Thank you for pointing this out. I've been grumbling inside for the last year about the impression politicians give that health care is a "right."
What if your blog could influence the elections in the last run?
What if, through your posts, your readers could get involved in the last run for the Presidential elections and bring help to the candidates on their strategic issues…Right People for the President can do that for your blog. It’s new, it’s easy and fun, and it’s free.
With a simple copy-and-paste procedure, you will include Right People for the President in your blog, and give your readers a new voice, enabling them to help the candidates on relevant campaign issues. Everyone can contribute, everyone could be “the right person” for the future President.
A contribution, a photo, and here your blog becomes a new source of ideas, with suggestions that may very well be useful to the candidates. Choose for your blog a dedicated player, focusing on one specific candidate, or choose our “Random player” with either candidate, changing on each reload of your pages.
There is room for amusing contributions – perfect for creating a friendly atmosphere around your posts – and more serious ones. The best ideas coming from your blog will be forwarded to the candidates. A real solution, brought forward by one of your readers, may shape the future of politics. Should a candidate reach out to one of your contributors, you may be associated in their meeting.
Right People for the President means more readers, spending longer time on your blog.
Right People for the President is fun, spontaneous, and involving. For your blog, it means more visitors, spending more reading time on your pages, returning more frequently to read new stories or to vote for their favorite ones.
Right People for the President is viral, with readers inviting their friends to have a look at the player on your blog or to vote for their contribution, bringing you new visitors. Interesting and popular suggestions from your readers will be there to initiate a buzz around your blog.
Include Right People for the President on your blog in just 2 minutes
In a few clicks:
1. choose a dedicated player, focusing on either B.Obama or J.McCain, or our “random player”,
2. choose between our standard size or our column size, perfect for sidebars,
3. copy and paste the player’s code in your blog
All details here: http://
www.rightpeopleforthepres...hepresident.com
The Right People Team
well said. I didn't catch that, but I'm glad you did.
I agree with your analysis of rights. If something is a right, it is so independent of any governmental decision. We would not be able to accuse any government of "human rights violations" if this weren't the case.
However, I think there is an ambiguity in current American political discourse between "rights" on the one hand and "privileges" on the other. It seems currently people say "rights" for either of these. Perhaps Obama really meant that he thinks it would be a good idea for the government to grant to all citizens the privilege of health care coverage. The subsequent "right" would then be that if the government guarantees by law that some citizens have health care, the government ought to guarantee by law that all citizens have health care coverage. But the "right" is equality under law, not health care coverage.
One place this is made explicit, even in current American political discourse, is with driver's licenses. The government grants and, in some situations, takes away driver's licenses because driving on government-built, -maintained, and -protected roads is a privilege, not a right.
However, if the government were to arbitrarily deny one class of people this privilege, it would also be a violation of their rights. But the violation would not be of the right to drive, but of the right of equality under law. (Denying the privilege to the class of "people under sixteen years of age" is not arbitrary, but directly related to maturity needed for safe driving. Same with the class of "visually impaired.")
I'm not sure whether Obama thinks that he would be creating rights or creating privileges in guaranteeing health care coverage. But all he (or anyone) could do, by the very nature of rights, is grant the privilege.
I suspect that if pressed, he would agree that he technically talking about a privilege. He's more likely guilty of ambiguity.
Thanks for the comments Jonathan. You may very well be right in that I'm quibbling over semantics and he would disown his own statement as a misstatement, or he might parse it to mean as you suggested, the right to access, etc. One of the sentences I omitted from my final draft, however, is that I'm not sure I could ever misspeak in such a way because that idea is so foreign to me. I'm not sure he's fundamentally sound in really thinking about rights and what they are. I worry he really does think they're something to be granted, rather than protected, by the gov't.
I also really do wonder if there is a confusion of rights and privileges. I certainly hope so, or else the list of "should be a right"s is endless. FDR said in the Second Bill of rights that all sorts of things were rights: jobs, decent livings, a decent home. You can imaging the disaster this would create: everyone would have competing rights, absolute claims against each other. Google Second bill of rights and FDR. I was surprised to learn to what extent he wanted to expand our definition of rights so he could in turn greatly expand gov't. My point, and I'm still not sure Obama agrees even if he misspoke, is that rights are not granted by government, but by God. When the government says what rights should be, it is the beginning of tyranny.
Thanks for the pointer to the "Second Bill of Rights." I agree that the idea is atrocious. I was granting Obama the benefit of the doubt with respect to what he said, but seeing that the idea of creating rights has a history in the highest levels of political office in this nation, my granting of that benefit may not be wise.
Yes, it was rather shocking for me to learn exactly how much I take our constitution for granted. Even Presidents have wanted to augment it. So, I agree with you when you say caution is in order. Thanks again for the comments. (And hopefully this time the comment will publish as my user name, not "Anonymous"...)
Hi Relieveddebtor, interesting post and discussion, but I'm mainly writing here because I want to let you and Corbusier know that I love what you are doing.
I came across your podcast first on itunes and it's like water to my soul, to discover people talking about precisely the things I am most interested in. It's kind of uncanny actually!
I did a degree in Architecture at Sheffield University (England) a few years ago, with a long term goal of building houses for the poor. I then worked for a year in a practice, but walked away from it somewhat disillusioned. I then played in a band for a year, then moved to Romania where I'd already been making regular visits for some years. I worked for a Christian charity, with street children and impoverished gypsy communities. In addition to leading bible studies and providing crisis relief to people in urgent need, I put some of my architectural training into practice, doing measured surveys of the charity's buildings, and designing and building odour-free long-drop toilets!
Then I got married and moved back to Sheffield, where my thinking has come full circle and I've found renewed hope in the possibilities of architecture as a service to humanity. So I intend to complete my training (that requires a futher 2 years diploma study here in England), but first I am training as a carpenter. I think it's important to have the practical understanding of construction, and there's nothing I enjoy more than building in wood.
So thats me. I will continue listening to your podcasts as I hoover the carpets during my part-time job as a church caretaker, and now that I've found your blog site I'll be reading avidly too.
Keep providing food for my mind and soul!
Heartwood,
What a very inspiring story! It so happens that I will have an in-law that is Romanian and will be planning to go to Ploesti for the wedding next summer.
From my perspective as a commercial architect dealing in large-scale projects, I think your focus on carpentry is the right way to go given your goals. I recommend you look into works by Rural Studio at Auburn University in Alabama and Glenn Murcutt in Australia who has done innovative housing for Australian aborigines. I am finding that more and more U.S. architecture schools are getting their hands dirty by fostering programs where students build houses for disadvantaged communities, really doing good at a personal level. Such examples are preferrable to the top-down model of govenment social housing campaigns which ignore the unique local needs of communities.
Thank you for your compliments. It touches us to know that what we write has personal significance to a number of our readers. I marvel at how we have encountered so many fascinating individuals through this forum. The only worthwhile repayment to all of this is to continue writing more!
Merci beaucoup!
Corbusier,
I hope you enjoy the Romanian wedding, I expect it'll be a lot of fun. It is a tradition that at some point in the proceedings someone will steal the bride and demand a price from the groom before they will return her.
I think you mentioned on a podcast you'd also spent time in Hungary. Are you familiar with the buildings of Imre Makovecz? I love his work - organic forms, natural materials, original thinking and references to his own culture - all things I like in architecture.
I am very interested in the Rural Studio. They are doing exactly the sort of thing I'd like to end up doing. Andrew Freear studied at Sheffield University (before my time) and he came back to give a lecture on their work while I was a student, so I got to hear him talk.
I don't know much about Glenn Murcutt, but I'm looking him up now, thanks for the tip.
I've had a lot of architecturally minded people affirm my decision to train in carpentry. I've been told that in some scandinavian countries it's positively encouraged to gain a trade alongside architecture. It makes sense to me. Gaudi did the same, amongst others. (I recently visited Barcelona.)
Talking of Barcelona: Gaudi's cathedral, the Sagrada Familia: is it beautiful or ugly? What do you think? I got as far as deciding, as an analogy of natural forms, it should be viewed more as a forest than as a single organism.
Relieveddebtor, I hope you don't mind I've kind of hijacked this comments page to talk about other things than your post! I am also very interested in your views on spiritual issues.
Do you guys have anything more like a general forum connected to the blog site? I guess this would demand even more of your time which I understand may not be possible!
Well, bye for now.
Heartwood,
I also thank you for your comments and share Corbusier's enthusiasm. Thanks for sharing your story. It's nice when our interests come together. And it's always nice to get feedback. And please, use the comment tag, that's what it's for! We don't have a general website, though maybe that's the future...I need a lot of tutelage in web site design, etc before that becomes a reality. Thanks again and many blessings...]
Enumeration of rights and not government granting them, it's the lost fundamental that most in America are actively turning their backs toward.
Excellent essay.
I stumbled upon your site last night. love it. very thought provoking. on this thread I think you might be off a bit though. our new president is a constitutional scholar and probably has a clear understanding of "rights". rights are meaningless without a societal context. do women have the "right" to vote? depends on what culture you are a part of, right? we may disagree with other cultures, but this proves that rights are definitely contextual. does O want to live in a culture where health care is a right? obviously yes. but our culture isn't quite there yet. we SHOULD be.
Commenting by HaloScan
