Showing posts with label HUMAN RIGHTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HUMAN RIGHTS. Show all posts

Monday, October 26, 2009

HEALTHCARE REFORM AT A CROSSROAD

Without going back and editing my previous post “Capitalism 201 Gone Wild Fosters Inequality”, I’d like to continue to focus on core values of different economic systems, and their role in health care reform.

As I said before, our free enterprise system values money and physical things. I would like to expand that by saying that it values power, money, and the acquisition and pursuit of money; and values physical assets and the acquisition and pursuit of physical assets.

In the second system mentioned in my previous post [let’s call it the Denmarkian system – smile], value is placed on familial and community relationships, human rights, human dignity, mutual cooperation, mutual respect, and creativity.

We, the people, have to decide which fundamentals [for lack of a better word] of the above systems do we want to embrace in
health care reform.

In the last post, I stated that our free enterprise system is in opposition to the Denmarkian system. They don’t fit together.

In our present free enterprise [capitalistic] system we see health care as not a human right, but a privilege [some entitlement, with limited access and conditioned on a persons ability to pay] . In the Denmarkian system, health care is a human right [it is universal without conditions].

The progressives in the Democratic Party are more closely ideologically aligned with the Denmarkian system. Conservatives and members of the Republican Party are more closely ideologically aligned with our present free enterprise system, as are some moderate Democrats.

The American people are torn. They were raised in the [United States] Free Enterprise system, but deep down, I believe if they had a choice of core values, and understood the benefits of the Denmarkian system, they would embrace that system; though to what extent I know not.

And so we stand at a crossroad where a majority of representatives [218 in the House, 51 or 60 in the Senate] from 50 states must decide whether health care is a human right or a privilege. The choice they make [I believe] will have moral, ethical, and economic repercussions for years to come.
-





-


-

-
-
-

Thursday, June 4, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA SPEAKS TO THE MUSLIM PEOPLE AND TO AMERICANS

Dear President Obama,

As you know, I am one of your most vocal/and written supporters and one of your most vocal/and written critics; however, I am very proud of, and thankful for, your leadership.

Today was a day I was most proud. At times, I think, that when I criticize something you've done or have not done that you or your staff may feel I am a non-Christian; however, I am a Christian, and for that reason, whenever, I think our people are intolerant, racist, greedy, unethical, and have done heinous and egregious things; I feel I must speak out.

I am a defender of those who cannot speak for themselves or where the most powerful have drowned them out or stripped them (or tried to strip them) of their rights and liberty.

I'm for the average American, whether they be Jew, Muslim or Gentile, male or female, young or old, sick or healthy, brown/yellow/black/or white. That's why I'm a Progressive.

When I see injustice or people speaking with impunity or not being held accountable for unspeakable crimes, I will be most vocal.

I loved when you spoke of human and women's rights and the right for women to choose. The key word, choice.

The protection of a woman's right to choose must be upheld and those who seek to prevent it here in America, punished.

A clear message must be sent to fringe groups ... that violence against people who are defenders of a woman's right to choose will not be tolerated and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

A clear message must be sent to those who hate and seek to do harm to other Americans will not be tolerated.

Your speech was not just to the Muslim world, but it was also meant for Americans. There will be some Americans who won’t get that.

I applaud everything you said and tried to convey to the Middle Eastern people, and what you wanted all of us to strive for ... to be a respectful, ethical, loving, peaceful people. I am thankful for your leadership.

Friday, May 22, 2009

THE RULE OF LAW AND MAKING VS POSING A THREAT

Yesterday I listened to the President’s address and some of Cheney’s address. The President was eloquent and addressed many of the concerns that Americans have regarding the detainees in GITMO.

Dick Cheney reiterated the lies he’s been trying to sell to the American people. He’s good at it … he’s done it for years.

Now comes the hard part … what President Obama didn’t do.
He said he would not put a stop to indefinitely holding people suspected (and I did say suspected) of crimes or being members of organizations that vow to kill Americans. The reason why they could not be brought to trial … the evidence was tainted or there simply was no evidence to prosecute them; but, we swear (cause intelligence – who never makes a mistake) say these people are a real threat to Americans.

I got to thinking. A husband hates his wife and her family; he tells his wife he is going to kill her, her mother, her father, her neighbors, her children … and everybody knows how he feels.
He even has a record of violence.

The wife and family go to the police and tell them what was said by the husband. Do we lock this guy up? And if we could, for how long?

A known pedophile gets out of jail. He says he still has urges; we tell him he can’t hang around children, but can we lock him up indefinitely?

The KKK hates Jews, Blacks, (probably Hispanics now) and wishes they were removed from the face of this earth. They have a history of torture and killing. They spew their venom as often as they can and they write books about why these racial groups must be removed from the face of the earth or at least the United States of America. Do we lock all these KKK members up?

How about the National Guard being sent in to take these KKK guys out? Do we do that?

A group of guys in another country hate Americans, wish they were dead and removed from the face of the earth and everybody knows it. Some have even killed Americans right here on our soil. Do we leave the United States and go to another country where we think this group is and lock up a bunch of people that may be part of this group? How about we torture and/or kill a few that we think is part of the group, and, by the way, a thousand or so innocent people who happen to be in the same vicinity get killed. Well, so what … that’s the cost of getting these guys who hate Americans and vow to kill Americans.
None of this is funny or to be taken lightly. These are serious discussions. They involve rights and liberties and rules of law. Is the "threat of violence" enough to detain you, and if so for how long?
-

THE RULE OF LAW

HUMAN RIGHTS

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

DETAINEE

DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some

Koh vs. Obama Administration on Indefinite Detention?

REPAIRING OUR HUMAN RIGHTS REPUTATION

MAKING VERSUS POSING A THREAT

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS