Posted by Phil

On January 29th 2013 I went to lunch with my mother at a small café near her work, which is contained within a bookshop. As most of the clientele are eating in a rush and alone, there are newspapers and magazines spread out on the tables. The one next to me was one of the supplements which come with The Guardian. I remember taking a photo and thinking that I would send it to the Editor after the next terror attack that would inevitably come. Instead, I want to use it to talk about the way that a coalition of Libertarians and Leftists are putting our lives in danger. I want to talk about the march of the cowards into the abyss, and their attempts to drag us all in with them.

So what am I talking about here? Which people am I referring to? They can be split into two main groups, as those of us in the sensible centre are attacked on all sides.

The Left flank of this movement combines both the hardline socialists that staggeringly still exist in the post-USSR world, allied with their elite Leftist media sympathisers such as The Guardian and elements within The New York Times. Their attitude towards Islamic extremism is based on a visceral hatred of the United States, Israel, UK, and any other country that believes that force is sometimes necessary for the greater good. They also appear to be convinced that any effort to strengthen counter-terrorism mechanisms is in fact a desperate attempt to abolish freedom of thought and create a Big Brother state.

The Right flank is a similar combination of uneducated buffoons and naive daydreamers, though the ideologies they subscribe to are very different to their Leftist equivalents. The right-wing equivalent to the hardline socialists are the far-right groups of angry people, coming together in apparently spontaneous movements of ill-informed and incoherent rage at ‘the system’. Their allies are the philosophical Libertarians, who are so convinced that Ayn Rand was G-d incarnate that they appear to be allergic to Government actually doing anything. The overarching belief of the two is because they want to build 25 metre high walls around their houses and never talk to anyone again, so must everyone else.

Today these two sides who would usually claw at one another over every single issue have become bizarrely united in their belief that Islamic extremism does not exist, but rather any act of terror against the West is falsely attributed to it as we are just getting what we deserve. The lack of logic or understanding they have when discussing the issues is quite simply staggering.

Take the recent obsession on the Left of saying that the Boston Bombings have nothing to do with Islamic extremism, and that any claim to the contrary is simply Islamophobia. Never mind that the one surviving perpetrator of the heinous terrorist attack has stated categorically that they were motivated by Islamic extremism. Why listen to the facts? It is much easier to blame racist Westerners, right?

It makes me physically sick. There is nothing Islamophobic about saying the Boston bombers were motivated by Islamic extremism. In doing so, I am not stating that such behaviour is inherent to Islam, or that the interpretation of these terrorists is a correct interpretation, I am simply correctly identifying their own justification for their actions. The desire to shut down debate about extremist elements within the Muslim community and how to deal with it is almost pathological. It is also dangerous.

On the other hand are those who believe if the West just closed all their embassies in Muslim lands and withdrew every soldier then there would be peace. These are the same people who argue that Hamas would become ‘moderate’ if Israel withdrew from Gaza, or that Hezbollah would do the same after the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon. The results speak for themselves. Extremist Islamists are not interested in compromise. Their language is suicide bombings and terror, not the give and take of political discussion.

As the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project demonstrates, a majority of Muslims around the world do not believe that suicide bombings are justified. Only a minority have a favourable view of Al Qaeda. What should be of concern – and should not be denied – is the fact that there are still significant numbers who do believe suicide bombings can be justified, or who support other terrorist groups. The numbers change drastically as soon as you specify a Western target, perhaps informed by the staggeringly poor opinion most Muslim countries have of both Christians and Jews.

So what is the bottom line?

Most Muslims do not support terrorism (at least not on principle). The majority of Muslims do not support Al Qaeda. While hatred of other religions is apparently endemic to many Muslim societies, this does not mean Muslims in general are incapable of being tolerant of other faiths, and many are all around the world.

None of what I have just demonstrated means that there is not a relatively large support base for Islamic extremism and sympathy for terrorism. Nor does it make one Islamophobic to stand up and say that such attitudes must be confronted, and they must be defeated.

The article which I used as the photo for this piece includes the line ‘it appears fair to assume that bombs in London or New York are a fairly distant prospect for the moment’. I suppose Boston was similarly safe? Shame on The Guardian for publishing such rubbish.

The reality is that with distance from these attacks we stop preparing for the next one. Through cowardice, people just want it to be over. I can understand it; after all, who wants to live with the danger for a moment longer than they need to?

This is not to suggest that we should all lock ourselves away or give up all our rights in the name of fighting terrorism – far from it – but rather to say that ignoring the threat is not a strategy for ending the threat. If there are those who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend there is no danger from Islamic extremism then they are welcome to do so. There is, after all, no accounting for idiots. The danger comes is if the great silent majority of people who take their cues on these issues from opinion makers are drawn in.

If the number of people who subscribe to this fairy-tale of safety grows too large, they will drag us into the abyss.

Posted by Phil

The University of London Union is one of the largest student unions in the world. Taking into account all of the constituent colleges, it has a membership representing around 120,000 students. By uniting so many young people in the capital, ULU could be a force for positive engagement of students with politics as well as strengthening the services available to members across the city. Instead, it has become a corrupt, irrelevant den of dishonesty, obfuscation and bullying. With debates circling about the viability of ULU, it is time for the University of London to cut the Union off at the source; funding. In short, it is time that we let ULU go bankrupt.

University student unions have the potential to be hugely positive forces on campus. From campaigning on human rights issues, to coordinating inter-college cooperation, and even supporting students during disciplinary hearings, there are almost no limits to what a union can achieve if run properly. When it comes to ULU, however, achievement is quite simply not on the radar.

Turnout at recent ULU elections was pathetic, with no University of London college pulling in more than 3.5% of students to vote. The result? The elections were won by Michael Chessum and Daniel Cooper, two manic Communists, who insult the memory of British soldiers, support violence and the destruction of property and have absolutely no ideas on how to seriously improve student services.

Not satisfied by winning obscure elections (through smearing opponents) which claim far greater representation than they actually have, Chessum and his merry band of psychotic, rape-justifying SWP supporters have recently decided that annulling elections they do not win and lying to students is the best way for them to appoint more of their cronies to positions of authority.

ULU has thus crossed over from the realm of irrelevant farce, to insult to the reputation of University of London Students.

The following facts should be made clear:

1. The ULU madmen of Chessum-Cooper-Associates do not believe in transparency, and refuse to account properly for Union accounts and spending.

2. The ULU madmen of Chessum-Cooper-Associates do not believe in fair campaigning, as evidenced by the disgraceful lies they tell about opposition candidates.

3. The ULU madmen of Chessum-Cooper-Associates do not believe in following their own rules, as evidenced by their dismissal of election results in favour of seemingly arbitrary disciplinary proceedings that favour their supporters.

Of course the argument has gone for some time that one should reform ULU from the inside. Win the elections, modernise and seek to make the Union something all students can be proud of. The reality is that such an achievement is now impossible. With Chessum-Cooper-Associates in charge of ULU, no election can be held freely, and thus we are condemned to be ‘represented’ by their pseudo-bigoted, fringe politics.

The only reasonable response now is to cut them off at the source. Stop the handouts of paying these inept wannabee-Stalinististas a salary, and accept that the Union is passed its sell by date. Let us turn over the responsibility – and more importantly the money – to the university. After all, they could hardly do a worse job.

The answer to the current ULU madness is clear; we must let ULU go bankrupt.

Posted by Phil

Speaking to Bloomberg in a trailing article for their May issue that will cover the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair has come up with one of his characteristically modest statements about his own ability:

“Frankly, if I’d had a fourth election, I would have given Cameron a run for his money. I’m not saying I would have won, but it would have been tighter than it was.“

As an occasional defender of the legacy of the longest-serving Labour Prime Minister in history, it feels strange to critcise him all of a sudden. On this matter, however, Blair simply must stop with the delusions.

Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 after a landslide general election victory, and a sense of renewed optimism for the direction of the country. He was young and modern, with a clear vision for what he wanted New Labour to achieve. He battled through scandals relating to political donations, foot and mouth disease and the 2000 fuel crisis. Despite constant divisions within the leadership between the Prime Minister and Gordon Brown (who would eventually succeed him), Blair was popular and thought of as highly capable. The great change came of course with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

More ink (internet and otherwise) has been poured out dissecting Blair’s motivation for Iraq than the decision was worth. If one analyses the decision honestly, the invasion would have taken place with or without British support and involvement, and thus the idea that had Blair’s view been different the blood would have been saved is consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.

One cannot help but feel it always hurt Blair that he was so personally tarred with the Iraq brush. After all, Gordon Brown was equally supportive of the invasion, and was probably the only figure in British politics who could have stopped it. Had Brown resigned in the lead-up to Iraq, making clear his outright opposition, then a beleaguered Blair may well have lost the confidence of his party. There has never been any suggestion that Brown considered doing so. Of all great ironies, the area of greatest controversy in Blair’s legacy, is likely the area of greatest agreement between him and his political nemesis.

Enough background. What of Blair’s claim that he could of done better than Brown had he been leading Labour into the 2010 general election?

First of all, the numbers certainly do not support him.

As polling from the time shows, Blair left office with just 25% of the country approving of his administration. That was 4% lower than the number who supported Gordon Brown and Labour at the 2010 general election. In other words, even though Brown ended his tenure as Prime Minister with the lowest recorded vote for Labour in almost 30 years, he still did better than Blair was doing when he left office.

The second thing to consider is whether or not Blair could have turned things round if given another 2 and a half years. Needless to say, this is an impossible judgement to make with certainty, but it seems unlikely. Consider these reasons why reviving his political fortunes would likely have been impossible:

1. Support for his government was on a downwards trajectory, even after his resignation announcement. The relatively small increase in positive feeling towards Blair that exists today is purely a result of distance between his time in office. The idea that his political fortunes were on the way up and he was thwarted by Brown supporters is simply not supported by the facts.

2. The divisions between him and Gordon Brown would not have just disappeared. Had he remained on, allies of Brown would have continued to undermine his leadership and he may well have been seen as increasingly ineffectual, further damaging his reputation going into the general election in 2010.

3. The fact that the financial and economic crisis of 2008 never claimed a major political scalp in the UK is a matter of enduring bemusement to many political commentators. To some extent it seems likely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling remained purely out necessity; after all, who could have replaced him? One imagines had Blair still been Prime Minister this could have been the perfect chance to jettison Brown and seek to blame him for the economic disaster. Unfortunately, in doing so, Blair would have given Brown the opportunity to formally challenge him for the leadership, sowing greater division and further damaging Labour chances in 2010.

When one considers all these factors together, the more Tony Blair’s claim that he could have done better against David Cameron in the 2010 general election seems to be wishful thinking. Blair had his moment, and the public had turned against him for good.

Another two years of his tired and untrusted government would not have changed that.

Posted by Phil

When Mohammad Mursi was elected President of Egypt, the world seemed to rejoice at the democratic transition taking place before our eyes. The rise of a democratic Egypt, the leader of the Arab world, was seen as the first step in the spread of democracy across that region. What a difference 9 months makes.

Today, Egypt is moving deeper and deeper into the clutches of the totalitarian ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unconcerned by democracy, the rule of law or the ideas of free speech, Mursi is showing his true colours. From the recent warrant issued for Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef, to the continued use of the law to crush dissent or those who wish to practice the Christian faith, it is becoming increasingly clear that Mursi has little interest in real democracy.

The arguments about allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take part in elections go back at least as far as the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections in which Hamas, an off-shoot of the Brotherhood, triumphed over the secular Fatah party. It was argued that by allowing Hamas to participate, they would be moderated and if in power be forced to concern themselves with the operations of government, rather than terrorism. Above all, as the new book Tested by Zion makes clear, no one who was involved in the organisation of those elections actually believed the Islamists could win.

The same mistake was made in Egypt.

Winning just over half of the 50% of people who voted, in other words with only one quarter of eligible Egyptians having supported them, the Brotherhood has made sweeping attempts to crush dissent and choke off the possibility of a free and democratic Egypt emerging.

Due to the pathetic lack of principle in European foreign ministries and the US State Department, little if any pressure has been exerted to try and force Mursi to back down. Rather than use extensive foreign aid, IMF support and diplomatic relationships to push for an Egypt that promotes human rights, respects the rule of law and believes in the ideals it expouses, it appears that the West has decided ‘enough with the Middle East’ and moved on to caring about other things. Above all, preoccupation with domestic economic concerns has dragged any sort of foreign focus from the public imagination.

Such a position could do real damage not only to the people of Egypt, but to the West as well.

While Obama, Cameron, Merkel et all bury their heads in the sand, the Egyptian people are left to face the consequences of being ignored. Abused by their government, and ignored by foreign friends who once claimed to be taking a principled stand against dictatorship, they have little hope.

The attitude of the West is also short-sighted for their own interests, as ignoring the situation in Egypt only makes it more likely that it will eventually become even more of a breeding ground for extremism and base for terrorism than it already is. By ignoring Egypt now, the West is laying the groundwork for a security nightmare in the future.

In some ways maybe Egyptians – and indeed all Arabs – should be grateful that Mursi has not by some stroke of luck managed to fix Egypt’s catastrophic economic situation. Had he done so, perhaps he would have begun to change the perception that Islamism was capable of doing something other than spreading hate, confrontation and intolerance. Instead, the Egyptian President has shown that economic reform and management is far beyond those more concerned with spreading their pernicious and deadly ideology.

One cannot help but think back to Tahrir Square and the hope of so many people as the old dictatorship was thrown out. All that is left to hope for is that the new President will follow soon, and that this time the West will support the people of Egypt in freeing themselves of both secular and religious dictatorship.

Posted by David

This morning former New York City Mayor Ed Koch passed away at 88. I wanted to take a second to remember Koch for his very personal style of politics, which helped him remain a public servant to his city even in the years following his mayoralty. Koch – who inspired the city’s current mayor by teling him to make sure he attends as many parades as possible, because that is the best part of the job – was never a hypocrite, always a pragmatist, and persistently outspoken. While working on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s 2006 campaign, I once overheard Koch say, “If you agree with me on eight of ten issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on nine of ten issues, volunteer for me. If you agree with me on ten of ten issues, see a shrink.” Koch was great mayor, and a great American.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/01/ed-koch-mayor-who-became-a-symbol-of-nyc-dies/1882459/

Posted by Phil

It was just three short months ago that the ‘#unbonjuif‘ scandal was reported by this correspondent. Unfortunately, the French public has once again come together en masse to engage in grotesque attacks on the Jewish community. The hashtag in question this time has so far peaked at 3rd on French Twitter, and is ‘#sijetaisnazi‘, which translates as ‘If I were a Nazi’. The depressing familiarity of this episode does little to undo the damage it is doing to community relations in France. The time has come to seriously consider how much France is moving towards the same vicious anti-Semitism that animated its society during the Dreyfus Affair of the 1890s.

As discussed in previous articles on anti-Semitism in Europe, physical violence against Jews in France has increased almost 50% in the past year. The Government continues to be passive when it comes to this renewed threat against her citizens, and to offer little beyond a photo-op between a Rabbi and the French President to console the intensely vulnerable community.

To go with the violence, the new trend of Twitter based incitement is of real concern. It demonstrates the tech-savvy (predominantly young) population conforming with old stereotypes and hatreds. If the under-30s in France are as anti-Semitic as their parents and grandparents, then what hope is there for the hundreds of thousands of French Jews? Is there any future left for them in their country?

The truth is tragic, but French Jewry is not safe on the streets, on the internet or indeed in their synagogues. The leadership of that community must take drastic steps to persuade the political leadership of France of the urgency of their plight. Protection provided by the authorities can only be a stopgap measure, however, beating back the wolves long enough to allow French Jewry to find news homes.

So, where to for French Jewry? Thanks to freedom of movement within the European Union, the French Jews have the opportunity to go within the 27 member countries without any difficulty. The problem, of course, is that not very many of those countries are safe for Jews. To Belgium where they are assaulted in the street, or to Italy where they are stabbed on their way to prayers? Perhaps to Greece, where their synagogues are vandalised and set alight, or to Denmark where the Government now advises against wearing a yamacha in public? No, the majority of Europe is little safer for the Jews than France is today. The United Kingdom may be best within Europe, but even there anti-Semitic violence is rising, though admittedly from a very low base.

Only the United States or Israel are guaranteed to protect them, and even then they will have the missiles of Hamas and occasional rioting to deal with. Of those two, only one can provide a flourishing community with a clear, viable future. That, of course, is Israel.

The Dreyfus Affair of the 1890s helped give Zionism a boost that propelled it to become the dominant political ideology within Judaism of the 2oth century. The horror of what is happening in France today may well give aliyah (the return of Jews to Israel) the biggest boost in a generation.

France, are you not ashamed?

Posted by Phil

‘The Coalition of the Willing’ Iraq 2003

This Christmas Eve, as people around the world sit down with family and friends to celebrate the birth of Jesus, many thoughts will turn (and rightly so) to the suffering currently taking place in Syria. At this time of peace, and good will to all men, despair and misery reigns in that country. A tragic campaign of violence is claiming the lives of thousands, and the future of a nation. Many on the Dovish Left are screaming out for something to be done. For Assad to fall, for democracy and peace to come. Yet how do they want it achieved? The truth is, they are themselves responsible for the massacre that is unfolding before us.

The 2003 war in Iraq provoked a grotesque reaction around the world. Anti-Americanism reached epidemic levels in many European countries, while the Muslim world was incensed at this apparently reckless behaviour. A million people marched in London, and goodness knows how many more in countries that were not sending their young men and women into harms way. The attacks against the Bush Administration and the Blair Government in particular were vicious, often hugely inaccurate and  bent on finding some sinister plot behind it all.

The war proved to be the end of both Bush and Blair politically, a millstone around their necks for the rest of their time in office. The depth of feeling was so strong that some people postulated the development of a new ‘Iraq Syndrome’, similar to the long-lasting anti-interventionist forces unleashed by Vietnam. Certainly, intervening abroad has become politically much more difficult today in major Western countries than it was before Iraq. Libya is the key example, with an incredibly tepid response that only belatedly brought the end to the evil regime there.

Of course, much of what happened in Iraq was wrong. The loss of civilian life was horrendous. The very reason offered for the invasion – Saddam having WMDs – proved utterly incorrect. Historians and Iraqis themselves will debate for many years the suffering of that period (that sadly continues to this day) with the benefits of an emerging democracy, and the end of the reign of terror that Saddam engaged in. The danger with Iraq is that one learns the wrong lessons.

Take the example of Somalia, where the disaster of losing US Army Rangers in such a barbaric manner shocked President Clinton into standing by when it came to Rwanda. The lesson of Somalia was not to avoid deployment when there is a civil war that threatens genocide, but rather to do so with enough troops to guarantee the success of the mission.

The lesson of Iraq is not never to militarily disarm a regime you believe to be a threat, but rather to get the intelligence a hell of a lot better and to manage the post-conflict much more effectively, with more of a focus on protecting civilian life.

So what has all this got to do with Syria? Unfortunately, all too much.

Not all those protesting and drawing attention to Assad are on the political Left. Indeed, it is far more those who are closer to being neoconservative on foreign policy who are time and time again coming back to Syria, and holding governments to account for their inaction. There are some, however, who are standing up and protesting the violence and the suffering who come from the traditional Leftist mold. They are there outside of the Syrian Embassy every now and then, decrying the tactics of Assad and calling for international unity on this issue.

The problem, of course, is they have already killed the only solution.

The massive reaction that they whipped up about what happened in Iraq, means no politician is prepared to contemplate intervening directly in Syria. It just is not worth the risk to be called a war-monger, an American poodle or even a criminal. For what? For Syrians who don’t call G-d by the same name, have the same colour skin, or perhaps most importantly vote in our elections? Get real.

The only thing that would have persuaded Western leaders to take serious action to protect civilian life in Syria would have been an ideology that advocated intervention, and taking a principled stand against evil. The threats and the hate that came with Iraq have ended such positions being put forward publicly, perhaps for a generation, perhaps for good.

Is it not some form of poetic justice, that those who hated the neoconservatives so much, and who shouted the loudest against their proposals, are now the ones who need them the most?

No, it is not. Why? Because it is the Syrians who are being massacred for the shortsightedness of their European and American Leftist allies.

The irony of Syria, is that the reaction to Iraq is what caused the massacre.

Dear Senator-elect Warren,

I know that you, like all Americans, are grieving after this week’s tragic shooting at the Newtown Connecticut elementary school. I myself am overwhelmed with sadness at yet another senseless shooting. Beyond these feelings of grief, I am also overwhelmed by the feeling that, as soon as this horrible tragedy leaves the headlines, once again our nation will carry on with the same gun laws that allow deadly weapons to fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

Every time one of these horrendous incidents occurs, we hear talk about how things need to change, but nothing ever happens. I understand how difficult this issue is politically. That is why I have chosen to write to you. You were just chosen to represent Massachusetts after a ground-breaking election. You have a mandate to go into the Senate and to fight to protect your constituents and Americans nation-wide. If anyone is positioned to be a leader on this issue, it is you.

You made Massachusetts families the focus of your campaign. As today’s heartwrenching tragedy has demonstrated yet again, the biggest threat to families and public safety are lax gun laws.

Our nation is suffering and we are in need of your courageous leadership. Someday soon I hope to look back on this moment and to realize that we are living in a safer country thanks to brave leaders like yourself who stood up against violence. We elected you to fight for all of our families and history will judge whether you do so in this moment.

Sincerely,

Kendall

Posted by Laurence

Edit: I originally posted this on July 7th, 2012 after the Aurora shooting. I was going to post a new post given the horrific new CT shooting, but I’m at a loss for words. So I simply share what I’ve said before. 

My very first post on this blog was in 2011, shortly after the shooting in Tucson, Arizona where a shooter killed six people and shot another sixteen, including then-Representative Gabby Giffords.

In the post, I encouraged readers not to engage in a common fallacy: mixing up incident and issue. Shortly after the shooting, gun control sprang up as a hot-button issue. Some critics pounced on the topic, fiercely arguing that gun control proponents were politicizing the issue, while others suggested that gun control would have prevented the shooting entirely. I tried to point out that both arguments are flawed because they appeal to our emotional side rather than separating the one specific incident from the overall issue of gun control.

Shortly after Friday, the issue of gun control rose again in this country. The horrible shooting in Aurora, Colorado vaulted the nation back into a discussion of gun control, and now that we’re here, we might as well have a proper discussion.

As many have noted the shooter (who I refuse to refer to by name, let us make the victims celebrities and not the shooter) purchased all of his guns and ammunition completely legally. No one asked him if he had mental health issues or previous convictions (though, his issues were not known and he had no previous convictions, a point some quickly miss) and he purchased a gas mask, a bullet proof vest, smoke bombs, and the other materials for his horrendous act with ease. Among the legal guns he purchased was the AR-15, an automatic rifle that is the “civilian M-16″. An accurate and chilling moniker indeed: Why any citizen would want this gun for purposes that aren’t malevolent is beyond me.

It’s at this point in the discussion that the squabbling begins. Some argue that the killer would have found a way to obtain the guns even if they were illegal, or used other weapons. David Brooks employs this argument well in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, with an eloquently stated “guns don’t kill people, people kill people message” as he asks the nation to address mental health concerns. (To me, though noble, the goal of preventing shootings by increasing mental health institutions is just an extra and different solution, not a replacement solution.) Others point out that if more folks owned concealed weapons in the audience, someone could have stopped the shooter sooner. Others argue that making the AR-15 illegal could have prevented the entire incident.

But all of these stances miss the larger point. In this country, we tend to think of freedoms with an “innocent until proven guilty” mentality – that until one can definitively prove that we should not have a freedom, we should have a freedom to do that thing. This generally makes sense – we’re free to pursue happiness however we please.

Except when you think about it, that isn’t how we actually determine our freedoms at all. We are actually much more accustomed to using a John Stuart Mill inspired Harm Principle method of determining rights and freedoms in this country – you are free to do as you wish so long as what you do does not harm others.

Except, as Mill himself notes, there’s a terrible problem with this principle – almost all actions, once you extend their consequences, harm others in one way or another. If I eat some food, that’s less food for another person. If I get hired for a job, someone else has been deprived of that job opportunity. If I choose to swing my fist at someone’s face, that person gets punched in the face.

Clearly each of those examples display differing levels of harm, and yet they all involve harm in some way. So the principle is not, contrary to popular belief, that you are free to do something until you harm someone. Rather we must navigate a delicate balance of “how much harm” versus “how valuable is this freedom”.

All of this is to say that determining a freedom, contrary to popular belief, is a complicated and nebulous art. Clearly I should not have the freedom to swing my fist into someone’s face. And clearly I should be able to be hired for jobs, and to eat tortilla chips to my heart’s content. Or should I? Bloomberg’s new soda laws might contend that my consumption of soda affects others adversely (health care and hospital costs) and so my consumption of soda must be regulated. You may disagree with this law (as I do), but at the very least one can see that this stuff gets tricky fast.

This Mill-based argument is a circuitous way of saying that for me, gun control presents a somewhat simple case for the Harm Principle (more appropriately called a Harm Guideline in my humble opinion). Simply put, there are no truly valid costs to smart (note, not all) gun control laws that are comparable to the potential benefits.

First, I should say what I mean by “smart” gun laws. There are clearly decent reasons to be allowed to have, say, a pistol for self-defense. And hunting rifles have their place for hunters (although I believe that a separate but good argument can be made against these, though I won’t attempt that here). But the AR-15 has its place, well nowhere. The military uses M-16′s. Why do civilians need an equivalent?

By smart gun control laws, I mean laws that actually check to see if gun buyers have a history of mental health problems or previous conviction records or other tell-tale traditional markers of someone who could be a threat to society. By smart gun control laws, I mean the law Senator Frank Lautenberg has proposed to ban clips that hold more than 10 bullets. One never needs a clip of more than 10 bullets to hunt, practice, or protect oneself. The Senator proposed this law after the Tucson incident, where the shooter was finally tackled after he paused to reload – after using a 33-round magazine.

Those against laws like these normally make two arguments. They argue that 1) Gun laws have proven to be ineffective and 2) Such laws have been proven unconstitutional.

It’s true – there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that gun control laws tend to be ineffective. But this mountain of evidence has some gaps because the finer details are ignored. Gun laws like the one Senator Lautenberg has proposed have not been examined by these studies, and neither have laws that demand gun stores to check for mental health issues or prior criminal convictions for their customers.

But even putting these limitations aside, the mountain of evidence shouldn’t matter. The costs are incredibly low, and the potential benefits stack high. Asking gun store customers about their backgrounds before purchasing automatic guns costs little, and limiting legal magazines to hold 10 rounds costs nothing.

The second argument, the constitutional argument, appeals to authority rather than reason. The 2nd amendment continues to confuse and befuddle the nation. But the true upshot of District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago (if you read the cases) is that Americans do have the constitutional right to protect themselves. That’s a completely separate right, though, from the two proposals I’ve put forth, which definitely don’t stop Americans from defending themselves.

In sum, the debate on gun control in this country is vexed with logical confusion. People confuse the incident with the issue. They don’t consider more innovative gun control laws. Gun enthusiasts who see these potential laws as a “slippery slope” for our freedoms fail to recognize how we determine our legal freedoms in the first place. Once you put aside the confused and flawed arguments that most make about gun control, a simple conclusion remains: The potential benefits of intelligent and targeted gun laws are both necessary and extraordinary, regardless of the context that brings them forth, while the costs are mythical.

As with every shooting, there is always emergency care from the hospitals. Please support them as they try their best to keep the count from going above 20.
https://1460.thankyou4caring.org/page.aspx?pid=298

Posted by Phil

Less than six months into the job of President of Egypt, Mohammad Mursi has already demonstrated the well-founded nature of those who feared his rise in the first place. His most recent decision, to abolish legislative or judicial oversight over Presidential decisions, betrays his true politics. Mursi appears to be fulfilling the long-held view that was demonstrated so poignantly in Gaza a few years ago; allow Islamists to take part in democracy and they will dismantle it in favour of a system that entrenches their power. It can only be hoped that the Egyptian people will have the strength to drive this despot from office before it is too late.

After the fall of Hosni Mubarak, many on both the Left and the Right expressed their delight at the possibility of true democracy coming to Egypt, the crucible of the Arab world. Others expressed their unease at the legitimization of Islamist politics in such a fragile political environment. To some extent, that disagreement represents one of the great philosophical divides of contemporary foreign policy. Interest groups, scholars and policy-makers seem split on whether or not Islamism (quite distinct from Islam) can be reconciled with true democracy.

Those who supported the participation of Mursi and his Muslim Brotherhood argued that by participating in the democratic process, they would be forced to moderate to appeal to enough voters to take power. Once they had done so, the need to take responsibility for the day to day running of the country, from water and electricity to hospitals and schools, would overcome any political desires they still had to impose Shariah, persecute minorities or pursue a radical foreign policy.

The result in Egypt, it must be said, has been rather different. Today, Egyptian democracy (to the extent that it ever existed) is on life support. The life of a free society, free press, checks and balances and political integrity are being trampled by religious fanatics whose primary concern is the entrenchment of their own power. Mursi’s declaration has provoked shock and horror from NGOs, opposition figures and the judiciary. The justification for these steps used by the Muslim Brotherhood, that the situation requires emergency powers, is exactly the same as the one Mubarak used to crush dissent and ‘streamline’ the political process to his needs for 30 years.

Surely the example of Egypt must be heeded. The reality appears to be clear; Islamism stands in opposition to liberty and democracy. Wherever it comes to power, free societies are threatened. Be it in Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any country in the world, to Hamas where popular elections were followed by throwing of the defeated candidates off buildings, to today and the power-grab of Mursi, Islamists have proved themselves incapable of operating through legitimate means, even after their original rise has been given a democratic mandate.

Unfortunately, President Obama and other Western leaders seem convinced that any deviation from their ‘softly-softly’ approach in relation to Middle East democracy would have negative consequences. The emerging powers, meanwhile, care little if at all for human rights and democratic development, as long as natural resources continue to be exported. Both approaches will condemn the Middle East to decades of chaos and lost progress.

While fears about seeing to intrude in domestic political affairs are legitimate, too much is at stake to stay on the sidelines. If the United States and the West continue to muzzle their criticism of Mursi and his band of crooks, or the similar power-grabs that have occurred time and time again after the rise of Islamists, they will have sacrificed what they claim to be universal values at the altar of political expediency. It is legitimate for the West to say that democracy is only when the rule of law is respected, all parts of society are safe, and politicized religion is kept firmly in its corner.

If they do not speak up now, the face of the new Middle East, will look an awful lot like that of the old Middle East.

Despotic, undemocratic, and doomed to failure.