Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Americans do exhibit one major disconnect in the area of human rights: we believe that an American's human rights and protections are, and should be, determined by one's income/ability to work. We accept nothing -- not job loss, family circumstances/crises, health (unless disability is confirmed by the SSA, a process that takes up to three years from the date of applying for aid), unemployability --- as a legitimate "excuse" for being unemployed. Most of us applauded the anniversary of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the mid-'90's, at the very same time that we applauded "welfare reform" (which violates this UN agreement on a number of points concerning the poor), ending the human right to basic aid. We do NOT protect, or even recognize, the fundamental rights of any American who falls into poverty -- not the right to basic humanitarian aid, to medical care, to legitimate legal aid, etc. The odd thing is, other nations can see how the US violates the human rights of its own people, but most Americans can't seem to grasp that concept.

As a direct result of the New Deal (including programs from the GI Bill to general assistance welfare), America truly became an economic leader. For a time (1970's) when benefits were raised up to slightly over the poverty line, and real education and job skills training were made available, over 80% of welfare recipients voluntarily quit welfare within 5 years, eventually moving into the once-vast middle class.Any other nation would regard this as a shining success! Our economic disparities shrank to historic lows, and our national productivity reached historic highs. This was all because, for a time, we adopted the concept of "the common good".

I realize that this is not the only area in which the US grievously disregards internationally -recognized fundamental human rights, but it's an area that we seem afraid to address. Stop being afraid of being called a "bleeding heart liberal", and start thinking about the common good. For the past 25 years, we've poured billions of taxpayer dollars into welfare for the rich, on the theory that it would "trickle down". Obviously, it didn't. We must start thinking about our own people as our greatest resource, and investing in those things that benefit the nation as a whole.

Dianka H. Fabian

Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin

Mar 31 2008 - 5:11pm

Web Letter

I am rather puzzled by the supposed separation of "human rights" from the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and subsequent civil rights amendments to the Constitution are all about securing human rights for Americans and anyone who is subject to American law.

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement for the Constitution that followed it. The mission statement says, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The declaration argues for an activist government that would, among other things, support "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

In the Preamble to the Constitution, it says, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Based on the will of the people, the Government is supposed to protect the general welfare, and protect our rights. The Founding Fathers wanted an American government that supported the rights and welfare of the American people!

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

Dec 11 2007 - 5:43pm

Web Letter

Perhaps we have a semantic problem here. I would strongly support "equal access" to healthcare, while I strongly reject the idea that the taxpayer should get stuck with the bill.

Yes, every individual has the same right to buy whatever they can without anyone being shut out thru legal blaockage. Pretending that there is a "right" to make someone else pay for it is a long way from proper "equal access"!

That's why your poll numbers are fudged.

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA

Dec 10 2007 - 1:47pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.