PRA vs. UNCRC Part 2 - So What?

Link to Part 1
Read this first if you are new to this discussion, then hit BACK on your browser to be brought back to this page, or click on the title "Lamp Lit" to go to the latest posting.

In the 1970's the EPA began the crackdown on lead (Pb) in consumer products. Those of us born since then should be thankful for the scientific research that discovered the deleterious effects of this heavy metal. What no one could have predicted however, was the expansive effects of this phase out.
To name a few:

• Our modern paint doesn't coat as well and definitely doesn't last as long. Those bright reds and oranges popular in our grandparent's homes were suddenly toxic, and it took many coats of fresh paint to banish them. Now professional renovators must be licensed to even scrape it away.
  

• Banning lead shot for use in hunting water fowl drove up the cost of birdshot and presented additional challenges to gun barrel and shot shell manufacturers.

• And certainly among the most far reaching effects of the lead ban was in regard to automobile fuels;

In 1975 The EPA began the phase out of lead in motor fuels. In doing so a sleeping giant was re-awakened and ethanol raged in to fill a void. Not a stranger to motor fuels, ethanol began a comeback after resting in anonymity since the end of WWII. Over the course of the last half decade, all sides of the economic, political, and ecological debate have taken turns in befriending and belittling this lumbering behemoth. What is it with alcohol and the government anyway? Just as Prohibition fueled a black market and the Mob, so the legislated subsidies and formulations of ethanol reached far further into the economy than most would have supposed. Corn production (the major source of ethanol) and corn prices have been fomented into a maelstrom. Likewise, motor fuel production, distribution, and of course pricing, have taken on a life of their own - inextricably tied to corn - because of legislation about lead.

So what does this have to do with the PRA : CRC debate? Nothing directly other than this: Government involvement seems to always result in a remote - yet poignant - list of unintended consequences, and there's room to suppose that the list is not so remote or so unintended.

Don't get me wrong; I don't want my children to breathe lead fumes or nibble the lead paint off their toy blocks. However, what a government body does today will not only affect the specifically stated target, but will inevitably spread like the shot from from a 16-gauge shotgun and land in unexpected places. What concerns me more is that just as the trajectory and spread of a shotgun blast is carefully analyzed and formulated, even so the trajectory and spread of recent government action in the promotion of the UNCRC Treaty has been analyzed and formulated far more liberally than many will admit.

My purpose here is not to argue in minutia the dangers of the UNCRC Treaty. Others have done that more clearly than I could ever hope to. My simple purpose in this post is to encourage you to care about this issue.

As I stated in the last posting, I believe the UNCRC Treaty could be beneficial to some. I would even like to believe that the authors were purely altruistic in their motives and ambitions. What I can't be sure of however, is the impetus of the liberal lawmaking and judicial elements of our country and their intended use or abuse of this loaded shotgun.

The issue at stake is not the corruption and liberality of the UN and the CRC promoters - though in the main, that may be established many times over. Nor is the issue the legal ramifications of accepting a treaty. Both of those are merely fodder that feeds the beast. It seems to me that the beast to be contended with is actually an open door. In ratification of this treaty, we undeniably open a door for further state sanction and regulation endangering the sanctity of the family unit.

Are we simply talking about the law of unintended consequences? Assuming that we can predict the unintended consequence is defiant of the idiom's very definition; thus obviously we are not fearful of the unexpected, but rather anticipating an intentional direct action. If that sounds ominous then I'm getting my point across.

It is here that I recommend you to do some serious study of this specific issue. I can only stand here and wave a flag. And for that matter, the nature of blogs is that the only ones who typically see the flag waving are those who intended to come. Take some time to read the websites linked below. Formulate your own opinions. Then direct your friends and family to do the same. If it's helpful, forward the links to your friends or use the Facebook link below to toss this in the lap of your 465 friends.

PRA website
UNCRC

Are we willing to take the chance that liberal legislators, and judges will overlook a goldmine of indiscretion? I am not, for they already have not.


In the next posting, I hope to give some advice and my opinion on how to discuss this topic and give some possible action steps.

PRA vs. UNCRC - More Important Than You Might Think

Over the next few weeks and months, I want to go on a fact finding mission regarding the debate between those in support of and those in opposition to the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). For this time, I will attempt to remain neutral, though I suspect my opinion has already been formed and will be seen to seep in around the edges.

I've been listening to and reading arguments from both sides and each presents a plausible set of arguments against the other. For any uninterested person reading but one side of the argument, sway toward that opinion would be relatively simple. UNICEF's web pages for this particular convention are splendid and articulate. Likewise, the Parental Rights web site is overtly ominous in their portrayal of the treaty's impact on our families.

What is one supposed to believe - no less do? Well, we could continue with current protocol and do nothing but talk. However, it seems that recently talk is escalating and trending toward action.

So basically what is the UNCRC Treaty?

The UNCRC is an international treaty created and brokered by the United Nations. This treaty is not with the United Nations, as the UN is not a sovereign state. However, the broad reaching ideals and agendas of the UN saturate this document. (What is good, evil, and otherwise intrinsic in the UN are fodder for another debate.) Specifically here, we will concern ourselves with a specific product - the collective thought and action taken together to form a treaty whereby sovereign states will purport to agree on the definition and application of the rights of children citizens.
As stated on the UNICEF web site: "This compilation and clarification of children’s human rights sets out the necessary environment and means to enable every human being to develop to their full potential."

Honestly, this sounds great.

For some countries, acceptance of this treaty is a HUGE step forward. How can it be seen otherwise? For any country to move toward the idyllic as specified in this treaty from abusive child labor, slavery, and utter perversion would be a spectacular reward for the labor that went into the creation of such a document. The atrocities present and unspeakable in so many dark corners of the world must be confronted systemically. Without doubt the acceptance of the CRC in the parliaments of those dark corners can only bode well for the victims in the shadows.

One must admit though, that for some countries this is simply a feather in their cap with no meaningful action taking place. The stories are easily found where countries, in spite of ratification, have taken action in direct contradiction to the treaty. Shame on them - on many levels. Yet that failure does not prove inefficacy, shortsightedness, or inherent corruption within the CRC. What is proven, however, is the corrupt nature of humankind. This alone is the problem.

For some countries the CRC is, frankly, unnecessary and superfluous. Should those countries then balk at signing this treaty simply because it is superfluous? Well, obviously, all but two have not resisted. Somalia simply lacks a stable enough government to ratify the treaty, which means that for all practical purposes, the United States stands alone in the failure to ratify. It even seems to make sense for those countries that have established a moral upper hand in such issues to promote and encourage ratification in countries less morally inclined. Yet here sits the greatest nation in history pivoting on a decision that teeters on basically this point:

Is this treaty morally dangerous, absolutely essential, or simply an unnecessary waste of time and resources?

I can't say that I reject the treaty out of hand, nor can I say that I trust carte blanc anything that emerges from the halls of the United Nations. What most interests me is the swell of opposition that has forced the attentive to take note. Our purpose here is to help add to the ranks of the attentive.

As we discuss this further, it will become clear why it is so important for American families to care about the ramifications of this long simmering debate. What has been simmering since November 20, 1989 may be coming to a boil in this session of congress.

In the next post we get into the reasons why we perhaps should care - or in the vernacular - So What?

Link to Part 2

Dumas - The Three Musketeers

How many?

Hang on as Alexandre Dumas pins the reader to the coat tails of 4 diverse swashbucklers and assails the evils present in 17th century France. The Three Musketeers proved to be fascinating, exciting, insightful, and strikingly colorful.

I found record of no less than 3 notable translations of this book from the original French, and was not able to clearly track exactly which translation I had. It is sufficient then that it was translated. I can recognize approx. 5 words in French and those include at least 3 city names with cycling events starting or ending therein. In spite of my language deficiency, I at no point found the story ambiguous or strange, as one might expect in a translation from the amouric French to the spectacularly practical English. Much of the French language was present in the text - similar to the remnants of French and Russian remaining in the translated text of War and Peace. Whether the select phrases were common to the English ear at the time of translation, or whether a suitable translated equivalent fails to carry the weight of the authors intention, I don't know. No matter, it succeeds in drawing the English reader deeper into a fantastic realm where no cultural equivalent exists today and supplanting any attempt to drop an anchor into the shallows of reality.

This story is both well known and greatly distorted. I watched a movie some years ago which presented the story of d'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. At no point in the movie did it occur to me that the story was really about the young man d'Artagnan and his entrance into manhood, the Musketeers, and the royal court of France. True to the name of the book, the movie held the 3 original Musketeers up as the focus, while distorting the true intent of the story as drafted by Dumas. I'll just get it over with and say "The book was better than the movie." There I said it.

I have no intention of writing a book report on this classic novel, and will thus spare you from another time worn phrase, "You'll have to read the rest of the book to find out what happens." In fact, you're going to have to read the whole book to find out what happens, because I don't have time or patience to summarize this dynamic and engaging plot.

Curious to me are the political and moral purposes of Dumas' novel which are at best dubious, as ends found in each of those arenas are found to be justified by diverse and contrary means. That is to say, he portrays an element as good in one light while later changing the light and finding fault in the same or vice versa. What's good for the protagonist, we might find to be shameful for the antagonist. Or, evil is spontaneously pardoned and declared good.

For instance, infidelity is commonplace in this novel and thus viewed with cultural acceptance and little reproach. The mistresses of each Musketeer and their daring friend are valuable to the success of the plot and adventures of the 4. However, on the dark side, one of the greatest evils of Milady De Winter is her chain seduction of those unfortunate gentlemen seen by her as obstacles or opportunities. On one hand the distortion of marriage is justified by the needs of the protagonists and the shortcomings of the mistress's real husbands, while on the other hand Milady is despised and ultimately punished for her seductions which leave no less distortion to the function of the sacred institution.

Similarly, politically one is left baffled by the author's handling of Cardinal Richelieu. Throughout the saga we are led to hold the Cardinalists, Catholics, and certainly the Cardinal himself in less esteem than the King and the poor Protestants held in the siege of La Rochelle. Though English, we are likewise enticed to hold the Lord Buckingham in high regard though he finds a mistress in the very Queen of France to the chagrin of Louis XIII and the fury of Richelieu. Though never fully exposed, this intrigue plays a central role in the plot. How is it then that Lord Buckingham is assassinated, the king is made a fool, and the Cardinal survives to not only pardon d'Artagnan, but elevate him among the Musketeers? Granted, it is not in Dumas' power to rewrite history. The Cardinal lives on, and Lord Buckingham was indeed stabbed to death by the very man named in the novel. Yet the abrupt transformation within the final chapters, must at least be regarded with curiosity.

I must leave it to the historians to establish why Dumas may have shed the particular shade and angle of light on this period of time which he did. Yet it was thought provoking to be led as spectator, mute and impotent, through the frontiers of France looking behind every rock and bush for one of the Cardinal's men, and then in a precocious instant to be allied with the man himself within the book's final chapter.

For the mature and discerning reader I recommend the book. Though by no means a history book, the novel gives a window from the 21st century out onto an exciting historical landscape from the perspective of one far less removed from the events than we ourselves.