Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Given our needs, oil-drilling opponents are shortsighted

Re: Thanks a lot, Sen. Martinez, March 18.

The editorial condemning Sen. Mel Martinez for his vote on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was particularly shortsighted. Those who are now paying more than $2 per gallon for unleaded regular gasoline surely could not agree with your editorial excoriating our senator for having the foresight to vote to open the ANWR region to oil drilling.

He did not vote to allow oil drilling off the west coast of Florida, but got no credit for that. Someday we will need that oil as well, if our country and economy are to survive. The Saudi oil is being depleted, Venezuela is threatening to cut off our oil and the entire Middle East is in turmoil, making oil a crisis ready to happen.

Now on the front of the March 19 Metro section, we read about our democratic senator, Bill Nelson, who in a pique of political posturing is threatening to block the nomination of a deputy Interior secretary if a new agreement isn't reached to disallow any oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico 101 to 213 miles off the Florida coast. Just how far do we have to go to get our own oil so as to be less dependent on foreign sources?

Having lived in Texas and Louisiana, both of which have offshore drilling, I had never seen any beach damage from that drilling and in fact, standing on the shore couldn't even see the rigs.

When will your paper recognize that $5 a gallon gasoline is just around the corner unless we act now?

Martinez's behavior was predictable

Re: Thanks a lot, Sen. Martinez, March 18.

Why should anyone be surprised at the duplicity you exposed in your editorial about Sen. Mel Martinez's vote on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? His Senate campaign was one of the most disgusting displays of lies and innuendo I can recall. To think that he would behave honorably or begin telling the truth to the people of Florida once he was in office is naive. His self-serving and false statements about the protections he secured for his vote are just the first of many times Floridians will suffer his total lack of respect.

Reassessing the senator

Re: Thanks a lot, Sen. Martinez.

Your editorial was right on the mark. Some years ago, I interviewed Mel Martinez in Orlando while I was working on a book for young adult readers: Leaving Cuba: From Pedro Pan to Elian. At the time, I concluded that Martinez was a fair, honest and unbiased person and as a Cuban refugee who had "made it" would be an excellent example for young readers. But I have since changed my mind completely.

The primary campaign Martinez conducted against his opponent was disgusting in its smear tactics. His recent support for government intervention in end-of-life decisions (Terri Schiavo) could affect all of us who believe it's outrageous to allow someone outside our family to tell us how we must live or die. I thought Martinez and other Cubans fled their country so they wouldn't have to live under a dictatorship. But now he wants to impose his beliefs on all of us.

Another recent outrage is the senator's attempt to take credit for saving Florida's "pristine beaches." Several years ago I heard Sen. Bill Nelson explain that this had already been accomplished. So is Martinez now like the boss who habitually pats himself on the back for other people's work? If he could pull himself up by his own bootstraps as a refugee, why can't he make his own way rather than be the lapdog of the Bush brothers?

Comical contradictions

I find it comic that many people will gripe about the rising cost of gasoline and the burden it places on their pocketbooks but then cry foul whenever our government seeks to explore our own resources, such as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in Florida's Gulf of Mexico.

It is also comic that some people will gripe about the intrusion of the government into the lives of private individuals with respect to the fight over Terri Schiavo, and then defend a welfare state, eminent domain, subsidies for everything under the sun, and enough red tape to circumvent the planet - twice.

It's supply and demand

Re: We must take a stand against the rising cost of gasoline, letter, March 18.

The letter writer complains of the high price of gasoline and suggests writing to members of Congress to have them do something about it. Perhaps he does not understand Economics 101: The price is set by supply and demand. The world supply of oil is being depleted faster than new reserves are being discovered, so the supply will not increase. Increasing demand and shrinking supply will cause a further increase in fuel prices, and Congress can't do a thing about it!

The writer suggests that we stop giving money to OPEC. Most of our money that goes to OPEC is in the form of payments for oil. Relatively speaking, we give very little to OPEC, and if we did nothing but buy its oil (and we have no other choice), the price of oil would not be affected.

The only thing that Congress can do to slow this increase is to reduce fuel taxes (not likely) or authorize additional oil drilling (which environmentalists always fight and usually win).

The writer also says we should develop other forms of energy. This country is continuing to develop other forms of energy. We have hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel cells, solar energy, etc. The problem is that these alternatives will cost more to own and operate than gasoline-powered vehicles. Regardless of good intentions, the vast majority will go with the cheapest transportation solution, and that is gasoline.

Parent reaction is bigger problem

Re: In schools, violence starting at earlier age, March 18.

While no one wants to see a 5-year-old being led away by the police, the bigger problem seems to be the reaction of the parent. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic and also, so repetitious of the type of reactions public school teachers see every day. Instead of addressing her child's behavior and making steps to correct it, the mother projects her wrath on school officials making ridiculous claims of a person "harping" on her daughter and "setting her up"!

Her child threw books and boxes, smashed a candy dish, hit a person in the stomach, trashed a desk and drew on the walls, but school officials are at fault! I don't know what is worse, the child's misbehavior or the mother's convoluted sense of right and wrong.

Yes, it would have been nice if campus police had been around during the incident, but in elementary schools, they are not usually present and when things do erupt, they do so quickly and teachers and administrators are forced to act the best they can. Isn't it nice that I and other teachers are allowed to lay down on the ground and wrap ourselves around the student to prevent these things from happening?! I don't think so.

[Last modified March 23, 2005, 06:51:03]