I said I wasn’t going to write anything more about Joe Pizarchik, but I thought I wouldn’t have to. He was voted out of committee last week but the full Senate vote has not yet happened. And then yesterday I received a really funny email from someone and I feel compelled to respond.
To catch up any first-time readers: Joe Pizarchik was nominated to be the director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Opposition to that nomination started even before he was nominated (I don’t know how that happens, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised). These people have said Joe is unethical and environmentally irresponsible—and that’s the short version. I don’t mind people saying they disagree with his decisions, but I cannot be silent when someone says he’s unethical. And so I began responding.
Some will say I have a bias. Of course I do. And it would take about a minute on the Internet to find out what that bias is. Does that make me less credible? If you think so, your mind was already made up before you read my blog. But unlike those people making horrible accusations, I’ve supported my comments with documentation from official sources (see my Freshman comp, lessons 1-3, in this blog for a definition of good sources). My words would stand up in court. The opposition knows theirs wouldn’t.
Which brings me back to that funny email that prompted this entry. That email challenged me to provide specific sources in support of Joe Pizarchik. That is the job of a reporter, as I’ve said. In my blog entries of September 25 and 26, I did just that. I quoted government sources on coal ash:
Here are two articles, easily available on PA DEP’s website, responding to two charges by EIP about coal ash. The first one refers to lead pollution, the second to trace metals.
This one is PA DEP’s response to charges from the Clean Air Task Force.
And I’ll provide a new one, which is specifically about TVA coal ash.
And then there are other accomplishments during Joe’s tenure (which, FYI, started in October 2002), including his work on the Flight 93 memorial, his work on the Good Samaritan Act, the reduction in mine-subsidence insurance rates in PA, and his work on securing explosive magazines in PA. Plus a strong endorsement from someone who has worked with Joe. And yet somehow this doesn’t silence the critics.
Speaking of reporters, I do have to give recognition to Daniel Malloy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He’s the only reporter I’ve seen who made an effort to acknowledge the other side of this argument. Granted, I haven’t read every single piece written about Joe’s nomination, but I’ve read a lot. Malloy quoted Senator Bingaman. He also obviously spoke to the Department of the Interior about Joe. In other words, he did his job.
So that’s it in a nutshell. I hope a lot of people read this and click on ALL the links. Read about Joe. Know the truth.
