Glenn Beck has "authored" a dystopian novel titled "Agenda 21." Writing an Salon, the original, pre-Beck editor
Sarah Cypher argues,
The novel “Agenda 21″ was inspired by Beck’s entreaty to his viewers to “do your own research.”
Well, fine — if you read a single paragraph of a 40-chapter political
tract, you can spin it all kinds of ways and call it “research.” Beck
does as much on his show,
and I worry that Beck’s many readers will get the wrong idea about the
UN Agenda 21. In principle, it is an important part of city and regional
planners’ work, which involves making sure that people can access
things they need: food, education, doctors’ offices, stores. It’s about
making sure those things are even there when you need them. It’s about
helping people enjoy freedom and mobility, even if they are too poor or
too old or too young to have a car. Or just don’t want one. It’s about
the preservation of localness and sense of place instead of
generic-ization, and about maintaining a familiar, comfortable way of
life as our population expands from 300 million to over 400 million in
my lifetime.
Climate Scientist Michael Mann
reviewed the book for Popular Science, and makes the following conclusion:
Bad science is hardly the greatest sin in Agenda 21. The real
problem is its transparent agenda to sow distrust and cynicism in good
faith efforts to protect our environment. The great works of dystopian
fiction yield lucid, cautionary tales of the potential dangers that may
lurk in our future—be they nuclear holocaust, environmental catastrophe,
or the subjugation by machine overlords—if we make imprudent choices in
the present. The very worst of the genre, however, do the opposite;
they obscure an actual looming threat (e.g. human-caused climate change)
by instead drawing our attention away to a false, manufactured one.
Nothing could be more dangerous or misguided than a screed like Agenda 21 that attempts to do just that.
In the relatively near future, I plan on exploring the social and economic roots of this increasingly mainstream conspiracy theory.
Thank you for addressing this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe article on Agenda 21 states that it: “…involves making sure that people can access things they need: food, education, doctors’ offices, stores…” This statement assumes that people, and presumably large number of people, have problems accessing basic services today. Where is the evidence for this? If this is about location and city and regional planners’ work the author is assuming that Agenda 21 is necessary because the powers planners presently have are insufficient. With over 50 years as both a student of and professional in planning, competent enough to be cited in the Congressional Record, I cannot find any reason to support the assertion of insufficient planning powers. Under existing law, high density development around transit stations is already standard throughout the United States.
ReplyDeleteWhile the goal of increased freedom and mobility for non automobile owners is quite noble, Agenda 21 style planning proposes primarily high density, which most people don’t want, as the answer to inadequate transit. None of other operational characteristics of existing public transit are examined. For insight just compare the European socialist public sector business model, hardly a Glen Beck inspired idea, with the political deal making and social welfare subsidy operations of most American transit systems.
Her statement that “It’s about the preservation of localness and sense of place instead of generic-ization…” reminded me of a trip to Amsterdam many years ago. I rode several of their rail lines from end to end. At many locations the station areas were public plazas with food stores, dry cleaners, child care centers, etc. I marveled at the convenience and simplicity. But after the 20th or so similar station areas I wanted to scream at the banality. Rarely do unique enterprises start in new and costly station areas or similar developments. Upon entering a business how long does it take to discern if it grew out of a person’s individual experience or was concocted by an MBA type? Does free expression or top down management best preserve “localness and a sense of place”? The General Plan’s town center concepts for Amador County do not preserve, but rather transform in keeping with Agenda 21 goals.
At a recent California Air Resources Board meeting I attended the situation of transit was discussed only in terms of lack of funds. No consideration was given to any other factors. Many simple and cost effective changes are possible. One example is the Veterans Administration facility in the Rancho Cordova area. Their entrance way cannot accommodate standard transit buses. So patients, especially those disabled, have difficulties with access and use other means of transport. Caltrans Park & Rides lots are another example. Usually they don’t have bicycle racks and can’t accommodate transit buses, so collecting and distributing passengers between modes is precluded. Why do these situations persist under administrations in Sacramento and Washington that promote transit and fear greenhouse gases? I would suggest that these, and other parts of government, are individual fiefdoms existing mostly to increase their respective power. The solution is less government, not more government as intended by Agenda 21.
Mark Bennett, Pine Grove
If you had financial problems, then it is time for you to smile. You only need to contact Mr. Benjamin with the amount you wish to borrow and the payment period that suits you and you will have your loan within three working days. I just benefited for the sixth time a loan of 700 thousand dollars for a period of 180 months with the possibility of paying before the expiration date. Mr Benjamin has be helping me with loan.Make contact with him and you will see that he is a very honest man with a good heart.His email is lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com and his WhatApp phone number is + 1-989-394-3740
ReplyDelete