“Communities should share the joint custody of children with parents….We can require ‘registration and inspection’ of young children so that the community can monitor the child development and not lose track of the children for which it is responsible.”

If you consider the timelines, the above quote from " Noxious Nineties" pretty much coincides with Hillary Clinton's " it takes a village" regarding the care of the nations children........anyway, o\ver night I spent some time turning the PDF text into HTM so as to make for better copy here. So here is the same info as yesterday but a bigger hunk of copy from Appendix XXVII,  and cleaned up/formatted  to make for easier reading. As before, I suggest those truly interested in this material to download the book in whole from the previous link and then you have it all, not just excerpts.

--------------------

World Class Schools AND THE Social Studies by Cordell Svengalis from Social Studies Horizons ( Iowa Department of Education: Des Moines, Iowa, Vol. 3, No. 1, Fall 1990) was published. The following excerpts reveal a significant definition of “ World Class Education”, one of the popular “buzz words” used to describe and promote education reform during the early 1990s:

            As part of a nationwide trend, the Iowa Department of Education has become involved in the movement to develop a world-class educational system for the schools of our state …. Few would argue with the need to greatly improve the educational system we now have, and to help students acquire the skills they will need to become better integrated into the global community. We have not only become globally interdependent, we have come to recognize our global interconnectedness. Therefore, a World Class education program would

276

have as one of its major objectives the development of skills and understandings grounded in an ethical / moral context. This ethical/moral context would be based on the idea of assuming a sense of responsibility toward our planetary future ….

This particular issue of Social Studies Horizons also reported on the 1990 Chicago Conference of Holistic Education, which issued a document called “The Chicago Statement” calling for a radical change in education. An excerpt asserts that:

The time has come to transform education so as to address the human and environmental changes which confront us. We believe that education for this new era must be holistic. The holistic perspective is the recognition that all life on this planet is interconnected….Holism emphasizes the challenge of creating a sustainable, just and peaceful society in harmony with Earth and its life.

Dr/ Svengalis of the Iowa Department of Education was involved in the production of a Catalogue of Global Education Classroom Activities, Lesson Plans and Resources. The curriculum came under fire from the Iowa Farm Bureau because of its open advocacy of vegetarianism and environmentalism, according to the Iowa Farm Bureau’s Spokesman ( September 19, 1992 ) article entitled “State Role in Global Education Resource Guide under Review”. Also included in the global education curriculum were themes of pacifism, population controls, international global government and Gaia worship. Fourth and sixth graders could be assigned to “[t]alk about ideas of a ‘living’ Earth using Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis.” Dr James Lovelock made the radical “scientific” proposal that the Earth was both an entity and a deity.

According to education reform researchers Marla Quenzer and Sarah Leslie, environmental “outcomes” were supplanting traditional academics. In an article published in the May 1993 issue of Free World Research Report entitled “The Myth of a Competitive World-Class Education”, Quenzer and Leslie refuted the idea that “world-class” education is competitive and academically challenging. Under the new reforms they found an emphasis on cooperation and sustainability based upon extreme environmentalism and a “kind of ‘New Age’ soup of pantheism, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism.” They cited an article entitled “Global Framework for Local Education” from Holistic Education Review ( Spring 1991):

This author, Joel Beversluis , states “ that educational objectives [should] transcend the accumulation of facts, the learning of skills and even the preparation for work and life in the world as it is. Rather, at its best, education will assist, like a midwife, in the transformation of mindets – the consciousness– of students….” Beversluis asks “Is it not time for the community of educators and and educational publishers to recognize that the respectful study of diverse cosmologies, value systems, and religions has a legitimate and even necessary place in the curriculum?”. He then proceeds to list these new “global” values…

Just what values are being talked about? This turns out to be the pivotal question. Beversluis spells it out for us. He lists as negative values: “individualism, nationalism, free enterprise, unlimited growth and progress, and competitive achievement.” The values he lists as positive are “interdependence, diversity, cooperation, equilibrium, and limits.” The values that he lists as negative are foundational to western civilization and are based upon a

277                                                                   The Noxious Nineties: c 1990

rich Judeo-Christian heritage. The values he lists as positive can be found in Iowa’s proposal for “World-Class Education under “Examples of Core Concepts” and are an integral part of Iowa’s Global Education goals. Not surprisingly, these same values crop up in all the new state “outcomes” lists as well.

[Ed. Note: For more information on the connection between extreme environmentalism, sustainability, and the deliverate dumbing down of America, see Appendix XXVII.]

-------------

A–167

Appendix XXVII

“Big Bad Cows and Cars:

Green Utopianism & Environmental Outcomes”

“Big Bad Cows and Cars: Green Utopianism & Environmental Quality,” by Sarah Leslie from the Free World Research Report (Vol. 2 No. 6), June 1993. Reprinted in its entirety with permission of the author.

The problem with cows and cars, it seems, is with their…. well, er…. emissions. Both are supposedly responsible for wreaking havoc on the planet Earth (spelled with a capital “E” to suggest respect and “reverence”) because of their CO2 output – for one a matter of life, for the other a manner of mechanization.

They both have to go. This means tractors, too, of course. The goals for sustainability, according to the latest environmental craze (which we have dubbed “Green Utopianism”), require an abandonment of modern material affluence, a transfer of wealth to third world countries and, unmistakably, a return to the manual plow accompanied by a vegetarian diet.

Where can one find such utopian nonsense? It is popping up with increasing frequency in mainstream publications and credible-sounding scientific documents. Jeremy Rifkin’s “Beyond Beef” campaign and Al Gore’s recent book , Earth in the Balance, have lent the necessary pizzazz to launch a massive public relations campaign about the environmental hazards of these CO2 emissions ( that’s “gas” for the folks in Rio Linda, California).

Then education establishment, prone to jumping on the latest bandwagon, is going great guns for environmental education. Educators are frequently puzzled and amazed when parents object to environmental and global curricula and outcomes. What could be wrong with that? they ask. We recommend they read the literature.

The Rave Review

We found the abolishment of the cow and car through reading an Iowa Department of Education document. Several years ago, in a publication Social Studies Horizons (Fall, 1990), just such a utopian book was given a rave review. This book, originally entitled The Future as if It Really Mattered, was recently re-issued under a new title – Toward A Sustainable Society: An Economic, Social and Environmental Agenda for Our Children’s Future, by James Garbarino. The title says it all. It is quite an agenda!

Here is the rave review:

Excerpts from a book that is a class of practical wisdom on what a sustainable society is, why we need to move to a sustainable society, and what a sustainable society might look like. It is this kind of thinking we need to consider as we move toward transforming the cocial studies. It seems to me that teaching the “transformational economics” of sustainability would be a much more empowering and enlivening process for our students than the textbook-mires “dismal science” approach to economics that has been the norm. (Social Studies Horizons, p.4)

If you think sustainability is just a nice new term to describe more environmentally responsible farming methods, think again. Sustainability, at least to the new Green Utopians, is an entire restructuring of the way humans live on the planet, and is the new prime directive for the survival of species ( man only somewhat included).

The Iowa DE publication quoted Garbarino:

This enjoyment of owning, having, spending, buying, and consuming is a serious threat. It threatens our relationship with the Earth and our relationships with each other, particularly in our families and in our efforts to preserve the resources necessary for social welfare systems. It cannibalizes the planet, undermines the spiritual order, and leaves us scrambling to fill the social and spiritual void with positions. It is an addiction pure and simple … and our chances of making the transition to a sustainable society depend upon our overcoming it. (p.4)

The major chore for humans on Garbarino’s anthropomorphic Earth is to make the transition to sustainability. But, just what does HE mean by this? What is the agenda of the new Green Utopians?

Utopian Sustainability

Garbarino’s transition to sustainability is a process long on ideology and short on specifics, in typical utopian fashion. Garbarino states:

Our goal, remember, is the creation of a more sustainable human community based on competent social welfare systems, just and satisfying employment, reliance on the nonmonetarized economy for meeting many needs, and a political climate that encourages cultural evolution and human dignity. (p. 162) [emphasis added]

Garbarino identifies himself as a utopian throughout the book. His optimistic view of the future is dependent upon his faith that the human race will accept stringent population control measures, severely limited transportation and trade, earth-friendly housing, local neighborhood food and energy production, and government-regulated health and social welfare services. The seriousness of “our common future” is enough to warrant this massive overhaul of the Western lifestyle.

A-168                                                       Appendix XXVII

Our Not-So-Rave Review

The preface of Garbarino’s book (page ix) gives credit to Aurelio Peccei and the Club of Rome for the “wealth of ideas and information about the prospects for a sustainable society”. The Club of Rome is best known for its earth-shattering GLOBAL 2000 report, Limits to Growth ( 1972), calling for massive world-wide population control measures and many other controversial plans. The Club of Rome is one of those international organizations that the extreme left esteems (including the national media) and the extreme right views as “one of those conspiratorial groups”.

The Club of Rome does not advocate for a mainstream, reasonable approach to environmental stewardship. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It is an indisputable fact that the Club of Rome is tied closely to the whacky international New Age groups known as Planetary Citizens. Planetary Citizens sponsored a “1990 World Symposium on Interspecies & Interdimensional Communication.” (This means communicating with species not of this world!) Aurelio Peccei’s name has appeared on Planetary Citizens letterhead.

A Return to the Plow

Tractors will go the way of the car and cow. Manual high-tech plows are the wave of the new utopian future.

The plow developed by Schumacher-inspired Intermediate Technology Group is a good example [of appropriate technology]. It relieves the backbreaking burden of working an oxen-powered plow, but is not a conventional tractor. In their clever arrangement, a small engine pulls a plow across a field using a wire, while two farmers use their skill and strength to guide it. The result is better plowing with a less expensive tool and provision of meaningful work (p.223).

This utopian vision of a new society includes agricultural cooperatives, a cashless economy, and women working at home at gardening chores to provide food for their households and communities. “Household and community gardens can successfully produce fruits and vegetable, and in some cases even grain.” (P.232-2) Concurrent with these recommendations is the elimination of most trade because of its relationship ( which produces CO2). Everything must be produced locally. Eating meat is not included in the book. “The massive concentrations of cattle excrement produce large amounts of methane,” claims Garbarino in Rifkin-like fashion. Presumably the cow is regulated to a position of prominence in society, perhaps even veneration. If the cow isn’t good for food, and not an “appropriate” technological substitute for the tractor for use with plows, then perhaps the Green Utopians of the future will hang garlands of flowers about their necks!

 Car Crimes

“Using a car to accomplish daily tasks that could be done without one is a misdemeanor against the Earth and posterity Social policies that encourage driving and discourage walking are crimes against the planet.” (p.221) The term for this new kind of crime in Green Utopia is “bioeconomic crime” according to Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who is further quoted on the matter of automobiles:

Every time we produce a Cadillac, we irrevocably destroy an amount of low entropy that

A-170

could otherwise be used for producing a plow or spade. In other words, every time we produce a Cadillac, we do it at the cost of decreasing the number of human lives in the future. (p.135)

This type of logic, which ties Western consumption to the future destruction of the Earth, is the drumbeat of Garbarino’s book. It explains the reasoning behind the original version of the Iowa Global Education curriculum manual ( Catalogue of Global Education Classroom Activities, Lesson Plans, and Resources), which contained a Social Studies exercise for grades 4-6 which linked eating read meat to the destruction of the tropical rainforest:

Calculate the amount of meat eaten by a person in the U.S. per year, translate to number animals. How much energy and grain are used to produce this meat? How many trees in the tropical rainforest are destroyed to produce this meat? (p.26)

For Garbarino and Green Utopians, automobile-based urbanization is a major culprit in the anti-sustainable modern lifestyle. “Suburbs are not conducive to sustainable patterns.” (p.168) Suburbs allow people to live far away from where they work and shop. Suburbs depend upon the car, or other forms of transit. Suburbs are not an acceptable alternative. So, what, then, is the utopian alternative?

The Abolition of Patriarchy

Garbarino would like to redefine the family in the context of community, what he terms social welfare systems for sustainable society. His ideas parallel those of the social engineers. He would make community be parent. “Communities should share the joint custody of children with parents….We can require ‘registration and inspection’ of young children so that the community can monitor the child development and not lose track of the children for which it is responsible.” (p.245). Garbarino calls for a parenting license.

Family roles are redefined, too. “We need to end masculine domination both in the family and in society, so that we can create a cultural climate in which the sustainable society can exist.” (p.66) Patriarchy is a threat to the planet, according to Garbarino. He devotes an entire chapter to this subject because he believes we need to have a more feminine ethic to survive. His book has probably never been fully embraced by the feminists, however, because he believes women should be out working in the gardens and fields producing the household’s food!

Garbarino’s designs for sustainable social welfare systems for families are nearly identical to the education reform efforts, including parents as “partners”, a “community level organization….for the transportation systems, formal education, industrial enterprise, and the like.” (p.222). Although he does not specifically identify the school as the “hub” of the community structure (as we have seen in other education reform writings), it is clear that the new environmentally-correct society will be managed by grouping people into small neighborhood communities – almost completely self-sufficient in food production and other life needs, but requiring intimate governmental managing of their personal and family lives.

Mandatory Population Controls

Garbarino writes:........ [see the rest here, Ohfor]

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf