Second Bill of Rights

I haven't seen Michael Moore's new movie yet, on Capitalism, but I guess it makes reference to FDR's idea of creating a Second Bill of Rights.

Here's a quick quote:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Also, here's a clip (audio, but hosted on YouTube) of Roosevelt' speech.




This is unbelievably powerful. If Roosevelt had succeeded, what would things look like now? In order to make these "rights" realities, we would have had to have made some hard choices... One of my first thoughts is that we certainly couldn't have globalized our markets nearly as much as we have. Secondly, in order to secure "the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad," we must have limited corporate power to some extent. Finally, and unpopularly, it seems that in order to provide many of these rights, we would have had to limit our population growth, which would have meant further immigration quotas than already exist.

Thoughts?

The Effectiveness of Smoking Bans

I saw this article about how effective smoking bans have been. I wanted to put it here because it relates to a pet interest of mine - High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), or, more specifically, how it's in everything.

Clearly, the success of the smoking ban is largely due to reductions in second-hand smoke deaths, and there isn't a correlative "innocent bystander" in eating, but the study does demonstrate that banning substances can have a big impact on public health.

Unrelated Example of the Power of the People

We spend a LOT of time in our Social Policy class discussing the present debate over a national health care plan. It's pretty grim, the stakes are very high, and I, personally, have small faith that Congress is going to do the right thing. I'm sure some bill will pass, that it will be sweeping and effect major change... only... I don't think that the "change" will ultimately benefit we, the people.

When the discussion becomes dour, our esteemed professor rallies us with the notion that we can influence Congress via letters, phone calls and educating our peers. After all the readings we're doing, which are pretty rife with references to how large the system is, and how the government is increasingly controlled by institutions, not people, it's hard muster faith that individuals have power in the US, much less voices.

I read this article today - it's totally unrelated to Gerontology, but quite uplifting as a story of people effecting chance on Congress:

http://www.marinij.com/ci_13416510?source=most_viewed