Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Real Life Human Rights Conflict
Being a school holiday I am spending the morning at home with plenty to get done including taxes. In the background the TV is playing. As I pass through the room I hear the announcer saying that Bill Clinton is speaking at a Hilary rally in Wisconsin and that a number of Obama supporters are in the crowd raising uncomfortable questions for the "retired" president.
As they go to a clip of the confrontation it is obvious that among them were human rights activists questioning why Hilary opposes the human rights of the fetus. The clip only showed his response which featured him shouting at the questioners, "we disagree with you! You want to penalize "mothers" and their doctors." How hard of hearing he must be. Here is a real life example of why Hilary is not liberal. It is also an example of why the human rights issue does not go away or get solved, what I have called the "human rights dilemma."
When I was active in politics in an eastern state and an official in the local Democratic Party I had to opportunity to attend a number of events where Senator Bill Bradley was being honored or was a speaker. He always concluded by taking questions. At three events I was able to ask a question. Each time I asked him, a self identified liberal, how he could take a stand against the human rights of the fetus and support abortion for any reason?"
In all three cases his answer was similar. (1)He did not deny that abortion was a human rights violation (he is reported to be quite intelligent). (2) He clearly said he put the "right" of the mother to terminate the life of her fetus for any reason above the right of her fetus to life.
What Bill Clinton's anger graphically reveals is a "penalty" (Bill's word") or "Burden" view of competing human rights. He sees the human rights activists as seeking a "penalty" because he must see the human life of the fetus as a "penalty" or "burden". In fact the vast majority of human rights supporters do not see human rights as a competition in which some person's rights trump another's. The essential motivation of human rights activists is the protection of human rights.
I do not know any human rights supporter who is opposed to "choice" by women or any other human being. Rather that somes ends or means that might be choosen are in fact violations of another human's right to life, liberty, property or citizenship among others. Yes, one can choose to violate someone else's right to choose. We have many examples in history and in our own day: slavery, election fraud, rape, blackmail among others. Honoring and protecting the rights of the fetus do not trump or deny the right to choose. Making rape a crime does not violate the rapist's right to choose rather his "choice" has violated her rights. The choice of abortion, likewise, does end the fetus' life while the mother and the doctor continue to have thier right to choose. ALL rights of the fetus have been terminated.
I think there is a way to more constructively pursue human rights. Unfortunately the fork in the road to such an approach was passed long ago and over the last twenty years we have seen a steadily increasing disrespect for human rights in our country and in the world.
As they go to a clip of the confrontation it is obvious that among them were human rights activists questioning why Hilary opposes the human rights of the fetus. The clip only showed his response which featured him shouting at the questioners, "we disagree with you! You want to penalize "mothers" and their doctors." How hard of hearing he must be. Here is a real life example of why Hilary is not liberal. It is also an example of why the human rights issue does not go away or get solved, what I have called the "human rights dilemma."
When I was active in politics in an eastern state and an official in the local Democratic Party I had to opportunity to attend a number of events where Senator Bill Bradley was being honored or was a speaker. He always concluded by taking questions. At three events I was able to ask a question. Each time I asked him, a self identified liberal, how he could take a stand against the human rights of the fetus and support abortion for any reason?"
In all three cases his answer was similar. (1)He did not deny that abortion was a human rights violation (he is reported to be quite intelligent). (2) He clearly said he put the "right" of the mother to terminate the life of her fetus for any reason above the right of her fetus to life.
What Bill Clinton's anger graphically reveals is a "penalty" (Bill's word") or "Burden" view of competing human rights. He sees the human rights activists as seeking a "penalty" because he must see the human life of the fetus as a "penalty" or "burden". In fact the vast majority of human rights supporters do not see human rights as a competition in which some person's rights trump another's. The essential motivation of human rights activists is the protection of human rights.
I do not know any human rights supporter who is opposed to "choice" by women or any other human being. Rather that somes ends or means that might be choosen are in fact violations of another human's right to life, liberty, property or citizenship among others. Yes, one can choose to violate someone else's right to choose. We have many examples in history and in our own day: slavery, election fraud, rape, blackmail among others. Honoring and protecting the rights of the fetus do not trump or deny the right to choose. Making rape a crime does not violate the rapist's right to choose rather his "choice" has violated her rights. The choice of abortion, likewise, does end the fetus' life while the mother and the doctor continue to have thier right to choose. ALL rights of the fetus have been terminated.
I think there is a way to more constructively pursue human rights. Unfortunately the fork in the road to such an approach was passed long ago and over the last twenty years we have seen a steadily increasing disrespect for human rights in our country and in the world.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Book Review News
One of the books I reviewed and recommended last year,
- The Thrill of The Chaste
- by Dawn Eden has now been published in Spanish and Polish. The Spanish printing sold out in less than a week!
The title in Spanish is: La adventura de la castidad
Link to Amazon to Order
Monday, February 11, 2008
My Incomplete List of Liberal Ideals
My Partial List of Liberal Ideals
Reviewing my editorials on this topic to date I find I have listed the following as Political Liberal Ideals.
Please note the word "Political". I am aware from comments on other blogs that some readers are not able to differntiate political, religious, mathmatical, and so forth use of language. Since I have given enough clues as to my religious world view and some readers may be aware of my training as a mathmatician there might be a temptation to apply the classifications I see as useful in one field and assume that I, the critic, would apply them undefined in the another field. Please avoid this temptation. In this series of blogs I am telling the story of the development my perspective on American Politics and making some amatuer diagnoses of the the current situation.
Liberal Principles identified so far:
I. All persons are created equal(1) and of equal dignity (2)
II. In America, leaders serve at the consent of the governed. (3)
III. Solidarity is the liberal modus operendi. (4)
a. Solidarity moves citizens to action
b. Polarity pertifies citizen action.
Reviewing my editorials on this topic to date I find I have listed the following as Political Liberal Ideals.
Please note the word "Political". I am aware from comments on other blogs that some readers are not able to differntiate political, religious, mathmatical, and so forth use of language. Since I have given enough clues as to my religious world view and some readers may be aware of my training as a mathmatician there might be a temptation to apply the classifications I see as useful in one field and assume that I, the critic, would apply them undefined in the another field. Please avoid this temptation. In this series of blogs I am telling the story of the development my perspective on American Politics and making some amatuer diagnoses of the the current situation.
Liberal Principles identified so far:
I. All persons are created equal(1) and of equal dignity (2)
II. In America, leaders serve at the consent of the governed. (3)
III. Solidarity is the liberal modus operendi. (4)
a. Solidarity moves citizens to action
b. Polarity pertifies citizen action.
----------------------------------------
Footnotes and Amplifications:
(1) Sentence 1 of ,paragraph 2 of the American Declaration of Independance(1776),
"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."
(2) As with any standard or ideal some means of measuring achievment of it in real life is necessary. The value "dignity" provides this measurability for the ideal of equality. Dignity (webster: meaning one)is the quality of being worthy, honored or asteemed. For example, persons are denied dignity because of race, sex, ethnicity, language, age or religion are in fact denied equality. This is only a partial list of criteria I have seen used to deny someone's dignity/equality in my life time.
(3) Sentence 2 of Paragraph 2 of the American Declaration of Independance (1776),
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
(4) For many the first reaction to the word "Solidarity" is to think of the liberal movement in Poland that took this word as its name. Its roll in bringing down the reactionary goverment of their country in undeniable. Its meaning, however, is more universal and applical elsewhere.
Webster: "Solidarity = Unity that produces (as in Poland) or is based on (as in US)
community of interests, 0bjectives and standards.See 'Unity'."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Rules for Comments - 1.0
View From The Lake - Comment Rules - 1.0
Please take note of these rules:
Comments on this Blog are moderated.
Since I do not comment on anyone's blog without signing my name that will be the rule here.
(1) Only signed comments will be published.
(2) You must include your Email Address in your sumission (since spam is a major concern to all of us I will supress it's publication at your request.) This requirement is the only way I can confirm that you are who you say you are.
(3) Profane and obscene language and ad- hominem (if you don't know - look it up) comments will not be published and most likely not even read by the editor.
(4) Since the editor is not paid there is no guarentee of timely moderation or email response if requested.
(5) Occasionally the author of this blog might join in the comment discussion himself. He thanks participants in advance for their adherance to these rules.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Human Rights Dilemma part two
This morning I was able to view Mike Huckabee's talk to the Conservative Political Action Committee. His reception was only slightly more friendly than that given McCain yesterday. Like Obama he has the oritorical skills to communicate his vision and ideals. Unlike McCain, his statement of belief in the equality and dignity of all human life was not accompanied by an insistance that this an exclusive conservative value.
I suspect his experience as a clergyman has made him aware that this ideal is in the hearts of most of us. In fact it is also at the center of the liberal democracy that makes America the beacon of freedom to millions around the world. And in politics it is in the soul of the liberal idea. A corolary liberal view is that in America the government serves at the conscent of the governed. The past twenty years this ideal has been eroded to the point when it is clear that neither political party any longer even takes note of this liberal ideal.
The infusion of vast amounts of money into the process is indicative of the loss of these ideals by both parties. The very language most candidates for president use reveals this loss also. "Elect ME and I will solve your problems." I can hear this phrase clearly said again by many of our major candidates and his or her party label bears no correlation to his or her willingnes to say it over and over again.
Those few candidates who are willing to say "let solve these problems by working together" are roundly attacked by both party establishments. The records and oratory of John McCain and Barack Obama are of this vein. I think the amazing awakening of the American Voter this year is the remergence of the citizens who feel in their gut that democracy cannot function without citizen participation. The message of solidarity moves us to action, the message of polarity pertifies us. This year many citizens are voting with their bodies and showing up to hear and to vote for those candidates who talk solidarity (an obviously liberal ideal) and not polarity.
The behaviour of the major political parties has progressively alienated more and more of their members to the point where most Americans are neither Democrat nor Republican. In my own state a few years ago we even elected an independent as Governor. It turned out that he not only had no traditional political affiliation he had no political philosophy at all.
I'm not sure this post moves me closer to my intended discussion of what I have labels the "Human Rights Dilemma". Perhaps next post I can get back to the story.
I suspect his experience as a clergyman has made him aware that this ideal is in the hearts of most of us. In fact it is also at the center of the liberal democracy that makes America the beacon of freedom to millions around the world. And in politics it is in the soul of the liberal idea. A corolary liberal view is that in America the government serves at the conscent of the governed. The past twenty years this ideal has been eroded to the point when it is clear that neither political party any longer even takes note of this liberal ideal.
The infusion of vast amounts of money into the process is indicative of the loss of these ideals by both parties. The very language most candidates for president use reveals this loss also. "Elect ME and I will solve your problems." I can hear this phrase clearly said again by many of our major candidates and his or her party label bears no correlation to his or her willingnes to say it over and over again.
Those few candidates who are willing to say "let solve these problems by working together" are roundly attacked by both party establishments. The records and oratory of John McCain and Barack Obama are of this vein. I think the amazing awakening of the American Voter this year is the remergence of the citizens who feel in their gut that democracy cannot function without citizen participation. The message of solidarity moves us to action, the message of polarity pertifies us. This year many citizens are voting with their bodies and showing up to hear and to vote for those candidates who talk solidarity (an obviously liberal ideal) and not polarity.
The behaviour of the major political parties has progressively alienated more and more of their members to the point where most Americans are neither Democrat nor Republican. In my own state a few years ago we even elected an independent as Governor. It turned out that he not only had no traditional political affiliation he had no political philosophy at all.
I'm not sure this post moves me closer to my intended discussion of what I have labels the "Human Rights Dilemma". Perhaps next post I can get back to the story.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Human Rights Champions Dilemma
I have put off writing about my countercultural understanding of political right and left. Having participted in and observed American political life for almost 50 years I have both a historical and an eclectic (some say sarcastic) view of politics.
As a young adult I was entranced by American politics. I remember listening to the politcal conventions on radio, both parties. Those times are gone, we no longer have conventions but PR supershows. As I approached voting age Catholics finally were welcome on the politcal stage. In 1960 Nancy and I married, had our first child and I voted in my first presidential election.
The challenge of JFK, "what can you do for your country", sounded like the true calling of citizenship envisioned by our founders. This year Barack Obama's idealism brings back that ancient thrill of citizenship. Many of my generation stepped up to JFKs challenge in the Peace Corp. In the process I and many others necessarily had to make some judgment as to where in the political spectrum My beliefs and values placed me.
President Eisenhower's war hero status made him a great president but he was not accepted by his own party even if his warning about the Military Industrial Complex's impact on American ethical values proved to be true. As in any age, I suppose, my perspective is conditioned by what really happened on the ground, not what the books say or the idealogs claim.
As the new democratic adminstration began to function a whole list of indicators came into synch with my Catholic values. The Cuban missle crisis was scary but a real life example of the use of military, power not to go to war, but to bring about a solution to a crisis short of war. I had been in the military and had been put on alert a number of time as the middle east moved into the turmoil we have known all these years.
Civil rights, refugees welcomed from Cuba, all harminized with my Catholic belef that all persons were created equal and each was to be granted full dignity and respect. This became my view of being liberal, a view validated on the ground by real people literally living the value. Yesterday I heard John McCain say to the Conservative Political Action Committee that he held the fundamental conservative belief that "all persons were created equal." No wonder the conservatives hate him! That's the fundamental liberal belief!
I will eventually get to the dilemma of the title of this posting but time and energy have run out for today.
As a young adult I was entranced by American politics. I remember listening to the politcal conventions on radio, both parties. Those times are gone, we no longer have conventions but PR supershows. As I approached voting age Catholics finally were welcome on the politcal stage. In 1960 Nancy and I married, had our first child and I voted in my first presidential election.
The challenge of JFK, "what can you do for your country", sounded like the true calling of citizenship envisioned by our founders. This year Barack Obama's idealism brings back that ancient thrill of citizenship. Many of my generation stepped up to JFKs challenge in the Peace Corp. In the process I and many others necessarily had to make some judgment as to where in the political spectrum My beliefs and values placed me.
President Eisenhower's war hero status made him a great president but he was not accepted by his own party even if his warning about the Military Industrial Complex's impact on American ethical values proved to be true. As in any age, I suppose, my perspective is conditioned by what really happened on the ground, not what the books say or the idealogs claim.
As the new democratic adminstration began to function a whole list of indicators came into synch with my Catholic values. The Cuban missle crisis was scary but a real life example of the use of military, power not to go to war, but to bring about a solution to a crisis short of war. I had been in the military and had been put on alert a number of time as the middle east moved into the turmoil we have known all these years.
Civil rights, refugees welcomed from Cuba, all harminized with my Catholic belef that all persons were created equal and each was to be granted full dignity and respect. This became my view of being liberal, a view validated on the ground by real people literally living the value. Yesterday I heard John McCain say to the Conservative Political Action Committee that he held the fundamental conservative belief that "all persons were created equal." No wonder the conservatives hate him! That's the fundamental liberal belief!
I will eventually get to the dilemma of the title of this posting but time and energy have run out for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)