In recent paid-for opinion pieces, Dan Hawbaker has accused citizens of the Spring Creek watershed of “relying on emotion, opinion, and careless rhetoric.” This is classic distraction when you have no argument.
We don’t have the joy of getting a multi-million dollar profit from a sweetheart deal from inside baseball. Folks are angry and more than a little disgusted that local governments entrusted with their citizens’ Constitutional right to water and a statutory duty to transparency have tentatively accepted a set of wish-list terms with Nestle. In case Mr. Hawbaker missed it, Nestle is notorious for ignoring permits and beating up municipalities across the United States and Canada. Peoples’ “emotions” are justified.
Unlike folks taking a ride on the Nestle spin machine, informed citizens across the watershed know what’s going on because they are digging into Nestle’s history. They have reasoned opinions that Nestle is not to be trusted. Why should they trust people who don’t inform themselves, who rely on talking points, who insult honest and concerned citizens, and who praise Nestle? Especially when those people stand to gain a multi-million dollar deal?
Mr. Hawbaker didn’t mean to do it, but he made a better case that he’s using careless rhetoric than concerned citizens of the watershed are. Citizens have relied on common sense, evidence, values, and made good arguments to get their pieces into local media. Unlike Mr. Hawbaker or the big-money power brokers, they don’t have the capacity to buy speech.
Peter Walks for Democracy 