Stifling debate is dangerous
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Saul Alinsky would be proud of Virgil Hess. With two words, he attempted to neutralize an important message. There was a time when Americans were skeptical and wary of growing government and organizations like the United Nations, but this is no longer true. The only serious threat people now see are those who still boldly ask questions. Instead of debating the issue, Mr. Hess chose to stifle it.
Had he been inclined to offer a counter point, he might have researched “sustainable development” in Montana. He would have discovered that Missoula recently renewed its contract with ICLEI, a UN organization, and Bozeman and Helena also work with ICLEI. He might also have found that ICLEI provides a manual to “assist” US mayors with the implementation of sustainable development in their town.
He might have wondered, is sustainable development good or bad? There are many warm, fuzzy definitions out there, but in reality it’s best defined by looking at what it considers to be “unsustainable:” grazing animals, pastures, agriculture, paved roads, railroads, hunting, dams, logging activity, private property and human population density, to name a few.
I could go on, but wouldn’t want to do Mr. Hess’ homework for him.
The UN didn’t fund the Polson grant, but it’s possible their sustainable development philosophy did. They don’t have to fund these programs because there are many groups and individuals connected with the environmental movement willing to fund it for them.
Stifling debate erodes freedom of speech, much like political correctness. When people aren’t free to express their opinions because society won’t let them, we lose the ability to grasp and understand important problems and issues. Surely this wasn’t Mr. Hess’ intent, but it matters not. The end result is the same.
Terry Backs
St. Ignatius
