OCR Text |
Show The National Enterprise , March 23, 1977 Paf;e 15b Were Up to Our What? in Allegators?? by D. Van de Graaff Allegations haive been made that two gas fields off the coast of Louisiana have been deliberately withheld from production. The allegation is that the company involved is waiting for higher prices. It also has been allegated (sic) that during the recent severe weather in the natural gas supplies were not increased as they could have been. One thing about the oil industry; youre always up to your armpits with allegators. It seems that for some, allegating is a Those allegators who are wray of life. complaining about the gas fields off the mid-wes- t, coast of Louisiana, have received considerable publicity which no doubt boosts their self esteem. They feel no obligation, however, to find the answers themselves or to report answers others have given. Clearly, allegating, not resolving, is what they are interested in. In the case of the Louisiana gas fields, the natural gas has been under contract to These pipeline companies for years. contracts were signed not only with the approval of the FPC but in accordance with FPC requirements. The rate of production and price are both dictated by the terms of the contract. The current price allowed by the contract is below the price the FPC has said to be "just and reasonable" but cannot be controlled by waiting for changes in market conditions. Further, during the recent winter, clauses in the contract were exercised that of increased gas deliverability to 150 normal, which is the maximum amount allowed. This was a direct effort to relieve the shortage. The allegation that the gas was withheld from the market is false. The allegators have made no effort to correct their statement. It would not be accurate to say all those making allegations have disregard for facts. There are legitimate questions that should be asked and are often raised in an honest effort to shed light on a subject. When this happens, allegators serve an important purpose. The problem comes w hen the allegator does not want an answer; when he deliberately piles charge on top of charge so rapidly that the first answer is lost in the turmoil of the second or sixth or tenth accusation. When an allegator avoids fact and reason, by a technique calculated to cause confusion, someone should ask what his basic motive is. A friend has said our society is being attacked by carnivores who are dedicated to destroying our system. The collapse of the system will be aided by excessive and unwarranted attacks on our institutions and economic structure. Loss of confidence will hasten the downfall. This is heavy talk, but my friend contends that there are those whose goal is to tear away the sinews of our system, to drown the establishment in mire and leave its remains to rot as carrion before finally being consumed. He calls these carnivors, "Crocodiles of Destruction." Their accusations are meant to discredit opponents not to explore for the solution to problems. Allegators on the other hand sene a vital function within the natural order. Challenge and constructive criticism promote growth and learning. Crocodiles, as defined by my friend, are not interested in truth or improvement, allegators are. The problem is, howr do we tell the difference between an allegator and a crocodile. by Georgia B. Peterson There is nothing so amusing to those of us who participate in the d analyst whose obvious lack, of legislative process than when a knowledge of the system is pronounced with such authority. And there is nothing so frightening as when someone having access to the media, proclaims a less than honorable effort to attain correct information, and in fact, admits (to me) indifference to whether or not he has the truth, saying he can "editorialize" about any public figure in his columns. Parker Nielsons "Counterpoint" in The Utah Enterprise Review, March 9, is a prime example of John Kenneth Galbraiths statement: ". . what people do not understand they generally think important." It appears that Mr. Nielson pretends knowledge he does not have and therefore dares not ask for explanations that might support possible objections. Had Mr. Nielson bothered to check, he would have found that during my nine years in the House of Representatives, I have sponsored more antidiscriminatory legislation than any other legislator and have been responsible for substantive changes equalizing rights of men and women under law. I believe equality in law is a State responsibility, not a federal responsibility. It is surprising that Mr. Nielson apparently shares that feeling, yet somehow believes himself to be unique in his observations that he supports the principals of ERA, but opposes its ratification. He refuses to assume that lack of support for ERA by anyone else could be for the same reason. In 1973, I sponsored the legislation initiating the Governors Commission on the Status of Women. Its budget was $1 ,000 which covered travel and per diem of its members. This year - four years later - the SOW requested $44,600, for three employees and travel and per diem for its members. The legislature allocated $22,700 which represents a 2,028 In allocating budgets, program percentage increase since 1973. justification is paramount and where duplicate agency programs exist, the legislature attempts to avoid duplicate funding. The legislature funds a Human Rights Study Committee, the purpose of which is to accomplish essentially the same tasks which the SOW purports to accomplish. Nationally, SOWs have long supported ERA resulting in injunctive action in the Illinois Circuit Court prohibiting SOWs from spending federal tax dollars for ERA promotion. In Utah, SOW publications have given ERA ratification top billing. Mr. Nielsons statement that SOW members have not lobbied for ERA makes more apparent his abysmal lack of research. So long as the SOW is dependent on the legislature for its funds, like any other state agency, it will be and ought to be, subject to the intent of the legislature. Mr. Nielson seems to believe professional career equates failure at home. As a lawyer, he ought to know better than most, the importance of individual decisions in domestic law' and individual rights in employment and education and credit. Apparently, again quoting Galbraith, ". . .he suffers from the serious moral handicap of being a lawyer." representative to the Utah legislature, is Georgia Peterson, five-terExecutive-Judiciary Appropriations Committee; presently chairman. member. Education. Transportation. Judiciary: member. Association-Transportatio- n (National Committee): Western Conference n State Leadership Foundation. She formerly served as assistant minority whip and assistant majority whip, chairman, rules and sifting. self-style- m State-Feder- Legislator-Transportatio- al Snow! But made a speech . . . went on television |