My Piece entitled “The Gun Control Gatekeepers” originally printed in thefirmmagazine.com

Tags

gun control, news, Obama, politics

On December 8, 2004 a guitarist for a heavy metal band called Pantera (amongst others) named Dimebag Darrell was shot on stage during a performance in Columbus, Ohio. A concertgoer videotaped the incident. A man ran across the stage and shot Dimebag multiple times in the head. A bouncer was also shot and killed. A police officer can be seen with a shotgun coming onto stage and killing the attacker, ending the ordeal. The murder seems to happen so fast and in spite of a police presence at the concert, makes a mockery of the NRA argument that the lack of armed guards and teachers allowed the Newtown, Connecticut shootings to happen. 

It seems routine now. I used to go drinking in a pub in Blacksburg, Virginia, the home of Virginia Tech and the scene of one of Americas most deadly campus shootings, where 33 people were gunned down in their classrooms. When one’s drinking hole appears in the background of footage of a University mass murder, it hits home, believe me. I’ll be honest and as damning as it sounds, nothing really surprises me about Newtown, Connecticut. I know that is shocking in its brutal honesty, but I have seen too many of these types of incidents. I am only shocked at the age of the victims, not the number. Columbine, Blacksburg, Newtown.

 

As of 2009, the United States had a population of 307 million people. Based on production data from firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns. Having lived in the southern US for 15 years I can tell you unequivocally guns and, more importantly, the rights of gun ownership are a way of life. Here are two cases in point. One of my rather glamorous female friends recently posted a picture of herself on Facebook in a shooting stance while holding a Colt 45 handgun with the caption, “This is my stance on gun control”. Another friend posted a series of pictures of his young son firing a semi-automatic rifle at a target on a farm with his proud father and grandfather looking on. He is eight years old.

 

After the Newtown tragedy, everyone with a computer seemed to have an opinion on gun control and furthermore, published it or tweeted it. People started asking the same old questions – why and how can someone get access to 6000 rounds of ammunition? What will Congress do to toughen the gun laws? Even Piers Morgan used his CNN pulpit to demand changes in the gun laws. (He was rewarded with a White House petition with 70,000 signatures demanding his deportation back to the UK). President Obama promptly reacted, promising a new set of laws to ban assault weapons and to ensure people suffering mental health get tough restrictions on accessing guns. As we all know, mentally ill Newtown shooter Adam Lanza didn’t access guns illegally. He gained access to his mother’s weapons and killed her with them. He left the family home and went to the school where he murdered another 26 people before taking his own life. 

I read Alistair Bonnington’s piece in the Firm magazine. Mr Bonnington, former principal solicitor to BBC Scotland and former Honorary Professor of Law at Glasgow University, has unfortunately placed too little emphasis on understanding the legal position of the Justices of the Supreme Court placing too much faith in their ability to “rise above the self-interest of politicians”. The law of the land in America is clear. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. In the US, States and municipalities have tried and passed gun control laws. If there ever was a democratic need to pass sensible gun control, it was in Washington DC – the murder capital of the US. The DC council passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 which restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. As stated by the local council committee that recommended its adoption, the major substantive goal of the District’s handgun restriction is “to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia.” DC Regulations also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Seems reasonable. 

A lawsuit challenging the Regulation Act was brought by six residents of Washington DC with vague connections to the effects of gun control. It was a manufactured lawsuit. It was dismissed by the District Court. Lawyers appealed and the ban was ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruling, which can be read in its entirety here enlightens the reader as to how current Supreme Court Justices think. Justice Scalia, for example, states: 

“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” 

In other words, Justice Scalia doesn’t see any ability to construe the language of the Constitution vested in the Court. Scalia is an old-fashioned conservative Justice. Give the words their ordinary meaning, in their initial context. Yet Justice Scalia did exactly this in DC v Heller. He suggests the Second Amendment could be reinterpreted to sound better: 

“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” 

In DC v Heller, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion where the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia’s Regulations Act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”. Furthermore, he dismissed the “well-regulated militia” argument in Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion: 

“Justice Stevens is of course correct … that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined “assembly,” as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon membership in a defined militia. And Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.” 

I have sat uncharacteristically quiet in the aftermath of the Newtown Connecticut murders. I don’t publically express my arguments for tighter gun control or thoughts on these types of shootings anymore. I admit I am probably very jaded. When two 13 year old kids shot their own classmates in Jonesboro, Arkansas, I heard people screaming for tighter gun control measures. That was in 1998. There have been 37 mass shootings since then including Columbine and Fort Hood, where 13 members of the military where killed. Think about the NRA’s argument now. It really is silly, isn’t it?

Despite donating $22 Million to Congressional Members, (at the rate of 6-1 Republican donations to Democratic Party), it is not the NRA that is the biggest voting bloc in opposition to gun control; it is the US Supreme Court. If Americans want to have any meaningful change in that country’s gun laws, then they have to change the make-up of the Supreme Court. I just don’t see any other way. Single issue voting is infamously prevalent in the US. Look no further than the abortion debate. If you want to ensure a good portion of the electorate votes for you, you could run as Satan himself, but if you are pro-life, I would estimate 30-40% of the electorate in some districts will vote for you regardless of Hell being your domicile. If the right wing can make one’s position on abortion a litmus test of appointment to the US Supreme Court, then why can’t the moderate middle and left ensure candidates pass a gun control litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court? 

Social media sites give people an outlet for their opinion, and there will no doubt be pressure on lawmakers to do something, anything to prevent another mass murder. Unfortunately, I fear the Newtown story will just fade away. Try and name a victim from Columbine. Name a victim from the Batman Theatre shooting in Aurora. The victims’ faces will disappear. There will be another crisis and another shooting. A law or two will pass Congress, but as long as Justice Scalia and other members of the Supreme Court continue to construe the Second Amendment in a manner that allows for these types of weapons with extra capacity clips to be “routinely” kept around the house for self-defence, expect no change to the gun laws.

Want meaningful gun control laws? Clear out the gate-keepers, America. Demand to know the position of any nominees to the highest court in the land. You do this on pro-life matters, and after all, what is more pro-life than sensible gun control?

Advertisements

Responding to Burwell: President Obama and Benghazi…

Tags

Benghazi, blog, Criticsim, democracy, Obama, politics

My good friend, writer and conservative Burwell Stark, made his return to blogging today writing about the incompetence of President Barack Obama’s handling the aftermath of a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. As you will know, I am a walking talking proud liberal and have in the past taken Burwell to task for some of his posts – or tried to anyway.  To read Burwell’s blog, click here. For background reading on the attack on the Libyan embassy in Benghazi, check out a fair NY Times report.

Warning: Obligatory dig at George W. coming up…

Let’s start by saying, President Obama, when faced with an OBVIOUS attack, like say, 9/11 didn’t sit in a classroom reading an upside children’s book looking like a deer in headlights with Ari Fleischer whispering in his ear, “Mr President, the country is under attack”..

Now we got that out of the way…

It appears the central bone of contention for Burwell appears to be this: “Why did it take Obama 14 days to specifically label the Benghazi attack an act of terror?”  He asks this question before going on to accuse the president of incompetence for not reading his daily intelligence briefing.

I have been strangely puzzled by the Benghazi story. Of course, the killing of an ambassador on the most tragic of American days, September 11^th, will rightly burn more than on any other day in the calendar. It was the day that changed everything.

Maybe it was the images of the ambassador’s body bruised and bloodied surrounded by his attackers? It reminded me a lot the humanitarian intervention in Somalia where American bodies were dragged across Mogadishu. George Bush, Sr. sent troops there, and shortly afterwards, President Clinton gauging the country’s temperature for American soldiers getting brutally murdered on a humanitarian mission ordered all the troops home.

After the attacks, President Obama came out that afternoon and made the following statement, referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror, and saying:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

Maybe it was a tactical decision that on the 11 of September, that Obama thought the country was wanting to mourn its dead and deal with remembering the victims rather than hear of yet another attack on a fellow countryman? I dont know. I am only speculating, but I imagine Obama didnt want to fire people up on that day of all days.  He went on to refer to the attack as an act of terror twice the following day, once in Colorado and once in Las Vegas.

So why and how in the world is Obama discredited with not calling the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack?

Burwell falls back on empirical claims to back his claims up, specifically that the President spends more time with Hollywood and Big Bird than he does getting his daily intelligence briefing.  Firstly, this seems to suggest that the Benghazi attack wouldn’t have happened if Obama had read his daily briefings.

I can imagine the planners sitting in Libyan Desert, waiting on walkie talkies for someone to phone through:

“Breaker, breaker! It’s a go. Obama did not read briefing!”

“Roger that.. 10-4 good buddy!!”

“Uh, Abdul…we just got confirm on the squawker box, Obama didn’t read his briefing today!”

“It’s a go, attack! Attack! Roger. Abdul, over and out!”

Of course, I jest Burwell. We have an understanding. Much of it has to do with the fact I like to give the President credit, and he doesn’t like to give him any, even when it is due.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but President Obama likes to read his intelligence briefings by himself. This is where I take umbrage with Burwell’s remarks. He is still briefed daily. He still gets his reports. According to National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor, the President does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. Obama does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

American Enterprise Institute Op-ed writer Marc Thiessen recounts a story about President John F. Kennedy. He once gathered every living American Nobel laureate for dinner at the White House in 1962 and declared it “the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

I am not going to go as far as to state that Obama is a Jefferson, but what I am willing to stake is that Obama is smarter than Bush. He is also less manipulated by the advisors around him. Can you say, “neo-con”? Dick Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? Douglas Feith? There is something to be said for reading your intelligence briefings on your own.

This only leaves Burwell’s argument that Obama failed at interpreting the issues regarding the attack, with the specific accusation that he did not provide enough security. When a set of State Department emails were released Wednesday, one reporting that a local Islamist militia had claimed responsibility for the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, conservatives thought they had the smoking gun that the Obama administration had lied about what had occurred.

Reuters reported Wednesday that on September 11—the day of the attack—a State Department email with the subject header “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack” was sent to the White House. The message stated that “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.” Case closed, conservatives said: The White House had engaged in a cover-up.

There’s only one problem. The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn’t post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn’t take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, “Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders.” The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, “We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad].”

I know this makes perfect sense to most of us, but when one sees something on Facebook, we shouldn’t always believe it. We analyse it. We study it. We look at the previous history of the type of action and the area of the world where it comes from. We often look beyond our comfort zones. It is only then that we should come to a conclusion. But of course, with this President, it seems the right wing is concerned more with coming to knee jerk reactions and labelling based on biases and prejudices than actually taking the time to analyse intelligence. I am still waiting for someone on the right to tell me what was lost by Obama not responding immediately to the attack in the manner in which they wanted him to? Has the Middle East and North Africa not seen enough of knee-jerk reactions in recent times?

This protest is sponsored in part by…my response to Burwell Stark

Tags

Burwell, Obama, politics, Protest

It amazes me how quick some people are to keep homing in on the ‘soap’ issue as that this is sidetracking from the point of the protest. If one loses their soap, do they lose the right to protest? Secondly, people from all walks of life are protesting under the #occupy banner. I the UK we protest against David Cameron and his Conservative party’s agenda of making cuts to the public sector and shutting down hospitals and police forces to push through “austerity” measures to save money without taxing the very banks that got us into the mess in the 1st place. When our corporations use tax avoidance to get out of paying £6 billion in corporation tax, then we protest against that.

Secondly, one is incredibly naive to suggest that the powerful and the people responsible for this mess are in Washington DC. The Corporations in American bought and own the legislative branch a long time ago. As Professor Lawrence Lessig suggests, “the republic is lost” and we need another constitutional convention to get it back.

Thirdly, I don’t think with all due respect, people understand what socialism is. I live in the UK – a socialist country. Germany, France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia – all socialist. The anecdote about Tom Morello and him selling cartoon comic strips makes me think you don’t understand exactly what socialism is. The UK, Germany, France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, all have businesses that try and make a profit!

I don’t think there is any doubt capitalism won in the US. Labour lost the battle a long time ago. So the anger toward the US economic policies are rooted in the fact that Europe all invested in the US guaranteed sub-prime market based on your own AAA rating. Capitalism and the Bush policies of deregulation meant that we all have to now pay the price regardless of who we voted for.

In the UK’s Companies Act, ss172-178 on Directors Duties, directors of all companies are meant to “give regard to’ the wider communities of “stakeholders” like the communities, workers and environment when making decisions on behalf of the company. The premise is that in the long-run everything will work out as there will be less lawsuits, less disgruntled employees, and better relationships within the communities in which they operate.

British banks, however, failed in anyway to be “enlightened’ or provide “stakeholder” value. They received a bailout from the government not once, but twice. In the US there was no penalty from the government, and the bailout that George W authorized was for $1.00 on the dollar. But in turn, have responded by making bad debts into redundancies, charging for cash withdrawals, etc. So let me get this straight. US corporations cause the problem. Get bailed out from the government, take no penalty for the error of their ways, and then get to charge us and fire us as thanks? I am surprised there is not more than 300 core supporters. In fact, I am disappointed that Manhattan island is not at a standstill!

I am aware of lots of good hard-working Americans who have gone down to Wall Street with food and to offer support – whether it is in the form of video taping the NYPD’s finest in action and posting it online, or to give them support in other ways. What is wrong with that? It is naive to take an image from the news and assign it to everyone who is in the movement? Is mainstream media corrupted the minds so much that we all need a bath if we support the #occupy movement? (I do, but because I am just off of a bike, but am going for a shower now with some soap!)

Ben & Jerry’s used to have a policy that no employee’s rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees. In 1995, entry-level employees were paid $8 hourly, and the highest paid employee was President and Chief Operating Officer Chuck Lacey, who earned $150,000 annually. While this policy is not in place anymore because of the Unilever buyout, the US leads the world in CEO pay – In 2007, CEOs in the S&P 500, averaged $10.5 million annually, 344 times the pay of typical American workers. This was a drop in ratio from 2000, when they averaged 525 times the average pay.
So the Ben and Jerry’s story is actually quite apt – manage your company effectively while considering the welfare of the greater good including the communities and the employees and the environment and good things will come to you. This is not biting off the system that feeds you, it is good and sound management.

So please don’t think the #occupy movement is anti-capitalist or anti corporation – despite some people holding up banners that say so. It is about placing the bill at the footsteps of those who can most afford to get out of the mess, not the people who have the least to do with it. So when GE $150 billion of revenue and $12 billion of profit last year and pays less than $13000 in taxes, there is something fundamentally broken in the system.

So I’ll end with a comment about the mainstream media coverage of the events. I know of a few hundred University students that went down to the #occupy camp and offered support. Some rich, some poor, all scared about the future. So when I asked how it was down there – they responded with a word – “packed”. It is not a group of 300 looking for handouts and told to “get over it” – the movement is large.

Check out the picture that sums it up.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150389600721187&set=a.465163196186.274856.752531186&type=3&theater

“Nothing to see here, move along now. Only a small group of 300 here…”. I dont think so. In a recent poll, some 37% supported the #occupywallstreet movement – which is proportionally over 100 million Americans. The movement will have its distracters like Fox News and the WSJ and those who live comfortably within their own existences thinking if it works for me, then it must work for everyone else.

But…

There is another way that allows for Americans to keep on to their values and their capitalism. But right now the movement wants those who made the mess to pay to clean it up.

Nothing less.

Responding to Burwell

Tags

Obama, politics

I wrote the following in response to a blog by Burwell Stark, a conservative politician who writes from Wake Forest, NC.

A responsible and thought-provoking article, this is not. Invoking the typical rumour spreading that has facilitated from Fox News about soap throughout the piece unless the Americans have invented a TV that transmits odour then you are repeating rumours. Yes, the movement is with hard core supporters, but it is those core 300 than give the fruit the rest of the movement to grow around. One didn’t have to be on a bridge in Selma to support the civil rights movement. It was relating to the symbolism of a core group of supporters walking across the bridge that gave people something to believe and to support when free to migrate to Wall Street. In my profession, I have seen civil leaders, law professors, dignitaries, and others come out of support. One doesn’t need to join your army to support your troops. A dignified ribbon or a flag One can do it in another way. IN my country of Scotland and here in Glasgow, there have been marches and protests in support of the #occupy movement, but again I simply don’t think you get what it is about. IN the UK the movement is united in protests to the austerity cuts – largely implemented to cover the costs of bailing out our own banks. Yet we are routinely told that we all have to cover our “fair share” and the VAT tax has increased from 17.5% to 20%, and energy prices are pushing inflation to 5.9% although wholesale prices peaked in September 2008, the prices have not dropped the 20% that the wholesale prices have. When a company is able to structure its corporate finances in a way that makes its tax liability 0%, it is hard to stomach that we are all paying our “fair share”. This is what the 99% movement is about. We did not nothing to make the mess, but are being forced to clean up the 1%’s.

BUrwell’s original post which can be found here…

http://burwellstark.com/2011/10/20/this-protest-is-sponsored-in-part-by/

Lately, I can hardly turn on the television, open a newspaper or browse a website without seeing something about the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Almost every network regularly features breaking news of the daily march from Zuccotti Park to Wall Street, interviews with yet another 67-year-old retiree/first time protester or the announcement of the latest city to host its own OWS-style protest.

How fortunate for media executives that the OWS protest came along when it did. Otherwise, what would they have done to fill the time?

Based on the disproportionate coverage the protest receives, you would be excused for thinking that the majority of U.S. citizens, as well as citizens from over “1,000 countries,” are involved in the movement.

However, the inconvenient truth is that in New York City there are only about 300 regular OWS protesters out of a population of almost 8.2 million.

This equates to .003 percent of the population of the city, which, even in network media math, is less than 1 percent.

The group may be small but the media attention is large. So who are the Occupy Wall Street participants and what are they protesting? In their own words (according to their website): “We are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.”

What are do they mean when they say they are the 99 percent? In a word, they are trying to differentiate themselves from the “1 percent.” And just who are the 1 percent? According to the Michael Moore-style documentary The One Percent, they are “the top one percent of Americans in terms of wealth, who controlled 38 percent of the nation’s wealth” in 2001.

So, in solidarity with the majority of Americans, the protestors have been living in Zuccotti Park for almost a month without basic wash facilities.

How is that showing support? Even most of America’s homeless can access showers and toilets if they desire.

They may say they are the 99 percent and are patterning their actions after the Arab Spring, but at this point I bet New York residents would prefer they be the 99.44 percent and spend more time using Irish Spring.

Do you agree? Raise your hand if you’re sure.

Not only are they showing their allegiance to the 99 percent in a malodorous way that doesn’t reflect reality, but the OWS protestors have attracted some interesting supporters since the movement began.

Just last week, Ben and Jerry’s ice cream announced its support of the protesters saying: “[We] wish to express our deepest admiration to all of you who have initiated the non-violent Occupy Wall Street Movement and to those around the country who have joined in solidarity. The issues raised are of fundamental importance to all of us.”

This news will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Ben and Jerry’s ice cream; they have long been known to take socially liberal and progressive stands. However, what most people don’t know is that in 2000 Ben and Jerry’s sold out to the multinational corporation Unilever.

Unilever is a British and Dutch conglomerate that had $60.97 billion in revenue for FY 2010.

What? A large corporation is sponsoring OWS? That’s ironic even by Alanis Morissette’s loose definition. And if that wasn’t enough, Unilever is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Yet Unilever is small compared to the endorsement that came over the weekend. In dedicating the Martin Luther King Jr memorial, President Obama virtually equated OWS with “the 1960s social movement” of Dr. King.

Really? The struggle for income equality is synonymous with the struggle for racial equality? Is that what Dr. King fought against and ultimately gave his life for? I don’t think so.

The longer the Occupy Wall Street movement lasts, the more I am convinced that it is becoming anti-Sesame Street. The two latest endorsements only serve to strengthen that impression.

I think it’s safe to say, based on recent announcements, that this protest is brought to you by the letter “O” and sponsored in part by viewers like Unilever.

Now go and do your part- use some soap.

 

#occupyBP

Tags

BP, Obama, politics

BP announced $4.5Billion in profit for the 3rd Quarter of 2011 and has deducted the cost of the Gulf oil spill clean-up off its bottom line ensuring that the $40 billion that they put aside effectively is subsidized by the US taxpayer as they can claim back credit at the rate of 35% for losses accrued. Although spot rates for Natural gas peaked in 2006 at 15 and again in 2008 at 14, they are currently less than $4, has your bill dropped by 2/3 accordingly? So in a Quarter where they have a profit of $4.5 BILLION in profit, they are effectively are paying no tax and have asked for £330Million back from HMRC for wrongly paying stamp duty tax on a purchase made 10 years ago and might get a $2.5 BILLION refund from the US government on the basis that it can deduct expenses off of the tax bill for cleaning up the Gulf Oil Spill. Fuck #occupywallstreet, #occupyBP!