DO NOT BLAME YOUR CREDIT CARD... YOU LACK BASIC VALUES!!!!

                                                        

Perhaps the most effective way of clearing the mounting hatred of credit cards is making it clear that not everyone needs a credit card. Like any other financial tool, a credit card in the wrong hands can prove to be financially detrimental. If you lack some personal qualities such as self-control, then credit is not your thing. Also, people who are striving to bring back their finances in control should also avoid credit cards.

 In order to reap the many benefits of credit cards and avoid the devastating implications of credit mismanagement, it is necessary for one to be ready to exercise some of the basic human values such as honesty and self -control. It is only when these values are not effectively practiced that credit card use can turn out into the nightmare of huge financial debts.

                         

Overspending can lead anyone into unimaginable financial debts. However, most of the people accusing credit cards of their current financial problems mostly confess to having lied about their incomes to get higher credit limits. That they even considered lying explains that it was their dishonesty that led to their problems. An honest card user would only require a limit that is within his or her means and will not have the problem of dealing with debts that exceed his/her financial capabilities. It is, in most cases, the personal values and skills of the credit card handler that determines his or her future financial situation after using the tool.

Credit cards offer some of the most lucrative benefits to their users and are definitely, not any sort of financial poison. Compared to other available existing options such as debit cards and cash, credit cards provide unmatched consumer protection. The ability to use the bank’s money in purchasing goods creates a buffer between the consumer’s money and the seller. As such, any problems that may arise in the process are handled by the credit card company on behalf of the consumer. In the case of debit cards and cash, this kind of protection does not exist and the consumer is, therefore, exposed to numerous risks such as fraud. For instance, the unauthorized use of a card does not lead to liability in the part of the consumer as it is often the case with debit cards. Making transactions using credit cards accords more power to the user in  case a problem arises in the future as opposed to other options such as debit and cash. Credit cards are in this case much safer to use online considering that the online market is growing every passing day.

While making huge purchases using credit cards, credit card transactions often extend the warranties of products past the time stipulated in the manufacturer’s warranty.  Other credit cards offer an extension to the purchase protection in case of any damages. The bank takes care of the extended protection and warranties and is responsible for making any compensation. 

Price protection is the other unique benefit that credit card users get.  For instance, in cases where the price reduces after the purchase has been made, the consumer benefits by getting a reduction or a refund equal to the extra costs.

Arguing that credit cards are responsible for the decline in personal savings among users is utterly wrong. This is because credit cards offer the consumer a reliable and accurate way of making an analysis of their spending at the end of the month so as to be able to point out possible areas where savings can be made. The process depends on the user’s ability to plan and follow budgets strictly. Self- discipline is essential for this to work out. Unfortunately, a majority of the people who cry foul lack these essential values that must accompany effective credit card use.

Making timely payments of the due charges also comes with many rewards such as cash-back, among many others. In addition, many credit card companies offer 0% introductory interest rates which last for a certain period. These added benefits encourage credit card users to make prompt repayments as they are not accessible to anyone who defaults the payments. The benefit of time-shifting using the credit card also offers consumers the benefit of redirecting their current financial resources to other responsibilities. Just like any other loan, the credit card user should be committed to repaying this favor with some interest.

                           

By not considering the many advantages offered by credit cards and instead focusing on the negative issues that can be avoided amounts to being biased. Credit cards should not be made liable for the financial problems experienced by the users, but the blame should fall squarely on the consumers for the choices they make. The benefits of some personal values and skills in financial management are obvious and instead of accusing the financial tools, these values should be taught in colleges to make people more responsible in their financial management. It is only after the useful values have been instilled to credit cards users that the benefits of these cards can be experienced by many. 

                 

WOULD IMMANUEL KANT SUPPORT THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA?

                                 

The global push for the legalization of marijuana has intensified in the recent years with some activist factions calling for the legalization of medical marijuana, and others pushing for the legalization for recreational use. Whichever the cause, people all over the world have been forced to take opposing stands in the ensuing debate.

Since the former president of Uruguay, Jose Mujica, legalized the use of marijuana in the country, many other nations are soon following his footsteps. In the US, for instance, the issue is set to be among the major determinants of the outcome of the 2016 presidential elections. 

                                        

With some American states preparing to take the fight to another level in 2016, the debate calls for a moral evaluation. For example, would Immanuel Kant vote for the legalization of marijuana? No way! Kant would object the push for the legalization of marijuana arguing that just like other drugs; Marijuana violates an individual’s duty to respect their rational nature. 

Most of the arguments against marijuana are centered on the use of the drug for escapism and pleasure. Is it morally right or wrong to be high? Providing a solution to this dilemma is not as easy as pointing out the wrongness of crimes such as murder or rape. Therefore, the marijuana debate cannot be held on similar platforms as these crimes and needs a philosophical analysis to identify the moral rightness, wrongness or neutrality of the practice. The arguments of Immanuel Kant, therefore, provide a framework for this analysis.

                                        

The notion of duties to oneself is grounded on Kant's categorical imperative. It posits that one should act so as to treat humanity, whether in their own being or in the being of another, as an absolute end, and not as a means to achieve that end. If regulated, proponents of the legalization may argue that marijuana use does not violate other people's freedom.

However, Kant is clear about the autonomy of the user. Regulating the drug can be hardly achieved. Marijuana is usually abused leading to addiction, cognitive damage or even short-term memory loss. In this case, marijuana infringes on the user's freedom. When a user becomes addicted, his deeds will be determined by whether or not he has taken the drug. The decisions that such a person makes are not devoid of the consequences of his or her state. Therefore, a marijuana addict cannot act or reason in autonomy.

The use of marijuana in dealing with emotional issues whether through medical prescription or for recreation contradicts Kant’s formula on morality as described in his philosophical books on morality. It states that one’s dignity ought not to be compromised even in the face of overall utility. Through the subtext of the categorical imperative, Kant argues in favor of two important duties to oneself. These are the perfect duties to refrain from suicide and the commitment to nurturing one's talents. By following the logic of Kant’s arguments, it is clear that for one to effectively carry out the duties, he or she should shun drug usage including smoking weed.

                                         

While contemplating about a person's absolute duty to refrain from suicide, Kant argues that "the man who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether the idea is consistent with the notion of humanity as an absolute end." Kant continues to state that if a person destroys his body in an effort to escape from a difficult life situation, the person is merely using his "person" as a means. The emotional escapism that is offered by marijuana and the severe side effects that a user is exposed to prove this. A person using marijuana utterly destroys his life in a desperate move to achieve (perceived) peace of mind instead of taking advantage of the challenge to acquire adaptive energy.

                                 

 Due to excessive use of marijuana, a person may suffer brain damage leading to a severe mental illness. In this case, a person can commit suicide or harm other people around him. Legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes will mean that the control limits for the drug usage will be low and, therefore, many users will use it in excess. The excessive use of drugs risks self-harm. While on drugs, a person might not make sound judgments in matters of life and death.

Kant's position can be applied even outside the confines of recreational application of marijuana. Using marijuana for medical purposes is also unethical in Kant's perspective. The use of drugs as a quick fix in alleviating pain means that one chooses to circumvent the entire process of emotional maturation and self-discovery. For instance, the choice of using marijuana as a way of alleviating anxieties resulting from a changed worldview in college denies the person a chance to use the opportunity for personal growth and increasing awareness on different issues. According to Kant, our rationality is the source of our intrinsic worth. It is also through our rationality that we gain the opportunity for personal development, self-insight as well as knowledge of ourselves. By using marijuana in the manner described above, a person sacrifices this integral part of his being.

                               

                             

The failure to work towards nurturing one’s talents is not in contradiction with the notion of humanity as an end in itself. However, a closer study into the arguments of Kant reveals the   importance of cultivating a personal capacity for self-insight. Failing to nurture one's talents does not contribute towards the objective of treating oneself as an intrinsically valuable being.  In his moral arguments, Kant posits that a person has a particular duty to cultivate his natural powers. Natural powers, in this case, allude to the intrinsic talents of a person that need to be discovered. Being dignified and rational beings demand that we nurture our unique talents so as to achieve the greater perfection of humanity. 

                   

Drug use does not in any way enhance the nurturing of talents, but rather it develops a culture of laziness that hinders talent cultivation.

             Kant’s moral arguments about duties to oneself and the categorical imperative make his stand in the recent debate for the legalization of Marijuana clear. Just like any other drug that is considered to provide pleasure through alleviation of pain and escapism, marijuana use contradicts human dignity, the perfect duty to refrain from suicide, and hinders self-discovery and talent cultivation. 

EFFECTS OF DOPING IN KENYAN SPORTS

There should not be any compromise about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in competitive sport. As such, all sporting organizations in the Kenya should be very strict when it comes to dealing with athletes who dare use these substances to gain an unfair advantage over others. Every year, some famed athletes fall victims of doping and suffer the consequences of either being stripped off their titles or facing severe bans. This measure has however not deterred others from engaging in the same malpractice. In addition to risking a ban, anabolic steroids are considered by medical practitioners as a serious threat to the health of sportsmen and women.

It is only under medical prescription that a person can use steroids. Despite this, the number of athletes who test positive after undergoing doping tests has tremendously increased in the past few decades. The only way to deter athletes from doping is by upgrading the anti-doping rules in the country so as to severely punish athletes who are found to use these substances.

                        

By banning the use of anabolic steroids by athletes, the Kenyan sports administrators will not only save the reputation of the country in competitive sports, but will also save the lives of many athletes. Since the use of the performance-enhancing drugs is not common among all sportsmen, the practice grants an unfair advantage to those who use them. Competitive sporting is therefore rendered useless as those who manage to gain access to the illicit substances are destined to win as a result of the cheating. This practice might demoralize the athletes who engage in fair-play as their efforts are not rewarded due to the presence of dopers.

Doping poses a risk to the well-being of the athletes. The side effects of anabolic steroids are catastrophic and can lead to health problems and even instant death to the users. Since some of the athletes who end up using performance enhancing drugs do so without the knowledge of the consequences, it is upon the government to ensure that they are protected and do not end up using them. Complete screening of the athletes’ managers should be conducted since the vice is common among some individual managers.

                                       

Many people who become victims of doping give the excuse that the use of performance-enhancing drugs should be legalized so as to ensure that everyone gets access to them. To them, this would eliminate the argument on the unfair advantage. However, considering that the use of the drugs has been confirmed by health practitioners to be a health disaster, it is not possible to compel everyone involved in sports to use them so as to set a level playing ground for the athletes. As a result, banning the substances is the only way that sports administrators can ensure that sportsmen compete on an even ground.

Legalizing the use of steroids by sportsmen can only reduce sporting activities into artificial events. An individual's ability would be recognized in sports any longer since athletes will be relying upon artificial powers to perform in sporting activities. While it may be easy to break existing records and set incredible ones, the ability of athletes would no longer be determined by such scenarios.

Despite the many efforts exerted by sports administrators to regulate the use performance enhancing drugs, more and more athletes are still engaging in the illegal practice. Doping does not only render sporting activities less competitive but it also poses unimaginable risks to the well-being of athletes. While some Kenyan sportsmen found guilty of doping did so in full knowledge of the implications, others did so naively. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the government to ensure that stricter rules are put in place to entirely eliminate the vice in competitive sports and restore the country’s reputation. 

"HACKTIVISTS": THE MISTAKEN HEROES

                                 

 “Hacktivism” is a term that emanates from the combination of the terms “hack” and “activism”. It refers to the use of computers or computer networks to promote a certain political or social agenda. The processes integrate critical thinking and programming skills to forge a unique and effective platform for activists. The practice is rooted in the hacking culture and aims at enhancing free speech, the freedom of expression as well as human rights. 

Hacktivism spans a wide spectrum of issues and political ideals. There exist numerous interpretations of hacktivism based on the ideals that inform the practice. These include the claims that it is merely an act of cyber terrorism. Others perceive it as a way of using technological hacking to achieve social change in the society. Hacktivism is essential in promoting democratic principles that aim at enhancing free speech and human rights especially in the modern society where these principles are highly threatened.

                          

In his article titled What is a “Hacktivist”, Peter Ludlow, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, provides useful insight into the understanding of the term. According to him, it is the motivation of the person engaged in the activity that informs the lexical warfare that surrounds the term. As such, some people ostensibly fail to associate the practice with the democratic requirements of enhancing free speech and effecting social change. On the contrary, they accord the practice a negative connotation aimed at tainting the image of the practice and creating a certain phobic tendency around the practice. As a result, the public is incited to hate on hacktivists. Consequently, the practice is perceived with a certain level of mistrust and abhorrence. 

To Ludlow, hacktivism is similar to other activities aimed at effecting social change and hacktivists should not be perceived as criminals inspired by criminal ideologies. He goes ahead to create a distinction between acts that can be classified as hacktivism and those that do not deserve the description. He cites that a majority of hacking activities that a majority of people perceive as hacktivism may not necessarily be hacktivism but malicious acts of cyber crime. For one to completely discern and appreciate the positivity of hacktivism, he or she must be in a position to make a distinction between these acts.

                               

Kent Anderson, the Managing Director of Encurve LLC takes a significantly different stand from that of professor Ludlow in his article titled “Hacktivism and Politically Motivated Cyber Crime.” Anderson takes on hacktivism from a totally different angle in that it is clear from the start of his article that he considers the practice immoral irrespective of the ideals that it supports. 
                           http://www.peakanddale.com/portal/aff.php?aff=060

According to him, hacktivists embrace any opportunity of technological loopholes to disrupt the normal operations of societies, governments, and even institutions. As a result, Anderson considers the constantly increasing hacktivism in the world as a threat to social order. He, however, acknowledges the fact that the internet provides a unique platform for activists to make their pleas known to the world. 

The practice of illegally hacking into protected databases to gain access to information and share it without seeking consent is utterly immoral according to Anderson. While Ludlow considers hacktivism as a justifiable practice that should be protected in any democratic society, Anderson considers it a detrimental mistake made by some of the western nations that consider the practice as amounting to free expression.

Pierluigi Paganini’s article titled, They are Not What You Think They are … They are Hacktivists strives to substantiate the real activities conducted by hacktivists. Inspired by the activities of the Anonymous group that expresses its dissatisfaction of social and political policies through mounting cyber attacks, Paganini takes an affirmative stance similar to that of Ludlow in explicating the real agenda of most hacktivists. 

However, Paganini cites that it is the impact of the activities of many hacktivist groups that makes them a detested and feared lot. This is because the impact of the activities of hacktivists is not any different from that of common cyber criminals. As a result, cyber protests, as perpetrated through hacktivism, should be considered by organization and nations in devising an effective defense against cyber crime.

Kenya’s Contribution to 2050 World Population

The 21^st Century will go down the annals of history as the century in which the world experienced an explosion of its population. The increase in the world population from five to seven billion was achieved at a very short period of time prompting a cause for concern. It is claimed that it took about fifty-thousand years for the world population to get to its first billion. The explosive increase in population is set to continue in the course of this century. Fertility decline speed, especially in the third-world is the primary issue that is considered to influence the estimate of a 9.3 billion population by 2050.

Source: World Population data, 2015

The decline in the fertility rate in the developing countries, and especially those that are still experiencing a population explosion such as Kenya, is assumed to be the most profound shaper of world population in the 21^st Century. If the population will go beyond the 10 billion mark by 2050, it gives the implication that several other billions will be attained at the end of the century. This can only be avoided through the control of fertility, and especially in our country where the fertility rates are overwhelmingly high.

 The interventions aimed at ensuring that the world population does not exceed 9.3 billion should be initiated at the earliest time possible. As such, fertility interventions are urgently needed since the population explosion would mean a multiplication of nearly all social problems and policy challenges. These problems include climate change, intensified competition for the available resources and poverty rate increase.

To bring down the fertility rates in Kenya, the governments should come up with policies aimed at increasing the well-being of individuals so as to empower them to practice their reproductive rights. Through these initiatives, individuals will be able to expand their opportunities and choices. For instance, interventions aimed at increasing people’s access to contraception, reducing child mortality, and increasing the education levels of people often influence the decisions that parents make with regard to the number of children they plan to have. 

Poverty reduction strategies can also empower women and the poor so as to be able to exercise their reproductive rights and improve the chances that their children have in life. These interventions are meant to ensure that people in the developing world make the right decisions regarding their fertility.

Current concerns by the government and NGOs over fertility rates down is a clear indication that the reproductive health choices that people are making at this point will have direct implications on the world population by 2050. It is therefore clear that the estimation of the 9.3 billion people is on the low-end after the current interventions produce the anticipated results. The issue of fertility rate control prevails among all other issues that are deemed important in regulating the population of the world by 2050 and ensuring that the current social and economic problems are not carried into the future.