MR. Barker, thank you for the opportunity to be my pen pal on this issue. I appreciate the fact that you helped prove my point although you did not realize it through your own writing. Please allow me to elaborate.
Mr. Barker, you talked much about the pride of a family. Believe me, where I come from (Mother CNMI), our hard fashioned cultural and traditional belief taught me to know and respect my elders and relatives. I know what you meant by being proud of your BROTHER-IN-LAW because I am, indeed. They helped build our Mother CNMI during the blooming years. They contributed to the CNMI’s growth before and are trying to do the same should the pozzolan issue is resolved. But, you see, Mr. Barker, it’s not about them, but its’ about the way you defended the ideology that led you to believe that your BROTHER-IN-LAW deserves a second chance to mine the pozzolan. It’s about unfairly attacking our honorable Congresswoman Cinta Kaipat since you do not know, and still don’t know, anything about her and what she represents to provide protection to her constituents or the CNMI people on the issue of the pozzolan mining. Your approach is biased, selfish in every sense of the word; not to mention that it is for self interest. (Pozzolan + JG Sablan + Bruce Barker x Brother-in-law).
Your logic on the general manager issue is way off and failed to address the bigger picture of his hypothesis. The hypothesis presents more in-depth issues such as the possibility for an immediate recovery, if not, retiring the present deficit prior to the operation of mining and the check and balance practices or mechanism to ensure that the people of the CNMI are given fair representation and equitable access for future development in this industry. After all, the pozzolan belongs to the CNMI people and not owned by any individual. Competitive process is a must.
Mr. Barker, you claimed that you read all types of material regarding this issue. I am sure you came upon proposals that addressed the above. Can you share and educate us youth with the answers that we brought above based upon your reading of the materials? We are soon to become voters and we will be voting for the candidates of our choice. Surely you don’t want us to vote otherwise, most especially when you guaranteed a defeat of our honorable Congresswoman Cinta Kaipat in the upcoming election. This will be setting double standards to the waiting period theory, or what was that again — “four votes only?”
Please help and educate me to understand your logic better. Thank you.

DENTON JOE PANGELINAN
Dandan, Saipan