Human rights?

medicineman

New Member
Bringing Human Rights Home v
By Alan Jenkins, TomPaine.com. Posted December 9,
December 10 marks International Human Rights Day and events like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo show that it's time to bring a tradition that respects human rights.
What if the world's governments came together and agreed on the fundamental rights that every human being must have in order to enjoy basic dignity, opportunity, and a meaningful life?
What if their agreement was profoundly progressive, recognizing civil and political rights like free speech, due process, and non-discrimination, as well as economic and social rights like the right to health care and housing, to organize, and to receive a living wage for a hard day's work? And what if they memorialized those rights in a seminal document, from which more specific commitments and enforcement could and did flow?

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that such a document exists. It's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it turns 58 years old on December 10 -- International Human Rights Day.

Although the United States played a leadership role in fashioning the Declaration and advocating its adoption, it also took steps to hamper its use here at home, bowing to Southern Democrats who feared it would overturn segregation. And in the years since, our government has failed to ratify, or outright opposed, key international agreements intended to fulfill the Declaration's promise, even as it pushed other nations to take human rights seriously.

It's time to change that. Events over the last six years -- Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, racial profiling and warrantless wiretaps, exclusion of immigrants from basic services and due process, Hurricane Katrina, and 47 million Americans without health insurance -- make clear that it's time to bring human rights home.

What do international human rights bring to Americans that our own Constitution and current domestic laws do not? Plenty.

For example, the federal courts have largely rejected the notion that the Constitution protects economic rights. But the Universal Declaration provides that "everyone has the right to work" under "just and favorable conditions," and that "everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

The Declaration affirms that "everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." It guarantees that "everyone has the right to education." And it insists that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

If that language sounds familiar, it's because Eleanor Roosevelt and other members of the U.S. delegation to the Declaration process borrowed heavily from FDR's vision of an "economic bill of rights" that led us out of the Great Depression and laid the foundation for unprecedented post-war prosperity.

Another area in which human rights add tremendous value is in ensuring equal opportunity and preventing discrimination. While a mountain of research shows that our criminal justice system is infected by racial bias and unfairness -- with race influencing outcomes in policing, arrest, jury selection, prosecution, conviction, and punishment -- our courts have declined to find a constitutional violation without proof that an identifiable person in the system intentionally sought to harm people of a particular race. Such a showing is almost impossible to make, and, in any event, misses the point.

By contrast, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which the U.S. has signed and ratified, takes a more realistic and effective approach. It prohibits practices that have the effect of treating people differently based on their race -- whether or not that discriminatory treatment is intentional. Well-documented racial bias in drug sentencing and the death penalty, for example, clearly fail that test.

These and other human rights agreements, when applied through the lens of our own Constitution, laws, and national values, can move us closer to the ideals of justice and opportunity that Americans hold dear.

How can we bring human rights home? The new Congress can make a difference immediately by ratifying outstanding human rights treaties without significant reservations. A good place to start is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which only the United States and the collapsed state of Somalia have failed to ratify. The U.S. has resisted ratifying the CRC because it outlaws the execution of children. Now that our own Supreme Court has held juvenile executions unconstitutional, our government should quickly ratify it.

Another important step would be to add to our existing civil rights laws a new generation of domestic human rights laws that apply our international commitments here at home. We don't have to wait for Washington to begin making that happen. State and municipal governments can take the lead, as San Francisco did when it adopted an ordinance implementing the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. That action, which immediately led to more equitable city spending and a new, pragmatic focus on preventing violence against women, established an exciting example for other local governments.

Finally, we should all educate our fellow Americans about human rights as a proud part of our nation's legacy and crucial to our nation's future. After all, it was the founders of our country who declared it to be self-evident that we're all created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Human rights are profoundly American, even as they are global and universal. And bringing them home is crucial to making our country all that it was meant to be.

Opponents of human rights argue that reclaiming our role and responsibility within the international human rights framework would somehow threaten our national sovereignty. But in an era of globalization and interconnection, in which we routinely participate in international trade agreements, anti-terrorism compacts, and anti-nuclear efforts, it makes no sense to argue that participating in our half-century-old international human rights system is somehow a threat. To the contrary, reclaiming our leadership role on human rights will help to reestablish our credibility and influence around the world.

Once again December 10 is International Human Rights Day. It's a good time to remind your elected officials, your community leaders, your family and friends, that it's also American Human Rights Day, and that it's time to make that mean something again.
 

ViRedd

New Member
"If that language sounds familiar, it's because Eleanor Roosevelt and other members of the U.S. delegation to the Declaration process borrowed heavily from FDR's vision of an "economic bill of rights" that led us out of the Great Depression and laid the foundation for unprecedented post-war prosperity"

I read this far before I couldn't take anymore. FDR's fascist/socialist programs did NOT end the depression, nor did they "lead us out of it." In spite of all of the unconstitutional welfare programs instituted by the Roosevelt administration, there were MORE unemployed at the start of his third term than were unemployed when he took office. Elenore Roosevelt was, at best, a Communits-lite, and her husband was a fascist.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
"If that language sounds familiar, it's because Eleanor Roosevelt and other members of the U.S. delegation to the Declaration process borrowed heavily from FDR's vision of an "economic bill of rights" that led us out of the Great Depression and laid the foundation for unprecedented post-war prosperity"

I read this far before I couldn't take anymore. FDR's fascist/socialist programs did NOT end the depression, nor did they "lead us out of it." In spite of all of the unconstitutional welfare programs instituted by the Roosevelt administration, there were MORE unemployed at the start of his third term than were unemployed when he took office. Elenore Roosevelt was, at best, a Communits-lite, and her husband was a fascist.

Vi
Back to your one trick pony act I see. If it weren't for your humerous posts, like calling Roosevelt a commie, and dissing everything great about this country, like social security, food stamps and any sort of social protection, it would be pretty boring. I wonder if you really believe all the crap you post or if you just like arguing. BTW Merry Christmas. Also what do you propose we do with all the social miscreants, feed them to the lions at the zoos. Not everyone has the ability to be above the crowd, Duh, why do you think it's called a crowd. So the commoners should do what? Not everyone is an enterprenuer or born wealthy. I know one thing you do approve of doing with them, sending them off to fight wars for the corporations. Tell me your plan. Please dont go into that rhetorical free market crap you lay on me as you know full well that only includes less than 10% of the populace. Tell me your plan for the commoners when the corporations are sending jobs everywhere but here, cutting wages and making more people part time so they don't have to pay benefits. How are these displaced people supposed to live, get real, leave the bullshit in your garbage can and explain your great plan for America. Thank you!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Well, first off, I didn't call Roosevelt a Commie. I called him a fascist ... and that's exactly what he was.

Now then, If you can prove me wrong about the unemployment being more during Roosevelt's third term than at the start of his first term. Or if you can prove me wrong about the unconstitutionality of his make-work programs, have at it.

"Also what do you propose we do with all the social miscreants..."

An empty stomach is a great motivator. Just ask all those who are crossing our border each and every day ... by the tens of thousands.


Vi
 

skunkushybrid

New Member
We have the same problems with our borders... Eastern Europeans, Africans (the muslim kind)... these two groups include a lot of people from a lot of different countries. They come with asylum, or they sneak in the back way. All these groups start up criminal gangs... start taking over things like prostitution, the drug trade... They carry guns, and come from a more violent society. Blacks and whites in this country, I believe as a result of immigration, has reached an all time high in terms of relations. We seem to be working together a lot more, maybe in a subconscious effort to combat the muslim and immigration threat.

You can't stop them getting into the country... as Vi' said, they have hungry bellies... and we have a society that is shrouded in bullshit, of course they are going to come... our countries will always let them in as they are good for the economy... they work for less and are willing to work longer. When I work, I like to do manual labour, building sites and the like. I've seen guys working for half my wages that don't even stop for breakfast.
 

medicineman

New Member
Back in the '70's, I was a carpenter, Made about 19.00 per hr. + medical, retirement, etc. Mexicans have taken over 99% of construction (Housing) and a carpenter now makes 8-10 bucks an hour with no Benefits. So who is benefiting, Houses that were 40-60 thousand in the '70's are now 300,000, but labor is half. The rich get richer and the poor get fucked, Amen! Long live Capitalism!
 

medicineman

New Member
Now then, If you can prove me wrong about the unemployment being more during Roosevelt's third term than at the start of his first term. Or if you can prove me wrong about the unconstitutionality of his make-work programs, have at it.

I could care less about Roosevelt, Tell me your plan for the lower class people instead of let them eat shit. Geeze, it must be so nice to be you!
 

ViRedd

New Member
No, Med ... let's address this: "If it weren't for your humerous posts, like calling Roosevelt a commie, and dissing everything great about this country, like social security, food stamps and any sort of social protection, it would be pretty boring."

So, you seem to be of the mind that what makes America "great" is the welfare programs. Here's is where we differ politically. You are a devout socialist and I am a freedom devotee. I see America as great because of the endless opportunities afforded to the people here. A person can become anything he/she wants to become, or not to become anything at all. A person can aquire all the wealth one wants to aquire, or live in poverty. A person has freedom of movement here. Freedom to speak out against the government. Freedom to worship the God of our choice, or no god at all. And YOU think America is great because of handouts? Gimme a friggin' break, Med.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
And YOU think America is great because of handouts? Gimme a friggin' break, med! Which arm do you want broken, I'll send one of my buddies in Ca over to your pad to take care of that for ya! BTW A country is not judged on how it treats its wealthy, but on how it treats its poor, Ask your pal Jesus!!! Canada used to be pretty good at taking care of its poor, but now with the new conservative govt. they're slashing social programs and starting a war on drugs like your pal Nixon started, that ought to make you happy, eh! I'll bet you voted for that FUCK eh! Oh yeah, and Reagans trickle down theory, thats your motto, right! Just admit it, your a greedy fuckin rich bastard that could care less about the disadvantaged. Never once have I seen your compassion for the poor. Being an addictive personality have you ever heard the phrase "There but for the grace of God goes me"?
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Uhh, med, in the USA, the "poor" can, and do, become excessively wealthy!
It happens frequently.
What society has created more wealth for more people from impoverished backgrounds than any other in history?
It's an easy answer.
The glass really looks empty to you, huh?
 

medicineman

New Member
The glass really looks empty to you, huh? Yup, me and 295,000,000 other Americans that aren't living the life, as you must be!
 

ViRedd

New Member
"Which arm do you want broken, I'll send one of my buddies in Ca over to your pad to take care of that for ya!"

Not up to it yourself, Bigboy?

"Just admit it, your a greedy fuckin rich bastard that could care less about the disadvantaged. Never once have I seen your compassion for the poor. Being an addictive personality have you ever heard the phrase "There but for the grace of God goes me"?"

You are nothing more than a disgusting, insulting bigot. You have no concept of how to discuss politics in a rational manner. You are a bully and your demeaning posts are getting mighty old.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
You are nothing more than a disgusting, insulting bigot. You have no concept of how to discuss politics in a rational manner. You are a bully and your demeaning posts are getting mighty old.
Is a Bigot one whom dislikes the rich elites, if so count me in. All you selfish bastards deserved to be beaten every day for your dispicable behavior. Oh woe is me, the government took 70K from me. How fucking disgusting. How much did you keep? not enough, right. It's all about you. Me, Mine, I. all about you! I have a vision of you when you were a kid screamin at your mother for more candy and the little boy from next door came over to play with you and you wouldn't let him touch your toys, yeah thats right a selfish little prick even when you were a Kid! You are disgusting! I'm sure there's a place in hell for you! BTW I was the kid who used to take on the bullies like you and Wavels, you guys don't scare me at all, Bring it!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Ummm ... I think I have an answer for you regarding your last post, Med. Take a look into the other forums here on the site, and then return here to tell us all who it is between the two of us who DONATES more of his time to helping the newbies learn to grow pot.

Vi

PS: Try to curb your viscious side, will ya? I don't want to speak for Wavels, but personally, I could care less how many people you've beat up in your lifetime.
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Your pugilistic skills are irrelevant med, I agree with Vi, and BTW,I'm not gay!!!

In fairness to med, I think he is a relative newbie.....I think he is working on his first crop or so, at least this is the impression I get in reading his posts.
So his ability to dispense advise is not on the same level as yours Vi.
:blsmoke:
 

medicineman

New Member
Now there's a thought, Vi is actually thinkin. Just because we are on different sides of the debate does not make either one of us right, I'll say there is room on either side for improvement. Whereas you send out the selfish message, Me, Mine, I, and I say we, us and humanity, there is room to adjust. I'm not above keeping a little for me, I just don't want to keep it all if what I give up can help some one less fortunate than me, and I see the Government as the only entity that can do that without self interest. Now I'll admit they need some strict oversight, but private charities can't do the job. So I'll be content with paying my pitiful taxes and try and change what I can through Voting. It worked this time, maybe there's hope that the government will become what it is supposed to be, The protector and benefactor to the citizens! Hey, don't they work for us? lol.
 

ViRedd

New Member
"I'm not above keeping a little for me, I just don't want to keep it all if what I give up can help some one less fortunate than me..."

Good for you, Med. And if you're interested, there is a little known federal program whereby folks like you can send extra money, over and above what you owe in taxes, to the federal government anytime you wish.

"I see the Government as the only entity that can do that without self interest."

You're not much of a student of history, are ya Med?

Now I'll admit they need some strict oversight, but private charities can't do the job.

Uh-Huh ... and which are more efficient, those who run private charities or government bureaucrats?

"maybe there's hope that the government will become what it is supposed to be, The protector and benefactor to the citizens! Hey, don't they work for us?"


Shit in one hand and hope on the other and see which one fills up first, Med. You can hope all you want, but hope will not make the government more efficient. Only making government accountable to the people will make it more efficient. And government IS the protector of the citizens ... but NOT the benefactor. And yes, they work for us ... but people with your mindset, and those you've placed into power have lost all sense of this concept. Its now the other way around, Med ... and its the entitlement mentality that has caused this. Maybe if we continue to battle it out in this forum, you may begin to see this some day. Hope springs eternal.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Maybe if we continue to battle it out in this forum, you may begin to see this some day. Hope springs eternal.
Is there any chance of you seeing it a little my way, or are you so corrupted by greed that it is impossible?
 
Top