the final U.S. combat troops leaving Iraq, and entering into Kuwait.

It was historic, somber, but a fitting accomplishment for our President. It won’t be widely applauded on the right, but Obama promised to end the war, and while it took some time, he is doing just that. These things we are accomplishing are not easy, given the resistance of the Party of No, but should be applauded and acknowledged by all. I wish timid Democrats would get out in front and proudly proclaim what we have done so far, from where we were, given the legacy of the last administration.

Mike McGonigle,