Last updated on 2013.03.20
The South Dakota Republican Party gave into paranoid fantasies and passed a resolution opposing Agenda 21. The Economist's Democracy in America blog rightly skewers the mindless flogging of this purported United Nations plot as "spittle-flecked Bircherism" that views bicycles and walking paths as tools of tyranny.
Viewing everything labeled as "sustainable development" as a Marxist plot is simply silly:
...should Americans oppose mass transit, denser urban development, bike paths and the like because a document published 20 years ago by the UN supports such measures? Again, of course not. Slavish opposition is just as liberty-sapping as slavish endorsement. Some things are a good idea even if a UN document says they are a good idea. Sure, "sustainable development" has become a weaselly, empty phrase, and even with increased density American cities will probably remain far more auto-centric than European cities and than some greenies might like. But biking and walking save money, promote better health than sitting in a car, and ease traffic congestion, which makes the city more livable for everyone. Opponents of bike and walking paths are going to have come up with a better reason than an ominously named UN document [JF, "Why Walking Leads to One-World Government," The Economist: Democracy in America, 2012.06.26].
With their anti-Agenda 21 resolution, South Dakota's Republicans are telling us that they believe the most obstructionist black-helicopter paranoia of South Dakota's craziest conservatives. The SDGOP isn't just tilting at windmills; it's declaring war on unicorns.
"With their anti-Agenda 21 resolution, South Dakota’s Republicans are telling us that they believe the most obstructionist black-helicopter paranoia of South Dakota’s craziest conservatives."
Get a mirror Cory, the SDGOP platform did not attack bike paths. Stop being so paranoid.
Where did this goofball thing come from?
"Where did this goofball thing come from?"
Agenda 21 came from the United Nations.
THE RNC SUPPORTS A BAN ALSO.
Words mean something and words express ideas.
Agenda: a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.
Blueprint: a detailed outline or plan of action
If the United Nation's used words which accurately describe the reality it has limited authority (defined by Treaties) and otherwise is advisory to individual nations to consider exercising its sorereign prudential judgment of the interest of its individual citizens, I could agree with the initial goal of considering the world implications regarding combatting poverty and natural resource development/exploitation when setting domestic policy.
But, when the "Agenda" became comprehensive regarding items like culture, specific economic solutions (redistributionism), etc. culminating in their document "THE (emphasis added) Future We Want" this year not only implies but expresses a specific "solution" which rejects the prudential judgment and specific needs/capabilities of individual nations.
And, here is the irony. Many who reject the capacity of the UN to have wisdom with regard to Agenda 21 supported the capacity of the UN to discern the correct action with regard to Iraq, Libya, etc. On the other hand, those who rejected the UN wisdom with regard to Iraq, Libya, etc. accept their wisdom regarding the "blueprint" of Agenda 21.
As an American who believes in American sovereignty I reject the idea of a external entity having any broad or non-specific authority over the United States not specifically granted and freely entered into via a mutually negotiated treaty.
As a conservative/Republican, I have a natural inclination to have a visceral reaction to the idea of concentration of authority which threatens individual sovereignty without and specific granting of the subjucation of individual soreignty.
On the other hand, liberals/Democrats have a natural inclination to have a visceral reaction to greater limits to individual sovereignty by a collective authority.
In both cases, both believe the "common good" is best served by their natural inclination. And, thus, each side sees the other's view as "paranoid."
This from Wikipedia "Succinctly, Agenda 21 is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment." When I read this I have to read no more: I am opposed to it because I reject the idea the United Nations has any authority to set any agenda or devise any specific blueprint.
Thus, I fully and without reservation support the thrust of the inclusion of this in the GOP platform (with one exception) because the UN presumes an authority and wisdom I do not give it.
My one exception is I believe as stated in the quote Cory referenced that "Some things are a good idea even if a UN document says they are a good idea." Thus, I do not agree with making a condemnation of the UN for promoting goals to nations, states, or local communities. I don't fear entities who have no authority to impose but only propose ideas (whether I agree or disagree with their vision or agenda on a broad or specifice matter). The UN is free to propose anything they want. And, those duly elected within their legitimate authority as granted by the Constitution. of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or the United States are fully entitled to reject or accept anything proposed by the UN.
How I wish the particular "WHEREAS" was worded would be along the lines of "The GOP urges local, state and national governments and its elected representatives to be skeptical of the broad ultimate goals and implications of the initiatives advocated by the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development†policies such asSmart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Greenâ€or “Alternative†projects and the possible adverse effects on individual freedom and national soveriegnty."
I know I'm repeating myself but I want to make the point. I believe GOP principles are best for humanity and reason will prevail. Thus, I see a responsibility and purpose of the GOP to be a reasonable advocate for attracting more people to support our principles. This asks for those who have a visceral natural inclination to consider our ideas using their reason. But, we must be willing to do what we ask of others. Thus, the way this particular WHEREAS (which isn't the substance but the RESOLVED is) is worded implies an unwillingness to extend to liberals what we ask of them.
Dialogue and resolution requires BOTH parties to come to the discussion with a spirit of good will and that requires a willingness to examine our visceral inclinations. We might neither change our minds but we at least dialogued, which is good in and of itself.
Dialogue... good will... willingness to examine... that's just it, Troy. The anti-Agenda 21 resolution comes from none of those things. It comes from a desire to hoist a simple two-word bogeyman and scare people into voting a certain way, without thought for real problems or solutions. It leads to the absurdity of my advocating, say, a new recycling program or an extension of the bike trail in Spearfish and some Republican screaming, "U.N. takeover!" Some of us just want more places to play and less waste in the landfill.
"Some of us just want more places to play and less waste in the landfill."
So do you expect the United Nations to drive that bus?
Cory, you are practicing what you are condemning. First of all, I laid out a rational (you may disagree with the rationale) exposition of why opposition of this AGENDA is legitimate. I am not fear-mongering and nor do I question the motives of the advocates. And, you shouldn't react with such paranoia that we oppose recycling, bike paths or more waste in landfills.
But that's how they use this non-issue, Troy. Why bother writing up a resolution on a 20-year-old piece of paper when the party could take firm positions on real sustainability policies? Call it wild speculation, but here's what I hear in the resolution: "Those darn hippies are right. We should use the earth's resources more responsibly. But we can't bear to think that. Ah-ha! If we conflate 'sustainable development' and Marxism, we can still oppose all that hippie stuff! Whoo-hoo! The evil of Agenda 21 trumps every argument!"
"Why bother writing up a resolution on a 20-year-old piece of paper when the party could take firm positions on real sustainability policies?"
We did that in the platform committee Cory. You are just being paranoid.
Agenda 21 may be as you say a "20 year old piece of paper", but the proponents of its ideas met recently in Rio De Janeiro to discuss how they could better achieve implementation of Agenda 21's ideas.
In fact, Communist Chinese diplomat Sha Zukang, who is the Secretary General of the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development (which met in Rio during the past week or so) actually announced commitments by governments and businesses on so-called “sustainability†worth more than half a trillion dollars.
So even if the original A-21 document is twenty years old, it doesn't mean there aren't currently people still pushing for the implementation of these top-down central planning initiatives under the guise of "saving the environment"
Yes, because saving the environment isn't about making sure our grandkids can still breathe and drink and eat. It's about controlling you! It's all about you!
Cory, read the document. It is an agenda with goals and objectives beyond environmental stewardship which diminish individual liberty and national sovreignty. Plus, it presents a specific blueprint/action plan for achieving the goals and objectives.
As a Republican, American, and citizen of the world, while supporting the concept of stewarship of the world's resources, I wholly oppose the specific objectives and strategies.
And, your persistant characterization opponents as desiring a raping and pillaging of the environment has one effect: tuning you out.
Troy: kind of a snotty way of saying that a US apology implies guilt, innit?
Lavabo.
Wow Troy -- You demonstrate just how deep your paranoia: "(noun) 1) a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission. or 2) baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others" – is by having to define the simplest of words to us to make sure that "we" and "you" will somehow surely come to an agreement because "we" know exactly what you are talking about.
Agenda 21 is simply this: An agreement, forged in 1992, that nominally committed signatories to a set of shared values designed to mitigate the environmental impact of human development.
Member countries agreed to a range of sustainability goals, from preserving the ozone layer to ensuring that forests are managed so they'll be around for future generations. (The United States is a signatory, but the treaty has not been ratified by the Senate.)
I guess we can only conclude that Kristi Noem's and John Thune's ineffective steps to control the beetles that are ravaging the Black Hills is because to do so would make them devoted Agenda 21 followers.
Troy, next time you travel across South Dakota, stop in communities along your way and ask Joe Blow or Jane Doe on Main Street if they fear Agenda 21. Keep track of the strange looks you receive in response, especially if you start to blab to them the lengthy treatise that you wrote above.
I have read enough about the Agenda 21 "controversy" to know I needn't worry about it. Conservatives believe this agreement has paved the way for the entire planet to be controlled by a central bureaucracy: Humans would be cleared out of vast swaths of settled areas – like the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, for example – and instructed to live in "hobbit homes" in designated "human habitation zones" (two terms embraced by tea party activists).
Public transportation would be the only kind of transportation, and governments would force contraception on their citizens to control the population level. A human life would be considered no more significant than, say, that of a manatee. "Sustainability," the idea at the heart of the agreement, has become, thanks to you right-wingers, a gateway to dystopia.
Sorry, Troy. We level-headed folk enjoy progress and trying to make the world a better place. Excuse us if we choose to not accept the notion that surely all the UN wants to accomplish is the enhancment of human misery.
Sustainable means not having asphalt shingles downwind of a wildfire, for instance.
Dave, your comments are appropriate to great degree with regard to the 1992 voluntary nature of the agreement. However, it has greatly expanded with regard to goals, objectives, and strategies for achieving the original values. It is this expansion to which most of my comments are directed.
One of liberalism's favorite tactics is to claim "I'm for something good (eg reduction in poverty), I have sincere motives, I have a solution." and then assert anyone who opposes their solution is opposed to their goal (reduction in poverty) and has sinister motives. For instance, the failure to meet the poverty goals/income inequality since 1992 has resulted in the use of Agenda 21 to advocate for greater government action to achieve the goal. I believe the income inequality is substantially made worse by government action. More of the cause will not make it better but worse.
It is wholly possible for two people of good will to share a goal (eg less income disparity) yet have two extremely divergent solutions. This is a reality your myopic liberal mind can't understand. Frankly, you are just the other side of the narrow-minded on the other side.
Second, the fact people may not be aware of Agenda 21 doesn't mean it isn't relevant to be discussed. Unless of course you adhere to a paraphrasing of Pelosi, "you wait until it is implemented to know what is in it."
Third, I made it clear I don't believe every suggestion should be rejected because it is in "Agenda 21." At the same time, I don't have to accept it because it is "endorsed" by the United Nations.
Fourth, while you might consider yourself self-righteously concerned with the future while conservatives are not, I don't hold your high opinion of yourself. When you get off your high horse, I'm willing to talk.
Jones for President of the United States of Earth.
Let's talk basic principles. Sustainable development means promoting economic growth and using resources at a rate that we can sustain for future generations. That's all about liberty, especially for future generations. There is no agenda for control. I have no agenda for control. I want every person to have as much liberty as possible. If we burn up all the oil now, we guarantee less liberty for our descendants. If we let Bakken oil drillers slurp up a whole bunch of water for fracking and immediate profit, we deny future ranchers and homeowners a clean drink of water. Liberty without water dries up fast.
Grandstanding against Agenda 21 is not some noble act of principle. It is a surrender to fear and a worn-out and somewhat selfish worldview.
Dave, you mention Senator Thune. Don't forget that, when confronted by Spearfish's resident Agenda 21 guru Midge Heymeier, Senator Thune said, "I'm not as acquainted with that as I should be." He doesn't know about Agenda 21... but then that's exactly what they want you to believe....
If it comes from the U.N. I don't want it.
You know, Bree, they probably serve grilled cheese and Pepsi at the UN commissary. Are you going to eat that?
Even if the grilled cheese was made with Ezekiel 4:9 bread and the Pepsi was traded out for a Zevia, I still wouldn't attend.
Never underestimate the craziness of the Republican Party. You could get them to rape their mother on a burning US flag, if the UN voted to pass a resolution against it. I work with paranoid schizophrenics, and they are far more sane than the headshakers in the Republican Party. At least you can get most of them to realize that the voices they are hearing are in their head.
Were the paranoid schizophrenics you work with libertarian socialists also?
Socialist efforts to protect, expand, and share the common wealth can lead to more liberty than unchecked free market exploitation of resources
"Socialist efforts to protect, expand, and share the common wealth"
Yeah share with the corporatists, protect their bounty, and expand their wealth.
When did the Republican party decide to jump on the crazy train?
Here's some stuff from Texas that we can most likely expect from our copy cat, ALEC fed GOP. And yes it does give them the complete freedom to reject critical thinking, both for themselves and our children. (You'll love this Sibby)
"Texas Republican Party Calls For Abstinence Only Sex Ed, Corporal Punishment In Schools "
In the section titled "Education Our Children," the document states that "corporal punishment is effective" and recommends teachers be given "more authority" to deal with disciplinary problems.
Additionally, the document states the party opposes mandatory pre-school and kindergarten, saying parents are "best suited to train their children in their early development."
The position causing the most controversy, however, is the statement that they oppose the teaching of "higher order thinking skills" -- a curriculum which strives to encourage critical thinking -- arguing that it might challenge "student's fixed beliefs" and undermine "parental authority."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/texas-republican-party-2012-platform-education_n_1632097.html
And to think these idiots are determining what's in our schools text books.
Jana, how about cutting a deal, you send your kids to the New Age schools were parental authority is undermined so that kids are taught to worship sex, and allow the rest of us to have our children taught in a Christian environment. And let the education tax follow the parent's decision.
Steve, I'll make you a better deal. How about I send my kids to public schools that I hope teaches them how to think and reason for themselves...at some point in time that will come in handy when they are older...you should try it some time.
Oh yeah, and I'll teach them the Christian values that we believe in with the help of our church and extended family.
As far as your New Age rants and belief that kids are being taught to worship sex, you are just batsh*t crazy...sorry to be blunt, but for crying out loud Steve, that is crazy talk!
Oh yeah, and you say that someone should allow the "rest of us to have our children taught in a Christian environment"...who is stopping anyone from sending their kids to a parochial school? For that matter, they even have the freedom to home school.
It's really just all about bike paths, isn't it?
Please, let me answer my own question. No! It is really about taking away any choice in the matter. You will ride your bike to work or play. You will do as we say or you will be delt with. Yes, the natural development of things is that cities do get more dense over time and that is not a problem for anyone. The problem comes into view when you begin to realize that the county and the city are working in concert to force development into the city by limiting any future development outside the city. You see, this is where freedom, liberty and the right to protect one's property come in to the pictures. So, to paraphrase G.H.W. Bush, what is at stake is more than one small country (with individuals willing to fight for freedom) this is a big new idea, a" NEW WORLD ORDER"
Ease up, John. A bike path doesn't reduce liberty; it expands it. WHen you build a freeway with no alternative safe route, you restrict liberty, saying, "The only way you're getting to work is by car." Build alternative routes, and lots of people can still drive to work, but those can't afford a car, who want to exercise, or who want to use less fossil fuel can walk or bike or roller blade. A bike path actually frees people a bit from the corporate/consumerist world order.