Wednesday’s headline touting a "Soviet-style" bureau as the cause of the power failures caught my attention ("'Soviet-style' system led to Texas grid fiasco, expert says," The Daily News, Feb. 17).
I respect the numerous quotes of Ed Hirs, an economics professor with an MBA, regarding the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ business decisions. However, for him to delve into political science and call ERCOT a Soviet-style bureau is less reliable.
There was no private property in the Soviet regime. ERCOT is a quasi-governmental regulator of a consortium of private interests. Private interests equals profit motives that ERCOT supported. Governmental support of corporate profits is the hallmark of fascism, not communism.
Hirs directly stated that ERCOT supported the profits of those companies. More telling is that by allowing providers to cut corners, system failures occurred. Oilman Mayes Middleton quickly blamed wind energy as the culprit. However, windmills work fine in the Arctic, so explain that.
Why focus the headline on "Soviet-style bureau?" I never met anyone who supported Soviet communism, yet the Republican rhetoric is always claiming that progressives, i.e., alternative energy supporters, want to somehow thrust us into a Soviet gulag.
This newspaper shouldn’t support that disinformation; and shouldn’t play that partisan game. Why not craft the headline from your source’s area of expertise? Then you're more reliable.