Iran’s government, while brutal and tyrannical, is not “totalitarian.” And the fact that Iran hawks think it is helps explain why their strategy for stopping Iran’s nuclear program makes no sense.
Words matter. And so long as Iran hawks keep mischaracterizing what Iran is, they’ll keep offering bad advice about what America should do.
Source: The Iran Nuclear Talks: Is the U.S. Negotiating With a Totalitarian State? – The Atlantic
Second Amendment activists are redefining the public sphere, and with it, American democracy.
What good is it to carry a gun in public if you are not also legally protected when using it in self-defense—or perceived self-defense? How are guns supposed to deter criminals if gun owners are legally hindered from wielding their weapons? Stand Your Ground removes these legal barriers so that people can better protect themselves.
But this also has social consequences. Thanks to Stand Your Ground, citizens must now fear their armed neighbors in addition to prospective criminals. … In a Stand Your Ground society, it makes sense to suspect your neighbor—and fear the worst.
In addition to pushing Stand Your Ground laws, the NRA fought universal background checks. Their premise—that it will not stop hardened and determined criminals from accessing guns—ensured that criminals could have easy access to guns at gun shows or from unscrupulous arms dealers.
In pushing this agenda, the gun-rights movement mistakenly urges supporters to think that public order rests upon overt shows of force. In a democracy, however, peace is founded on rule of law.
an armed and potentially violent public only goads the government into action and force. Law enforcement knows that gun owners may use their weapons recklessly, and prepares itself accordingly. … an over-armed society makes government bigger, more intrusive, and more aggressive in carrying out its vested duty of maintaining order. It goads government, and the law enforcement officials who work for it, towards arbitrary shows of power and force.
Unless a court intervenes, the state will have to allow an attorney to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would authorize mass murder.
I’m even less sure what to think of the plan (threat?) to publicize the names of anyone who signs the petition. Sure, I and everyone I’d willingly associate with would be strongly against the proposal (it is, truly, wretchedly offensive), but isn’t outing people for their personal beliefs and political actions (especially those so out of favor that violence might be directed at them were they known) also wrong?
From comments:
I have mixed feelings on the concept of the “outing”. On the one hand, there is the problem with the possibility if intimidation, but on the other, the anonymity has allowed for some very questionable, if not vile political campaigns given nobody actually has to own up to their belief.
In the end I tend to think what value does a “belief” have if one is not willing to own up to it? Its one thing to demand legislation that alters other people’s life in a negative way, but being allowed to hide who is making the demands? Its bad enough that we now allow the funding sources of such campaigns to be hidden under the guise of free speech.
We wind up with a lot of vitriol spewed whose author’s remain hidden behind bland shell organizations, immune from having consequences for their actions. Its like a modern version of the KKK, hiding behind their white sheets, free to burn crosses and shout epithets, immune from consequences because nobody knows who they are.
Is it “fair” for a corporation, public or private, to use its financial and economic position to sway social policy?
The administration is so focused on countering the threat of violent extremism that it purposely downplays the ideologies that motivate extremists.
In Cameron’s view, violence is a symptom of a problem, but is not itself the problem. The problem is the rejection of liberal values by a substantial number of recent immigrants to liberal societies, and by their children and grandchildren. Terrorism manifests that rejection, but even when terrorism is contained by effective police work, the challenge remains intact.
The Obama administration repudiates this view. The Obama administration believes the problem is violent extremism. Of course it’s wrong, in this view, to kill cartoonists who caricature Muhammad. But wishing such cartoons suppressed by non-violent means does not present a similarly-urgent threat. Indeed, those who wish such cartoons suppressed by means short of violence may be our best allies in the struggle against violence, precisely because they have the most credibility with the people who might otherwise turn to violence.
Source: Why Obama Won’t Talk About Islamic Terrorism – The Atlantic