No comment
We all have our own definition of privacy and information that we want to keep to ourselves for various reasons, but in the era of the Web 2.0 is that really possible anymore? And is privacy invasion a victimless crime?
Celebrities are the best example of privacy invasion. To me, the first thing that comes to mind is, when does your job become a thorn in the side? One day you’re hired to do what you love – act in a movie or record an album (contracts which nowadays also include some sort of promotion on your side) does that automatically mean you lose any sort of privacy?
In today’s society celebrities are considered public domain and the paparazzi are going out of their way to give us pictures of the rich and famous in their most intimate moments, such as closed events, social gatherings and even their homes and bedrooms. But is that ethical? Celebrities are just regular people, doing their jobs, having a personal and private life, the only difference between you and them is just they have perhaps a little more money and admirers. Of course, people may not care what you do in your own time, but when it comes to celebrities people seem to go through an unhealthy obsession that creates a vicious circle. Cause who makes actors, musicians and so on famous if not people adding value to a name until it becomes a brand?
Can you beat them at their own game?
Every time Sienna Miller (actress) felt she was being harassed she sued the companies responsible, and I’m saying ‘every time’ because she didn’t do it just once. She sued news corporations, journalists and photographer associations. Made money out of it too. Some celebrities say there’s nothing they can do about it and some secretly enjoy the attention, but Sienna showed that you can take action if you believe you’ve been wronged. So, another question now arises, is it ethical for her to accept the settlements when she is a public figure and therefore prone to these situations?
But it’s not like she’s a politician.
Which leads me to my next topic. If a man is elected for an office or position should every aspect of his life be under scrutiny? Most politicians are chosen by others which means they managed to develop trust with their publics. My question about this trust is, should it expand to someone’s personal life or just their work ethic and accomplishments?
What do you consider when voting for a politician? Does their personal life have any say in the way you elect your representatives or is it just on merit and work?
Occupied cities, percentages and apathy
On the 17th of September 2011 about 1000 people marched through the streets of New York in peaceful protest. Their demands? Economic justice, the separation of the political and financial systems, and the re-evaluation of taxation policies, among others.
Less than a month after this initial protest, on the 15th of October, under the slogan “We are the 99%”, similar movements mushroomed across the world in support of the original one. The UK has a few of its own, with the largest activist encampment established outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. They continue to this day.
So who is in the wrong here? Surely many can agree to the fact that there is a deep economic inequality across the world, with statistical evidence showing that a small minority controls the majority of resources, while billions live below the edge of poverty. There is little doubt that the protests have a strong moral backbone, at least in theory. Is this enough however? Should “doing the right thing” be sufficient to start a fundamental change of the system? And if so, out of the millions of us who are affected by these global issues, how is it that only thousands are camped outside St. Paul’s Cathedral?
The Occupy movements have been criticised for a number of reasons. Firstly, the solutions they suggested, which involved stronger government interference in the economy, were seen as anti-capitalist and socialist. But if a system fails, as many believe capitalism has, is it not natural to try to change it? Or is it better to move forward, toward complete economic independence from the state?
Furthermore, many right wing advocates have claimed that, while the vast majority of people suffer from the effects of the recession, they should take responsibility for their own well being, instead of blaming outside forces. Are they right? Or is it safe to assume that if external factors, created by banks and faulty regulations, turn the economic environment against the common people, they are no longer solely responsible for themselves?
Surprisingly perhaps, the 99% have received some support from the 1%, with high-income members of the public following the activists’ example and sharing their stories online, ending with the phrase: “I am the 1%, I stand with the 99%”.
But in the end, who is right and who is wrong? The movement that calls out for true democracy and says that the people should be above banks and greed-stricken corporations? Or their opponents, who claim that the current state of things, as faulted as it is, is still better than the others out there?
So far, the 99% themselves, the common people, have yet to take a decisive position regarding the Occupy movements. What I am asking is: where do you stand?
Route 36 still open for business (and cocaine)
La Paz, Bolivia. Apparently the place to visit if you’re looking to have a Hunter S. Thompson 
themed night out with your mates. I’ve just read about their Route 36, a lounge that sells cocaine as if they were selling fries. Not legal, of course, but as one of the waiters says “The owner has paid off all the right people”.
But just thinking about this pop-up shop brings me to a question I’ve had for a while now, should drugs be legalised?
We all know that drugs are bad, but would their legalisation have a beneficial impact on society? Think of all the tax money the government would get and the drop in drug crimes that would follow, but at the same time I wonder if this regularization of drugs would be able to be contained. If the government would allow small doses to be given out every once in a while what would stop addicts to score from illicit dealers again to no end result?
But in this society where alcohol and cigarettes, two just as bad vices are allowed, shouldn’t drugs stand the same chance? Shouldn’t people be given an opportunity to chose for themselves or would they just fall for drugs without thinking?
Maybe it’s not a matter of “all drugs” after all. Portugal, having decriminalized drugs has one of lowest drug usage percentage in comparison to other countries. Not even absinthe is legal everywhere, even though it is just alcohol, so maybe the answer lies in moderation – not all drugs, maybe just a few?
However, even when it comes to legalising marijuana, one of the “soft” drugs, used in several countries around the world for medicinal purposes the opinions aren’t aiming for legalisation. A recent proposition which would have allowed several marijuana-related activities for instance personal usage under several limits as well as giving local governments the right to collect taxes on this substance did not pass in California failing with approximately 54% of voters saying ‘No’. California being a state where medical marijuana is allowed by law.
So, I want to know your opinions, should drugs be legalised? Which ones? Or should we just follow Mr. Dali’s approach to drugs?
Would you still like fries with that label?
The 21st century is riddled with problems: from pollution and the worldwide unequal distribution of wealth, to wars, Lady Gaga and so on. Perhaps one of the worst of these, considering the constantly increasing number of people it affects, is obesity. Thought of as the blight of the developed world, the main cause of this condition is thought to be the modern human’s dietary habits, particularly the high intakes of sugar and salt. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/)
Several questions therefore come to mind:
If people seem unable to regulate their diet to fit their lifestyles, should they be given the possibility to hurt themselves?
Or should food producers and suppliers be forced to clean up what they’re selling?
Just where does consumer freedom end and faulty self-government begin?
One way of looking at this is to say that customers must be kept informed of what exactly it is that they are eating. And what they should eat. Simply enforcing a standard, comprehensive manner of labelling food products would likely result in a healthier population in the long term. But while it can be argued that transparency and a free flow of information can save us all, how many of us actually stop and thoroughly read every food label at the supermarket? And with internet access almost a given in the countries where obesity is a problem, who’s to say we don’t already know these things, but choose to ignore them?
A different approach to the problem is to say that the companies who make tons of money from producing and distributing unhealthy food to the population are, in fact, the ones to blame. Make them clean up their act, only supply low-sugar, low-salt treats and in the majority of cases, obesity will disappear. All good, except for a little thing some might call economic freedom. After a long history of totalitarianism, few look kindly on state intervention in the private sector, and probably rightly so. And personal freedoms are also at stake. Who can honestly say they don’t treat themselves to some delicious, calorie-rich treat at least once in a while?
This being said, any thoughts?
