Letters to the Editor

Not hard to understand

I have been thinking about this since reading the paper and I am getting more aggravated. Why exactly does the Coast delegation have to fight for the BP funds? The funds are for “Coastal Restoration” and I emphasize “Coastal.”

I do not profess to be an English scholar, but it seems to be pretty straight forward that the funds are to restore damage to the coastal region from the BP oil spill. To me that means the three coastal counties that bore the brunt of the environmental and economic impact should receive the largest share of the fund, with Pearl River, Stone and George counties receiving a share. I cannot imagine in my wildest dream that the funds should be given to any county above the six Southern counties.

The major impact was to the fishing industry then the tourist industry. The money should be used to study the harm done to the fishing industry and help the fishermen with replenishing the redfish, snapper, specks and grouper, to name a few, and to replenish and expand the oyster beds. I only have a bachelor’s degree and not a master’s or doctorate of stupidity, so I may be wrong in what the restoration fund should be used for. However, I don’t think so.

The legislators need to go back to school and take an English course to understand our language.

Gary Robertson