To the Editor:
The 4-26-14 issue of The Burgh has an editorial about fracking that demonstrates how a lapse in knowledge does much to devalue any opinion offered. Most of us learned in seventh grade the difference between an antidote and an anecdote. Incorrect use of antidote, including once in quotes and once as “antidotally” might easily be dismissed, but when we see “Editorial Board” at the end, we must wonder how many eyes scanned this work and approved it as it stands. The fracking issue deserves better treatment, and using the GOP tactic calling for the governor to be “the adult in the room” improperly implies some level of immaturity, making the statement irrelevant and improper. Some proposed practices allow for time to consider potential negative outcomes, while others demand more immediate action. Clearly, the towns and cities in New York that have declared themselves to be off limits to fracking and its poisonous byproducts have few doubts concerning the damage potential.
The Burgh editorial muddies the water with a reference to GM, stating that there are a “handful” of deaths due to an “alleged” ignition issue is a shameful disregard of the facts, and a horrible disrespect for the families who lost loved ones because of devious corporate practice. If anything, that issue and the spinach/e-coli comment are glaring examples of the need for government as watchdog and protector of the people. When free-reign capitalism kills citizens, the press should be informative, not dismissive and skeptical. The apparent feeling of the editorial board is that when property becomes uninhabitable because of fracking, the residents only need relocate, problem solved? How Scrooge-like! I would offer that it makes more sense to get someone more considerate and responsible writing editorials, not someone who boosts corporate mythology over the lives and well-being of fellow citizens.
Joseph E. Bruno