Yesterday’s “Hot Button” comment section near the CA’s Sunday letters to the editor concerned Smart Meters. The headline read ” “Sharp Words Over Smart Meters.”
Now you know that the “sharp” only referred to people against smart meters. That’s how the bias begins. Naive readers may object to someone speaking sharply on an issue. In today’s world that means you’re an extremist and this is almost as bad as being a racist. In some cases, you may be both, even if you don’t know or intend it!
The intro cast Council Woman Janis Fullilove in the role of the Council’s “Crazy Lady.” MLGW executives were at the meeting and she dared to question them. According to the newspaper she “pounded the table, accused the utility’s CEO of lying and mocked the pronunciation of another MLGW executive’s name.” Shades of Adolf and Stalin rolled into one! MLGW executives would never lie, would they? How dare she?
After that “unbiased” introduction, the CA went on to quote emailers’ reactions. Of course, pro smart meter people were placed at the head of the class, so to speak. Guess they hope readers will start there, become so convinced of the rightness of smart meters that they don’t read any further.
We started with the smart aleck, because that’s the Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert way. “Looks like these meters are smarter than a lot of people,” Memphisgodfather wrote. Quite the wordsmith that one.
UFOMark wrote: “I thought this was a closed issue. Every fallacy presented by the ‘anti’ people was totally debunked by facts. It’s time to let this go and move on.” The fact that you thought it was a closed issue already shows you don’t know a thing about it and have not followed any of the local news. You’re debunked!
I loved what Maxpowers wrote. He disputes that they cause fires, higher utility bills and that no one wants them. “…the entire country of Italy switched to smart meters 10 years ago without any such issues.” Max, when you’re quoting Italy as an example of a smooth running, cost efficient country, free of debt and leading the world in energy, well, I have to disregard anything else you say. Italy’s a mess and getting worse. Who’s to say Italians haven’t dealt with it via bribes, money under the table and other criminal activities to keep people from putting up with these things? Italians are geniuses when it comes to going around authority.
Another item was from thekingfish who advised “If you are not in favor of smart meters then give up your smart phones, your iPad, your cellphone, your HDTV and your PC. This is technology. Those who oppose this are probably still listening to records.”
Well, Kingfish, you are thinking exactly as they want you to. Slap the label of “progressive” on something and it makes it better, right? Wonder if he thinks it is better to have nukes than it was to shoot with bows and arrows. He probably doesn’t as most liberals are opposed to advanced weaponry. But if anyone opposes smart meters it damns them to being a Luddite.
Inthegrove72@700117 wrote of his or her delight in monitoring his/her own power usage. “I get all excited about (it)…Now, if I find after having the meter, they cost me more money or I see small Roswell Greys in my backyard, I may rethink my position,” he or she says. Here’s a flash inthegroveetc.: your bill is going to go up. I wonder if you’re going to like sweating in the evening as you watch The Daily Show or how you will react to laundering at 2 a.m.? Write the CA and tell them how you feel then.
Magnanimously, the paper allowed two emailers to state their cases. They correctly pointed out that the industrious, environmentally concerned, wealthy nation of Germany dumped smart meters. (Italy vs. Germany, hmm? which would you rather have handle your affairs?) Cost was higher than the savings from the meters.
Another asks where the money is coming from in our money strapped city? He also points out that you could just chop rates and benefit everyone with the money we’re going to spend. “Show me the cost benefit and who will benefit from any saving,” second asked.
That is exactly the question journalist should be asking.
Notice that neither went into hysterics about government listening in or talked about behavior modification or spoke against technology? Even though these points are true, they avoided any extremist talk. By contrast, the pro smart meter people did use all those red button, emotional, hysterical arguments.
That says a lot, doesn’t it?