Brown wins Mass. Senate race in epic upset

[rb336]

reductio ad absurdum, det_ard

[Det_ard]

Rejection of the universality of universal human RIGHTS?

[gnome]

whoa, I thought this was a thread about Scott Brown. Must have the wrong thread, sorry for the interruption.

[gibran]

no Mike i find it absurd that one would disagree with "Declarations of Human Rights" maybe I was being polite in asking the question...maybe I should have just attacked you ...but I must have been running on empty in that regards...

as far as your disdain for the UN based on it's behaviors...the same could be said of a country whose soldiers have raped civilians, whose government have used mercenaries and private contractors without over sight, and one that supports countries that use our weapons illegally on civilian populations, or who funds illegal settlements of others land?...if that is your standard for dissing the UN ...how do you reconcile the USA's behavior over time..

as far as a taunt; it wasn't meant directly as one but it must have hit home a little? or an observation of why would anyone oppose a "declaration of human rights?"

[jflick3535]

It means it's the only thing they have left, they can't back up their beliefs so they use the last thing available, which is to smear, attack and defame the character the opposition.

you left out accusations of "stealing" the election because there is no way a majority of people could have a different view from them

[janesback]

But , most importantly ladies, and some guys

have you seen him in Cosmo................whoa , hubba hubba.........

Jane

[gibran]

PREAMBLE
Whereas, the realisation in practice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights depends on the intellectual and emotional acceptance by the people of the universal human values on which these rights are founded,
Whereas, disregard and contempt for human values have resulted in barbarous acts that have outraged the conscience of humanity,
Whereas, it is essential to promote the development and acceptance of basic human values by the peoples of all nations to usher in a world order based on freedom, truth, reason, and compassion,
Whereas, the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed their faith in the dignity and worth of the human person and have determined to promote social and cultural progress in peace and harmony, and
Whereas, the common understanding and acceptance of these universal human values is of the greatest importance for the realisation of this pledge,
Now therefore the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Values as a common ideal of attainment for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every section of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these values and make all efforts national and international to secure their universal and effective recognition among the peoples of the world.
Article 1:
Source of Values: Dignity of the human person as an autonomous agent endowed with reason is the ultimate source of all values.
Article 2:
Reason: Reason is an essential human faculty in promoting the progress of humankind enabling human beings to have a world-view that motivates their thoughts and actions. Cultivation of rational thinking is, therefore, an intrinsic human value.
Article 3:
Critical Intelligence: The essential nature of human beings is to question, examine, and understand. It is necessary to subject all beliefs to the scrutiny of reason and critical intelligence, in order to eliminate error. An unexamined belief is not worth having.
Article 4:
Truth: The aim of all rational thought is the discovery of truth. Truth consists of beliefs about reality resulting from rational thinking and experience. Quest for truth is, therefore, a supreme human value.
Article 5:
Tolerance: Tolerance of differing ideas and view-points is essential for the discovery of truth. Absence of tolerance leads to denial of freedom and the suppression of creativity. Tolerance is, therefore, a basic human value.
Article 6:
Creativity: All social progress is the result of human creativity. Rooted in the individuality of a human being, creativity can flourish only in an atmosphere of freedom.
Article 7:
Freedom: Respect for the dignity of the human person demands that the freedom of every human being ought to be ensured in all spheres of life, consistent with the freedom of all.
Article 8:
Equality: Respect for the human person implies that all human beings shall be treated as equal in dignity and rights irrespective of race, nationality, belief or non-belief, colour, gender, age, or sexual orientation.
Article 9:
Justice: The principle of justice which dictates equal consideration, for the well-being of every individual shall inform all social institutions and relations between individuals.
Article 10:
Humankind and Nature: Man being a part of nature necessitates his living in harmony with it. Concern for all life and the quality of the environment ought to guide all human activities.
Article 11:
Universal Culture: It should be the aim of all human endeavour to evolve a universal culture based on freedom, truth, reason, and compassion.

[gibran]

or amybe this liberal one...man those pesky Liberals and their cazy touchy feely ideals...

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.
The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.
It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.
We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.
We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

[gibran]

and for the form; try pacticing it's principles on a daily basis and maybe the form will come

[Det_ard]

you left out accusations of "stealing" the election because there is no way a majority of people could have a different view from them

Tying this thread back to the original theme, I'm a bit surprised that we haven't heard claims that the Massachusetts election was somehow stolen.

[mjs]

whoa, I thought this was a thread about Scott Brown. Must have the wrong thread, sorry for the interruption.

The race was so heavily focused on the health care debate, how can the two be seperated?

Oladub, I couldn't agree more whole heartedly that if we don't truelly understand why our costs are so much higher, we'll never ever ever create a good solution to lower it.

Not only are both parties avoiding this question like the plague, they want to muddy it up further by mixing it up with a totally unrelated issue, do we have a responsibility to guarantee a minimal level of care. Telling me my health care costs will go down if everyone is insured is like a homeless guy telling me my meal costs will be lower if I buy him a meal because the second meal is half price.

[barnesfoto]

"That's rich! The UN has lost whatever moral authority it may have once had."

Maybe. The constitution of the US was full of contradictions in it's first century too. Imagine the irony of a bunch of slaveowners publishing a document that discussed liberty. That's almost as funny as Jefferson's writings about the virtues of hard work, as he sat on his ass writing while his slaves prepared his dinner.

Flaws aside, the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are still considered valuable by many people. As for the UNDHR, either you believe that all human beings everywhere have certain rights that are universal, or you don't.
Citizens of developed countries tend to lean towards these ideals, citizens of undeveloped countries tend to laugh at them and maintain one set of standards for those with money and another set for those without. Which side are you on, Mikie? Never mind, I think that we know already.

COLOR="DarkRed"]Everyone has a right to get healthcare, but NO ONE has the right to violate SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS to get it.

So you cannot take my money to get health care for yourself.[/COLOR]

Here, in a nutshell, we see the weakness of the argument, and the slimy tactics of the fear pimps.

Just keep telling people that health care reform means something is going to be taken from them [[for added effect, tell people that only will something be taken from them, but it will be taken from them and given to the lazy, drug addicts, illegal immigrants, etc.)

Notice that nobody has explained why Teabagger #1, Dick Armey, who is leading the fight against government health care, has not only refused to surrender his own government health care policy, but is in a legal battle to keep it.

Notice that nobody has explained why Japan's Health Care system works, and like most of the health care systems in the developed world, is cheaper than ours.

Notice that nobody has explained why we are the only developed country in the world without some sort of universal health care system. Notice that those who are without health care in the country are again and again portrayed as "losers" and "freeloaders" but in reality are increasingly members of our country's shrinking middle class.

Notice that nobody has explained why US insurance companies have a right to deny me or hundreds of thousands of other hard working Americans health care based on a condition that I have that is hereditary, rather than a result of my own behavior.

Notice that those who insist that government programs are guaranteed to fail continue to take the government run freeway to their job [[if they still have one), consume government subsidized food products, go to work at their government run jobs [[ example: rabid libertarian neighbor rallies against real or imagined "socialism," goes to work everyday for Amtrak) and post their ravings about imaginary people "taking from them" on the internet, created by a government agency [[The National Science Foundation).

Notice that with the criticism of costs and spending, there is no mention of the outrageous costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, [[supported by many of the same people who are currently shrieking about health care reform).

So time will tell, if we as a nation, will emulate other developed countries, or if we will continue on the path towards becoming another Mexico, Columbia, or Honduras, an effort that began with the Reagan administration over a quarter century ago, slowed briefly in the 90s, and has made stunning progress from 2000-2008.

[Pam]

Notice that nobody has explained why Teabagger #1, Dick Armey, who is leading the fight against government health care, has not only refused to surrender his own government health care policy, but is in a legal battle to keep it.

Plus all those other teabaggers on Medicare.

[rb336]

Not only are both parties avoiding this question like the plague, they want to muddy it up further by mixing it up with a totally unrelated issue, do we have a responsibility to guarantee a minimal level of care. Telling me my health care costs will go down if everyone is insured is like a homeless guy telling me my meal costs will be lower if I buy him a meal because the second meal is half price.

while i think your analogy is, to say the least, flawed [[health care costs go up at least in part to cover those uninsured who use the er as primary care, etc.) the main point is right on -- and those pols on both side are in bed with the big insureres, big pharma, big medicine people. the current bill says we HAVE to have insurance, but there are no provisions for keeping health care costs down, for removing the layers of industrial bureaucracy that account for 20% of our costs, etc.

[barnesfoto]

Rb says: "those pols on both side are in bed with the big insureres, big pharma, big medicine people."

A valid point. The solution would public funding of campaigns, but there is strong opposition to this idea. See: earlier analogy of the dog chasing it's tail.

[gibran]

excellent points...just think how much lobbyist really cost our taxpayers...when they get their way...it wouldn't be hard to sort out corporate lobbyist and foreign ones from the social service voice or consumer advocates...but your right bArnes and RB ..elections free of special interest would be a litmus test for transparency

.

[Sstashmoo]

Reposted: Quote: "That's rich! The UN has lost whatever moral authority it may have once had."

Not with me it hasn't. Can you please explain your disdain for this organization?""

It's been almost 24 hours and all I'm hearing is crickets on this. Mikeg, I generally agree with most of your postings, but this one has me puzzled, it almost sounds as though you're parroting a wing of our media. Is that what this is, or do have some basis for slamming this world wide even handed organization?

It's hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes, but this country is resembling a modern day early 20th century Germany. It's all here, look around you. When a legitimate organization such as the UN, which is simply steered by global ideas, values and opinion, finds fault with our follies of conquest and destruction of the freedoms and liberties of it's people, we should all be listening, instead of condemning.

[johnsmith]

Quote: "I have yet to hear a sensible answer as to why some people believe being provided with healthcare is a right.

I'm sure you'll have one when YOUR EMPLOYER stops paying for yours.

My employer stopped chipping in to my 401k. I'm not now declaring that picking someone else's pocket to pay for my retirement is my right.

Again, I'm not necessarily against healthcare for all, just stop calling it a "right" because a right it ain't.

[johnsmith]

Don't you just love it when people contradict themselves within the same post....

Don't you just love it when people don't know what they're talking about? Just because you think I did, doesn't mean I contradicted anything. I didn't label him a slave owner, he WAS a slave owner. Fact.

After reading through all the bullshit posted here, I have yet to read a reasonable or convincing explanation of how healthcare is a right. Exercising a right does not come at the expense of others in order to exercise. Rights don't require other people to provide them for you. If I wish to speak my mind, I speak my mind, no cost to anyone else. If I wish to bear arms, I'll bear arms, no cost to anyone else. If I wish to practice a religion, I practice a religion, no cost to anyone else. If I wish to get healthcare, I get healthcare no cost...to... anyone....[[oops), I guess that one doesn't fit.

Name one right that requires another human being to provide it for you. Just one. Just a teensy-weensy little one. A microscopic one. You might change my mind if you can. Don't list the military, the police, gov't, or constitution as providing our rights either. They don't. Do they exist to protect our rights, yes, provide them, no. Any takers?

[johnsmith]

First, that is a very narrow and absurd definition of a right. I will give you an example of how: Your right to own a house ends when it infringes on my right to sleep whereever I want to. the true definition, according to m-w, is " something to which one has a just claim" do you have a just claim to health care? what is a right to life, if that doesn't include the right to the healthcare required to make that life possible?

I never said it was a definition of a right. It's just an example of why you picking another's pocket for your own sake is not your right. And plus, you do not have a right to sleep wherever you want to. Where did you ever get that notion? I have a right to own a house? Not for FREE. I earned and paid money for my house. Do I have a just claim to healthcare? No. Nobody's obligated to give me anything in life.

[Mikeg]

sstashmoo,
At the risk of taking this thread even farther off topic, the UN as an organization has increasingly failed [[see my post # 64) to live up to the ideals identified in its charter and the declaration of human rights. Nowhere in the declaration does it say that an individual has a human right to state-provided health care, free or otherwise. The declaration rightly points out that the full realization of human rights is based on the responsibility all people have to their community, not to their state. The declaration neither states nor implies that the people have an unquestionable duty or obligation to the state to make this happen.

[TKshreve]

The Best Insights From This Thread So Far:

what the industry needs is pricing controls. not government takeover.

if we don't truelly understand why our costs are so much higher, we'll never ever ever create a good solution to lower it.

the main point is right on -- and those pols on both side are in bed with the big insureres, big pharma, big medicine people. the current bill says we HAVE to have insurance, but there are no provisions for keeping health care costs down, for removing the layers of industrial bureaucracy that account for 20% of our costs, etc.

I certainly agree that as a leading nation, we need to set an example for other developing nations. It is not a right for the entire population to have Health Care. Nowhere does it say that in our founding documents. But it should be a goal of ours. It actually should be official by now if you ask me. It's 2010 and as a leading super power for 100+ years, we still can't take care of our poor and sick. In actuality, we incite them in this country. Everyday we stew in this metaphorical game of Hungry-Hungry Hippos of who can grab the most. It's just another day of ZERO progress. By letting our rich get richer [[ever so easily by now), and the poor scrap for basic services is pathetic to say the least compared to where we should be as a developed nation of 100+ years.

While I am not suggesting we give Health Care away, there remains plenty of ways the uninsured can EARN their subsidized health care. What happened to Obama's decree to have everyone pitch in? Where are the masses of people cleaning up littered cities, taking in the homeless, helping out at the Nursing Home, painting over graffitti, delivering meals to the homebound? What happened to that idea? Apparently there is no carrot at the end of the stick.

It seems that: as much as there are groups who take more than they need [[unethically in most cases), you have other groups who demand more than they have earned. By addressing both of those communities directly, you will be addressing many of the crises we face as a country together.

[gibran]

while no body's obligated to give you anything ..protecting your health is no different than protecting your property or education your children...You life is valuable and if you get ill your ability to recover or get he right attention is essential to your ability to contribute to the greater good...your ability to get those services shouldn't be determined on your ability to pay or the bill to protect your life and liberty would be considerable...what is the difference in paying taxes to have your education or your liberty protected...you pay into a retirement plan [[SSI) what is the difference in developing a plan to protect your health...and then in turn protect others until they can find affordable policies...a productive society is a healthy one..and those without health have the right to care and participation at their own levels..

maybe this was too much to get to in one year..but I surely hope you agree with insurance and medical reform? Or was it part of agenda and a culture of "no" and a lack of creativity on congress's part to craft a reasonable bill..but ..it's a moral issue that people die needlessly each year in a country that the best HC technology in the world.

guess it's a values or morals thing...but isn't morals and values the start of how we develop rights?

[johnsmith]

while no body's obligated to give you anything ..protecting your health is no different than protecting your property or education your children...You life is valuable and if you get ill your ability to recover or get he right attention is essential to your ability to contribute to the greater good...your ability to get those services shouldn't be determined on your ability to pay or the bill to protect your life and liberty would be considerable...what is the difference in paying taxes to have your education or your liberty protected...you pay into a retirement plan [[SSI) what is the difference in developing a plan to protect your health...and then in turn protect others until they can find affordable policies...a productive society is a healthy one..and those without health have the right to care and participation at their own levels..

maybe this was too much to get to in one year..but I surely hope you agree with insurance and medical reform? Or was it part of agenda and a culture of "no" and a lack of creativity on congress's part to craft a reasonable bill..but ..it's a moral issue that people die needlessly each year in a country that the best HC technology in the world.

guess it's a values or morals thing...but isn't morals and values the start of how we develop rights?

I understand your compassion toward humanity, and desire to "take care of everyone" for lack of better terms, but I don't believe rights are something gained at the expense of others. No rights I can think of require any funding to exist. Free healthcare is a charity, not a right.

And who says one must contribute to the greater good? I believe if someone wants to do nothing in their life but to simply exist, they have a right to do that. They're not harming anybody. Nobody's obligated to "contribute to the greater good." That's not freedom.

Is there anybody who wants to take a shot at my previously posted question?

Name one right that requires another human being to provide it for you. Just one. Just a teensy-weensy little one. A microscopic one. You might change my mind if you can. Don't list the military, the police, gov't, or constitution as providing our rights either. They don't. Do they exist to protect our rights, yes, provide them, no. Any takers?

[johnsmith]

while no body's obligated to give you anything ..protecting your health is no different than protecting your property or education your children...You life is valuable and if you get ill your ability to recover or get he right attention is essential to your ability to contribute to the greater good...your ability to get those services shouldn't be determined on your ability to pay or the bill to protect your life and liberty would be considerable...what is the difference in paying taxes to have your education or your liberty protected...you pay into a retirement plan [[SSI) what is the difference in developing a plan to protect your health...and then in turn protect others until they can find affordable policies...a productive society is a healthy one..and those without health have the right to care and participation at their own levels..

maybe this was too much to get to in one year..but I surely hope you agree with insurance and medical reform? Or was it part of agenda and a culture of "no" and a lack of creativity on congress's part to craft a reasonable bill..but ..it's a moral issue that people die needlessly each year in a country that the best HC technology in the world.

guess it's a values or morals thing...but isn't morals and values the start of how we develop rights?

I understand your compassion toward humanity, and desire to "take care of everyone" for lack of better terms, but I don't believe rights are something gained at the expense of others. No rights I can think of require any funding to exist. Free healthcare is a charity, not a right.

And who says one must contribute to the greater good? I believe if someone wants to do nothing in their life but to simply exist, they have a right to do that. They're not harming anybody. Nobody's obligated to "contribute to the greater good." That's not freedom.

Is there anybody who wants to take a shot at my previously posted question? I'm all ears if someone can come up with one measley example of a right that comes at the expense of other to change my mind.