Don Zeigler dot Info

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph has devoted much editorial space to the matter of the EPA holding up for review mining permits in West Virginia. However, one fairly recent news item concerning mining permits was apparently overlooked by the newspaper:

In a January 5, 2010 letter to the Corps of Engineers Huntington office, the EPA declared that it would not object to issuance of a permit for Hobet Mining’s Surface Mine No. 45 in West Virginia, one of the projects had subjected to enhanced review. The review process produced a negotiated agreement in which Hobet agreed to cut the impacts to headwater streams in half (from burying six linear miles to only three).

A news article from 2009 was also seemingly missed by the Telegraph:

On August 10 of that year, the EPA gave the nod for the federal Army Corps of Engineers to issue a Clean Water Act permit for CONSOL Energy Inc.'s Peg Fork Surface Mine near Chattaroy in Mingo County.

So much for the myth the Obama Administration is anti-coal… and these are only two stories, found in about 60 seconds using Google.

Isn't it far better to submit these permits to careful scrutiny, then take action after working diligently with the coal companies to resolve environmental issues, rather than continue to let them indiscriminately befoul our state's drinking water, decimate hundreds of miles of streams, and turn our natural beauty into barren moonscapes?

I emailed this to the paper but doubt it will see publication, for the simple fact that it doesn't fit into the editorial staff's blatantly right-wing agenda. In its zeal to condemn anything and everything Obama, the Telegraph is doing its readers a disservice by missing, whether by accident or intentionally, coal-related news stories that prove the administration is willing to reach compromises with our state's coal operations.

In the January 12 edition of the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, the opinion piece on page A-4  claims Barack Obama has a nonchalant attitude towards terrorism. The writer lambasted the president for not making a statement about the attempted Christmas Day bombing until three days after the incident.

How long did it take George Bush (whom the opinion writer has professed in the past to admire) to make a public statement on shoe bomber Richard Reid? Six days. Did the writer complain back then? For some reason I believe probably not.

He intimates Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously without offering any real evidence of this other than to regurgitate the standard right-wing talking points, including the accusation the president won't even use the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack". This is an outright lie.

During Obama's radio address on the attempted Christmas Day bombing, he used the word "terrorist" or a variation at least six times. It seems strange to me that Obama's detractors would make such a baseless and actually silly claim, so easily refuted, about such a serious matter. The writer should have at least troubled himself to look at the actual transcript of the speech instead of just recycling what other right-wing pundits have been saying. I guess it's easier to write a column if you don't bother to fact-check while writing it.

He wrote, " He didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, and he sped through a weak public statement that left too much unsaid so he could get back out on the golf course." Now, whether the president's statement was weak or strong is a matter of opinion. But the writer's implication that Obama was only interested in resuming his vacation is amusing, since he staunchly supported George W. Bush, who was infamous for taking regular (and lengthy) vacations even very early on in his presidency Oh, the hypocrisy.

He even accuses the president of giving the war on terror "back seat" status so he can focus on his "radical" domestic agenda. Again, we have an accusation being made with absolutely nothing to back it up. This seems to be his writing style – sling lots of mud and hope something sticks – reminiscent of other right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I will defend to the death this opinion writer's right to criticize whomever he wants to criticize. Unfortunately, when a writer is blinded by his or her own bias, it's all too easy to put words to paper without doing a thorough check of the actual facts of the topic at hand. This columnist is a somewhat competent writer, and it's a shame he chooses to throw around half-truths and misstatements of fact in his zeal to attack anything and everything Obama has done (or hasn't done).