Lack of leadership derailed park status

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Does this writer have evidence or research results that a National Park status will increase tourism dollars in our area? If so publish it and the source. If not then it is just an opinion that easily has a number of opposing opinions. As for being an exercise in futility to gather public comments, our representatives were at least listening to their constituents.

The whole question of changing the monument status is superficial, in that the supposed increase in tourist dollars will be greatly offset by the supposed congestion and increased construction and maintenance costs.

A Monument is created by presidential decree and National Park status is a legislative act. The author argues that it should be a Park and then fight the federal government. Wake up, we already have had to fight them as a Monument.
the suggestion of giving it back to the BLM (the federal government) is noxious also as BLM has been closing access to recreation areas and trading our public lands for private property when they only have a proprietary jurisdiction not ownership. 

Why not return the land to the state of Colorado as was required 138 years ago at our statehood. The US constitution does not give the federal government the authority to create either a Monument or National parks. That right is reserved to the states and the people.

The Sentinel’s latest editorial is an instructive tutorial on the subject of the Vestigial Dinosaur Media’s (VDM) transparent concern that the Internet has for the most part removed money’s influence over politics. Today, every person who wants to can put up a website. Every person who wants to can get on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. One no longer needs a brick and mortar building complete with a multi-million-dollar press, scores of employees and huge overhead to get ideas out to the public. Citizen journalists and citizen bloggers abound (see, e.g.,,, and Today, everyone is equal in the world of propaganda and public relations contests, and such a REAL free marketplace of ideas definitely bums Good Old Boy (GOB) elitists and other ipse-dixitism proponents out.
But I digress.
Conspicuous in said editorial are typical GOB avoid-the-real-issue ad hominem manipulations such as “a few shrill voices”, “loud polarizing views”, “if you’re into the superficial”, “loud dissent”, “the notion that a national park somehow creates a police state in the Grand Valley”, etc, which are commonly used against those with whom polemically-challenged steal-your-labor control freaks happen to politically disagree at any given time.
America’s self-ownership-based can-do culture is dying, poisoned by the divisive Hegelian politics of “victimology” and ipse-dixitism polemical misconduct. An individual paying for her own birth control is now called “persecution” and/or “war on women”, never mind the millions of pro-life women who don’t share that intellectually fraudulent point of view. The old “if you don’t want to pay more taxes so I can have more freebies, you’re a ‘racist’” scam practiced by politically correct speech-nazi race hustlers is pandemic. It uses deliberate racial division to completely repress all meaningful public discussion on the subjects of Economics 101, Politics 101 and sustainability versus unsustainability. Never mind the millions of blacks who don’t share that intellectually fraudulent point of view.
The Sentinel did say something constructive: “Consensus is achieved. It does not simply materialize over the course of a few meetings. It needs to be nurtured by leadership and discourse.”
In my view, the Sentinel should consider the possibility that there was leadership and discourse on the monument versus park issue. It just wasn’t leadership the Sentinel is willing to recognize, and the discourse didn’t happen with the Sentinel acting as controlling intermediary.
Lastly, the Sentinel might want to consider that “consensus” doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with the Sentinel’s (or anybody else’s) preferred position. There isn’t going to be “consensus” (which implies compromise) on every issue. Sometimes you just get outnumbered and should try to be gracious.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy