Need More Unconstructive Anxiety? We The People & John Anthony are Ready to Provide It

17 Feb

Anxiety Mongers and Fear Specialists Have Finally Descended on The Community! 

The Feeling You Got Listening to John Anthony Sustainable Freedom Lab

The Feeling You Got Listening to
John Anthony
Sustainable Freedom Lab

We The People Presented So-Called Agenda 21 “Expert” John Anthony (Sustainable Freedom Lab) to Blather On for More than One-and-One-Half Hours of Brainwashing (Most Were brain-dead After the First 20 or So Minutes of Anthony’s Diatribe) of  A Near-Full House of Locals on Anthony’s Own “Be Suspicious Agenda”

John Anthony of SFL

John Anthony of SFL
The only one we know of who can talk longer than Obama and actually make less sense!

Even more damning than a damned boring exposure to propagandist blather is the slap in the face at the end, when there is no time allocated for comments or for questions and answers. What were the organizers afraid of? Yeah, sure, they might have had to put facts where their cake holes were. It’s much safer to spew your venom and then beat it before anyone comes up with a real question requiring real facts. But I blame the organizers of this despicable event; they could have done better and could have presented a fairer and more balanced discussion of both sides of the Agenda 21 topic as a moderated panel discussion. It would have provided insights into both sides of the proposal and would have allowed more information exchange.

 So, dear readers, the downside of the experience was the whole experience. The upside was that there was no charge to attend (but there was a collection dish in the middle of tables) and there was a cash bar (which eased the overall pain a bit). You can now read our complete report on the rantings of a very confused toxic dwarf from New Jersey. You can also  review the recording we made of the dog-and-pony-act (which we’ve made available at the end of this article so you can decide for yourself whether the guy is a prophet or a lunatic; our money is on the lunatic part). If you’re one of the unfortunates who sat through the angry dwarf’s gleeful moment of self-gratification before an almost live audience, tossing books and vomiting random misinformation, you may benefit from our commentary. (If you click the Follow Me button at the top right of this page you can receive an automatic e-mail notification when our comments are published.)

John Anthony, a New Jersey businessman-turned-anxiety-monger, was invited by the organization calling itself We the People, to present his rather confused views about an action plan called Agenda 21.  First of all, here are the organizations who put on the presentation at a local restaurant in Coxsackie:

We the People describes (Tom DeWeese) itself as

“Citizens dedicated to preserving a Constitutional Republic ruled by law and the concept that sovereignty resides in We The People.” [Source: We The People site at last visited on February 17, 2013]

Sustainable Freedoom Lab (SFL) (John Anthony) describes itself as”…changing the fight to protect our freedoms.  We provide unique tools to expose and turn the tables on officials, planners, federal agencies and non-governmental organizations who attempt to infringe upon your rights.”

When I see expressions like “ruled by law,” (I’d rather be ruled by justice, not “law”) “sovereignty resides in We the People,” (I’m not sure whether they mean that sovereignty resides in the group “We the People” or if We the People is referring to the opening lines of the Constitution. Whatever they mean, it’s unclear. Unclear pretty much sums up everything they have to say, too!). [Source: Sustainable Freedom Lab (SFL) site at last visited on February 17, 2013]

I also get a bit uneasy when I see Sustainable Freedom Lab (what’s the “Lab” in there for, anyway? Are we a bunch of lab rats being toyed with by these organizations?) using phrases like “changing the fight,” (What “fight”? I thought we were in this together, not opponents!?!), “turn the tables on officials, planners, federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations” (Who’s left, I wonder?), and the buzzy, prick-up-your-ears cliché, “infringe on your rights.” What rights? Do we have any left after Andrew Cuomo, Obama, the Supreme Court, and David Soares mangle and distort the Constitution, and purloin and give our rights to the corporations? What’s left?  I have to ask you?

Mr Anthony Was Nothing Less than At Best A Crazed Preacher, More Sinister, though, A Propagandist.

Mr Anthony Was Nothing Less than At Best A Crazed Preacher, More Sinister, though, A Propagandist.

Actually, this experience woke me up to what’s out there and what the real agenda has been and continues to be: Mr Anthony, despite what he preaches, and preach he certainly does, is nothing less than a propagandist who is promoting the despicable message of anxiety, fear, and mistrust that has been plaguing the ignorant and the misguided of this country for years. Mr Anthony is nothing less than one of those crazed fire-and-brimstone preachers of satan, hell and damnation we cringe from when we see them on the idiot box or in those old films. But he’s continuing what was started after 911 and in the so-called Patriot Act: he’s keeping everybody paralyzed in a state of high anxiety and fear.

Mr Anthony’s talk, and man can he t-a-l-k — he went on for more than 90 minutes, starting more than a half-hour late — foaming at the mouth in an avalanche of doctored or dubious factoids and figures, waving several thick books with long titles, spewing cryptic abbreviations and acronyms, waving maps no one could clearly identify, running off bulleted lists and quotes on a projection screen, all doom and gloom, nothing substantial, nothing to educate or illuminate, but everything presented to obfuscate, to blur, to confuse. Do we really need our local political leaders to expose us to that sort of shite?

mellting face

The More He Ranted, the More the Real John Anthony Came Through.

As Anthony ranted on and on about this statistic and that statistic, his true person started to come through. This man who was touted as an “expert,” who first introduced himself to the audience as a “businessman” and midway through the talk morphed into a “historian,” didn’t know shit from Shinola, and was hell bent to spread his ignorance to the some 100 lemmings assembled in the room and mostly seniors, farmers, a smattering of local politicos, and a handful of 30-40-somethings who liked talking about not turning in their guns. But none of them appeared to be awake, much less following the unintelligible brayings of a fanatic, anti-government jackass!

John Anthony Went from Passionate Preacher, to Poking Propagandist, to Braying Jackass Before Our Eyes.

John Anthony Went from Passionate Preacher, to Poking Propagandist, to Braying Jackass Before Our Eyes.
(Well, actually, it took all of 90 minutes to happen.)

Of course the local media was there, if you can call the Hudson Catskill Newspapers, the “media.” In fact, just hours after the fanatic diatribe, Kyle Adams of the Catskill Daily Mail rushed to post his take on the event. Adams makes a feeble attempt to make best use of his ignorance, to make sense out of what was going on in the room but fails miserably (as most of the so-called journalists at the Hudson Catskill Newspapers tend to do.  They’re such creatures of habit. So eager to please their keepers.)  Far be it from us to make a statement without allowing our readers to decide for themselves. Heres a link to the Adams item that was published on the Catskill Daily Mail online edition: Coxsackie forum warns against dangers of sustainable development.

And, by the way, Kyle Adams, you are grossly misleading when you write, “State Assemblyman Peter Lopez, R-Schoharie, who also attended to learn more about Agenda 21.”  Peter Lopez showed up about 10 minutes before the presentation mercifully ended. (I know because I was sitting by the door when he arrived and his cell phone promptly made a disturbance!)  Mr Lopez, therefore, had no opportunity to either know what Mr Anthony was ranting about at all. Even if Lopez had shown up at the beginning of the presentation he wouldn’t have learned very much about Agenda 21, anyway. But Mr Lopez showed up at the end of the presentation, he did not “attend” as you incorrectly report, Mr Adams.

Now for the simple truth. No waving thick books in the air. No obscure statitisics. No doom and gloom. No propaganda. Just the plain, honest truth, something Mr John Anthony was unable to deliver at the so-called “forum”. (We’re not going to go into the substance of Agenda 21. Those of you who are interested in the range of opinions can find something to your liking by simply Googling “Agenda 21.” There’s something for everyone but read it with an open mind, please.)

Mr Anthony waved a lot of books around and spewed a lot of factoids in those agonizing 90 minutes. But the impression he made was that he was not being truthful. I say this because during his rant he clearly was preaching against “officials, planners, federal agencies and non-governmental organizations” as we can read in the description of his organization, Sustainable Freedom Lab, but he was giving only his ignorant interpretation. In fact, when I confronted him with a question about one of the books he suggested the audience download and read (it was a free publication of reports about Sustainable Development, Our Common Future), Mr Anthony responded that he was “not for or against anything, he was not supporting or opposing anything.” That’s clearly not the message he sent when delivering his rant (I’m providing a link to the entire rant, which I taped, at the end of this article). In fact, he failed to deliver the truth, a definition of Sustainable Development, taken directly from the very book he was flashing throughout the talk, Our Common Future, and invited those present to download and read. That definition contradicted just about everything Mr Anthony was preaching that afternoon:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

  • the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
  • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

That’s an important definition if we are to discuss sustainable development in any way whatsoever. In fact, all definitions of sustainable development ask us to  we see the world as a system—a system that connects space, and a system that connects time.

Who today can avoid acknowledging that our entire existence depends on our accepting that everything in the world is interconnected and in a delicate balance. When you envision the world as a system whose effects move  over space, you grow to understand that air pollution from North America affects air quality in Asia and vice versa, and that pesticides sprayed in Argentina could harm fish stocks off the coast of New England!

And when you think of the world as a system over time, you start to realize that the decisions our grandparents made about how to farm or otherwise develop the land continue to affect our land use or abuse today; and the economic policies we endorse today will have an impact on economic policies when our children are adults. Just think for a moment about the effects of deforestation and desertification and their negative influence on climate and weather! Depleting the Amazonian rain forest and clearing forests in India is making a mess out of our weather patterns!

We also understand that quality of life is a system, too. It’s good to be physically healthy, but what if you are poor and don’t have access to education? It’s good to have a secure income, but what if the air in your part of the world is unclean? And it’s good to have freedom of religious expression, but what if you can’t feed your family?

The concept of sustainable development is rooted in this sort of systems thinking. It helps us understand ourselves and our world. The problems we face are complex and serious—and we can’t address them in the same way we created them. But we can address them. But Mr John Anthony doesn’t provide solutions. The fact that he got to say what he wanted to say over those agonizing 90 minutes but did not end with a comment period or an opportunity to ask questions was a sure sign that his was a hit-and-run ambush act! He did nothing to simplify the situation nor to clarify it. Here’s what sustainable development looks like in a very simple, easy to understand form:


The real monsters are us, our perverse greedy, self-centered, insatiable individual avarice and gluttony.

Here’s the real story behind sustainable development and it’s not a horror story about people losing their rights or private property being gobbled up by some monster from the cannibal culture of the United Nations or government agencies! Let’s stop with the idiotic witch hunts looking for monsters and start doing some soul-searching of our own. The real monsters are us, our perverse greedy, self-centered, insatiable individual avarice and gluttony.

And puhleez don’t start with the idiotic speculations that the now 30-year old voluntary action plan is going to erase private property rights and implement a diabolical program of population control. If you really want to be scared shiteless just read some of the lunatic stuff on Catholic Answers, a site that describes its purpose as “to defend and explain the faith.” (Here’s the link: Agenda 21: United Nations’ erases private property for green-ism.) Seems there are more nuts out there than in a holiday fruitcake! Bless their poor demented souls!

If we want to survive in the terms of the definition of sustainable development taken from the book Our Common Future, we need to make it a firmly rooted, long-term reality by first working in community to create a truly sustainable economy. The fear and anxiety propagandists only offer one side of the coin, the tarnished side, and are always pointing to the “other” as the enemy. We, you and I, have to take responsibility.

All human, all economic activity is dependent on a healthy Nature, a healthy world!

No matter how you look at it our economy is based on nature. Yes, the Nature we’re constantly trying to destroy to satisfy our appetites for more, More, MORE. It’s time we took a step back and recognized that we are a part of the Nature we are destroying; that we are in an intimate relationship with Nature. The foundation of our survival is in the soil, water, air, and environmental concerns have to be first understood by US, and we then must inform our policy makers that we need to stop our suicidal policies. All human, all economic activity is dependent on a healthy Nature, a healthy world!

We are citizens of the universe, the world, the created order and we have really gone off the deep end; we need real ecological and economic conversation. The environmental problem is the direct consequence of our economic activity of our greed, of the corporations and short-term profits and short-term solutions. Those negative environmental consequences are long-term and must be first among our national and international priorities. The environmental question is not just an ethical and scientific problem, it’s a political and economic problem.

We need to place greater emphasis on renewable energy, fuels and cleaner technologies, for starters.  We have to do a hell of a lot more to stop and reverse current trends in consumption and pollution. And where does that start? Not in the halls of Washington or the UN, not in the government agencies, not in non-governmental organization as Mr Anthony would have you believe. It starts in your own homes, in your kitchens, in your living rooms, in your town halls!

sustainable word cloud

 OK, if fossil fuels are going to be with us for “the foreseeable future” and if the governments are going to settle for “hybrid options in the energy mix”, then serious public investment in clean technology must accompany this pragmatism as an urgent part of national and international strategies to diminish as fast as possible the impact of air and sea transport pollution and those sectors’ continued use of outdated technology. That’s what Agenda 21 is proposing. Not depriving anyone of life, liberty, happiness or private property. Agenda 21 is an action plan, a voluntary program, that will ensure life, liberty, happiness and private enjoyment of property for the present and for the future. But we didn’t hear that from Mr Anthony…he has his own agendas.

It's Not Tree Hugging!<br />It's Embracing a Future for Life!

The principle of subsidiarity requires the participation of local communities in the decision-making process

We’ve all heard about the future fresh water crisis, and it’s real. Melting polar ice, crazy record droughts, freakish storms, unparalleled flooding, crops rotting, cattle dying, shortages, and the list can go on. Do you really doubt that it’s connected with our patterns of abuse of Nature and our patterns of consumption. Do you really doubt that we’re on a suicidal binge of waste and misuse? Think of a basic survival need, water: the fulfillment of water requirements is not the lack of sufficient water for human needs but that of the proper stewardship, care and administration of our water resources. We’ve all heard or read about the privatization of water resources, where corporations are buying up municipal water resources with a view  of making a profit by selling the natural resource back to the people.  This certainly  highlights the  problems of rogue corporations, wild-eyed greed, the need for ethical management of infrastructure, technology, and finances. Governance of water resources must be based on the implementation of the principle of responsibility shared at all levels, especially the local, right on through the regional, state, national and  international level, with particular attention to the principle of subsidiarity, which requires the participation of local communities in the decision-making process.

Desertification and drought now affect more than one in six of the world’s population.

The UN designated 2006 as the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, and drew international attention to one of the most alarming processes of environmental degradation. Desertification has  a strong negative influence not only on the environment but also in economic and social fields. Desertification and drought now affect more than one in six of the world’s population.

We should be well aware that too little of our own, personal, local effort has been made to safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology. Such an authentic human  ecology will place the human person at the centre, not at the top, dear readers,  of environmental concerns, while at the same time promoting an urgent sense of human responsibility for the Earth, be it at the level of the individual single household, local communities, states, commerce. Everything starts and ends with the individual person: YOU and I.

Good environmental policies are by extension good people policies too.

Back to water. Water. by 2025, a third of the world’s nations will have catastrophically low levels of water. Even today, 34,000 people die every day for lack of clean water: one and a half billion people do not have access to clean water, a figure which could rise to 3 billion by 2025. We, right here in town, experience water restrictions almost regularly so how can we continue ignoring our involvement in a global problem?

We need desperately to find a balance.We don't need more anxiety preachers!

We need desperately to find a balance.
We don’t need more anxiety preachers!

We can no longer go on pretending that our individual greed and that human activity has little or no negative impact on resources that are essential to our survival.

In terms of food security or ensuring that there’s enough feed our populations. Changing climactic conditions have had a devastating effect in this area. Newsweek recently published a feature article on foods that will disappear from our tables if we don’t take some concerted action to change our destructive habits. We can no longer pretend that human activity has little or no impact on these matters. (Anyone notice smaller food packaging, less content, higher prices? Less for more. Is that the UN conspiracy or the corporations at work?)

Energy is central to achieving sustainable development goals; improving access to reliable, affordable and environmentally friendly energy services is a major challenge to the eradication of poverty, the fostering of social justice, of ensuring enough for all. Nature, creation, the environment is not private property, it’s our common inheritance from the Divine. Get with the program, people! It starts with Genesis but not the corporations or the John Anthony interpretation of it. You are not at the top of creation, you are at most at the center of creation and by occupying that position, you have a very grave responsibility…and you’ve made a bloody mess of it.

Reliance in industry, transport, commerce and defence upon traditional combustion engines is already a century old

The transportation sector is another devilish problem we need to seriously and urgently deal with. Reliance in industry, transport, commerce and defence upon traditional combustion engines is already a century old.  For several reasons, their replacement with clean, renewable alternatives is long overdue.

The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era. The global warming trend and sea-level rise would continue for hundreds of years, due to the atmospheric lifetime of some greenhouse gases and the long timescales on which the deep ocean adjusts to climate change.

Who can seriously doubt or argue against the fact that the dovetailing of environmental and developmental concerns with commercial and industrial policymaking will surely lead to a safer, more prosperous future for all. But no nation can achieve this alone.

We need to start acting like mature citizens and stewards of creation and admit our part in the damage done and take responsibility for our part in healing it!

Apart from the myriad clichés, the single point that John Anthony made and with which  I must admit to agreeing with is this: We need to push our elected officials to work with our communities to ensure our survival.

Yes, dear readers, you need to stop wallowing in your own misery and anxiety and do something about it. You and I have the power to make these changes work. You and I have to demand these changes. You and I have to make these changes. You and I have to take urgent steps to make our elected officials know that we will no longer play the village idiots for the corporations or the special interests. We are the ones who are paying the price and the ultimate price will be our survival. We need to stop the shortsightedness and tell people like John Anthony who want to force feed us with more anxiety and more negativity to Shut the hell up! We need to start acting like mature citizens and stewards of creation and admit our part in the damage done and take responsibility for our part in healing it! In otherwords, Grow up! Ante up! Or shut up!

Time to put our own SPIN on things!

Time to put our own SPIN on things!
Time for us to take responsibility, to take control!

Mr Anthony had the audacity to call himself an historian. Purest rubbish! Mr Anthony proved his ignorance by making the statement that “social justice” or “social option” was  coined about 40 years ago, about the time the notion of sustainable development was born. That’s simply not true! In fact, social justice is a prominent theme in the Gospels, in the Old Testament prophets. It was made part of the official  teaching of the Roman Catholic Church by Pope Leo XIII’s peerless Encyclical, On the Condition of Workers, “On Capital and Labor,” and later in Pope Pius XI’s “On Reconstruction of the Social Order” (1931). The notion of social justice was further developed by great humanitarians like Dorothy Day, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and before them the Buddha and Christ! 800 years ago St Francis of Assisi was teaching social justice and most faith traditions continue some form of social justice and social options! Where have you been, Mr Anthony?!?

So, in conclusion, if you have 90 minutes on a Sunday and don’t know how to spend them, may I recommend that if you want to hear preaching, take those 90 minutes and spend them in Sunday worship. At least there you might pick up something from the more than 2000 years of wisdom that might constructively help you to cope with the anxiety people like John Anthony and his ilk are foisting on an almost daily basis .

As promised, here is the link to the recording of the entire Anthony rant, if you’d like to listen or download it: John Anthony Rant, or right-click the link to download the audio file.

The Moment of Truth is NOW!Make Positive Changes Now. Tweak Later. The Editor

The Moment of Truth is NOW!
Make Positive Changes Now. Tweak Later.
The Editor

[Editor’s Note: If anyone who is reading this article would like to read a moral theological discussion of the Agenda 21 subject matter, just leave a comment and we’ll post the ethics and moral theological reasoning behind Agenda 21. There is much to be said about humanity’s moral and natural right obligation to accept and implement the principles of Agenda 21, and why it would be “sin” not to do so.]

Special Notice: We make every effort to be truthful, complete, fair, and balanced on this blog; therefore, if you see anything that you know to be false or incorrect, or if you have additional information to clarify any issue, please let us know by e-mailing your information or by leaving a comment. It’s very important to us that we don’t fall into the same category as those whom this blog is intended to expose. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and assistance!

Posted by on February 17, 2013 in Abuse, Accountability, AFL-CIO, Agenda 21, Albany, Andrew Cuomo, Anti-Community Activity, Building Community, Capital District, Catholic Church, Church and State, Civil Rights, Coeymans, Community, Community Support, Compassion, Corporate Greed, Corporation, Crime and Punishment, Death, DEC, Department of Environmental Conservation, Ecology, Ethics and Morality, Freedom, Gluttony, Government, Greed, Greene County, Healing, Hudson Valley, Immorality, Indifference, Insane Legislators, Irresponsibility, John Anthony, Misconduct, Misinformation, Mismanagement, Misuse of Public Office, Monitoring, New Baltimore, New York, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State, New York State Education Department, New York State United Teachers, News Channel 10, News Channel 13, News Channel 6, NYS Assembly, NYS Senate, NYSED, NYSUT, Perp Patrol, Perv Patrol, Pete Lopez, Ravena Coeymans Selkirk, Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District, Ravena Coeymans Youth and Teen Activities Center, Ravena-Coeymans Teen Center, RCS Board of Education, RCS Central School District, RCS Community, RCS School Board, Responsibility, Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, Selkirk, Seven Deadly Sins, Shame On You, Sins Against Nature, Smalbany, Small Town, St Francis of Assisi, Stifling Diversity, Stifling Freedom, Suffering, Sustainable Freedom Lab, Teachers, Teachers Union, Transparency, Unamerican Activity, Uncategorized, Union Representative, United Federation of Teachers, We The People


10 responses to “Need More Unconstructive Anxiety? We The People & John Anthony are Ready to Provide It

  1. Frieda

    June 18, 2013 at 2:41 am

    You have made some decent points there. I checked on the
    internet for more information about the issue and found most
    people will go along with your views on this site.


  2. wyntre

    February 19, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    “By the way: Did you attend the presentation?”
    As a matter of fact, I did.
    “I would guess you did neither.” (listen to the recording or attend the event).
    Your guess would be wrong.
    “So what have you to say that is of any substance besides being a reaction and not a response?”
    My “response” is there were many grains of truth in the presentation and enough source material cited both by the speaker and in the handouts for any one interested in the topic to research further and connect some of the dots themselves.
    As for the four visits, I could not post my comment and needed several attempts to do so successfully.



    • RCS Confidential

      February 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      Well. That’s certainly comforting to know that you actually attended the presentation. I’m genuinely relieved and I don’t mind having guessed wrongly. I just drew an incorrect conclusion from your comment, which in its substance indicated you were commenting on the fly. Good for you!

      BTW were you the middle-aged blond woman sitting with the skinny kid with the cock’s comb hair and the camera?

      While there may have been “many grains of truth in the presentation,” those grains were few and far between and very difficult to connect to form a coherent picture of what the speaker was actually trying to convey. Many grains of sand don’t make a beach and “many grains of truth” don’t make a point.

      The “handouts” were pro forma and I disagree that they were in any way helpful to anyone who might have been interested in researching the topic. In fact, the handouts proved to be just as biased as the speaker (is that a surprise to you?), based on my extensive research. Like the Times Useless blogs and the Hudson Catskil Newspaper blogs, nothing contrary to the agenda is published; so, too, you’re not likely to find anything not representing the speaker’s position in the handouts.

      While we’re on the subject of content and format let me ask you this: Have you ever experienced a presentation that ran 90 minutes? Quite frankly, that was a first for me and I’ve attended probably hundreds if not thousands of presentations of one sort or another. Normally they run about 30-40 minutes. But 90 minutes? And you’d like me to believe that he had everyone’s attention even after 45 minutes?

      And seriously, do you honestly believe that those people sitting through all of that would seriously leave there and actually research the topic? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you!

      I’d like to apologize for the fact that I may have assessed you too hastily, though. I may have overestimated you.



  3. cookie

    February 18, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    I too looked at your post a couple of times and considered what I would write, but I didn’t have the time to put it together until now

    I could not buy into all that was said either. Mr. Anthony came across as well spoken, and quite a bit like a saleman. He reminded me of that guy on TV who sells Magic Jack on those infomercials. I am not too keen on conspiracy theories but there were some items that I agree with. Specifically:
    1. “Don’t take the grants – meant for those in government. I don’t agee wholeheartedly but there is no free lunch. At the least please see what strings are attached, not just in the present but for future years.
    2. The comment about being rushed by “the clock”. Any sales pitch that I’ve heard that implies that the decision must be made “NOW” needs to be slowed down and thought provided. When it is a rush it is usually because those making the pitch, in this case for planning regulation, really don’t want you to think about it. If you don’t agree with me on this, I have a vacuum cleaner I’d like to sell you.
    3. I agreed with Mr. Anthony that a sample of 96 online survey takers should not be considered a representation of those million or so that live in the 8 county area.
    4. I consider my own stewardship of my property. On my property I walk the few acres that I own a couple of times each week. I tend it, I grow things on it, my family live on it. It may not be much but it’s mine (and the bank’s). I do not like the suggestion that somehow my ownership is not consistent with proper land use.
    5. He suggested that the people in their town are best suited to consider the future of their community. I too believe that the best solution is one that is closest to the source.

    No, the sky’s not falling. The UN is not moving up the Hudson Valley. Having worked in the government for a number of years, I have found that they are generally too incompetent to have hatched such a fine tuned take-over as was suggested. So, maybe I only fell halfway down the cliff with the other lemmings.


    • RCS Confidential

      February 19, 2013 at 7:52 am

      Thank you, Cookie, for some very valuable insights. You were personally there for the presentation, I know that. I also have direct and personal knowledge that you have a keen mind, you have life experience, you deal with a great number of different issues every day of your professional life. You have intense involvement with your community and are active as an opinion leader. You are a good and loving family man. In short, whether I agree with your insights or not, I feel confident that there is a great deal of truth and credibility to be associated with them and that our readers would benefit from your sharing.

      Regarding #1: Grants can be helpful but can also be a crutch. If you can do it on your own, do your best to do so. Grants in many cases, I know from my experience with healthcare research grants, are just easy money to be eroded by direct and indirect expenses, are subject to a great deal of corruption, and tend to be taken advantage of. In many cases you are right: there are some undesirable strings attached and people, especially those in authority positions but ignorant and with little experience, especially those who refuse to consult, can get into deep doggy do. I’m no friend of cliché, as you know well, but No! there is no free lunch.

      Regarding #2: You are 110% correct about not rushing into things and it does smack of the used car salesman or all those SPAM mails I get from Barnes and Noble and others who are still working the Black Friday sale pitch, but every day by a different name. No, I don’t need to rush to get that book, that hair remover, that CD, that new smart phone. No one does. You’re right and for what it’s worth, Mr Anthony was right on that point but it’s a very, very minor point, one of common sense that the audience did not need to spend 90 minutes to learn.

      Regarding #3: Mr Anthony’s statistics and prooftexting were a major annoyance for me. He didn’t get high points for cherrypicking factoids to suit his arguments and to make his points. Surveys, assisted by the myriad statistical tools and good demographics and preparation, do tell us a lot and are valuable road signs. I do not put my life on surveys and statistics, however, but it does take some knowledge and study to decide what’s wheat and what’s chaff. It also depends on the purpose of the survey, as you know well. Surveying a population of WalMart shoppers and using the data from 96 respondents is a hell of a lot different than surveying a population of 96 univeristy presidents. Mr Anthony was abusing his audience with some of his “statistics” and his comments of the invalidity of the “surveys.” I stand firm on that point. The used car salesman came out very strongly in Mr Anthony at these points, and I would have welcomed the opportuntity for Q&A to explore his comments but, as you know, there was no opportunity to share or to exchange.

      Another point I’d like to make that emerges from the criticism that 96 participants in a survey may be a bit few is the fact that the criticism should not be directed solely to the survey or the survey organizers but also to the fact that people just don’t want to or do not get involved, do not participate in such worthwhile data gathering efforts. But then after the fact, are bitching and moaning that decisions are made with which they do not agree. Ante up or shut up! is my advice.

      As to #4: We are not individuals and if we insist that we are we are anarchists and opponents of community. If we think we can do it on our own and do what we want, kiss humanity good-bye. No one can have it all ways; you can’t have absolute freedoms and expect support when you need or want it. You can’t be a glutton and expect your body to ignore your intemperance. Good stewardship does not mean taking good care of or appreciating your little island but extends to good stewardship of all of creation. That’s where many make the mistake in limiting their thinking to stewardship or good management of a single node in the network while the rest of the network goes to hell in a hand basket! When the world is falling apart around you and Chinese toxic waste is buffeting you on your patio, then tell me about your good stewardship of your property. When your aquafer is teeming with resistant microorganisms from the drug-adulterated pig farm upstream of you, or the fracking chemicals are setting your drinking water to fluorescent colors, you can then rething your good stewardship. Sorry, but we have to start thinking out of the box.

      You are entitled to your personal opinion and assessment of how you manage your private, individual piece of Nature and it may very well be, in your opinion, consistent with “good land use.” The point is that there is a bigger picture to be considered and a wider consensus that has to be attained to ensure that the notion of good land use and sustatinable resources remain just that. The problems affect all levels from your little piece of paradise to entire hemispheres and the entire globe. Again, think out of the box.

      As to #5: That’s called the principle of subsidiarity and is writ large in Agenda 21 as it is elsewhere. What can be achieved locally should be done locally without outside interference. But as we know from local experience and as has been copiously published in this forum, everyone has to get involved otherwise we end up with a Ravena-Coeymans or a pre-McCartney RCS central school district. All levels must co-operate. No level is greater or more responsible than another. But the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual and the local community. Higher levels, such as the UN act only in an organizing or consultatory capacity; the UN provides a convenient meeting place for diverse interests…some of which tend to stymie the best of intentions for the wrong reasons and I’m not talking only about China or Russia, the good ol’ USA has done its share of dirty dealing and villainry. We must start being authentic and demanding the same of others at all levels. But we have to start with ourselves, at the individual level.

      A team is only as good as its least competent member. The UN is as competent as its members allow it to be. When a member state is intransigent or obstinate or immovable in its position or does not pay its fair share or holds back payment for political reasons, that’s extortion and adversely affects the organization, its constituents, its image, and its effectiveness. A team implements only what the majority on the team want to implement. Nothing more nothing less. The same applies to anything that comes out of the town hall via the board, the board of education, the state and federal legislatures, the UN. That’s the truth.

      Thanks very much for your fine comment, Cookie. I always enjoy reading and responding to them.



  4. wyntre

    February 18, 2013 at 7:49 pm

    Why would you insult those who attended the event?

    “the some 100 lemmings assembled in the room and mostly seniors, farmers, a smattering of local politicos, and a handful of 30-40-somethings who liked talking about not turning in their guns.”

    What’s wrong with farmers and seniors? You write as if that particular segment of the population is beneath contempt.

    I get you disagree with the content, delivery and style of the program. I don’t get the over-the-top reaction nor the personal attacks.

    I also doubt those in the audience felt like they were being force-fed negativity and anxiety. No one put the proverbial gun to their heads and forced them to attend. Each and every person could have gotten up at any moment and left. No one did.


    • RCS Confidential

      February 18, 2013 at 8:19 pm

      Yes, of course. After four separate visits and readings of the article you have come to a conclusion that anyone should have attained with one reading. Your own reading and perhaps a reflection of your personal reaction to what I wrote, but your own and not necessarily accurate. Perhaps you felt personally addressed by what I wrote? Sorry, but lemmings is an accurate depiction of the sheeple who follow mindlessly these propagandists. Anyone who will sit for 90 minutes listening to the that blather, nonsense, with apparently no clue of what was being said or fed to them, don’t deserve the consideration of even the metaphor of lemmings! People who have no idea what they’re talking about when discussing the SAFE law and equating it with population control and erasure of private property shouldn’t even be considered on this blog, but would best be discussed in a psychiatry journal! They have options and they have freedoms but they are too lazy or too much in denial to avail themselves of even a life-vest.

      So, you “don’t get the over-the-top reaction nor the personal attacks” but you apparently do get the propaganda and the perpetuation of anxiety and fear? Bravo for you! You Go! girl! Go! You obviously have an interest in the nonsense.

      The drowning grasp at straws. You obviously have no clue about human behavior, the mass hysteria and hystrionics that people like John Anthony and his ilk fuel. Nor do you appear to have a clue of the interest of the political pundits in pursuing such a strategem. The media is a major culprit; the media, especially the print media, is a major purveyor of the misinformation that has poisoned the population and killed their intellect.

      You have no idea about what you are talking about or the extent of the damage. No idea at all. You are at best an instrument of a corrupt and pernicious sytem. Best you should retire your pen and salvage what humanity you may still have.

      By the way: Did you attend the presentation? Did you listen to the recording of the presentation before writing your comment? I would guess you did neither. So what have you to say that is of any substance besides being a reaction and not a response?

      Thank you for your comment. I’m certain it will provide some entertaining reading to the more savvy of our readers.

      The Editor


    • RCS Confidential

      February 18, 2013 at 8:38 pm

      Perhaps subtle misinformation and lies are preferable to what some describe as “over-the-top reaction” or “personal attacks.” Perhaps the reporting in the Times Useless, the reporting in the rags of the Hudson Catskill Newspapers like the Ravena News Herald, the Daily Mail, etc. that are ignorant misinterpretations, indifferent scandalizing, outright misinformation are preferable to honest and straightforward outrage at the indignities willingly accepted by or scurrilously heaped on the hoi polloi, the every[wo]man in this community and beyond. Yes, hypocritical political correctness and pious politeness is far more preferable than the naked truth. Or that’s what you’d have us continue to believe. What’s next? Concentration camps described as Club Med vacation spots or Carnival cruises in your print media rags?


  5. Thomas P. Stark Jr.

    February 17, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    My thoughts exactly, but when you don’t play fair, it can create a problem. Why don’t these people realize that they have been caught, and admit it. It is easier to say it won’t happen again, and go on from there. The day will come when you are discovered. By then it may be too late.



Please share your thoughts about this post.. Leave a comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: