New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Too often public opinion reacts with more emotion than reason to events of magnitude such as the Virginia Tech shooting of a month ago. Rather than take perspective on a monumental tragedy much of the public, the media, and politicians will move to use the event as an expedient for pushing an authoritarian agenda, and all the while they will remain oblivious to the fact that individuals have rights whose legitimacy does not waver with the breeze of public opinion.

Rights, to the contrary, are inalienable and they include not just the right to property, but the corollary right to self-defense. The right to bear arms proceeds from those two concepts: (a) the right to own the gun as property itself; and (b) the right to use it against anyone who threatens or attacks your own safety or property. Anyone who wishes to take that right away from you in the name of peace and public harmony are hypocrites, for, it is guns and force that the government itself must employ to keep its private citizens from having guns.

Let us first remember that crimes and violence are not committed because guns exist–crimes and violence exist because there are evil people in the world who believe that it is morally permissible–or expedient–to initiate force upon individuals at their own whim. Whether or not guns existed there would be crime–crimes occurred even before guns existed, believe it or not. Moreover there are even crimes committed without guns. Who would have thought? It is the people motivated to do so who are the driving force behind murder, and thus laws to limit murder must be concentrated on de-incentivizing criminal action–namely effectively enforcing the law, and strictly punishing violations thereof.

Re-examine Virginia Tech for a moment and recall that the perpetrator of the shootings, Seung-Hui Cho, was himself declared “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization” in 2005 and certified as “[presenting] an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness” by a Virginia judge. The problem at Virginia Tech was one with an individual, not with a nationwide policy of lax gun control.

And in this case, more guns may have actually been the remedy–not the cause–of such a grotesque death toll. Virginia Tech was notably a “gun-free zone” and as such it was against the rules for anyone to carry even concealed firearms on campus for the purpose of self-defense. By doing so those populating Virginia Tech were rendered helpless by anyone who carried a gun into the school with malicious intentions.

As we can see in the case of VA Tech, banning guns does nothing other than make self-defense impossible. When even a well intentioned administration makes carrying a gun illegal it makes it so only criminals will be carrying guns–and those criminals will not have any immediate barriers to their malicious intents. Gun control does not prevent crime, it incentivizes it.

Some feel that permitting a gun in the school is unsafe. But sometimes there is a difference between feeling safe and being safe. The fact remains, when administrations ban guns they also ban self defense, and in no way will that make any of us safer from those with the intent of harming us.

The fact remains that the right to own guns is enumerated in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Obviously it must have been significant to the framers if they made it the second of all rights enumerated in the constitution. During the zeitgeist of 1800 the notion of needing to seek approval from the government to own a gun would have been laughed at. As a matter of fact, gun registration was not issued in this country until after the War Between the States ended and the slaves were emancipated—why do you think that was?

Today, authoritarian intellectuals who couldn’t load and fire a rifle if their individual rights depended on it scoff at the idea that individuals need guns. “Collecting is childish–Hunting is cruel and primitive–Shooting at a range is pointless” are all conclusions we could expect gun controlists to make. Certainly collecting, hunting, and shooting on the range are all activities that must be protected by gun rights, but it wasn’t recreation for which the framers wrote the second amendment. The right to bear arms was perhaps the single most important check on government power written into the constitution. In light of a violent separation from an overbearing government the framers recognized that the last resort to protect the people from a monstrous dictatorship—whose power itself derived from its use of force–was to give the people the power to fight back against it. And to reserve that right it must give them the right to bear arms, because if the government were ever to effectively ban the ownership of guns there would be no power left to keep it from overrunning all individual freedom.

Popularity: 58% [?]

I’m at the Personal Democracy Forum at Pace University in New York City right now watching a group seminar with Jay Rosen, Mike Connell, Jeff Jarvis, and Walter Fields. I’ll be publishing more thoughts about this morning’s sessions and what was said later this evening and over the weekend. Jay Rosen, founder of NewAssignment.net and AssignmentZero, is discussing both projects and his new partnership with the Huffington Post. Today, Rosen has given the project a name. OfftheBus, the project’s new name, will be a collaboration between NewAssignment.net and the Huffington Post in an effort to bring the public the best election coverage. Arianna Huffington was unable to make PdF today although she was a scheduled speaker. Rosen cited that he believed that having over forty independent bloggers in cities around the country to cover the elections would be a far better alternative than having one journalist stay with the presidential campaign.

The new website will help to foster new media interaction in the presidential campaigns, something that’s been sorely lacking in recent campaigns. Will 2008 be the year of the democratization of election coverage? According to several of the panelists, new breakthroughs in media and pilot projects like Rosen’s NewAssignment and AssignmentZero signal what’s to come. Jeff Jarvis, both an old media pioneer and a champion of new media causes, seems to approve of Rosen’s new project with several reservations. The audience seems to have come to the same consensus. Only time, however, will tell if the distributed reporting in the 2008 elections will hold up to that of professional reporters.

Popularity: 74% [?]

For all the obvious inferences attached to the word, the very idea of secession is widely repudiated in American culture–except maybe in some areas of the nostalgic deep south. But recent murmers of secessionist sentiments in the state of Vermont have revealed the issue to a larger audience. In a Washington Post op-ed from Sunday, two secessionists–Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan–enumerate the reasons for which they wish the “state of Vermont” to become the “Republic of Vermont”:

Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.

Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.

The point being made, in essence, is that the Government of the Union has become too big and too coercive and has simultaneously infringed upon state and individual rights and thus Vermont no longer wishes to leave.

Secession lacks legitimacy in the court of public opinion because Americans unconditionally attach the idea to the old slave south; but in all their endless ignorance, the masses have made an unnecessary association. Perhaps America’s memory only can stretch as far back as the War Between the States; perhaps it forgets how America was born–it suceded from the British Empire. If the first American patriots did not believe that secession was a viable political tool, then we would have been under the tyranny of empire for generations more.

The point I am trying to make here is not that Vermont should seceed from the Union–quite frankly Vermont is no special state and demonstrates few viable, exceptional characteristics that give reason for its separation.  Rather, as an aspect of political theory, the idea of cedession is very viable and should be viewed with perspective and analyzed with rationality, for if a region presents itself as legitimately more free than the nation as whole it has the right to “declare the causes which impel them to the separation” and procede to do so.

Popularity: 26% [?]

We’re already about twenty minutes into the debate sponsored by MSNBC/Politico.com, and I’ll be periodically updating this blog entry with my latest impressions. So far, we’ve seen a variety of MSNBC-chosen questions, and there’s been a round of questions submitted by users of the popular political website Politico.com [I'll be writing about the importance of the interactive round shortly]. I’ve been a little disgusted with the frequency of Reagan references, but, after all, it’s a Republican debate at the Reagan Library, so I guess one shouldn’t expect anything else. Ronald Reagan wasn’t, however, the country’s greatest president, and I don’t see why all of the candidates continually refer to his greatness in practically every area of governance. I’ll be dropping general opinions into several paragraphs and I’ll keep candidate specific entries at the bottom. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 32% [?]

United States presidential candidate Ron Paul, an outspoken libertarian, has called for removal of gun laws which he claims oppose civil liberties and encourage shootings. Paul stated that more guns could have prevented tragedies such as 9/11, or this week’s killing at Virginia Tech: “A concealed gun carried by a responsible person — that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed.”

But the key in his strategy is the word “responsible.” It requires the general public to be able to make informed decisions, and separate emotion from logic and reason, something currently only mandated to the police. Despite the large potential corruption of cops, there is far greater possible harm from arming everyone with a gun who wants one.

Having easily available guns in tense situations is just a recipe for disaster. I do not believe that the majority of people would be “responsible” with a gun, especially in America. Frankly, I would not want to enter a country that had such lenient laws towards something as life-threatening as a gun. I can just imagine a situation with a group of people all at gunpoint with each other.

I believe that nobody should have a gun. Maybe even in an ideal society, police would only need tasers (and far less harmful ones at that). There is certainly no need for the public to have them. Even hunting, I don’t see why they exist. Why does someone feel such an intense need to kill another animal? Can’t they just go pick up a less destructive hobby, like golf? And if you live in a place where you think you need a gun for personal protection, what does that say about you, your neighborhood, local police, and country?!

I simply feel like more can be achieved through education. If a truly intelligent and altruistic society did exist, where we all got along and were really able to make informed decisions by separating emotion from reason, would there even be a need for guns? People would be able to agree to disagree, and just get on with their lives.

If there was a reformed education system in place to nurture such a society, and drugs were legalized to eliminate the gang culture that supports the destructive use and illegal distribution of guns, then there would no longer be a need for the general public to have guns for self-protection. Then maybe we can put those gentler tasers in the pockets of police instead of guns.

Popularity: 60% [?]

The shooting at Virginia Tech is undeniably one of the worst tragedies American students have ever faced.  Stories of heroism make their way out of the situation, but the media is focused on the death and destruction caused on the campus of Virginia Tech University. One thing, however, should give Virginia Tech students, and Americans throughout the country, something to be proud of.  In the absence of professional newsmen, students took control of the media, showing an unprecedented ability to shape the coverage regarding their event.

In the wake of the worst campus massacre ever in the United States, dozens of news organizations flocked to Virginia to cover the tragedy. Before they arrived, however, the mainstream media relied on reports from those already on the ground: the college students themselves. Armed with the video and still cameras on their mobile phones, dozens of students set out to create their own coverage of an incident that was very much their own. The first audio and video accounts of the incident aired by CNN came from iReport, their citizen journalism program. The video, shot on a Nokia smartphone, made its way around the networks, all courtsey of a Virginia Tech student named Jamal Albarghouti.

Dozens of similar stories are to be told. In the hours preceding the arrival of professional reporters, Virginia Tech students had, unfortunately, the opportunity to shape the world’s news. Their coverage helped to show the world how terrible the massacre was and helped to qualm some fears about students that were safe. Twitter, a “stream of consciousness” blogging tool by Obvious Corp (utilized mostly by web celebrities such as Robert Scoble and Thomas Hawk), served constant updates to the internet, courtesy of a user named Tom Markiewicz. Chris Pirillo, a web celebrity in his own right, helped to stream live coverage with a tool called UStream.tv. His conversation with Planet Blacksburg, a new student-run publication from Virginia Tech, captured nationwide attention as sections were aired on various evening news programs.

What most surprised me, however, was the caliber and tenacity of the coverage coming from the students themselves at Virginia Tech. Via the aforementioned Planet Blackburg, they helped to broadcast news of the tragedy throughout the world, becoming the go-to site for immediate updates. The Web2.0 movement, which many experts see as a bubble ready to burst, finally showcased its effectiveness yesterday. YouTube has showed its staying power by drawing users in to watch videos on their website. The entire citizen journalism movement, however, displayed its prominence yesterday with the Virginia Tech shooting. Never, in years past, would internet surfers be granted the same hard-hitting coverage as Planet Blacksburg provided yesterday.

In this day and age, everyone is a reporter. Yesterday, as CNN broadcast video from a student’s cellphone video, and as Planet Blacksburg updated faster than the almighty network news, it became apparent. The “new media” is here to stay, and, from the looks of it, it’s ready to provide better coverage than had ever been imagined. The shooting at Virginia Tech has caused incredible sadness and grief. It has, however, caused something else: the birth of a new generation of reporters.

News of the incident continues to stun the staff here at New School Politics. In the coming days, we’ll be doing everything we can to help, but for the moment, the best we can do is to give our condolences to those involved in the tragedy at Virginia Tech. On April 30th, we’ll be participating in One Day Blog Silence, a day of quiet on the blogosphere dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy.

Popularity: 84% [?]

Late last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that “black culture” is causing many of the recent murders in London. With harsh frankness in his final weeks at the top of Britain’s Parliament, Blair was not afraid to confront political correctness head on. Meanwhile, a large majority of responses disagreed with the Prime Minister, declaring the real problem was “social deprivation”. In staunch retaliation, Blair stated that “Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don’t think it’s the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation. I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.”

I find it particularly intriguing how politicians tend to let their true feelings known when they have the least to lose. Their thoughts are always provocative, and Blair’s message was head-on with one of the largest issues concerning crime in developed countries. Frankly, I do basically agree with him, although I would perhaps word it differently. The problem here is the gang culture, which you can be born into or just as easily dragged into. It’s almost as bad as the poverty cycle. However, the fact remains that the majority in this culture are black people.

Not to blame pop culture, but just listen to the lyrics of rap music. That is the prime example of what gang culture is. Whether or not a teenager falls into it during drug experimentation relies very heavily on his or her upbringing and current situation in life. Although, if born into it, it’s quite natural that you yourself would join in the “family business”.

Obviously, the whole issue is quite a large and hard one to tackle. But, I assume one would want to eliminate the gang culture itself to make any real progress. Drug legalization would go quite far in reducing what is the main feature of the culture. With no drugs to deal, or perhaps rather far less people to sell to, the market would be literally destroyed. This would immediately reduce the number of gang attacks.

From here, by properly funding and aiding organizations who help people get out of the poverty cycle, we could ensure those formerly in the gang culture get proper training or education to get real jobs. This in turn helps create a stable financial situation in which a more acceptable lifestyle can be adopted.

Of course, it’s necessary to boost policing to get the crime leaders off the streets and into a rehabilitation process. Couple that with proper education to teenagers about drugs, alcohol, sex, and the law, as well as extracurricular activities abound. Ta-da: Gang culture eliminated!

Whatever the case, I think the PM made a very strong and important statement by throwing political correctness out of the window. It needed to be said by someone.

Popularity: 59% [?]

America once again felt insecure today as 33 lives were taken on the campus of Virginia Tech University. Several notable things occurred in the immediate aftermath of the event. First came an outpouring of grief from Americans and foreign nationals. Governor Tim Kaine, away in Tokyo, immediately jumped on a plane to fly back to Virginia. The President of the United States read from a prepared statement. Campus officials held numerous press conferences to keep America briefed. As the gravity of the massacre became clear, America collectively wept for the deceased at Virginia Tech.

The inquest into the behavior of the Virginia Tech Police Department began next. An e-mail was sent to students approximately two hours after the first shooting occurred. Although it’s not immediately clear, one must wonder whether the two shootings are connected. If so, shouldn’t the college have taken more action? Several in the mainstream press have wondered. It’s not time for an investigation into misconduct just yet, however. What is important is an investigation into the motives and reasoning of the killer. Pajamas Media & Boing Boing have terrific ongoing coverage on the shooting while Planet Blacksburg, a student run publication, is the place to go for eyewitness accounts.

Some, however, weren’t content to leave the situation without debate. Immediately, the shooting was transformed into the trigger for a nationwide argument about gun control. If given more rights, could students with guns have protected themselves from the impending threat of a shooter on the loose? Dozens of blogs seem to be intent on debating the subject, paying little attention to the tragedy itself. Michelle Malkin, one of the conservative movement’s leading bloggers, seems to be leading the charge. Instapundit chimed in as well, noting that “had the bill [one that planned to allow college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus], “things might have turned out differently.”  There is no official word on the weapon the gunman used, so gun control activists are unable to protest.  What if, however, the gunman was never allowed access to the gun in the first place?  I, similar to Eugene Volokh (of the Volokh Conspiracy), wonder whether it’s too soon to create debate. The nation has just witnessed the worst mass-shooting on a school campus in its history. It’s certainly too soon to stir up controversy.

Is That Legal? has more on the other tragedy, the shift from the massacre to a gun control argument. Along with President Bush, Govenor Kaine, and all of America, I send my sincere condolences to the victims of an attack that viciously took the lives of 32 college students and professors. I hope that this event will serve not as a catalyst for further debate but as a sign of our twisted society. May the victims and their families take solace in knowing that America is with them.

technorati tags:education, shooting, virginiatech, guncontrol

Popularity: 41% [?]

Schools in the UK are planning to drop the required teaching of the Holocaust and the Crusades in an effort to dodge any criticism from religious parents. One school was “strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the State of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination.”

The teachers who refuse to explain to students the seriousness of these issues, out of fear from any religion, should immediately have their teaching certificates revoked and be fired. Schools have an essential responsibility to society to provide an unbiased understanding of society and prepare children for life in the real world. This is one reason why I disagree with certain private schools, as they are allowed to bend what’s taught. However, with true “separation”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-state_separation of religion and state, there should not, in any circumstance, be the removal or addition of curriculum simply based on religion. Private schools provide a venue for religious teachings. This should not be intersecting with secular, government-run schools.

This argument is quite similar to the Kansas School Department agreeing to teach intelligent design, alongside evolution, based on the demands of local Christian parents. It’s not right to advocate a theology that completely eschews the fundamentals of science. It should not be part of the science curriculum, just as schools should not be sidestepping history in the history curriculum. Something as important to the 21st century as the Holocaust simply cannot be ignored into today’s world.

The UK Department of Education’s submission to the religious demands is simply sickening and deplorable to the fundamentals of true, transparent education. This should not be happening anywhere in the world. The people of England should be demanding that ALL of their schools refuse to rewrite history just because a few loud theologists demand it, out of respect to their religious beliefs. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Popularity: 56% [?]

There are times when political correctness goes to far, the incident that occurred with Imus last Wednesday is one of them.
According to MSNBC.com Imus has had his morning show suspended for two weeks because of the ‘racist’ comments that he made last week. Today on Al Sharpton’s radio show Imus attempted to defend himself and to apologize while Al Sharpton did nothing but ask for his resignation.
Al Sharpton is nothing but a hate monger, if anyone should be arrested for instigating violence it is Al Sharpton who years ago caused a near race riot by exploiting a situation between a Jewish landlord and African-American tenants so that he could get attention. Al Sharpton does nothing but make situations worse by pulling the race card out again and again. His actions and the actions of hate mongers like him do nothing but polarize Americans and directly lead to violence and anger.
Al Sharpton has made many anti-Semitic comments in the past, but more importantly why is it only when a possible “black” racist comment is made that Imus is taken off the air. What does it say about our society as a whole when Imus has in the past made racist comments about Jews and Mexicans, and also sexist comments about women and his wife? Where is Al Sharpton when racist comments about every other group but African Americans are made?
Another important question that I want to ask is, if Imus is not allowed to use national TV and radio to sound his “racist” remarks, then why is Rosie O’Donnell allowed to conduct treason and spread enemy propaganda over a broadcast channel and on radio? Is this the direction our society is heading? One stupid comment on a comedy radio show about a basketball team is turned into a national scandal, while we can have people hurting the very fabric of our nation on daytime television with millions of viewers?
Either way, if Al Sharpton wanted to demonstrate the integrity of the black community he should accept Imus’s apology. Even if he did make one racist remark, Imus has done more for sick children, the armed forces, fundraising, and brining political and cultural awareness to Americans of all skin tones. If I were someone with honor and integrity such as Barrack Obama, I would be ashamed to have someone such as Al Sharpton representing not just my race, but also my country.

Popularity: 34% [?]