Actually you're shortsighted

Well, since my friend J.T. and I had been on the same page for a few weeks now it seemed we were destined for a disagreement, and this morning he delivered such a silly, nit-picky editorial that it's time for us to have some healthy debate.

The editorial wades into the stimulus funding discussion that we've been having here for quite some time and, in doing so, it comes across as a misguided and short-sighted argument that doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

Those who've been following the discussion know that I think the green jobs funding is an incredibly smart option that is just the type of program that can combat poverty and stimulate economic development in the community. The editorial absolutely misrepresents what the training would do and, in misrepresenting the basics of the training, proceed to parrot a false argument for why such an investment would be a bad idea.

The goal of the training program is not to provide a short-term stimulus, but rather provide a long-term, foundation for job security for workers and lay the framework for a diverse green economy in the community. The goal of the training program is not to 'weatherize homes' - as if such an investment is a bad idea - but rather to equip these workers with the skills necessary to work in the various businesses in the emerging green economy.

The goal of the training program is to directly address the widely shared criticism that Athens-Clarke County has a poorly trained workforce by directly providing much needed skills to a population that needs them.

Granted, I share the apathy regarding the installation of low-flow toilets, but the editorial doesn't devote the bulk of its criticism to that allocation of funding. Instead, it attacks a smart and healthy investment in worker education and job training without seeing the long-term benefits that could arise from it.