I think that prostitution should be legalized, because I fail to understand the rationale behind its ban.
Someone (Be it a man or a woman) who decides that he/she is going to become a prostitute has every right to do so. Obviously, for the sake of our children, I believe that prostituion must be confined in certain geographic areas where it doesn't interfere with our normal life.
The thing about prostitution is that it is more present than we usually admit. When a woman decides to marry a man without loving him a bit, but just for his money, isn't that legalized prostitution? The young men who decide to make a living as professional jigolos, aren't them prostitutes. So, the prostitutes we are preventing from doing prostitution are the most honest of the category because they openly assume their position.
The Spitzer case should trigger a global discussion on this very important topic.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Gay Rights
It has become fashionable to be in favor of gay rights. Nowadays, being even slightly critical of gay rights can cost one to go to rehab, thanks to a society which has entrusted all its thinking process with an unbalanced and liberal media.
I am not at all homophobic, because I believe that everybody should have the right to conduct thei personal life as they deem necessary. I also belive that some people are genetically gay. However, there must be a limit to this pro-gay overhelming propaganda. I believe that gay couples, if that's what they really want to do, should have all the benefits granted to heterosexual couples. However, I don't think ay couples should be allowed to adopt kids. My reason for that is twofold :
1- I believe that a child who is raised by a gay couple would be influenced by their way of life so much so that he/she will become either gay or homophobic.
2- I don't think it's fair that gay couples can be granted this right whereas they don't go through the normal process of procreation I think a kid comes as a reward of the love-making process, and can't be disassociated from it. The only exception I can think of is the case of people who can't procreate.
I am not at all homophobic, because I believe that everybody should have the right to conduct thei personal life as they deem necessary. I also belive that some people are genetically gay. However, there must be a limit to this pro-gay overhelming propaganda. I believe that gay couples, if that's what they really want to do, should have all the benefits granted to heterosexual couples. However, I don't think ay couples should be allowed to adopt kids. My reason for that is twofold :
1- I believe that a child who is raised by a gay couple would be influenced by their way of life so much so that he/she will become either gay or homophobic.
2- I don't think it's fair that gay couples can be granted this right whereas they don't go through the normal process of procreation I think a kid comes as a reward of the love-making process, and can't be disassociated from it. The only exception I can think of is the case of people who can't procreate.
Animal Rights Vs Research
I was amazed last week by the reaction of some animal rights activits against some professors at Berkeley University who were using animals in their experiments of new drugs.
As a christian, I can not condone any abuse against animals. However, my being a christian makes me comfortable to accept the idea of using animals to better our lives. God, in the Bible, sated that he created animals so we can live better, than o the food and sservives they should provide us with.
Some students went as far as threatening the professors with explosive devices dropped in their mailboxes. They called them on a daily basis. I think this is a lunatic behavior. Hadn't we used animals in the past for all kinds of experiments, we would not be where we are scientifically today.
As a christian, I can not condone any abuse against animals. However, my being a christian makes me comfortable to accept the idea of using animals to better our lives. God, in the Bible, sated that he created animals so we can live better, than o the food and sservives they should provide us with.
Some students went as far as threatening the professors with explosive devices dropped in their mailboxes. They called them on a daily basis. I think this is a lunatic behavior. Hadn't we used animals in the past for all kinds of experiments, we would not be where we are scientifically today.
Animal Rights
One who comes from a Third World country can't help beeing amazed by the dedication of animal rights advocates in this country. I was particularly shocked by the reaction of an animal rights group which denounced Sean Puffy Combs four years ago, because while having his birthday party, the artist allowed the organizers to put some light bubble too close to a bunch of birds they were using to embellish the event.
The spokesperson for the animal group stressed out what she called the insensitivity of the artists to the suffering of the birds. At that time, I was visiting from Haiti, and I wondered what this lady would say if she saw how we treated poor people in my country.
But I stopped my stream of thought at the realizaton that thanks to Global television, the lady could no longer argue that she's not aware of those facts. I think that there is a huge hypocrisy surrounding some animal rights advcates. If you are so sensitive as to care so much for animals, how can you be so careless about those children who are dying from starvation in Africa, or those in the neighbooring Haiti who are dying because they can't afford a 20 dollar-tablet?
I am not at all insensitive to animal rights, but I think that there must be a limit to the excess of its most vocal advocates.
The spokesperson for the animal group stressed out what she called the insensitivity of the artists to the suffering of the birds. At that time, I was visiting from Haiti, and I wondered what this lady would say if she saw how we treated poor people in my country.
But I stopped my stream of thought at the realizaton that thanks to Global television, the lady could no longer argue that she's not aware of those facts. I think that there is a huge hypocrisy surrounding some animal rights advcates. If you are so sensitive as to care so much for animals, how can you be so careless about those children who are dying from starvation in Africa, or those in the neighbooring Haiti who are dying because they can't afford a 20 dollar-tablet?
I am not at all insensitive to animal rights, but I think that there must be a limit to the excess of its most vocal advocates.
Minimum wage 2
The question as to whether or not the State should step into the determination of the minimum wage is quite tricky.
It is obviuos that the ideal situation is that salaries are as just as possible, so workers can be rightly compensated fo the jobs they perform. Unfortunately, when we analyze those work-related issues, our premise is that an entrepreneur is alwaysa wealthy person able to face whatever the salary set by the authorities. This is not always the case.
I think that the intervention of the State in determinig the minimum wage is to be encouraged, only because otherwise irresponsible unions will force the enterprises involved to close their doors. Enterprises where unions are oo powerful end up having more employees than they normally need, which is not fair for their owners.
We must strive not to fail into the trap, when we are discussing about work-related issues, of considering all employers as wealthy robots who don't care a bit about the well-being of their employees. After all, accepting a job is part of a contract which involves the consent of both the worker and the employer on the salary of the former.
It is obviuos that the ideal situation is that salaries are as just as possible, so workers can be rightly compensated fo the jobs they perform. Unfortunately, when we analyze those work-related issues, our premise is that an entrepreneur is alwaysa wealthy person able to face whatever the salary set by the authorities. This is not always the case.
I think that the intervention of the State in determinig the minimum wage is to be encouraged, only because otherwise irresponsible unions will force the enterprises involved to close their doors. Enterprises where unions are oo powerful end up having more employees than they normally need, which is not fair for their owners.
We must strive not to fail into the trap, when we are discussing about work-related issues, of considering all employers as wealthy robots who don't care a bit about the well-being of their employees. After all, accepting a job is part of a contract which involves the consent of both the worker and the employer on the salary of the former.
Minimum wage
The issue of the determination of a minimum wage is always complicated because it involves more parameters than one would at first think of.
In a country like the U.S., where the State guarantees the security of the private sector's properties and amenities, it is way easier to set a minimum wage and enforce it. But in emerging economies with weak states, it's not that easy. Let's take for example what just happened in Haiti and some African countries less than two weeks ago. Because of a humanitarian crisis and its resulting hunger, thousands of people get involved in bloody riots and while they were at it, destroyed hundreds of houses and businesses. This is something which happens quite frequently.
In such an environment, the private sector will always try to pay it employees the lowest possible wage, while trying to penalize its clients the more possible, because it needs to put soe money aside so it can get back to business after one of those violent riots. If the private sector doesn't do that, it will go out of business, and the first ones who will be hurt are those employees always claiming higher wages.
In a country like the U.S., where the State guarantees the security of the private sector's properties and amenities, it is way easier to set a minimum wage and enforce it. But in emerging economies with weak states, it's not that easy. Let's take for example what just happened in Haiti and some African countries less than two weeks ago. Because of a humanitarian crisis and its resulting hunger, thousands of people get involved in bloody riots and while they were at it, destroyed hundreds of houses and businesses. This is something which happens quite frequently.
In such an environment, the private sector will always try to pay it employees the lowest possible wage, while trying to penalize its clients the more possible, because it needs to put soe money aside so it can get back to business after one of those violent riots. If the private sector doesn't do that, it will go out of business, and the first ones who will be hurt are those employees always claiming higher wages.
Prayer In School
I am a christian myself, but tend to be very tolerant when it comes to the way I manage my faith. Some people take offense of the fact that some schools allow their pupils/students to pray together as a normal activity of the institution.
Those who don't agree argue that it infringes upon their rights, because they don't want to attend those prayer sessions, nor do they want to hear others praying. However, banning prayer from school deprives believers from an opportunity to pray together, to become closer to each other. One of the main characteristics of christianity is the strength which comes from praying and eating together, just like Jesus used to do it.
The debate gets more complicated today, with the diversity how faiths our schools have to accomodate. I think that the best way to manage this problem is the following: when comes the time to pray, the school principal can invite those who don't want to attend to leave and go to an area where they won't be disturbed. Then, the school can hold its prayer session which must be oecumenical in order to allow all believers to strengthen their faith.
Those who don't agree argue that it infringes upon their rights, because they don't want to attend those prayer sessions, nor do they want to hear others praying. However, banning prayer from school deprives believers from an opportunity to pray together, to become closer to each other. One of the main characteristics of christianity is the strength which comes from praying and eating together, just like Jesus used to do it.
The debate gets more complicated today, with the diversity how faiths our schools have to accomodate. I think that the best way to manage this problem is the following: when comes the time to pray, the school principal can invite those who don't want to attend to leave and go to an area where they won't be disturbed. Then, the school can hold its prayer session which must be oecumenical in order to allow all believers to strengthen their faith.
Environmental Protection Vs Survival
LEt me start by saying that I am very eco-conscious, and have been so since I was a little boy. I love mother nature because I grew up in a tiny village where birds, trees, rivers were part of my everyday life. So, one can easily imagine that in Florida I feel trapped in all those huge buildings.
However, the reality in tthe Third World is very different from here, when it comes to clearly advocating for the protection of the environment. Let's take for instance deforestation. It is obvious that it causes great dangers for all of us, and threatens our habitat, and consequently ourselves oer time.
Seen through this lens, it is very nice to tell a haitian little farmer not to cut down trees to produce coal, since it is not in our interest as a collectivity to do so. But the thing is, if this little farmer doesn't cut this tree today, he won't be able to feed his family. Which comes first, the survival of his family today, or the future of the world? The answer is obvious.
If the western world really wants to save the world, fight global warming, it must have a comprehensive plan in which the fight against poverty must be included.
However, the reality in tthe Third World is very different from here, when it comes to clearly advocating for the protection of the environment. Let's take for instance deforestation. It is obvious that it causes great dangers for all of us, and threatens our habitat, and consequently ourselves oer time.
Seen through this lens, it is very nice to tell a haitian little farmer not to cut down trees to produce coal, since it is not in our interest as a collectivity to do so. But the thing is, if this little farmer doesn't cut this tree today, he won't be able to feed his family. Which comes first, the survival of his family today, or the future of the world? The answer is obvious.
If the western world really wants to save the world, fight global warming, it must have a comprehensive plan in which the fight against poverty must be included.
Unions
Some people could not imagine a country like the United States without the existence of Unions. However, one who comes from Latin America can have a very different approach when it comes to the relevance of this type of pressure group.
I mus concede that in some cases, unions help workers achieve certain legitimate goals, like raising their wages, keeping their jobs etc.
However, it takes the Latin-American experience to realize how destructive unions can be when they are operating in a weak country. In those countries, unions become so powerful that they end up making all their members lose their jobs because the enterprises where they are operating will eventaully close. In some cases, those enterprises are obligated to keep huge numbers of unproductive employees on their payroll out of fear of the unions who can go as far as planning physical attacks against employers.
My main problem with those union is that they believe that once they are defending the widow and the orphan, they are authorized to use any means necessary, even highly reprehensible practice. Let alone the fact that union leaders enrich themselves more often than not at the expense of their members.
I mus concede that in some cases, unions help workers achieve certain legitimate goals, like raising their wages, keeping their jobs etc.
However, it takes the Latin-American experience to realize how destructive unions can be when they are operating in a weak country. In those countries, unions become so powerful that they end up making all their members lose their jobs because the enterprises where they are operating will eventaully close. In some cases, those enterprises are obligated to keep huge numbers of unproductive employees on their payroll out of fear of the unions who can go as far as planning physical attacks against employers.
My main problem with those union is that they believe that once they are defending the widow and the orphan, they are authorized to use any means necessary, even highly reprehensible practice. Let alone the fact that union leaders enrich themselves more often than not at the expense of their members.
Affirmative Action
The main objective of affirmative action is to reverse some situations of injustice women and Blacks have suffered in the past, so they can make up for opportunities they had been deprived of. However, it’s not obvious that affirmative action always achieve this goal. Sometimes, it just helps perpetuate the very situation it was supposed to fight.
Thanks to some great changes that have occurred in our society, more and more Blacks and women are climbing the social ladder, whereas being White no longer means being privileged. On the basis of affirmative action, being Black or female automatically opens some doors, while being White closes them. As a result, a great number of needy white people are being denied some much needed assistance, while some wealthy Blacks are being treated like poor, enjoying opportunities other people need way more than they do.
I think that the formulation of Affirmative Action must change today, in order to adapt to the new reality of our evolving world where the only thing that doesn’t change is the fact that change affects all aspects of our lives. If it is to be defendable, Affirmative Action must become color and gender blind to focus on the cases of its clientele by taking into account their financial situation rather than their gender or race.
Thanks to some great changes that have occurred in our society, more and more Blacks and women are climbing the social ladder, whereas being White no longer means being privileged. On the basis of affirmative action, being Black or female automatically opens some doors, while being White closes them. As a result, a great number of needy white people are being denied some much needed assistance, while some wealthy Blacks are being treated like poor, enjoying opportunities other people need way more than they do.
I think that the formulation of Affirmative Action must change today, in order to adapt to the new reality of our evolving world where the only thing that doesn’t change is the fact that change affects all aspects of our lives. If it is to be defendable, Affirmative Action must become color and gender blind to focus on the cases of its clientele by taking into account their financial situation rather than their gender or race.
Illegal Drugs
Libertarians in this country have been advocating for the decriminalization of all illegal drugs, their main argument being that when someone does drugs, it doesn’t infringe upon other people’s rights. Some other arguments liken the current war on drugs to the prohibition era when alcohol used to be illegal. They think that when those hallucinogen substances are illegal, it actually increase their use, and causes their traffic to be the sole prerogative of unscrupulous individuals.
There is some truth in those arguments. However, legalizing drugs like cocaine and marijuana would send the wrong signal to our kids. This argument can be found very weak by some people when it comes to Marijuana, because apparently, it is not that more harmful than cigarette. I will concede this point only partially. One the one hand, Marijuana is not too harmful on a long term basis. However, on the very short term, in the aftermath of its consumption, Marijuana seriously impairs people’s judgment and reflexes.
The difference between cigarette and Marijuana is that cigarette smokers decide to put an end prematurely to their own life, if we put aside the isolated cases of second-hand smoking. But a legalization of marijuana would make our roads look like Ali Baba’s case. Yet the number of accidents where alcohol is involved is already alarming.
There is some truth in those arguments. However, legalizing drugs like cocaine and marijuana would send the wrong signal to our kids. This argument can be found very weak by some people when it comes to Marijuana, because apparently, it is not that more harmful than cigarette. I will concede this point only partially. One the one hand, Marijuana is not too harmful on a long term basis. However, on the very short term, in the aftermath of its consumption, Marijuana seriously impairs people’s judgment and reflexes.
The difference between cigarette and Marijuana is that cigarette smokers decide to put an end prematurely to their own life, if we put aside the isolated cases of second-hand smoking. But a legalization of marijuana would make our roads look like Ali Baba’s case. Yet the number of accidents where alcohol is involved is already alarming.
Social Security Benefits
It is a no-brainer that a lot of people are living in abject poverty, with little hope if any, to get out of it. That’s why President Roosevelt created the Social Security Administration of whom one aspect is to prevent people form dying of starvation by supporting them financially.
The Social Security benefits help reduce the asymmetry between those who have too much and those who don’t have at all. In this sense, it is a very positive initiative. However, we are starting to see the limits of such initiative very consistent with socialism. The main problem with the whole move is that in order to redistribute wealth, the nation must first create it. But with more and more people waiting for a paycheck from the State without producing any good, nor providing any service, the economy tends to weaken, and it become more and more difficult to keep the program running.
If the government really wants to help those poor out of poverty, it must associate the aid with some clear conditions. For example, young people with no mental handicap should be required to attend school if they want to receive their check. Other conditions can be explored.
The reason why I bring the conditionality element to this debate is because the system as it is now, promotes laziness, and is unable to help its beneficiaries emancipate. Instead, it keeps them in their underdevelopment and make them become lifetime professional parasites.
The Social Security benefits help reduce the asymmetry between those who have too much and those who don’t have at all. In this sense, it is a very positive initiative. However, we are starting to see the limits of such initiative very consistent with socialism. The main problem with the whole move is that in order to redistribute wealth, the nation must first create it. But with more and more people waiting for a paycheck from the State without producing any good, nor providing any service, the economy tends to weaken, and it become more and more difficult to keep the program running.
If the government really wants to help those poor out of poverty, it must associate the aid with some clear conditions. For example, young people with no mental handicap should be required to attend school if they want to receive their check. Other conditions can be explored.
The reason why I bring the conditionality element to this debate is because the system as it is now, promotes laziness, and is unable to help its beneficiaries emancipate. Instead, it keeps them in their underdevelopment and make them become lifetime professional parasites.
Active Euthanasia
I think that active euthanasia is more challenging than its passive version. In active euthanasia, the patient is asking someone to help them put an end to their day. There are several important factors to be taken into account before one can even think about it.
First, I think that in the case of someone afflicted by an incurable disease and whose suffering is unbearable, one can tend to let oneself be saddened by the situation and help them die. But we must also realize that there are some very efficient painkillers out there, and that usually excruciating pains conduce naturally to death, without the help of a friend or family member.
The other important thing we must ask ourselves is to what extent the patient is really lucid when requesting the help of other people to kill themselves.
Despite the fact that I am usually very sensitive to other people’s suffering, I don’t think I’d be ready to pull the trigger or the plug in order to help them die. However, I would consider helping someone die only if they are dealing with insupportable pain with no hope whatsoever to ever recover. But I would do that only if I have to pull a plug, because I would never use a weapon, poison or whatever means criminal usually use to kill people
First, I think that in the case of someone afflicted by an incurable disease and whose suffering is unbearable, one can tend to let oneself be saddened by the situation and help them die. But we must also realize that there are some very efficient painkillers out there, and that usually excruciating pains conduce naturally to death, without the help of a friend or family member.
The other important thing we must ask ourselves is to what extent the patient is really lucid when requesting the help of other people to kill themselves.
Despite the fact that I am usually very sensitive to other people’s suffering, I don’t think I’d be ready to pull the trigger or the plug in order to help them die. However, I would consider helping someone die only if they are dealing with insupportable pain with no hope whatsoever to ever recover. But I would do that only if I have to pull a plug, because I would never use a weapon, poison or whatever means criminal usually use to kill people
Passive Euthanasia
I would never be in a position to decide about the resort to euthanasia. As you know, there are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Let’s consider them separately.
Passive euthanasia intervenes when the patient is in such a vegetative state that his/her parents decide to put an end to his/her life without his/her consent which cannot be obtained given his/her unresponsiveness. Such an euthanasia can be a tall order for whoever has to take the decision relative to resorting to it. The main argument to this type of euthanasia is that the patient is in such an irreversible state that they will never recover. But how sure can we be about it? Can we know whether or not the patient is suffering and if yes ,to what extent? If the person could decide his/her own fate, what would be their decision? How can we know whether or not in the next couple of weeks a cure would not be discovered which will allow the patient to resume their life just like us, or at least quite decently?
I think that the aforementioned questions need to be addressed before even thinking about passive euthanasia. But personally, I seriously doubt that I would ever get involved in the perpetration of passive euthanasia which I consider like playing God. However, I mus add that the situation of some patients is so dehumanizing and atrocious that one can tend to think before ruling out euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia intervenes when the patient is in such a vegetative state that his/her parents decide to put an end to his/her life without his/her consent which cannot be obtained given his/her unresponsiveness. Such an euthanasia can be a tall order for whoever has to take the decision relative to resorting to it. The main argument to this type of euthanasia is that the patient is in such an irreversible state that they will never recover. But how sure can we be about it? Can we know whether or not the patient is suffering and if yes ,to what extent? If the person could decide his/her own fate, what would be their decision? How can we know whether or not in the next couple of weeks a cure would not be discovered which will allow the patient to resume their life just like us, or at least quite decently?
I think that the aforementioned questions need to be addressed before even thinking about passive euthanasia. But personally, I seriously doubt that I would ever get involved in the perpetration of passive euthanasia which I consider like playing God. However, I mus add that the situation of some patients is so dehumanizing and atrocious that one can tend to think before ruling out euthanasia.
Abortion
Abortion is one of the most controversial topics in our society. It triggers a cleavage between two camps whose positions are motivated by several factors like religion, culture, upbringing and ideology. I myself, am against abortion, but also understand that in some cases it is difficult not to recognize that it is necessary.
First of all, I think that it is a crime to put an end to an innocent life, be it a fetus or an egg, because not only it is a life, but also it doesn’t have the means to defend itself. It is shameful that some people decide deliberately to have unprotected sex because they know how to get rid of the fetus in the case that a pregnancy occurs.
However, as I stated earlier, in some cases, abortion is understandable. In some countries for example, therapeutic abortion, one which is performed in order to save the life of the mother, is legal. The legislators behind this law have argued that since they cannot guarantee whether or not the child-to-be will be living or in good health, in case the event that his/her life and the life of the mother become mutually exclusive, it is wise to save the mother.
Another case is when the mother is HIV positive, and doesn’t want the future child to become ill, despite the fact that nowadays, some medicine can dramatically reduce the risk of him/her being infected. In such a case, one can always argue that the parent was acting according to the kid’s best interest.
Those two cases are pretty much what I consider as being occasions where abortion can be understandable.
First of all, I think that it is a crime to put an end to an innocent life, be it a fetus or an egg, because not only it is a life, but also it doesn’t have the means to defend itself. It is shameful that some people decide deliberately to have unprotected sex because they know how to get rid of the fetus in the case that a pregnancy occurs.
However, as I stated earlier, in some cases, abortion is understandable. In some countries for example, therapeutic abortion, one which is performed in order to save the life of the mother, is legal. The legislators behind this law have argued that since they cannot guarantee whether or not the child-to-be will be living or in good health, in case the event that his/her life and the life of the mother become mutually exclusive, it is wise to save the mother.
Another case is when the mother is HIV positive, and doesn’t want the future child to become ill, despite the fact that nowadays, some medicine can dramatically reduce the risk of him/her being infected. In such a case, one can always argue that the parent was acting according to the kid’s best interest.
Those two cases are pretty much what I consider as being occasions where abortion can be understandable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
