Saturday was the summer solstice, the longest day of the
year: a time for celebration and the harvesting of garlic; a time for BBQs and
surfing (although, always is also a good
time to catch waves); a time to bask in light before the long and slow slide
back into the darkness of winter.
Exactly three months ago – 21st September – I
wrote the first of five opinion pieces that have appeared in the Chronicle. It
may have been beginners luck, but I consider that piece, which linked research
on income inequality to social problems, and then to the WDC rates structure,
as the best of the lot. On the day it ran, I got a text from a surfing buddy
that went something like this: “Awesome article in da paper, bro. Chur. Chur.”
Another friend told me, “The Chronicle shouldn’t have labeled it as an opinion.
That’s the type of investigative journalism they should be doing.”
Working with the editors of the Chronicle, I had planned
specifically for the piece to run on the vernal (spring) equinox as a way to
reflect on balance and imbalance in our world and in our city. If you believe
the international research that shows a correlation between income inequality
and social problems (The Spirit Level, Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), and can
perform basic addition, multiplication and division, you will easily recognize
that the WDC rates structure serves to increase the wealth gap in our city, and
the annual Council rates rises widen the gap each year. (More on this,
hopefully, in 2014.)
The reasons I think it was my best effort include: it is
based on respected research and clear local data; it is relevant to everyone
who lives in Whanganui; it was written as objectively as possible; and, the
equinox was a fine metaphorical launching pad for a critical discussion on this
important local issue, although from what I can tell that discussion has not
really been happening…yet.
But equinoxes are easy to write about, and peer-reviewed
research and replicable data is so boring. Objectivity – Shmogjectivity! The
solstice is a time to be bold, opinionated, controversial!
And in that spirit, I would like to point out what has
become glaringly obvious in the pages of the Chronicle: So many radicals
writing so many opinions. The Chron is clearly out of balance and needs more
conservative voices like mine!
Who, besides me, will stand up for conserving natural resources, other than Nicola Young and the
throng of writers in Monday’s “Conservation Comment”?
Who, besides me, will advocate for a conservative
position on climate change, other than
Nicola Young and the gaggle of writers in Monday’s “Conservation Comment”?
Who, besides me, thinks that selling high performing
government assets to foreign private investors is risky, other than Nicola
Young and the pride of writers in Monday’s “Conservation Comment”?
Who, besides me, embraces the precautionary principle when considering the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing, offshore drilling, iron sands mining, and genetic engineering,
other than Nicola Young and the flock of writers in Monday’s “Conservation
Comment”?
I mean, give me a break! Am I the only one, along with all
of these other conservatives, who
thinks wasting energy, wasting money, and wasting resources while taking
radical positions on the economy, society, and environment must be addressed in
a public forum?
We need more conservative voices in the Chronicle to address the radical policies of
extremists that put our economy and social structure at risk.
Please join me, fellow conservatives, to stand up for risk aversion, fiscal
responsibility, and the precautionary principle. Together, our combined voices
and the power for the press may be able to move this new Council toward truly
conservative positions. Let the radicals take the Letters page, if we can dominate
the Opinions!
No comments:
Post a Comment