I want you to know that I have never been personally offended by you when you called me a rabble-rouser, among other things. When you criticized our protest of CUC, I wasn’t bothered by that either, as you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But when you wrote a letter to the editor last Friday insinuating that I wrote a letter in support of the marine monument because “Pew bought thousands of copies of [my] MP Magazine,” I felt compelled to write.
I would like you to know that if you read my previous letter to the editor entitled “New rules of engagement for the marine monument proposal” again, you would see that my letter’s main message was to call for both sides to be more civil to each other and to refrain from making the attacks so personal.
I don’t want to go into detail about the letter, but there were five rules I discussed. This was the fifth and perhaps most important rule: “Agree to disagree. If you have exhausted all persuasive efforts and your opponent still does not agree with you, then perhaps you will be unable to convince your opponent to agree with your position. Agree to disagree and be thankful for the opportunity to debate the issue. If you both listened to each other attentively and calmly and rationally, perhaps you will walk away having a great deal of respect for each other.”
I firmly believe we should be well-informed on controversial topics, but we run into communication problems when misinformation is being disseminated. It is safe to say that there has been a fair share of mudslinging, to the point that it has made it difficult for the average person to distinguish between what is true and what is false. Instead of talking about the economic possibilities or the pros and cons of the proposed monument, we are getting sidetracked by conspiracy theories. To make matters worse, some believe that this is a battle between good and evil, or locals versus non-locals. Is this fair to either side? Is it fair to dismiss someone’s opinion based on race? Surely we are better than that.
Congressman, I can assure you that the CNMI has a lot of good people and that not everyone living here in the CNMI is motivated by money. Some people might just support the proposed marine monument because they believe it will bring us worldwide recognition, it will help stimulate the economy, and it will push for conservation of our marine resources for future generations. Such people are neither good nor evil. They have formulated an opinion and are entitled to it, just as much as those who are opposing the monument are entitled to their opinion. What democracy is all about is coming together and intelligently debating differences of opinion. It is also important to note that part of building a strong argument is to use evidence and logic, not only emotional appeal.
Getting back to your insinuation that I was swayed by Pew, I would like to clarify two things:
1. MP is not my magazine. We are a corporation and I am the publisher and part-owner, but I do not unilaterally make decisions without general consent from the editor and our other owners.
2. Pew did not buy thousands of magazines. We at MP take great pride in our intelligent, thought-provoking articles and stunning photography. Pew did not hire us or pay us for the featured article on the marine monument. We wanted to do an article on the marine monument because we felt it was newsworthy, controversial, and we envisioned a spectacular layout using portraits of the Northern Islands. There was not one single ad purchased by Pew, and I was never asked or expected to endorse or support their cause. They did buy 500 copies of MP to promote the marine monument. Should I have told them that they could not buy our magazines? Was it wrong to go with the story? We received more accolades for the featured article than complaints. Who is to say we won’t do a follow-up to it surrounding the controversy? ANYONE is able to buy our magazine. After all, it is for sale.
But the one thing that is not for sale is my soul. Congressman, if you think I can be swayed so easily, then you do not know me at all. I supported the idea of the monument after doing research on Hawaii’s national marine monument and after listening to two presentations. I am not alone. There are many local businesses, both big and small, who support of the proposed monument. Do you think they were bought out too?
I want to give you a few examples of why I feel your claim that I was swayed into supporting this monument is unfair:
• If a candidate for non-voting delegate were to buy 500 copies of a local newspaper because he had an article about him in it, would that local newspaper be swayed into endorsing him and supporting him? Would the publisher start supporting that candidate simply because of this?
• If a legislator went and leased a car from a local dealer, would the local dealer endorse this legislator when he or she runs for re-election because of this lease? Would the local dealer really be swayed because of this car lease?
• If a candidate for governor buys a hundred cases of beer at a grocery store, would the owner suddenly express loyalty to this candidate because he bought beer from his grocery store?
Your insinuation that I was swayed is no different than the examples I have just listed. It is slanderous and misleading and unfair, to say the least. Congressman, if the Fitial administration bought 5,000 copies of MP, I promise you, I would not suddenly become a Fitial fan. I have nothing personal against Governor Fitial. We just have very different philosophies in business and in government. He believes in suing the federal government, whereas I believe in negotiating with the federal government. He believes in hiring more lobbyists, whereas I believe our best lobbyists are our people, and our soon-to-be elected delegate. He supports the status quo and the old ways of doing business up on Capital Hill, whereas I support change and an end to the old ways of politics, namely the OBN.
Congressman, rather than attacking a small business owner like myself, shouldn’t you be tackling bigger issues, such as CUC? Carmen Safeway closed their doors because they can no longer afford a $35,000 monthly CUC bill. CUC is still light years from privatization, and the $250 million price tag will ensure that no one will want to buy it. Crime, especially burglaries, are on the rise. PSS desperately needs more classrooms and better facilities. The list goes on and on.
The bottom line is, in the grand scheme of things, with a collapsing economy that shows no signs of recovery anytime soon, we need our leaders to concentrate on important issues that have a direct effect on each and every one of us, and I can assure you that CUC is one of the things on top of everyone’s list.
Please know that I do not wish to become your enemy, or anyone else’s for that matter. If anything, I truly appreciate the fact that you came to our first CUC forum and warned about the consequences of suing CUC, as you have been down that road before and told us about the challenges of your lawsuit.
We may come from different generations and we may have different philosophies, but our differences should not continue to divide us. I am willing to meet with you to discuss potential solutions to our problems and concerns that I have as a resident and small business owner.
With a shrinking budget for the CNMI, every dollar counts, and we need to scrutinize how our government spends the little money that it has in its budget. We can no longer afford to waste money on crooked lobbyists who have tainted and tarnished our image in Washington, D.C. We also shouldn’t be throwing away $400,000 on a lawsuit to nowhere. Could you imagine what $400,000 could do for PSS or NMC? I’m pretty sure the money would be better spent on investing it in education rather than on a lawsuit that is not only unpopular, but lacks merit. Let me put it this way. If I had a budget of $1,000 a month to support my family, would it be wise of me to spend $200 of it on gambling at the local poker parlor? Of course not. Every dollar would count, and I would be a fool to risk our meager budget on a game of chance when it should go to diapers, formula, groceries, gas, and utilities.
Congressman, I may be a rabble rouser, a crackpot blogger, and I may even be considered an outsider by some, regardless of the fact that I’ve lived here since ever since. But I am also a proud parent of two wonderful children, whom I hope will have the opportunity to be raised here as I was. Despite our problems and our differences, we live in a relatively peaceful and loving community, and I am thankful to have some of the best friends and family anyone could ever ask for.
I will continue to speak out on issues affecting our community, regardless of the consequences. I hope you will understand that if money was my main motivation in life, I would have never once criticized this administration or any of our leaders. I believe that if our islands are to ever become prosperous once again, than we must change the old ways of doing things. And if our island becomes prosperous again, then all businesses, including mine, will be able to reap the benefits.
On a side note, I understand you have a bit of Irish in you. You are a McGinnis, and I happen to come from the McCormick clan. Perhaps that is where my rabble rousing genes come from! Congressman, in any case, as we say in our ancestral motherland of Ireland, Go mbeannai Dia duit (May God bless you), and thank you for your time.
ED PROPST
Dandan, Saipan
