John Stossel did an interesting story on Friday’s 20/20 about voting. He asked whether uninformed voters shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Watch a portion of the segment here:

The piece unfortunately focuses on young voters, but certainly the message holds true for voters of any age who are, by and large, uninformed on the issues. While Stossel unfortunately didn’t phrase it this way, the question NYRA asks is why do we let these uninformed people vote when informed individuals under 18 aren’t allowed to vote at all?

The segment has attracted a bit of backlash from the group, Head Count, shown in the piece (they’ve done an effective job of spreading that backlash around to other sites too). They made some great arguments:

All Americans - young and old - may not be experts on the every issue, but they are experts on their own lives.

Democracy is for all of us, not just a select few. As a nation, we eliminated the idea of literacy tests decades ago, and rightly so.

Of course those arguments, and many others they made, apply to individuals under 18 just as well as those 18-30.

So basically we have two sides representing two classic arguments about voting. One, represented by Stossel, says that voters should be educated and informed in order to vote. The other says that even the uneducated have a stake in the system and deserve to represent themselves.

Neither argument precludes lowering the voting age. So I wonder whether John Stossel or HeadCount would support lowering the voting age below 18. I wonder whether either side will apply their arguments consistently and without an ageist bias. I will contact them both.

Very interesting editorial in the DC Examiner today about secular superstition. Everyone has heard the shots that the anti-religious forces take against believers - that we are irrational, anti-science, and ignorantly cling to our invisible friend in the sky. True enlightenment and intelligence is reserved for those exceptional few who reject God, reject the spiritual sphere and embrace cold, hard atheism.

Now obviously the irreligious are as diverse as the religious, but many individuals I have met who claim to be atheist or non-religious seem to be also interested in things like paganism, ghosts, and other phenomena that seemed contradictory to me. Generally in my experience with the anti-religious they seem to have much in common. Not that they all have done some serious thinking and study into science, theology and philosophy, but that they think conservative Christian pricks are… pricks. Often they were raised by conservative Christian pricks who forced their beliefs down their throats or grew up in very conservative schools & communities and were picked on or otherwise mistreated for being different.

Now, I don’t mean to detract from the crap these people have gone through, and while I agree with them 100% that conservative Christian pricks are intolerant pricks, I don’t think that is reasonable evidence to support a life-long opposition of religion.

This study seems to confirm some of my gut suspicions. Apparently those describing themselves as atheists or otherwise irreligious are much more likely to believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, Atlantis, haunted houses and astrology. I bet (though it wasn’t in the study) there are a fair share of 9/11 Truthers in their ranks as well. In fact “While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.”

I think the results of the study are striking. The author of the column uses this fact to try and smear Obama and make a point that the religious are in fact smarter and more rational than the non-religious. While I do agree that western rationalism, science and progress owes much to Christian thought, this isn’t the point I want to make with this post.

My point is just that many atheists (not all, obviously) don’t really have a rational opposition to faith but are more so angered (often rightly) by the many bigots who hide behind the Bible to justify their intolerance. These people, like everyone else, do believe in the unseen and are searching for higher answers. They just reject traditional religions in search of more “cutting edge” beliefs. Mostly, I’d argue, because they feel they have more in common with that crowd than with the average church-goer. Not because of any fundamental philosophical difference.

Now, I certainly understand the desire to spend time with people you “gel” with more. And I certainly understand the many problems with conservative, fundamentalist Christians, but there are a lot of liberal, tolerant, open, and groovy churches out there. Responding to intolerant Christians with intolerance to all Christians (or all religions) despite their grooviness isn’t a good approach I think.

I just found the high need among the irreligious to believe in something to be quite interesting. If only they can be shown that there are plenty of reasonable religions and religious people out there.

The rash of zombie movies in recent years should cause all of us to do some serious thinking about our life-challenged brethren.

I think we need to be more tolerant of other people’s life status. Zombies can’t help that they are zombies, we shouldn’t discriminate against them. In fact, “zombie” is an offensive term. Post-Mortem Americans is the preferred term. Shaun of the Dead should teach everyone that if properly restrained, PMAs can still make great friends and video game players. PostMorts are just misunderstood.

PMA babies should be weaned off human brains and given a diet of cow brains and re-entered into society. Pre-Mortem Individuals need to understand the many contributions PostMorts make to society.

Either that or we capture large amounts of Post-Mortem Americans and drop them in Afghanistan to seek out Bin Laden.

To turn a joke post into something (sorta) serious… I wonder how a modern society would react to real zombies if they existed. A lot of the monsters and “demi-humans” of fantasy and history seem to have a real world basis. Dwarves, elves, goblins, and the like could easily have been based on midgets. Less civilized times would have feared or hated such strange diversions from normal humans. Now of course, midgets live mostly normal lives and star in several reality tv shows. I’m sure reports of giants can be explained by unusually large races of humans, which of course we have many of in modern society. Many other deformities which in the past were taken to be curses or signs of the devil or that they were monsters are seen as medical problems to be treated.

So as categories of “normal” and “abnormal” are broken down, if zombies really did exist, what would we do? I would imagine that going around shooting zombie’s heads off with a shotgun would no longer be socially acceptable after a generation or two. Assuming they weren’t attacking you of course.

Some common zombie traits are:
- Reanimated dead
- Eats brains
- Not too bright, moves slowly (though some new zombie movies have fast moving ones)
- Stronger than usual, greater endurance
- Kills people
- Can transfer zombie status by biting or killing living humans/animals

The first thing to control of course is their tendency to shuffle through town killing people and eating their brains. I’d assume that modern medical science could come up with a way of pacifying these homicidal urges. Maybe some Valium or large amounts of weed would mellow them out.

Beyond that however, there isn’t anything that by itself would warrant a death penalty. Being the reanimated dead is certainly strange & bizarre, but.. not necessarily illegal. Right? It will make for some awkward family holidays when great grandpa shows up suddenly and wants some turkey (…brains). Their appetite for brains can be sated with animal brains. I’m sure if there were willing buyers the market would provide many different choices for the brain connaisseur.

I’m sure also, coming out to your loved ones as a recently deceased person will be shocking and many zombies will find themselves rejected by their families. They will form zombie communities where they are accepted by their own kind and don’t have to hide as they go grab a bite at the local brain bistro. Places like Miami Beach will become epicenters for the thriving zombie culture. Dead Pride parades will become a common occurrence.

Zombies will find gainful employment in tasks that require little thought, quick movement or originality. Obviously zombie call centers will pop-up all over the country servicing all our customer service needs. While it may take a while to be recognized, zombies will eventually gain the right to vote after the landmark case of Nuuhh Uuug v. Minnesota proves once and for all that “life status” is a suspect class of discrimination and states are unable to discriminate against the undead. Living dead voters will still, of course, have to prove they are over 18. (we have to have some standards, right?).

The undead will replace soccer moms and NASCAR dads as the key swing voter demographic. Politicians will pander for the zombie vote with promises to slash health care funding, increase public transit (as zombies won’t drive well) and censor hatespeech like Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later.

Zombie pets will become all the rage. Indeed owners of hyperactive dogs & cats just need to call up their local zombification services office to get their beloved pet zombified. Not only do they be less rambunctious, but little Susie never has to go through the anguish of losing her dearest Fluffy. She’ll be around forever.

The world’s religions will be in turmoil. With the dead walking the earth, it will appear obvious to many that the last days are at hand. Others will use the zombie example to say that earth truly is heaven, and it is necessary for us to improve the “afterlife” for all of us. Others will just seek to make a quick buck selling t-shirts saying “Jesus was the First Zombie”

The point though, is that after thousands of years on this planet we’ve never really come up with a good, universal definition of what it means to be human. When does life begin? ….and end? How would artificial intelligence fit in? If we don’t know what it means to be human, how can we decide who is and isn’t to be treated as an equal? Previously unthinkable groups have been embraced and accepted by society, so who is next? Zombies? Robots? Mutants? Animals? Clones? Teenagers?

As part of the lengthy, ongoing debate about the voting age on Facebook in response to NYRA-Southeast Florida’s awesome voting age ad, one person (trying to sound much smarter than he is) posted something about women & youth. While this isn’t the best articulated version of this argument it is one that we get quite often as to why youth don’t deserve rights and why it isn’t right to compare the denial of rights to youth to other disenfranchised groups such as women. I’ve probably had a better crafted response to this argument in the past, but I just wrote it out again, so I’ll let you guys read it again.

First though, the original argument:

Since the days of long ago, centuries past, women were not considered the equivelent of men. There obligations were few, and there rights narrow. Women struggled to express there views for hundreds of years. During the middle ages, women were considered the property of the man, and possessed little amenities in life.

In the words Mr. Thomas Jefferson “All men are created equal…and entitled to certain and inalienable rights..” These rights are clearly stated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to suffrage. Although direct intrepetation of this states all men, in was at a later time said that women should and ought to be allowed this inalienable right. This only seems fair, as women are the equivelents as human beings, and as human beings, they are endowed by their very existance to possess certain and inalienable rights. The 18th amendment granted women the right to have a say in the society in which they live.

They underlining conflict that exists in comparing the struggle for womens suffrage in relation to a youth vote, lies in the fact that women were denied for the entirety of their lifetime, to a basic human right– youth however are not. Youth are developing young men and women, maturing and learning. The fact of the matter is that you are not being denied any right whatsoever, contrary to the feelings you may have regarding your place in society. Thus, I may conclude, that should one correctly analyze the history of women in society from the rise of Christianity to the 20th century and study the principles that our nation was founded upon, the youth right, is not the same struggle as women had, and they are not being denied any basic and inalienable right whatsoever.

Best Regards,
Wes

Are youth not human beings? Don’t they also have inalienable rights? Just like men do. Just like women do. Just like adults do.

The only difference you cite is that youth don’t stay young. They will become adults one day. So their status is transitory. So then would you support other restrictions of rights based on transitory criteria? How about these:

- You can only vote if you earn over $100,000 in a year. It isn’t an outright ban on voters, since if you work hard you can earn more money too. No one’s right is being violated then, since they have the ability to change their income. Plus rich people have more of a stake in the system and, statistically are better educated and informed.

- Women who are pregnant, menopausal, or on their period shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Women aren’t as rational, clear thinking or competent during these times in their lives so thus would cast a less reasonable vote. These are all temporary changes, so it doesn’t affect their right to vote. What is the harm in waiting 9 months to vote? They’ll be able to vote later.

- Only individuals who have college degrees can vote. This is just a transitory restriction - like age - no one is denied because they always have the option of going to school and getting a degree. Plus we can be sure that voters are more educated than they are currently.

- Only people who have served in the military can vote. This is another transitory criteria, and shows that these people take on the responsibility for their nation and thus should be trusted with voting. The rest of the dead beats only have to enlist if they want to vote. No rights violated.

Right?

Just because people are able to, one day, exercise a right doesn’t make it unjust to take that right away from them NOW. It is true that, statistically richer voters and college educated voters are better informed and intelligent voters. But we can’t expect them to look out for the interests of their poorer, less educated neighbors. There is no “Right Vote”. Everyone votes based on their current situation, needs, and circumstances.

If I was rich next year I’d probably vote differently than I would if I were poor today. Both votes are valid though. Asking an 18 year old adult to represent the interests of himself at 16 is unjust because that person’s interests have changed.

The only people who can represent 16 year olds are 16 year olds. The issues they are most concerned about and the problems that affect their lives most directly are different from those of 18 year olds or anyone else. So denying a right to 16 year olds as a class is a violation of their rights, even if individuals are able to one day vote when they get older.

Being temporary does not magically transform injustice into justice.

A good round up of the publicity for Marty Beckerman’s new book, Dumbocracy: Adventures with the Loony Left, the Rabid Right, and Other American Idiots:

The critics agree: “Dumbocracy” is the most intelligent thing ever written by anyone, and it will make you laugh hysterically for hours of pure heavenly bliss. Yes, yes, the economy sucks, and I understand that nobody wants to spend money on anything besides survival gear for when Mad Max becomes reality in a couple weeks and we’re cannibalizing each other for protein, but that’s no excuse for missing out on the greatest book of this (or any other) century.

We’ll get to the reviews in a minute. I recently appeared on Barry Lynn’s radio show, a recording of which you can hear by clicking below:

http://63.139.221.170/qtmedia/mp3/1261.mp3

(Lynn, the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, grills me on my thesis that extremists on both sides are equally dangerous to free speech, but ultimately he concedes it’s a “great book.”)

Also, I recently did an interview with blogger Luke Ford, in which I discussed my transformation from a puritanical foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger in 2004-2005 to a sensible, fun-loving moderate, which suits me much better:

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=5329

And: Last week I participated in a five-part discussion with fellow young author Matthue Roth about the writing process, how I feel about “Generation S.L.U.T.” today, etc. It’s pretty funny “primal scream therapy,” and sheds quite a bit of light on my motivations:

Primal Scream Therapy 1
Primal Scream Therapy 2
Primal Scream Therapy 3
Primal Scream Therapy 4
Primal Scream Therapy 5

And finally here are all the glowing reviews (so far) of “Dumbocracy” which I promised earlier, and many more are on the way:

“Dumbocracy is a thoughtful book with great shock value geared to awaken, entertain and enlighten Marty’s generation about the freedoms embedded in our Bill of Rights. Beyond the spoofing, it is passionate, scholarly, and delivers the message that young people need to hear.”
—Former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Mike Gravel

“Beckerman uses the deft and subtle touch of a sledgehammer. If you can read this entire book without being offended, then there is a good chance that you are illiterate. If you can read this entire book and not enjoy it, then there’s a good chance you take yourself too seriously.”
—Christian Lander, bestselling author of Stuff White People Like

“Marty Beckerman is one of the great young journalists of our time.”
—Mancow Muller, syndicated radio host and author of Dad, Dames, Demons, and a Dwarf

“[H]ilarious yet powerful… many of his rants are on point. … And if he makes young readers pay attention to politics, more power to him.”
—Rachel Kramer Bussel, Penthouse

“[V]ery funny and astute commentary. Beckerman obviously has done his homework, and there is no paucity of levity in this book. … [W]e need someone like Beckerman to step back and throw a metaphorical pie in these jokers’ eyes.”
—Doug Holder, arts editor of The Somerville News

“[A] great book.”
—Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“[S]harp, insightful, smart, caustic and brutal… the book was a breeze to go through. … [Rating:] 9/10″
—Eric Vondran, iheartchaos.com

“Beckerman’s tone brings to mind more war-oriented phrases like ’search and destroy’ or ’scorched earth policy.’ All this, of course, with a heavy dose of sardonic humor. … Beckerman is an equal opportunity insurrectionist… another trenchant voice for the politically disaffected.”
—Tim Gebhart, BlogCritics.org

So there you have it. I worked on this book for four years and went through hell to get it published. I truly believe it’s my best and funniest collection yet…. but don’t purchase “Dumbocracy” because I’m on my knees begging you; purchase “Dumbocracy” because it’s the most entertaining book you will ever read and the most majestic thing your eyes will ever have the pleasure of viewing.

Don’t purchase it because you love me, Acolytes…. purchase it because you love yourselves.

BUY THE DAMN BOOK.

Marty is a NYRA member and friend of the cause, plus he put in a positive plug for lowering the drinking age in the book. So definitely get your ass out there and buy his book! Do a review or mention on your blog too if you have one.

So OJ is back in court, and this time he is found guilty on 12 new counts of criminality. White folks the world over are celebrating that this murderer has gotten his due. Fifteen years after the obvious miscarrage of justice in that original trial, Orenthal is getting locked away for a long time. As for that first trial, the proof often heard is “well everyone *knew* he was guilty” is the same kind of “proof” we encounter daily in youth rights. “Everyone *knows* that teens are incompetent”. So without making any pronouncements myself about the guilt or innocence of OJ, I kindly ask people to get off your smug, high horses.

So I hate the attitude most people - on both sides - have about this case. The facts, as far as I see them, are:

- I (and you) know far less about this case than any of those jurors.
- I am unwilling to morally condemn any man to prison or death based on a gut feeling, “common sense” and media reports.
- If Simpson was a poor black man instead of a rich black man he would have gone away for the rest of his days with some certainty.
- I am tired of people being happy or angry over this man.
- I could give two shits about OJ Simpson.

So I came across an entry today written back in July by Brent Allison, NYRA member and NYRA founder actually. In it he provides a critique of NYRA and the youth rights movement for focusing mostly on negative rights and lacking a clear “theory” or “narrative” for the movement. He says:

In short, the YR movement has found itself in relative paralysis because it only reacts to the hegemonic construct of youth. There’s no theorizing, reflecting upon, and directly undermining that construct with a narrative. Beyond being “the last civil rights movement” in a post-civil rights era, where does YR fit in that grand scheme? Movements for advancing the interests of women and people of color didn’t simply say, “We are equal.” They realized many of the reasons why the yoke of inequity was so short, tight, and all-encompassing for so long. This took an enormous project of inquiry and fortitude to not be defined by those holding the yoke.

I don’t disagree with your overall frame of the issue, but you make two assumptions that I feel should be addressed.

First, that NYRA is all there is to youth rights. What our representatives say on our forums, newsletter, and on TV is the final word on youth rights. There is a lot more out there than that. If you look through our website, specifically our library section you will find papers by individuals such as Sven Bonnichsen and Brian Dominick who could hardly be confused for classical liberals.

On Sven’s site (which sadly hasn’t been updated in quite a while) you’ll find a lot of really, really good arguments and theories that hit at what you are talking about. There are lots and lots of books out there too, I’m continually surprised to find new ones which try to flesh out such a theory. In various different ways of course.

Secondly, not only do you seem to miss some of the contributions of other non-NYRA folks to creating such a narrative, you also don’t accept responsibility, as a member of this movement, for creating such a narrative. NYRA is a distinct organization with a distinct set of goals and a distinct approach, but NYRA is but one organ of what at least should be a wider and more powerful movement. If you feel an important component to that movement is missing, then create it.

Perhaps start by fleshing out some theory (or explaining the lack of it) on the Youth Rights Network.

We’re all in this together. There aren’t that many of us, so we all need to do what we can.

While NYRA isn’t in the business of generational warfare, we have seen our share of artillery barrages from older generational warriors. So now and then it doesn’t hurt to peak out from our trenches and fire back. A fascinating new study gives us some nice ammo:

Political science professors Richard R. Lau of Rutgers University and David P. Redlawsk of the University of Iowa say voters in their mid-to-late 60s start to lose their grip on evaluating political candidates. In simulated presidential campaigns, Lau and Redlawsk found that older voters both seek out and recall less information about candidates. As a result, seniors have overall lower rates of what Lau and Redlawsk call “correct voting” — a measure they developed to test how well voters select the candidates who share their positions and ideologies.

More details:

The age effects start showing up in the mid-to-late 60s. As people age, two things are happening. One is that they have a harder time processing new information, so they are learning less quickly than they used to. But as people age, they also have more overall knowledge to draw on. This means they have more established intuitive shortcuts, which means they actually need less information to make a good decision because they better know what information to look for in the first place.

For the first 50 years of one’s voting-age life, then, these two forces tend to balance each other out. But increasing reserves of experience can compensate for declining mental sharpness only until about the mid-to-late 60s. After that, the decline picks up steam. By the time voters turn 90, the scholars’ models predict their correct level of voting will be roughly half of what it was when they were 20.

Quite interesting indeed. Yet would anyone remotely suggest to set a maximum voting age? Not bloody likely. Since voting competence exists on a continuum with lower competencies at either end, why does one end get the vote and the other end is completely disenfranchised?