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.

Well, I’m hoping that I don’t have to write about this much more . . . Joe Pizarchik’s committee vote is tomorrow so of course the enviralists (like that word?) are throwing another load of monkey-crap around, repeating the same old lies, trying to get them to stick. And all they’ve succeeded in doing is holding up any chance of change, any hope for improvement that would come . They know full well what Joe has accomplished in PA (they ought to, they met with him often enough!) and yet they choose to distort his record (see my posts of September 25-26 for specifics). And the ones that piled on are just gullible.

I really thought these groups cared about the environment but it appears that their priorities lie elsewhere. I can only hazard a guess to their motivation. Having someone who is calm and rational and intelligent and honest in that position (all of which Joe is) might mean that they’d have to put their egos aside and actually work for improvement. They should be ashamed.

I see on the Energy and Natural Resources committee Web site that Joe Pizarchik’s nomination will be voted on next week. I know that means this weekend my blog will get a lot of hits from people looking for information about Joe. I urge everyone reading this to take the time to read my posts from September 25 and 26. Follow the links. Read the text at those links. I didn’t write any of it. The material comes from PA DEP’s site as well as other government and journalistic sources. It’s not opinion (i.e., someone’s blog), it’s fact (see my Freshman Comp, Lessons 1-3, on good sources). And the material was written before Joe was ever nominated, so none of it was written with that outcome in mind. And if you take the time to read all of it, I’m sure you’ll come to the right conclusion. That’s what happens when intelligent people think.

It’s Goose Day in Lewistown! And I’m torn between writing about the National Parks series on PBS and what I found in the park this morning when ol’ 85 Pounds o’ Love and I took our morning constitutional.

On the former, let’s say I like the pictures. I find the story interesting. But I am distressed by what seems to me to be an extremely high ratio of white male experts. Surely SOME women have written about the subject?? (I think I’ve seen two in over four hours of program.) And I had to laugh at the mention of the Sierra Club dividing over a park issue (because I know they were either misguided or misled when they opposed Joe Pizarchik’s nomination). Nice to know they didn’t always support John Muir either.

On the latter, I’ve written before about people dumping stuff. A lot of yard waste is dumped in the park at the top of our mountain; I’m assuming it comes from the city side of the mountain since on this, the country side, people have enough land to keep their own yard waste. But this morning I found two boxes of metal items—wires, pieces of equipment, bolts, and I don’t know what all—shoved into the woods ever so slightly at the edge of the park. I dragged it out so as to be visible, and much to my distress found a pile of paint cans back behind it (a separate dumping, I would guess). Pulling that out will wait til winter when the brush is down.

I’ve decided to find out who was tending the park when I moved here and why it’s stopped. Then I’m going to see what I can do to fix this. Obviously, people now consider this an acceptable dump and that just isn’t acceptable.

I have been writing for a few months about how some groups have come out so strongly against Joe Pizarchik, accusing him of anything and everything, even things that happened before his tenure. I have also been lamenting the lack of research people are doing, how they are just believing whatever they read from sources they think are credible. What they’re not reading is PA DEP’s responses to the original allegations from these groups. 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.

As I’ve mentioned many times, some people and organizations are accusing Joe Pizarchik of heinous, uncaring assaults on the environment and humanity (hey, I’m just jumping on the hyperbole bandwagon!). I’ve done a little research, as academics are inclined to do, and I came up with some interesting documents. This one is PA DEP’s response to charges from the Clean Air Task Force.

For people who are interested in the truth or those in the coalfields who need to know: One of PA DEP’s accomplishments during Joe Pizarchik’s tenure.

I Googled Joe Pizarchik yesterday to see if anything new had been posted (other than the same old lies and distortions trying to drown out the strong support he’s received) and I came across something that really shocked me. I don’t know Roger Darnell but I saw his tweet: “I love President Obama and respect him deeply, but wonder if he wasn’t a ‘jackass’ in nominating Joe Pizarchik…” 

Yes, it’s an obvious reference to Kanye but it’s a really bad comparison. If he really loves and respects this president (a) he should not be calling him a jackass in any context and (b) he should have more faith in the president’s choices.

Which brings me to the larger picture. All these people questioning the president’s decisions so loudly, so rudely—they’re not all Republicans trying to get back into power. An awful lot of Democrats are protesting loudly as well. Yes, it’s our right in this wonderful country to disagree with our leaders. But just yelling and not offering any realistic solutions is not going to get us anywhere. The midterm elections are just next year and I don’t think Dems really want a repeat of 1994. They better start showing some solidarity and reason, some willingness to work out differences instead of just trying to tear down what the administration is trying to do.

And that brings me back once again to Joe Pizarchik. Within the past year, what have the citizen-activists accomplished? They loudly opposed the first choice, someone with a lot of experience. And now they’re trying to get rid of Joe. And all the time they’re fighting, the mining situation gets no better. That’s not progress, folks. Trust that the people you elected are competent enough to make some good choices. Joe Pizarchik is one of them.

One thing (among many) this whole Joe Pizarchik experience has taught me is that the political spectrum is not a straight line, right to left (or vice versa). It is a circle, where far right and far left meet. They use the same tactics, they have the same black-and-white view of the world, and they don’t want to hear any opposition. The very definition of liberal specifies allowing other points of view—therefore the far left is not liberal, it’s just another group of holier-than-thou extremists with its own set of sheep.

Well, the hysteria and hyperbole about Joe Pizarchik’s nomination to be director of OSMRE have slowed with the Senate break. However, Congress comes back next week and I’m sure the “citizen activists” will as well. Fortunately, people who really know Joe recognize his value.

However, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m going to do. Until this started, these were my people—or so I thought. I care deeply about environmental issues on both a broad and a very narrow level. I’ve never understood how a company can think it’s okay to foul the air or water when there are ways to avoid it. And in every place I’ve lived, I’m the neighbor who picks up roadside litter as I walk my dog. (Why people think woods = trash dump is far beyond me.)

So I’m far from “drill baby drill.” But these people who attacked Joe Pizarchik cherry-pick their “facts” so often you’d think they were looking for WMDs.  They voted for the current president, yet question his judgment without finding out the truth. Some of them even say they want to shut down coal mining completely and yet use electricity to say it (uhh, is that the electricity from the OTHER half of our energy sources that they’re using to say it?).

I wish I could find a way to get them to understand that their tactics are morally and ethically wrong. But that’s a tall order. I know, though, that from here on out, I’ll put my charitable donation money into education—at least that way we might get some new adults capable of critical thinking.