Mentioned previously, I don’t reside in Fountain Hills, but I do take interest in quality public discourse. Recent exchanges regarding trails make an excellent case study. Genuine debate is fundamental to the American process if based in accuracy, civility and critical thinking. Allow me five points regarding the trails discourse.

Party-A initiated a non-personified concern with easily verified facts. Parties-B expressed only insult and ridicule with no contrarian evidence. Civility? Which party is credible?

References by Party-A to UN Agenda 21 were ridiculed by Parties-B as a spy story fronted by conservative extremists and consists of a conspiracy formulated by little green men. Is this a credible/civil counter-argument?

Within minutes of research, I found that Agenda 21 not only exists, it’s a 303-page document published by the UN. Specifically, it is sponsored by “United Nations Sustainable Development” entitled “United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992 – Agenda 21”.

A search within the UN website returned 34,900 documents referencing “Agenda 21.” Google: 60,800,000. Did little green men author these?

One writer commented that federal funds are being offered to assist with trails. This funding is provided by “HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities” (published within UN Rio +20 proceedings). No connection? Exercising critical thought and given current national trends, are these agencies offering generous good-will money as a matter of benevolence? No strings attached?

Regarding Lattie Coor’s “The Arizona We Want 2.0” report. Is it related to UN Agenda 21? Well, I read on both. It was published a few months after the UN-Rio+20 report entitled “The Future We Want.” Coincidence? In comparison, they’re remarkably similar (theme and goal bullet points). Investigate it yourself with critical thinking and decide.

Many letters thus far have set a poor example of American discourse to young citizens.