Defending Big Energy

If there were any question that the Oklahoman used its letters section to further its plutocrat-theocrat agenda, there shouldn't be after seeing today's letter from Bart Benning of Oklahoma City. If you'll recall, the New York Times recently ran an article noting that the Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is just a shill for energy companies like Devon and OG&E. The Oklahoman then ran an article about the revelations that was essentially just PR damage control for Scott Pruitt. This was followed by a laughable editorial that came to the defense of the AG. And now, the paper has run a letter-- one-- about these revelations. But naturally, the letter simply takes the Oklahoman's stance on these revelations:

Regarding 'Attorney general denies 'secretive alliance'' (News, Dec. 9): The interesting thing about the New York Times article describing cooperation between Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and the oil industry is that in one short paragraph it was recognized that the environmental lobby has the same relationship with a federal agency. Why are people not investigating this environmental alliance with the U.S. government with the same passion?

 Really? That is the interesting thing? And since both Mr Benning and the Oklahoman's editors seem to have reading comprehension problems, note that Times article several times indicated that the sort of relationships Scott Pruitt has with energy companies is "unprecedented."

Moreover, it's hard to imagine why anyone should be concerned that AGs want companies to adhere to EPA standards-- that helps people have cleaner air and water. This is what AGs do. What good would this sort of "investigation" do? In Pruitt's case, though, he is working to represent major fossil fuel energy companies to lower environmental regulations so they can make more money (and pollute more, too). In other words, instead of representing the people, Pruitt represents Fortune 500 energy companies!! How does Mr Benning-- or this paper, for that matter-- not see that that's a problem?