Au Cochonnet Marin

One day, Rose woke up from her crystal bed. She wore her prettiest dress and high heels before running down the grand staircase into the ballroom. Her name tag indicated she was younger than her older brother.

“Come on, your grandparents are here!” someone called.

Excited, Rose ran to greet her grandparents. She performed a delightful dance, sang a few songs, and ended with a graceful bow.

They sat down for lunch at noon, enjoying chicken salad and rice. Afterward, Rose took her grandparents on a tour of the palace, showing them the elegant rooms, lush gardens, sparkling pools, and the balcony with a breathtaking view of the ocean.

“Hey, everyone, let’s go to the field—it’s amazing!” Rose exclaimed.

“The sculptures there are incredible,” she added.

“That sounds lovely. Let’s go,” her grandmother said with a smile.

They strolled through the fields, talking and admiring the scenery. By the end of the tour, it was already six o’clock, and they returned to the palace. Dinner was served: a delicious garlic soup and spaghetti.

When dessert arrived, Rose turned to her grandparents. “Are you staying the night?”

“Yes, we’re staying for a whole week,” they replied warmly.

As the day wound down, Rose’s mother said, “Rose, it’s time for bed.”

Rose darted off like a tiny mouse, running from the dining room through the ballroom, up the grand staircase, and into her room. Her parents followed to kiss her goodnight, tucking her in with loving smiles.

Valerie, 7 years old

Society often avoids discussions about death, treating it as a taboo unfit for polite conversation. Yet, like many taboos, this aversion is profoundly misguided. Death, one of life’s certainties, deserves open dialogue, public debate, and, ultimately, personal autonomy. No one but the individual directly involved should hold the final say in matters of their mortality.

The specter of death looms universally. It is a natural process culminating in “the permanent ending of vital processes in a cell or tissue.” Final and irreversible. Yet, in most cases, this monumental decision is not left to the individual but dictated by conservative authorities averse to change.

While some fear death itself, many more dread the slow, agonizing process of dying—particularly when accompanied by pain or debilitating conditions.

Death is deeply personal. The decision of how and when it occurs should rest solely with the person involved. It’s a matter of agency over one’s body—a right that is gradually, though far too slowly, gaining recognition through the legalization of “assisted dying” in some parts of the world. But how long will it take before this right is universally accepted?

The question is urgent, especially given the state of deeply politicized judicial systems that may be ill-equipped to resolve such a nuanced, deeply human issue. As Napoleon Bonaparte aptly said, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”

In life, the mind governs the body, but when the body’s deterioration overwhelms the mind, it’s often time to let go. No elderly person desires to endure life tethered to machines, tubes protruding from every direction.

And what is the glory of reaching 100? While some embrace it with zest—like the centenarian who celebrated with a parachute jump—others may prefer to bow out quietly. Both choices are valid, as they stem from the individual’s unique perspective.

Thinking about death is not morbid; it is practical. It’s a decision that must be considered carefully while one still can choose. Assisted dying is as essential as the right to planned parenthood—both choices are rooted in autonomy and dignity.

Support this right before it becomes a casualty of regressive policies. A society that values individual freedom must ensure that this ultimate choice remains in the hands of the one who matters most—the person facing the end of their journey.

Alain

Why have Americans rejected two intelligent, capable women running for president in consecutive elections? It’s difficult to accept, particularly because both women displayed superior intellect and agility—qualities that Donald Trump lacks. And he is by no stretch of the imagination, no Demosthenes…

 Winston Churchill, one of the wittiest figures in history, famously said:
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

That sentiment feels all too relevant here.

 Ask a Trump supporter why he/she voted for him, and you’re likely to hear responses like, “He knows what he’s doing. “That’s what frightens me most—how easily surface-level rhetoric can overshadow substance.

 I vividly recall the first presidential debate in 2016, when Hillary Clinton went head-to-head with Donald Trump. She presented herself as composed, informed, and capable, while Trump appeared erratic and ill-prepared. I went to bed that night confident Hillary had secured the presidency. But when the dust settled, Americans chose Trump. The consequences of that decision have felt nothing short of Vader-like.

Then came 2024, with Kamala Harris taking her turn in the spotlight. After watching her debate, I was equally hopeful—surely, this was the moment America would finally elect a woman president, as so many progressive, advanced nations have already done.

But no. Once again, voters handed victory to a crude, divisive figure; a man who was neither extraordinary nor particularly articulate. It made me reflect on a belief I held in my younger, more idealistic days: that brains would ultimately triumph over brutish force. How wrong I was.

Trump offered no compelling political arguments, no real vision to sway skeptics. Yet he succeeded. Why? Both Clinton and Harris failed to deliver the kind of sharp, devastating retort that can neutralize a bully and expose his ineptitude—something akin to Lloyd Bentsen’s legendary zinger:

“I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

The absence of such a moment left their opponents unchecked, and the public swayed. Are Americans misogynistic? Sadly, the evidence suggests they might be, at least to a degree. Gender bias continues in many parts of the world to influence how leaders are perceived and judged.

 “Americans, it is said, will put up with anything, provided it doesn’t block traffic.”

And that perhaps explains the results: too many voters seem to prefer tradition to progress.

Alain