Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Stephen Berman
Recent Activity
-
Stephen commented on the article |I personally dislike the idea of ads for sexual services being "out there" in a form that children can find easily. Likewise, I dislike the fact that pornography, even legal pornography, is "out there." It might be better to have these things in a special "adult" part of the web. But, overall, I am against abridging our rights to publish information freely on the web and elsewhere. I doubt that there is much of a link between Craigslist and "human trafficking." The best solution to “adult services” issues would be to legalize, regulate and tax prostitution. This has been successful in many countries. There was a good debate on legalization in the Economist recently. http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/576 In it, Sienna Baskin, Co-director of the Sex Workers Project states that "In the Netherlands, prostitution and running commercial sex businesses are legal and heavily regulated, and penalties for exploiting minors and trafficking in persons are severe. A 2007 study found that the sex industry had actually decreased since legalization. No large numbers of underage sex workers were found, and only 8% of sex workers reported being coerced." Likewise, David A. Feingold, PhD, Coordinator of Trafficking-HIV/AIDS Programs, Culture Unit, (UNESCO) in the article "Think Again: Human Trafficking" of the Sep.-Oct. 2005 Foreign Policy, points out: " the Netherlands, Australia, and Germany--all of whom have legalized prostitution--received top marks from the Bush administration in the most recent Trafficking in Persons Report." Studies in other countries are similar. There As discussed in the book, Sex at the Margins by Laura Maria Agustin most of the "slaves" counted by the anti-traffickers are simply migrants, some of whom engage in the sex trade to make a living. Most of them do this voluntarily. There was a similar article in the Washington Post, "Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence: U.S. Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short" which described how " nearly 30 million dollars was spent, in a passionate effort, to find a relative tiny number of victims. The "experts" had estimated over 50,000 sex slaves, then up to a million, and warned of a tidal wave on the horizon. Yet over ten years, and aggressive funding, the activists on the ground found closer to a thousand undocumented workers who matched the description of who they were looking for." Of course, even one person in any kind of slavery is terrible, but I doubt that banning adult ads on Craigslist will do anything other than drive the limited amount of actual ”human trafficking” and underage sex associated with these ads further underground where they will be harder for law enforcement to detect and eliminate.
-
Stephen commented on the article |Though I am certainly against "human trafficking", which I take to mean forcing individuals (either underage or older) to engage in prostitution involuntarily (i.e. sexual slavery), I think that the biggest driver of the evils of human trafficking is the fact that prostitution is not available as a legal regulated service occupation. This is similar to drug and/or alcohol prohibition. If the state imposes a barrier preventing individuals from doing what seems right, reasonable, and enjoyable to them, the activity goes underground and takes harsh and ugly forms. But if the activity, service, or product is available legally, individuals are usually willing to adapt to regulations, pay reasonable fees, and even pay enough in taxes to support the regulations and various public health efforts to keep the activities and/or products tolerably safe.
When alcohol was prohibited in the US, there were numerous deaths from people who drank methanol and other poisonous alcohols and solvents because they could not get legal ETOH. Some people, however, still actually prefer to get intoxicated on gasoline, methanol or other poisonous substances even if ethanol is available. But most of these make do with ethanol because of its legal availabilty and known safety. If prostitution were legalized and regulated, I suspect that most people who resort to underage prostitutes could make do with someone on the lower end of the legal age spectrum. Also, it would be easier to catch and prosecute those who promoted under-age prostitution if everyone knew the industry was regulated, expected to see age and health certificates, and appreciated the safety benefits that would come from being able to see that sexual services providers had up to date inspections and health care check-ups. Both the providers and the customers would be much safer and I believe the underage and involuntary (i.e. slavery) traffic would diminish enormously.
For all that, I don't think that Craig's list should advertise such services but I doubt that going after them is going to do much good.
-
Stephen commented on the article |Overall, I agree with Denise. We should be able to color or embellish our skin and change the appearance of our own bodies if we so desire. Of course, it is possible to cause harm in the process. Lighteners can be dangerous. But tanning, especially excessive tanning, can be extremely harmful. It can cause a melanoma, which--if it it goes beyond a certain stage--can be one of the deadliest and hardest to cure cancers known. So both lightening and darkening can cause health problems.
So, be careful, whatever you choose to do. But I do not think that it is fair to call an advertisement for skin lighteners "racist." In fact, in a sense (as I have stated in another post), the campaign against lighteners could be considered "racist." It implies that it is OK for white people to color their skin but, presumably, it is not OK for people of color to do so.
-
Stephen commented on the article |
This is neither racism nor is it wrong. Most Indians are members of the Caucasian race, the same as most Europeans. They simply have darker skin than most European Caucasians. Skin lighteners (and darkeners) are cosmetics. People should have the right to wear cosmetics to alter the appearance of their skin.
Was Michael Jackson a racist because he lightened his skin? Are you a racist if you put on a tanning solution or go to a tanning salon? Is it racist for a black woman (or man) to use makeup? I do not think that any of those things are racist or wrong.
In fact, I would argue that this "cause" and its associated petition are racist. They imply that a black person has no right to alter his or her skin color while, presumably, a white person is free to do so.
I think I'll paint my self blue and become a Smurf (except I'm too tall).
-
Stephen commented on the article |Though I disagree with Dr. Cassell's views on the healthcare bill and I probably would disagree with a high percentage of his other political views, it is hard to know where to draw a fair line with regard to the extent to which a physician (or any other worker, professional or non-professional) may express political opinions in the course of his or her work.
My personal preference (and I am a physician) is to try hard to make my practice free of any kind of advocacy that would cause discomfort to one my patients. I even take this to the extent that when I get a patient wearing Boston Red Sox regalia I would never mention that I favor the New York Yankees. Thinking of liberal causes, should I be allowed to have a poster in my office advocating taking action against global warming? Personally, I would not put up such a poster even though I support taking action against global warming. But many would think such a poster would be OK. But could I target other people? For example, could I put up a sign that says "if you ask for plastic bags at the supermarket, you are not welcome in this office even though I will treat you anyway." Or could I say "I think members of the recently created "tea party" movement are by and large ignorant dupes of the wealthy right wing elites and I wish I were not ethicallly obligated to treat you." I think these statements would be over the top. Some might think otherwise but I would draw the line at specifically aiming the comments at potential patients.
Perhaps the reason that I strive for zero advocacy is that I think anything else is getting onto a slippery slope that I find uncomfortable. But I hate to think that I was barred from any expression of personal opinion.
-
Stephen commented on the article |But has he paid all of his income taxes?
-
Stephen commented on the article |The House Resolution does not prohibit any type of speech. It is NOT a law. It simply expresses condemnation of statements that equate Israeli actions with those of the Nazis. I fully agree with the House's condemnation. But I would strongly oppose an actual law, which is a totally different thing, to prohibit such speech. The House Resolution is, in fact, the collective free speech of the House members. They have a right to their opinion and they have a right to express it in this way. I happen to agree with their opinion in this case. But I am sure if I read through a few more resolutions I would find some with which I disagree. I would not dream of limiting the House's right to condemn comparisons of Israelis to Nazis any more than I would dream of limiting Nadia Sindi's right to make such comparisons.
-
Stephen commented on the article |As is true in the United States, I think that the terms left vs. right are not very meaningful anymore. In general terms, Israel is and has always been a rather left-wing country. It started out with a heavy socialistic emphasis (the kibbutz, etc.). A strong market economy has developed now but it retains strong social problems, much closer to universal health care than we have in the US, strong environmental concerns, efforts to get away from carbon based energy, etc.
In the American press, the right-wing in Israel has come to mean everyone who is concerned with security and a strong defense. By that definition, even the Labor party is right wing. Right vs. left does not explain the differences in approach. There is a legitimate area of disagreement regarding the role of diplomacy and negotiation and about precisely what can be negotiated.
There is also a general feeling by most people who have looked at Israeli politics that the electoral system needs reform. In a recent survey (just a few weeks ago) published in the Jerusalem Post, 62% of Israelis felt the electoral system should be changed. But interestingly enough, the ultimate result is going to reflect the democratic will pretty accurately. The some Post survey showed that 80% thought that security is the most important issue and 73% favored Netanyahu to lead the next government. When the dust clears, that is probably the way the government is going to turn out. The complicated nature of all the bargaining and horsetrading that is needed to form a government tends to obscure that the majority is winning out in the end. Thus the system obscures the legitimacy of the result. The system also tends to give more weight to the "left" in this election because it makes it appear that Livni won whereas the large "right" wing victory was divided among many contenders.
Electoral reform will at least clarify what the people want. -
Stephen commented on the article |I would agree that oil has inflamed the middle east. Also, the era of oil power is coming to an end. This will change the dynamics of the region greatly, but possibly not the way that you expect or hope. Israel has developed itself into a productive, progressive nation. It may not be progressive in every way that the US or Europe would desire, but it ranks high in most respects. It is also fortunate in that 15 years worth of natural gas supply has just been found off of Haifa. It may have to share some of this with Lebanon if the field is larger than expected, but this will probably be enough to last it to the end of the era of oil dependence. Good economic relations and trade with Israel will look better and better to the rationale folks among Israel's neighbors as petrodollars dry up.
Despite absurd claims of Israel dominating the media, it is the Arabs with their petrodollars who have bought the media, especially in Europe, and paid off a generation of "scholars" (even in Israel) to fabricate and distort the truth. Fear of losing oil as well as direct cash payments have made many people bend over backwards (and forwards) to please the Islamists. They have invented a fictitious "Palestinian people", which never existed in history, to be their proxy Army against Israel and supplied them with weapons. Just as Israel absorbed about a million Jewish refugees from the Middle East who were kicked out of their homes (while holding deeds for land whose combined area is much greater than that of the whole of current Israel even including the disputed land that Israel won in battle), so the Arab states should have reabsorbed most of the four to six hundred thousand Arab refugees. That still would be a good solution and one way or the other that is probably going to happen eventually, especially when the Arabs' only bargaining chip (aside from unbridled population growth and terrorism) is pumped dry. I certainly look forward to the end of the oil era.
By the way, ironically Israels' "friends", the conservatives, probably did more to over-empower the Islamic radicals than anyone else by refusing to believe that the oil era needed to be over. I am a strong supporter of Israel, but it doesn't bother me if Barack Obama has a sort of family affinity for Muslims. That's fine. We should try to get along well with all groups, religions, and races. It doesn't even bother me if he reduces aid to Israel, though he likely won't or won't reduce it much. As long as he pushes for alternative energy production, a lot of things in the world are going to improve. They might improvement in ways that are different than either you or I can predict, but I think they will improve. There are actually many, many alternatives to the one vs. the two state solution in the Middle East. But it is probably not going to get settled for about 20 years, which is when the oil will really have run out (it would be nice if we stop using it altogether prior to that, except where it is indispensable, such as airplane fuel. I can't see flying planes on batteries). Though the whole Middle East is unstable, I would give Israel the best chance of still existing in something like its current form by that time. And at that point I expect a settlement will be made that will include recognition of Israel by all its neighbors. I doubt there will be a separate Palestinian state (aside from Jordan, which is essentially a Palestinian state). But neither I nor anyone else has a good way of predicting exactly what will happen.
There still may be a problem with Islamic terrorism in 20 years. Islamic expansionism is really the only true form of imperialism left in the world. There never was American imperialism. That is just a mantra chanted by those jealous of the US. As this century progressive, the jealous folks in the world will probably be talking more about Chinese imperialism because it is likely they will have the largest economy in 3 or 4 decades. But economic success is not imperialism. I expect Islamic imperialism to moderate when it is no longer fueled by oil. -
Stephen commented on the article |
I agree with you. But lately I have been thinking about how the Obama administration is going to approach this issue. Of course, I really don't know and I am a little concerned that Mitchell is too focused on outdated approaches. But one thing that encourages me is Obama's general position on energy. He has pointed out in various statements that our dependence on oil empowers the enemies of democracy. I think this is so true. Bush and Cheney can talk about supporting Israel, but by keeping us stuck in an oil based economy they have done a lot to empower the reactionary forces in the Middle East. Oil drilling is a trap for a developing country. A small clique grabs the money and the vast majority stay poor. Other countries jockey for favors and cut arms deals that destabilize large areas of the world. The sooner we get to multiple sustainable sources of energy including large contributions from solar and wind (and, even, I am forced to admit, some more nuclear if it can be done safely), the sooner we will remove a lot of the pressure from the middle east and other regions. As oil decreases in importance (and I think that is already happening) I am hoping that the Israelis and the surrounding countries will develop increasing economic interdependence that could lead to peace. Perhaps I am dreaming.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
Organizations
-
Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation0 Actions 0 Recruits -
Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation0 Actions 0 Recruits -
Brain Injury Association of America0 Actions 0 Recruits
-
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society0 Actions 0 Recruits
-
March of Dimes0 Actions 0 Recruits
