He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists. First, the United States began a troop surge in Afghanistan designed to deliver the final blow to the Taliban insurgency. Not one media institution connected the dots that the United States was actively funding the harm that its armed forces were simultaneously fighting. Perhaps such mistakes are the inevitability of a bloated war bureaucracy, or that U.
It is our job to see that it stays there. The political principle at stake is quite simple: This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear.
The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue.
Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right? It is my perception, based on public evidence, as well as countless conversations on the subject, that the latter position is that of most self-identified American liberals. However they may occasionally, tactically, craft their discourse to pretend, for an audience that does value the right of citizens to arm themselves, that they too value that right, most American liberals just do not.
They do not even understand why it should be considered a right at all, in the sense elaborated above. They would love to restrict it as much as possible, and they would just as soon be done with the American constitutional guarantee of that right, the Second Amendment, which they see as some kind of embarrassing anachronism.
I think we should have this discussion honestly. If the latter is your position, say it. If you want to eliminate the Second Amendment right, mount a forthright political campaign to do so. When your discourse reeks with intellectual and moral disdain for gun-rights and gun-rights advocates, when it never endorses, and indeed at best studiously avoids, the issue of gun ownership as a fundamental political right, it shows.
I would have done it. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.
How persuasive is this performance by pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands Joe? Those who understand gun ownership as a fundamental political right correctly perceive, and are right to resist, the intended threat of its incremental elimination in gun-control laws that will have little to no practical effect, other than to demand more acts of compliance and submission to the armed authority of the state.
This is not about whether anybody likes or dislikes guns, and certainly nobody should fetishize them. It is unfortunate that, as with many debates in this country, the gun-rights debate is cast in the media as a clash between two extremely silly camps — those who fetishize guns positively, and those who fetishize them negatively.
For there to be a serious political debate, both of these attitudes really have to be recognized, and dropped, by those who inhabit them. I think there should be fewer guns. I definitely think that the cultural representation of armed violence as a quick, effective, and attractive solution for all kinds of personal and social problems, which is ubiquitous in America, is ridiculous and pernicious.
The answer to that is to do a lot of determined political and cultural work, not to pass a law and call in the armed police, the courts, and the penal system to enforce it on people who have done nothing wrong. Guns are neither magic talismans against tyranny nor anathematic objects that cause crime and violence.
Guns — certainly the personal firearms that are in question — carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect. Indeed it is because they are powerful and dangerous that they are the nexus of an important political right.
But guns are not agents of history.
They are not, per se, going to free a polity from oppression or generate unrestrained social violence. Within an insurgent political movement, they can at certain moments be useful, even crucial, for the former outcome; and, within a context of social decay brought on by other factors, they can seriously exacerbate the latter.
Their overall positive or negative effect is only determined by the political and social context in which they are used, and the character of the agents who use them. American liberals can all too easily recognize and disparage the positive fetishism regarding guns, but can be blind to their own negative fetishism.
Such a consistent, rigorous, pacifism is an honorable position, and those who hold and live it deserve respect. They are, however, few and far between, and most American liberals are not among them.
The vast majority of American liberals — like persons of all other groups — while they want to live peaceful lives, free of violence, for themselves and everyone else in the world, support the use of armed force in defense of themselves, their loved ones, and some political agenda or another.
While they actually hold a position that accepts legitimate uses of armed force, a lot of American liberals like to imagine that they are living in some kind of sympathetic identity with their edited, angelic versions of King and Gandhi, and they are shocked, shocked, and react with utter revulsion, at the discourse of people who proclaim upfront that they are not.
The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.
But this kind of presumption is annoying wherever it saturates liberal discourse — which is kind of everywhere.The idea and image of black Haitian revolutionaries sent shock waves throughout white America.
That black slaves and freed people might turn violent against whites, so obvious in this image where a black soldier holds up the head of a white soldier, remained a serious fear in the hearts and minds of white Southerners throughout the antebellum period.
Democracy is an ideal many people have struggled for. Yet, different forms of democracy attract different forms of corrupting influences and challenges. This article attempts to explore these issues. This essay delves deeply into the origins of the Vietnam War, critiques U.S.
justifications for intervention, examines the brutal conduct of the war, and discusses the antiwar movement, with a separate section on protest songs. Anti-Corruption: The Global Fight is a new handbook from IIP Publications that outlines the kinds of corruption, their effects, and the ways that people and governments combat corruption through legislative and civil society actions.
Current Affairs Weekly Compilations for UPSC IAS IPS Civil Service Exam from PIB, Hindu, Indianexpress. Cultural Fiesta celebrated at TIHS “ The aim of education is knowledge not of facts but of values’ Keeping the above thought in mind, we, at The Indian Heights School provide ample opportunities to our young learners to grow & .