Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Values Clarification Strategy...A Lesson Of The '70s

Values Clarification In The Classroom

The goal was to make people more rational. It was to let young children see that there were ways of thinking different than that of their parents. It was to change the values, through logic, in American thinking. The values of the Judeo-Christian ethics were now passe.


There are 6 people in a life raft and they have been floating for days. They only have enough food for five more days if everyone is to eat. With the water current running as it is, the captain says it will be 2 weeks before they hit Obama Island and will be saved. On the boat there are:

1. an old lady who is weak,
2. the captain with navigational skills,
3. a priest (there is ALWAYS a religious guy in these "games"),
4. a 20 year-old B. Spears type who whines alot but may eventually be useful for the propagation of the species,
5. a middle aged used car salesman, and
6. Obama himself.

Which four people should be tossed overboard so the others have a chance at living? You are told that there are no right or wrong answers.

These types of "values" games give rise to thinking that allows people to step away from the law. They feel they know better than the law and have the moral high ground to make decisions outside of the law.

WHAT??? Yes...there are some who think going beyond the law to move children around not for cause but for the child's "own good" is a justifiable activity. They believe that government should be able to take a child from one environment and move him/her to another based on what may be better for the child. Removal for greener pastures is not part of our law. (Hello...there is always a better place for a child. I can make an argument that ANY particular home is not as good as another. And, government does it all the time as justification for moving children.)

Take little 3 year-old Lilly's case. She was with financially strapped grandparents. Once Lilly was removed from the foster parents (I take many kudos here) she was placed with the greats. The department thinks she is better off with rich, but much older, great-grandparents. There was not legal reason to take Lilly from her grandparents. There was never any claim of abuse. But, "richer is better" according to the department. This is a "values clarification" decision.

This is the thinking of someone who has no problem going beyond the rule of law and is willing to believe that people working for the government, unaccountable as they are, are somehow better able to decide where children should be.
This is why we have keep government restrained in its actions with the people!

The "government must know best" thinking is certainly not one of American origins! We remove children who are in danger. Yes. But, the states have gone far beyond that with the powers that have been entrusted to them.


Stacy Trussell said...

Senator Roach, you are so right on with that. And of course, it`s nice to have money but children Lilly`s age aren`t thinking about who can buy them more. They are just happy being with the people they love and no amount of money is more important than a child`s emotional need. The 12 year old who was with us was placed with a big time rich doctor in Seattle. She can have anything money can buy but she cries because she wants to come back home to us. It`s so unbelievably sickening!!

Stacy Trussell said...

For 4 months, we`ve asked the dept. what we could do to get the girls back even though they shouldn`t have been taken. Phone calls weren`t returned. We pretty much didn`t exist to them except for when court came around and they had a slough of accusations against us. We decided to get an independent adoption home study done. The lady who did it has 25 years experience and made it clear from the beginning that her decision couldn`t be based on our emotions because of the situation. It has just been completed and is favorable. Today, we get a letter from the dept. saying they are requiring their own adoption home study. They will do anything possible to make sure the girls don`t come back home. Why would they all of a sudden want to do their own? It doesn`t take much common sense to figure that one out!! I hope somebody exposes that Everett office and their corrupt ways soon.

Anonymous said...

At some point I believe people feel "we have nothing else to loose". My concern is that people will take the law into their own hands.....much like CPS. I wonder if then there will be accountability?

Aaron said...

I think this may be one of your best posts, very artistic in its presentation, and a wonderful activity. It's unfortunate that in the game, the option of allowing all the people to live and work together within the law is not presented as an option. It seems the same with CPS, they keep breaking the law and destroying lives (or entire families) instead of working together with the families to ensure a successful outcome.

Anonymous said...

Well, wait a day or two and Obama will drown himself. B spears and the old lady don't eat that much so they can be counted as one. Chances are the captain also knows how to fish, so he is important. The carsalesman probably needs to go on a crash diet anyway and can be used as bait when the captain fishes. It all works out in my opinion. Jan Smith

Anonymous said...

Ok lets change the passengers. 1) CPS social worker. 2) CPS supervisor 3) CPS Regional Administrator. 4) CASA 5) Attorney General 6)The average joe. Good luck only tossing 4...there are no wrong answers.