The Rise of Idiot America

August 22nd, 2009 by Richard Collins

: George W. Bush via last.fm

The following excerpt is lifted from the first chapter of the book, “Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free”, by Charles Pierce.

The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It’s not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter teased out of the national DNA, although both of those things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects—for profit, mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power—the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know best what they’re talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of the Church of Christ’s Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an “expert” and, therefore, an “elitist.” Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He’s brilliant, surely, but no different from all the rest of us, poor fool.

How does it work? This is how it works. On August 21, 2005, a newspaper account of the intelligent design movement contained this remarkable sentence:

“They have mounted a politically savvy challenge to evolution as the bedrock of modern biology, propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages and putting Darwin’s defenders firmly on the defensive.”

“A politically savvy challenge to evolution” makes as much sense as conducting a Gallup poll on gravity or running someone for president on the Alchemy party ticket. It doesn’t matter what percentage of people believe that they ought to be able to flap their arms and fly: none of them can. It doesn’t matter how many votes your candidate got: he’s not going to be able to turn lead into gold. The sentence is so arrantly foolish that the only
real news in it is where it appeared.

On the front page.

Of the New York Times.

Read chapter one at the following Amazon URL.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/randoEMS/Idiot_American_Introduction.pdf

The current town hall meeting spectacles are a direct result of the rise of idiot America, as well as the phenomenon of Sarah Palin, and worst of all eight years of George Bush.

Botanist of the Trees of Crazy (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Books to Fight Creationists With (littlegreenfootballs.com)

Filed under: Books, Media | Comments (2)

Twitter Updates for 2009-07-29

July 29th, 2009 by admin

Dare to think! #atheism #

Filed under: Web Links | Comments (0)

Findlaw introduction to cases and codes

April 13th, 2009 by Richard Collins

: Image by Brandon Cirillo via Flickr

Cases & Codes > Introductory Materials

Comment on blogs supporting Hoekstra’s amendment

April 2nd, 2009 by Richard Collins

: Image by kjd via Flickr

http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php?sNav=getinformed_snav.php&sDat=faqs_dat.php

CRC FAQs- Myths and Facts

Over 300 organizations representing the interests of the religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities have lent their support for ratification of the CRC. However, a small number of political organizations (seems to be mainly Parentalrights.org) have spearheaded efforts to oppose U.S. ratification. These groups have sought to minimize the Convention’s value by employing “scare tactics” to fallaciously portray the CRC as a threat to American families. In general, opponents largely base their arguments on unsubstantiated claims regarding national sovereignty and interference in the parent-child relationship.

They allege that ratification of the CRC:

would endanger national and state sovereignty

would undermine parental authority by allowing the UN to dictate how parents raise and teach their children

would enable children the right to do as they please, including taking legal action against their parents, having abortions, joining gangs, etc.

These false claims are the result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States. In many cases, the Convention’s opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan Administration during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights U.S. citizens have under our Constitution.

Myth #1: The Convention would become “Supreme Law” of the land.
Truth: As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution [(Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]. In addition, the CRC is not a “self-executing treaty” – it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation.
Truth: The U.S. can ratify the CRC with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs). RUDs address specific conflicts between the U.S. Constitution and a particular Convention. Reservations modify a treaty’s provisions (e.g. if a provision of the CRC is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. can file a “reservation” to the provision so that the provision does not apply). Understandings and Declarations help to clarify how the U.S. believes a particular provision should be interpreted. RUDs do not legally exempt the U.S. from adhering to a provision.

Truth: The Convention contains no language or directives with regard to how it should be implemented. Each country is responsible for determining how to implement this. Moreover, as stated in the text of the Convention, any State that is a party to the CRC can nullify its ratification by providing written notification of “denunciation” to the UN General Secretary.

Truth: The CRC does not grant the UN and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC) enforcement authority over the U.S. and its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the U.S. federal government to submit periodic reports to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are being met. As a party to both the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the U.S. is already required to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child outlining implementation and monitoring efforts.

Myth #2: The CRC undermines the primacy of the parent-child relationship.
Truth: The CRC recognizes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children…”, and acknowledges “that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.” (Preamble to the CRC)

Truth: The Convention repeatedly underscores the pivotal role parents play in their children’s lives. There is ample language throughout the Convention to support this, particularly with regard to Articles 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 18, 22, and 27.

Myth #3: Ratification would allow the UN to dictate how parents should raise their children.

Truth: The CRC does not, by any means, grant the UN authority to control, govern, or police U.S. policies for children.

Truth: Under the Convention, parental responsibility is protected from government interference. Article 5 states that Governments should respect the rights, responsibilities, and duties of parents to raise their children.

Truth: There is no language in the CRC that dictates the manner in which parents are to raise and instruct their children. Ratification of the Convention would not prevent parents from homeschooling their children.

Myth #4: The CRC embraces the view that children are autonomous agents who are capable, in all areas, of making adult decisions and dealing with adult situations.

Truth: The Convention does not extend to children all of the same rights accorded to adults, such as the right to vote and unrestricted freedom to make independent decisions.

Truth: The framers of the CRC understood that children’s ability to exercise certain rights is dependent upon their age and maturity and influenced by their culture, environment, and life experiences. The Convention encourages parents to deal with rights issues with their children “…in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” (Articles 5 and 14)

Myth #5: The Convention gives children the right to sue their parents.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the “right” to sue their parents. Any legal action brought by children against their parents must be based on existing federal or state laws, not on provisions contained in the CRC. Currently, children in the U.S. (through a legally-appointed guardian) are allowed to bring legal action against their parents only for injuries sustained from physical abuse or gross neglect.

Truth: Provisions in the CRC regarding a child’s right to legal assistance pertain only to children who have been accused of committing a crime and subsequently arrested, detained, or imprisoned for such violation of the law. (Articles 37 and 40)

Myth #6: Ratification will encourage children to have abortions.

Truth: The CRC maintains no explicit position on family planning and abortion issues and does not define when childhood begins. Ratifying countries remain responsible for forming public policy on these issues through their own national legislative and judicial processes. The Holy See (Vatican) was one of the first parties to ratify the CRC. Moreover, countries that have strict anti-abortion laws, such as Ireland and the Philippines, have ratified the Convention.

Truth: The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in responding to State parties’ reports, has repeatedly called attention to the important roles parents play in their children’s lives, voicing its concern for the high rates of adolescent pregnancy and abortion found in certain countries.

Truth: Article 6 of the CRC provides for a child’s right to privacy. Opponents contend that this right would allow children to have abortions without securing parental consent. However, this provision was included in the Convention to protect children from governmental abuses. In addition, Articles 5 and 14 reflect the Convention’s respect for parental guidance and responsibility in raising their children and helping them to learn how to exercise their rights in an appropriate manner.

Myth #7: The CRC allows children to participate in any religion of their choosing.
Truth: The Convention grants children the right to practice their religion free from government interference. The CRC supports the right of children to examine and ask questions about their beliefs, but also specifically recognizes the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their children in these matters. The Holy See and many countries with strong religious traditions have ratified the CRC.

Myth #8: Ratification will allow children to join gangs and racist organizations. Parents will not be able to oversee children’s interactions with others.

Truth: The CRC does not give children the right to join gangs, cults, or racist organizations, but the right to peacefully assemble. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already guarantees this right.

Truth: The Convention does not usurp parents’ authority to prevent their children from associating with persons of “dubious” character, such as pedophiles, gang members, etc. Parents are responsible for ensuring their children do not associate with people who do not have the best interests of their children in mind.

Myth #9: The Convention provides children with an “unrestricted” right to access any information they want, including pornography.

Truth: There is no language in the Convention that gives children the right to “unlimited” freedom of information, including access to pornography and other obscene materials. Current U.S. laws protect children from exposure to inappropriate materials, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Telecommunication’s Act of 1996.

Truth: Ratification of the CRC would not prevent parents from activating televisions’ “V-chips” or installing Internet firewalls and other content filtering programs that protect children from viewing inappropriate material. Parents would not be precluded from restricting their children’s access to violent video games, music with obscene lyrics, etc.

For a complete and rational analysis of the issues surrounding this convention please go to this Harvard Law school web site.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158

Suggested action:

This is a perfect teaching moment. For those who have time and wish to be involved here is a suggestion. Go to www.alerts.google.com and make a news alert.

http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=

Use key words like ParentalRights or Hoekstra and Constitutional amendment

You will doubtless get many hits every day. Go to the blog or website and post the suggested comment. Or, make one you like. There are probably tens of thousands of Christian homeschoolers that are publishing verbatim whatever they get from the HSLDA or ParentalRights.org web sites.

We probably should create a web site or facebook group to combat the propaganda of the dominionists. Didn’t know Michael Ferris was a dominionist fascist? Take some time to read the articles on talk2action, Americans United, or People for the American Way.

Is the Constitution Too Hard to Amend? (themoderatevoice.com)

Filed under: Parental rights, Resources | Comments (4)

Religion and Child Abuse News

March 6th, 2009 by James Tracy

I have just become aware of an important online resource:

Religion and Child Abuse News
An archive of news items related to child abuse or neglect, or infringement of children’s rights, in a religious context.

Filed under: Resources, Web Links | Comments (1)

The USA Should Institute International Standards on Child Rights

February 4th, 2009 by Richard Collins

James G. Dwyer, The Relationship Rights of Children. Cambridge University Press, 2006, $ 55.00 hardcover.

The United States and Somalia stand as the only two nations in the world that refuse to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document that lays down the basic rights and moral standing of children. Nor has the U.S. attempted to adopt the comprehensive legislation passed in many countries, such as England’s The Children Act, which focuses on all matters pertaining to children, with the child’s welfare squarely defining all legal actions.

James Dwyer, in his complexly argued book, The Relationship Rights of Children, believes that, while the United States goes far in protecting parents” rights, it is often at the expense of the welfare of children. He does not offer why the United States leans so far in favor of parents (there are complicated historical and cultural reasons for our “difference”), but instead makes a strong case, based on two centuries of philosophical reasoning, for why children deserve the same moral and legal consideration as adults, even when this consideration steps on the rights of adults.

The debate about children’s rights, when it takes place at all in this country, is usually carried on by legal scholars, with the occasional contribution of social scientists who either study child development or who offer measures of children’s economic and psychological well-being. With Dwyer, we are offered extensive arguments from the philosopher giants, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and others on the value of the moral autonomy of the individual. These philosophers, he admits, focus their arguments on adults, not children. In fact, he notes, John Stuart Mill, in his theory of liberty, specifically states: “[this] is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” Not so for Dwyer. He makes a compelling case that the same moral rights apply to children.

“Critically then, each of us competent adults has rights of self-determination because it is generally assumed as a moral matter that our interests matter, and matter equally regardless of our status in society. This empirical assumption certainly applies to children as well, and if we are to respect children as equals, we must extend the moral assumption to them also–that is, that their interests matter as much as do adults’ interests in state decision making.”

But how do children know what their interests are, and if they did, how can they assert them? Children are, of course, dependent upon adults to do so for them. But which adults? Here Dwyer argues forcefully that although the law professes to promote “the best interests of children,” in fact it is far more protective of parental rights, and that these rights are often based on a purely biological claim, not any test of parental ability. Dwyer promotes a view of parents as caretakers, not automatic owners of children. He focuses his criticism on laws creating parental rights at birth, and protecting them in events of abuse and neglect after birth. His solution is to drastically re-formulate the law so that, among other requirements, a birth mother must sign a “Parental Vow” promising love and support within two days after birth in order to become a legal parent, but the state may file a petition within seven days to determine in a court proceeding whether the mother is, in fact, unsuitable for one of many reasons, including age, mental incapacity, past conduct of violence against family members, etc. Fathers achieve legal parenthood only if the birth mother consents and they are married. Fathers not married to the mother can only be deemed legal parents if the mother consents and the father petitions the court, passing all the tests of adequate parenting. Non-biological adults may also petition the court within 30 days and their claim will be determined by the court. Following birth, similar strict tests are applied in cases of abuse or neglect of children, allowing the court to more easily terminate parental rights than is now the case.

His view of children’s rights privileges birth mothers but gives little other advantage to biological ties. Unwed fathers still have an obligation to support but not to access unless they have passed all the above tests. Adults who have acted like parents, or have firm attached relationships to children, like stepfathers, have rights over non-involved biological fathers, and a child may have more than two significant adults in his life. From this perspective, attachment trumps biology and a parent must earn the right to become and to continue as a parent.

This concept of parents as caretakers or trustees rather than the owners of children who have independent rights is much more in keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and with most European efforts at establishing a code of children’s rights. Some of its obvious consequences would be a move toward no corporal punishment and ultimately the right of children themselves, as they grow older, to petition to “divorce” their parents–the course taken in Europe.

Grounded in a strong tradition of moral philosophy, this child-centered approach adds valuable support to some American legal scholars and others who have been moving more timidly in this direction, most notably with a new revision of the influential American Law Institutes” treatise on Parent and Child where “de facto” parents (such as stepparents) without biological ties would be given greater access rights.

A limitation of this book is that Dwyer limits himself to the “protective” rights of young children and does not wander into the thornier “choice rights” of maturing adolescents. For instance: does the protective state have the right to insist on drug testing for children before they may join any after-school activity, as the Supreme Court recently ruled? or, are the rights of children served when in one courtroom a 13-year-old who steals a candy bar may be given a lawyer and nearly all the due process rights of a criminal defendant while down the hall a 13-year-old whose physical custody is being determined following divorce may have no voice or representation at all? Perhaps this philosopher will tackle maturing children’s rights in his next book.

Mary Ann Mason
University of California, Berkeley

Filed under: Books, Resources | Comments (5)

The Rise of Idiot America

Twitter Updates for 2009-07-29

Findlaw introduction to cases and codes

Comment on blogs supporting Hoekstra’s amendment

Religion and Child Abuse News

The USA Should Institute International Standards on Child Rights

eNews & Updates

Recent Blog Posts

Recent Forum Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Links

What I'm Doing...

Categories

Twitter

Analytics Stats

Tags

End of Religion Fan Page

The Rise of Idiot America

Related articles by Zemanta

Twitter Updates for 2009-07-29

Findlaw introduction to cases and codes

Related articles by Zemanta

Comment on blogs supporting Hoekstra’s amendment

Related articles by Zemanta

Religion and Child Abuse News

The USA Should Institute International Standards on Child Rights

eNews & Updates

Recent Blog Posts

Recent Forum Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Links

What I'm Doing...

Categories

Twitter

Analytics Stats

Tags

End of Religion Fan Page