from a lifetime spent under high-tensionrnwires. But reason is beside the point;rneco-capitalists know that paranoids andrntheir money are soon parted.rnhideed, given tlie hypochondriacrnleanings of environmentalists, one mayrnexpect that soon everv block may have atrnleast one New Age parent running uprnand down the street measuring radiationrnfrom telephone and light posts. Justrnimagine the consequences, which is notrnhard to do given that an article in E conjuresrnup a green Utopia—a constantrncampaign against (whci else?) corporaternpolluters—in a way that closely resemblesrnthe preachy advertising in thernmagazine.rnBack in an October 1993 article entitledrn”Tales From Toxic America”—subtitledrn”Grassroots Enxironmentalists VisitrnWcishington, D.C. to shout: ‘Al Gore,rnRead Your Book!'”—writer Will Nixonrndescribes glowingly a Citizen’s Clearinghousernfor I lazardous W astes eonx’cntion:rn”CCHW members kiave won manyrnfights, from lobbying McDonald’s intorndropping its polystyrene clamshell box,rnto persuading the state of California tornstop using toxic weed killer along itsrnhighways.” But “no matter what thernissue, the basic message remains thernsame: the way to stop the poison is notrnthrougli scientific studies or legal proceedings,rnbut through political defiance.rnAnd the goal is to go :-rom NIMBY tornNOPE: Not-In-My-Backard to Not-rnOn-Planct-Earth.” ‘rnBut how do Greens get from here tornthere? “L,ois Gibbs takes a moment inrnher speech to push beyond the N yords.rn”How many of you woric with your localrnPTA, health care center, tenants groupsrnand women’s groups?’ she asks. Notrnmany raise their hands,” Nixon reports.rn”They build bridges to other causes,rnshe tells them, and join together tornmake their own alternative economy,rnbased on waste cleanups, new technologies,rnsustainable agriculture and goodrnjobs. . . . But for this weekend at least,rnanything seems possible. ‘Can anybodyrnin this room say the word “power”?’rnGibbs asks. The room roars back. The Prnword is bouncing off the’ walls.”rnMore recently, in the January/Februaryrn1995 issue of E, an “In Brief” featurern(edited b- Nixon) heralds the “Earthship”rnhome, a structure built with usedrntires and dirt. The caption to the accompanyingrnphotograph reads: “ThernEarthship may look like a militaryrnbunker, but it treads lightly on thernEarth.” Hypochondria thus just isn’t arnpublic obligation, but a private, personalrnshepherd to greener pastures, wherernman’s footprints won’t be noticed,rnwhere—to use that delusional mantra—rn”We can be one with nature.” Understatement:rnadvertising and editorial contentrnin the eeo-prcss act to create arnkinetic kook energy. For instance, antimeatrnactivist Jeremy Rifkin is spotted mrnthe September/October 1993 issue of Krnpreaching in support of the pure foodsrncampaign. “Food yyill be the battlegroundrnof a new green politics in thern1990’s,” he says. “On the one hand liesrna future of genetic engineering, hightechrnfoods and synthetic, industrial foodrnproduction. On the other, a future ofrnsustainable, ecological agriculture thatrnpreserves our soil, our family and ourrnplanet’s biodiversity.”rnRifkin’s blather could have been liftedrnfrom or superimposed oer the Coalitionrnfor Non-Violent Food ad. Thankfully,rnyou will not find that sort of paidrnsermon in Garbage. As Poore says in thernJanuary/February 1995 issue, “The unrelentingrnflood of humorless words [fromrnthe environmentally-concerned andrncorrect] tells me instead that environmentalismrnhas become a religion ofrnshalt nots.”rnjim Christie is a Seattle-based writer.rnEDUCATIONrnSocialization asrnSchoolingrnbv B.K. EakmanrnFor 30 years, elementary and secondaryrneducation has been takingrnon a new orientation, away from substantivernsubject matter toward a mentalrnhealth agenda. Personality developmentrn—i.e., the “whole child” conceptrnof education—has become the primaryrnfocus of schooling. Collection of psychologicalrndata on minors, and its storagernin nonsecure, cross-refcrenecable facilities,rnwithout the prior notificationrnmuch less the consent of parent orrnguardians, has launched a ney era in therndebate over privacy’ rights, while underminingrntraditional parental prerogativesrnin directing the education and moralrndevelopment of their children. An everincreasingrnnationalization of policy andrnmanagement structure has furtherrnyyeakened invoKement in educationrnthrough such outlets as communityrnassociations and school boards.rnIn short, public education today isrndirecting the bulk of its energies towardrnsuch pursuits as “self-esteem,” “intervention,”rncondom distribution, andrnsocial services rather than developingrnproficiency, literacy, or the tools forrnfinancial independence. Eyentually,rneven the most dedicated parents tire ofrnthe battle and decline to participaternfurther in the education process.rnOn an unprecedented scale, educationrnpolicymakers at the national andrnstate levels are infusing subject-orientedrncurricula yyith materials referred to inrnthe vernacular as “strands.” These arernintended to mold the opinions of youngrnpeople. If unsuccessful, corrective strategiesrn(some of them bordering on thernsubliminal) are brought in to “remediate”rnviewpoints considered “inappropriate,”rnor otherwise undesirable, by arnvastly overrated behavioral sciencerncommunity.rnTesting companies, which are staffedrnprimarily with behavioral scientistsrnrather than educators, are bringing intornthe classroom massive cjuantitics of testsrnand surveys, under the fraudulent labelsrn”achievement,” “aptitude,” and “assessmentrntesting,” which are explicitlyrndesigned to elicit and predict thernviewpoints and proclivities of youngstersrnand their parents. Selected “strands,”rnor minicourses, are then supposed torn”modify” students’ opinions and behaviors.rnThe scope of this activity in publicrneducation is particularly troubling, asrnit threatens on a nationwide scalernstudent individuality and the constitutionallyrnprotected right to conscience.rnWhen combined with the currentrnlevel of sophistication in record-keeping,rnthis deceptive testing-programmingremcdiatingrnscheme portends a dossierbuildingrncapability which, in the handsrnof political opportunists, is leading us allrnunknowingly to the breakdown of therndemocratic process. Even many who initiallyrnapplauded these innovations arernbeginning to wonder what would happenrnif the political winds shifted and arnMAY 1995/53rnrnrn