Reader says earlier pesticide letter lacks "substantiated evidence"
Posted Jun 6, 2013 By Terry Bennett
Hamill admits that everything he says to justify the ban is just opinion and speculative. Further, he suggests that toxic chemicals are a "leading candidate" in the death of birds and people, but surely the toxicity is the issue in a discussion of the ban. Asserting as fact that the chemical is toxic, in a debate as to whether the chemical is toxic, leaves little room for discussion.
In fact, the academic research I've reviewed concerning 2-4,D overwhelming declares it not a danger to humans or animals. Of course, in the mind of Hamill and those like him – liberal progressives" I think they're called – it's not open to discussion. "It's for your own good, you know, chemicals bad, me good, so take it or leave it." The tyrant indoctrinates the masses, through lies and half-truths, to achieve his own interests, which of course are not saving birds or people, but control and power. The masses, minions now mini-tyrants, follow willingly, believing the tyrant's interests are their interests. Nowhere is this more clear than in modern environmental activism.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." (C.S. Lewis)
Terry Bennett Carleton Place