Comments on: America’s Science Phobia Ravages Children http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2009/12/29/americas-science-phobia-ravages-children/ Kids at Risk Action (KARA) - Children's Rights Advocacy Network Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:55:13 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mike Tikkanen http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2009/12/29/americas-science-phobia-ravages-children/comment-page-1/#comment-5264 Mike Tikkanen Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:11:50 +0000 http://www.invisiblechildren.org/?p=1198#comment-5264 I guess that it's all about how one frames the issue. What some consider extreme others consider a basic civic function. How can we measure or or put meaningful definition to what Jack is calling extreme? The indices that have been used to measure the quality of life among the industrialized nations works for the rest of the world and I think here also. What made the U.S. a leader in all the quality of life indices among the 24 industrialized nations for twenty five years? It's pretty clear that a great school system educated our children, who then became a powerful work force & great entrepreneurs, and also a very capable citizenry. Or as Pliny said 2500 years ago, "what you do do your children, they will do to your society" Today, the U.S. has 5% of the worlds population & 25% of the worlds prison population. There were 13 million prison and jail releases in the nation last year. 25% of America's graduating high school seniors are functionally illiterate (along with America's dismal graduation rates). Some would argue, that if this nation suffers from extremism, it is the extremism of not caring for its children, and that spending billions on prisons and jails while defunding schools and youth programs is extremely poor public policy. I guess that it’s all about how one frames the issue. What some consider extreme others consider a basic civic function. How can we measure or or put meaningful definition to what Jack is calling extreme?

The indices that have been used to measure the quality of life among the industrialized nations works for the rest of the world and I think here also.

What made the U.S. a leader in all the quality of life indices among the 24 industrialized nations for twenty five years?

It’s pretty clear that a great school system educated our children, who then became a powerful work force & great entrepreneurs, and also a very capable citizenry.

Or as Pliny said 2500 years ago, “what you do do your children, they will do to your society”

Today, the U.S. has 5% of the worlds population & 25% of the worlds prison population. There were 13 million prison and jail releases in the nation last year. 25% of America’s graduating high school seniors are functionally illiterate (along with America’s dismal graduation rates).

Some would argue, that if this nation suffers from extremism, it is the extremism of not caring for its children, and that spending billions on prisons and jails while defunding schools and youth programs is extremely poor public policy.

]]> By: David Strand http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2009/12/29/americas-science-phobia-ravages-children/comment-page-1/#comment-5258 David Strand Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:35:12 +0000 http://www.invisiblechildren.org/?p=1198#comment-5258 Thanks for Jack Marshall’s comment and for the opportunity to respond. His is a popular position which largely accounts for the lack of recognition that the United States in fact has the world’s largest “nanny state”. The clients of our “nanny state” are powerful special interests instead of children and young families, who either can’t or don’t vote and who have no economic, and therefore no political power. It should be noted that that not only do nations of northern Europe, but rather all other developed nations routinely implement versions of the human decency “nanny state”. Our special interest version explains why we also maintain the most hostile environment for children among all our peers, even those, for example Canada, who also have diverse populations. The dictionary defines phobia as “an irrational, excessive and persistent fear of some particular situation or thing.” In my view phobia and superstition go together. Ancient clerics feared scientific revelation that unsettled their superstitious beliefs. A superstitious America believes that the poor are responsible for their plight and social science is not to be trusted. As long as that persists, we will continue to incubate at-risk children and lead the world in locking up our citizens. By the way, operating those prisons by private corporations is also a highly successful special interest. Was it Barney Google who said, “you pays your money, and you makes your choices”? Thanks for Jack Marshall’s comment and for the opportunity to respond. His is a popular position which largely accounts for the lack of recognition that the United States in fact has the world’s largest “nanny state”. The clients of our “nanny state” are powerful special interests instead of children and young families, who either can’t or don’t vote and who have no economic, and therefore no political power. It should be noted that that not only do nations of northern Europe, but rather all other developed nations routinely implement versions of the human decency “nanny state”. Our special interest version explains why we also maintain the most hostile environment for children among all our peers, even those, for example Canada, who also have diverse populations.
The dictionary defines phobia as “an irrational, excessive and persistent fear of some particular situation or thing.” In my view phobia and superstition go together. Ancient clerics feared scientific revelation that unsettled their superstitious beliefs. A superstitious America believes that the poor are responsible for their plight and social science is not to be trusted. As long as that persists, we will continue to incubate at-risk children and lead the world in locking up our citizens. By the way, operating those prisons by private corporations is also a highly successful special interest.
Was it Barney Google who said, “you pays your money, and you makes your choices”?

]]> By: Jack Marshall http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2009/12/29/americas-science-phobia-ravages-children/comment-page-1/#comment-5216 Jack Marshall Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:29:22 +0000 http://www.invisiblechildren.org/?p=1198#comment-5216 Fascinating and provocative discussion, but the emphasis on "science phobia" is misplaced, and perhaps intellectually dishonest. The article is an effective brief for why a quite literal "nanny state" might have significant benefits, but there are legitimate social, economic and philosophical arguments why the government should not be paying for people to take care of their own children. The policies described would naturally make more sense in a Northern European culture than in the U.S., where a policy of paying for parents to stay home for the first two years of childcare would immediately be exploited by many seeking not to work through producing an endless stream of children. Similarly, just because the government may do a better job educating children about sex than some parents doesn't mean that this is a proper function of government. Probably crime could be reduced if the government took over child rearing of lower income children entirely; I'm certain social science research would bear this out. Does aversion to such a policy prove "science phobia"? This article advocates extreme utilitarian measures without acknowledging some important problems. Fascinating and provocative discussion, but the emphasis on “science phobia” is misplaced, and perhaps intellectually dishonest. The article is an effective brief for why a quite literal “nanny state” might have significant benefits, but there are legitimate social, economic and philosophical arguments why the government should not be paying for people to take care of their own children. The policies described would naturally make more sense in a Northern European culture than in the U.S., where a policy of paying for parents to stay home for the first two years of childcare would immediately be exploited by many seeking not to work through producing an endless stream of children. Similarly, just because the government may do a better job educating children about sex than some parents doesn’t mean that this is a proper function of government. Probably crime could be reduced if the government took over child rearing of lower income children entirely; I’m certain social science research would bear this out. Does aversion to such a policy prove “science phobia”? This article advocates extreme utilitarian measures without acknowledging some important problems.

]]>