Website review: Jane Smiley: Why Human Rights are M...
donmckinney discovered this in Politics
•11 reviews since Nov 19, 2007
politics
•huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/why-human-righ...
People who like this website
- barrelhead
Los Angeles
- OssoBuco
Escondido
- Lynnch1213
Fresno
- squeegy76
San Francisco
- rodneyj43
San Francisco
- Dashiell
Tucson
- ketogah
Tucson
- alize73
Salt Lake City
- MeditationsInB
Eugene
- heddelamp
New Mexico
StumbleUpon is the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more - based on your interests.
Everything is submitted and rated by the community. Discover, share and review the best of the web!
Reviews of this website
donmckinney discovered 8 months ago- Jane Smiley hits the nail on the head. The unfortunate thing is that the nail she hit should be another nail in the coffin of an administration that has replaced rationality with fear and rhetoric. But it won't be. The same disease that allows intelligent people to propose that something as ephemeral as "national security" is more important than something as sacred as human rights also causes moral blindness.
- meatbot rated 8 months ago
- Buzzwords like "National Security" get thrown around a lot these days. We live in an interconnected world where change is the only constant. Good Luck finding security on all fronts. The art of war dictates that you can be attacked where you are the weakest and you will be, and you can infer from that that you cannot defend all sides. To live in an enclosed system is to be living in your own little bubble, unscathed by any prods from the outside essentially resulting in a death of sorts. Read about the BS preached by our current government to justify their current plans of action. Measure a politician not by his words but by his actions.
- BettyJoBradley rated 8 months ago
- Human Rights vs. National Security... in the wonderful words of author Jane Smiley who, I must add, has massive Iowa (my home state) connections (at both Iowa State University and the University of Iowa). :-) In her words: "...'national security' is a code word for tribalism, while 'human rights' is a code word for the rule of law."
- Mayamoi rated 8 months ago
- '"We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he came pretty close to disqualifying himself from either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national security." I'm not sure what planet Tim Grieve is living on, but on our planet, it is human rights that are precious and rare . . .'
- Don-Keehotay rated 8 months ago
- From the page: "On Friday, the morning after the Democratic debate, I was stunned to read in the War Room column over in Salon that Governor Bill Richardson had said the wrong thing about national security versus human rights. Tim Grieve wrote, "We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he came pretty close to disqualifying himself from either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national security." I'm not sure what planet Tim Grieve is living on, but on our planet, it is human rights that are precious and rare and always to be preserved and "national security" that is ever and anon a cant boondoggle. I was not alone in my dismay. I read War Room almost everyday and have liked Grieve's posts in the past. When I first read what he was saying, I thought he was joking; so did other readers. The entry got 57 responses. Almost all of them were outraged, and several called on Tim to explain himself. He never did. Human rights are defined, most notably in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They are defined because the Founding Fathers realized that if they were not defined, they would be more likely to be abrogated or lost entirely. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation on the part of governments to give and remove human rights arbitrarily, because they had experienced such things before the Revolutionary War -- in the Stamp Act, in the quartering of British soldiers on American households, and in illegal searches and seizures, in no taxation without representation. They recognized that although British Law customarily acknowledged various human rights, it was essential to name, codify, and write them down to make it less likely that they could be taken away. " ... "Liberals, progressives, and Democrats recognize, at least intuitively, that "national security" is a code word for tribalism, while "human rights" is a code word for the rule of law. Governor Richardson was straightforward in acknowledging this fact, and deserves praise rather than blame, especially from a writer for Salon."
- erithbabalon rated 8 months ago
- Bravo.
- M-Nome rated 8 months ago
- The day we give up our human rights is the day we give up our national security.
- booyah2005 rated 8 months ago
- Great civics-esque write-up on the importance of human rights versus 'national security'.
- DickBeldin rated 8 months ago
- From the page: "On Friday, the morning after the Democratic debate, I was stunned to read in the War Room column over in Salon that Governor Bill Richardson had said the wrong thing about national security versus human rights. Tim Grieve wrote, "We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he came pretty close to disqualifying himself from either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national security." " There is no point to our security as a nation if we are not a nation of citizen rights. National security can only be defined in terms of citizen security from illegal search and seizure, corrupt officials, tyrannical claims of autocratic power, and the dangers of war.
- StumbleKKSS rated 8 months ago
- Amen! Human rights must remain our central priority, no matter how much our war-crimes-convictions-fearing leaders claim the opposite.
- Dashiell rated 8 months ago
- Jane Smiley maps an important distinction between human rights and national security.
