The Columbian's hypocrisy on offshore drilling; the will of the people and the massive waste of the bridge/loot rail

Fascinating take on the mind set of the Columbian.

Smitty says...

Curious. You tell us:

"But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people and their elected officials, for the most part, just don’t want it. That there is even any oil to be had off our shores (particularly in the Northwest) is a matter of speculation; solid science points to plentiful supplies elsewhere."

There's nothing any greater about our location than the Gulf Coast or the East Coast; and you fail to provide any proof of your assertion, save your own parochial view. And if you were all that concerned about "solid science," you never would have bought into that global warming nonsense.

There is no reason not to engage in further exploration on THIS coast, either.

And while the last half of your observation is, of course, flat wrong (There is precisely zero reason to allow drilling off the coast of say, Florida, but not off the coast of Washington, for example, except YOU don't want it) the most bizarre aspect of your perspective is this:

"But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people and their elected officials, for the most part, just don’t want it."

What "elected officials" want or don't want, is, of course, completely irrelevant. Again, you have no way of knowing this: there's never been an "elected officials" referendum; and of the "elected officials" on the West Coast, which should have a say? Isn't Obama an "elected official? And it is nice that he's started to adopt yet another Bush policy. Slow, mentally, to adopt a policy he campaigned against but the, Obama's never been big in the truth-telling department; but nice.

But THE most bizarre element of this is your declaration: that: "But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people... for the most part, just don’t want it."

Well, I believe the people "just don't want" a multi-billion dollar waste of a replacement bridge and light rail, either. But I have yet to see your editorial either pointing that out or demanding a county wide vote to prove it.

See, that's one of the humongous problems with your editorials. You typically engage in that situational view where you make unsupported assumptions (You really have no idea what the people want about drilling) and use them to support your agenda, and then fail to demand that which will truly show the will of the people about this horrific waste of money by doing the unheard of thing called "asking us."

Strange, isn't it? Your paper is all about the will of the people when you think it supports your view. But when that will opposes yours?

Not so much.

The Columbian and situational ethics. You get something out of it whether you buy them...

... or not.