- Marion Sampson
- October 15, 2013 - 15:49
Reed's concerns are also the concerns of all of us who have educated ourselves about slick water hydraulic fracturing. Reed has done much research and speaks truth. But will anyone hear it? If this goes ahead, our coastline will be defaced and fishery and tourism erased. Some will have a few more dollars in the bank but that won't buy us health and beauty and community.
- Cry from the Port au Port
- October 12, 2013 - 17:09
Ms. Weir, your letter is right on the money. I just read the Black Spruce Fall update. Mr. Crosbie's words literally, sometimes right down to the comma, echoe the words of Black Spruce CEO, David Murray. Quite amazing really! In my opinion, if Joe Public submitted the same article to the Telegram, it would be rejected. I am saddened to see one of our most honoured elders present such a biased view on frcaking. The submission of this letter begs the question ... "What was the motive for writing it?" Of course, in my opinion that's a rhetorical question. It's a very sad reflection on our society when a former lieutenant governor wades into the fracking debate with such limited knowledge on the topic. I encourage people to go into the Black Spruce Exploration website ... check the fall update . under media in the top right hand corner and compare Mr. Crosbie's letter to the Black Spruce message. You be the judge. Absolutely shocking!
- Claude House
- October 12, 2013 - 10:32
Mr. Weir is too kind. The "oil industry" seems to have duped a cherished elder statesman of this province. If not, what were you thinking, Mr. Crosbie? These CFAs will use any means to rob Newfoundland & Labrador of all its resources and leave the resulting wasteland to retire to their "unfracked" mansions at a safe distance from their destruction. Just look at the mess they've, already, left on the west coast multiply that a million-fold.
- October 12, 2013 - 10:17
Does Mr. Crosbie actually write these columns? I would not have thought him capable of writing material so uninspired, insipid and boring. It's certainly not the Crosbie we've known over the years. I'm not sure why anyone with such an illustrious career would feel the need to write, edit, or even put his name to such a banal weekly column at this stage of his life. He risks diminishing the value of his own brand in a manner reminiscent of Picasso, who as a senior eclipsed his own importance with work that many critics regard as trivial. It seems to me given Crosbie's years, his past accomplishments, his stature and his freedom (whether he sees it as that or not) from the shackles of partisan politics, he might use his clout to say something insightful about something important. We all know his view on Muskrat (however inconsistent with the character of a man obsessed with fiscal integrity and one who abandoned his own government over a lesser piece of mega-madness). But what about Bill 29 and the growth of secrecy in government? What about Kathy Dunderdale's leadership? What about the disintegration of rural Newfoundland? What of Newfoundland's continued sorry lot in confederation? What about the reform of the Senate? What about the displacement of parliamentary democracy by an unelected, manipulative, autocratic PMO? What about the rise of international terror, global warming, world poverty and the sad lot of women in the developing world? Hell, if nothing else, he might at least inject a little of his signature irreverent humour into these staid pieces so we'd know he's still alive and not mothballed somewhere in Geoff Carnell's basement.