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.