Tuesday 22 January 2008

Child brides

(photo S.Sinclair/UNICEF)


Child brides (10 to 14 years old) are forced on older male husbands by muslims (Afganisthan, Egypt), christians (Ethiopia) and hindus (Nepal, India) . All of these countries signed human rights conventions forbidding this practice, but in practice they just don't enforce it - "Every year, about 150,000 pregnant teenagers die due to complications – in particular due to a lack of medical care, let alone sex education. (UNICEF)"

Monday 21 January 2008

Self-discrimination

Discrimination occurs when individuals or groups of them in a given society, are not allowed the same rights or access to the same opportunities that everybody else has, because of a particular characteristic of that group, such as colour, creed, genre, and so on.

People will always group or be grouped and referred to on particular characteristics (the women, the Catholics, the liberals, etc..), and this is normal and acceptable. And calling someone a white or a black or making a joke on his religion might qualify as an offense depending on the tone used, but does not constitute discrimination. Discrimination is when you say, because you're black you cannot ride on the bus. This is obviously deplorable.

Because in modern societies we're afraid of being accused of discrimination we become sometimes complacent to self-discrimination. This is done by people who discriminate themselves based on the same criteria. Groups who will claim special rights that nobody else has, or not attend to community duties, because they claim to be different. In a community where anybody has the right to wear whatever clothes they want, forbidding the use of a scarf is discrimination. In a corporation where there are strict rules of dressing, like a military or police institution, allowing special groups to wear a scarf when everybody else is obliged to use a cap, is indulging in self-discrimination. It is allowing that group to say we're different and demand special rights. In such case then the use of head-wear should be free for all, and another policeman should be allowed to use a Napoleon hat or a helmet with horns if he wishes to. Otherwise this is also discrimination, and I find this equally deplorable.

There is a fine line between not discriminating and accepting others to self-discriminate. And the amount of self-discrimination phenomenas has been increasing lately. Having said this, I tend to accept positive discrimination, within limited time-frames or contexts, of groups who have for long been subject of negative discrimination in order to boost their access to equal opportunities and rights. But it has to be done to correct assymetries rather than sustain an inverse discrimination. And I actually appreciate that any special groups within a society will act to protect and promote the best of their culture heritage, such as language, music, art and festivities (without infringing the accepted rules of that society).

Liberalism or savage capitalism?

I'm not an expert, but I believe, liberalism is about the notion that free, properly regulated and competitive markets, are the best way to create value, both for the consumer in particular and the economy in general, and to sustain growth and prosperity.

Regulation is the lubrication of the system. Markets which are too protected or too taxed or with complex regulations will not function properly, and those without any regulation may run wild.

The idea is that this free competitiveness and the ability to perform smooth and fair business will bring about innovation. And innovation is the key to achieve an edge towards your competitors, which ultimately results in benefits for the consumers and value created for the economy (consumers will be willing to spend the extra buck on the innovative product/service).

It all sounds nice and simple. But in free markets, after some time, you often get a phenomena called market consolidation. The least competitive stakeholders get bankrupt, the most competitive become desirable and are bought and merged creating more powerful corporations. The idea here is that a large business will run at lower costs because of economies of scale, and therefore be more competitive at global levels. Politicians like these big corporations because they provide large quantities of "stable" jobs.

What then happens is the market gets reduced to a few big corporations, often one monopolist, or just a few confortably settled in a nice cartel, and things stagnate. New businesses find it very difficult to enter that market because it becomes protected by the stakeholders already in. Then there is no drive to be innovative and no value is created, profits are maintained by keeping costs low and firing a lot of people, thus creating artificial growth (although they will claim that competition comes at global level, and they will spend a lot of money in publicity to try and look good...). Innovation will come only when the artificial growth cannot be sustained any longer.

Market consolidation may be a part of the game, but if regulation does not work properly, it may turn into a cancer. How many cancers is Europe suffering from right now? I'm no doctor either, but I suspect a few in banking and insurances, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, car makers... It's the small, medium, dynamic businesses that push the economy, and regulation should facilitate them entering the markets.

Saturday 19 January 2008

Religious Fanaticism

The need for praising your creator, for having moral guidelines and a prospect of a follow-up to the earthly life and for having spiritual comfort on your daily life is a legitimate one. This is for a lot of people the sense of religion.
But those who have to shout out or aggressively push their own religious beliefs to others, have difficulty believing in them in the first place, and all the shouting is part of the process of strengthening those beliefs within themselves, or the fear of being wrong.

Today, sticking to those ancient belief systems and associated rituals (Christian, Islamic, Hindu... maybe excluding Buddhism, which has been kept up-to-date in addressing modern men spiritual needs) that are meant to connect you to your creator and give you a purpose for the after life and compassion for your fellow man are difficult to sustain, since they are permanently challenged by more rational modern ways of thinking and life styles. Hence religious fanaticism rises.

Religious fanatics are people who, don't allow themselves to question their beliefs, because the doubts would make the castle of cards on which they stand crumble...

Friday 18 January 2008

On the Evolution of beliefs

oddly enough, while our understanding of the world and technology has evolved significantly during human kind history, our beliefs have stood still.

500 years ago, no-one believed the world was round, no-one even though of theories of evolution, telephone, cars, 50 years ago people didn't imagine mobile phones or the internet as plausible futures. Yet, all these and much more came into our lives and we understand them, we use them we accept them as normal. Yet, religion is somehow engraved in our minds and out there such that it is next to impossible to get it out. It passes through the generations as a precious monument you are not allowed to touch or question!

Grab a man from 500 years ago and bring him into todays world. You would have big difficulties explaining him how our world functions, and the possibilities are, what the laws are. You would even have difficulties explaining him about our social structure and behaviour, and our manners. These as well have evolved to take progress into consideration. The things we believe, however, have remained the same...that same man would be able to understand what a church is and what happens there...

Why can't religion adapt to the passing of times...

Saturday 12 January 2008

Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest


"Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil. "

We can't help feeling restless...

(Cavaco Silva, President of the Portuguese Republic, New Year's speech)

"(...) We can't help feeling restless before the inequalities in the distribution of wealth that the statistics show us. Without questioning the principle of merit recognition and the need to capture the best talents, i wonder whether the salaries received by top managers aren't, frequently, unjustified and disproportionate, when compared to the average salary of their employees."

Wednesday 9 January 2008

Keep the borders open

(in The Economist, 05-01-08)
"The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."

Tuesday 8 January 2008

Do not oppress

What goes on in airports these days seems to me of such authoritarian and despotic nature that it is appalling. You're often treated as a suspect without crime or cause. You're searched, interrogated and hassled. All this in the name of your own security. It stinks like rotten fish. It is invasive and abusive most of the times. The airport security officers who by the nature of their job and because in most cases they are not proper authorities (but rather private security companies) should be extra polite and apologetic, are often taking joy in their little power game. Those officers protect us from the terrorists, but who protects us from them? Constitutional rights should protect us from this type of harassment, like for example when police officers require a warrant to search someone, which is given only when a court finds this person suspect based on evidence. But apparently the constitutions foresee exceptions in treating suspects for more delicate cases. Soon we'll be letting each other search and suspect each other at will. This is also terrorism.

Friday 4 January 2008

There is more each time...

(Maintena in Pública 30-12-07)

"large amounts of money in less hands
consuming industry
advertising epidemics
fashions that change
VIP areas / premium products
houses of people that don't use them
boring reality shows of millionaires
television and corruption accepted as they are
bags of garbage per capita
technology and design at the service of luxury
saturation of information
branches for vices and services
exclusive clothes for dogs and the poor"