The Wild West of Education: The Right to Bear Arms

One wonders if memories of the shocking events at the school in Newtown, Connecticut have faded or been superseded in the minds of Americans. To recall, shortly before Christmas, 2012, twenty eight people, mostly young children and two teachers, were gunned to death. A man using a number of weapons, including automatic rifles, gunned himself into American history.

This is not an isolated incident in American schools. Since January, 2000, there have been one hundred and forty seven separate shooting incidents. A staggering one hundred and eighty seven innocent children and teachers have been murdered. Take this year alone: in less than four months, there have been thirty three occasions when a gunman has been apprehended in a school. Nine people have been killed. In any other western country, this would be called an epidemic. What laws exist to protect those in schools? Effectively none, save standard criminal laws against violence.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is construed to mean that all American citizens have the right to bear arms. But the Amendment was ratified in 1791, a time so totally different to now. The Amendment states the right to bear arms is conditional upon providing a well-armed militia, in other words an army. The Amendment was passed to ensure that the United States could lawfully defend itself against the British and others when no regular army was not in being. Nowadays, America boasts of the strongest armed forces in the world.

The subsequent sweeping interpretations of the Second Amendment by the American law courts begs the question whether gangsters in Chicago or wise New York guys or wackos form part of the authorised American armed forces. There are now so many gun laws passed by Congress and the states that one might imagine there was gun control. There are all kinds of rules about concealed and disclosed weapons, numerous regulations relating to semi-automatic rifles as opposed to automatics and even stock sizes.

But when anyone can go to a gun fair and have a weapon at their disposal after the briefest of checks, how is this control? How can school children be protected? Surely, there should be a law, pure and simple, that it is a federal offence, punishable by a lengthy prison sentence, to be in possession of any kind of armed weapon within four hundred yards of a school. I accept this won’t deter an assassin armed with a long-range assault weapon. Many schools operate airport-style security measures at great expense. But this does not seem to prevent determined kikllers from plying their ghastly trade.

The Bush administration did nothing to cure gun problems. The National Rifle Association is one of the strongest lobbying groups in America and its Board is full of Republican supporters. For eight years under Bush, gun supporters were not touched, not even a scratch, courtesy of the NRA. The Obama administration tried to make changes, especially after the Newtown shootings, but the gun lobby was far too strong for the White House. Congress kicked into touch even the most minor ameliorations proposed by President Obama.

Why do so many Americans feel it is their birth-right to own guns? Do they not realise that checks on who may buy and possess weapons of death are so weak as to entitle mentally challenged people to arm themselves? The Newtown killer had serious mental problems for years before the attack but he had four weapons on his person when he committed appalling violence on innocent children.

Do Americans really want such a violent society? Is it really a total vote loser for any American politician to back resistance to armed weapons? I suppose the answer must be “yes.” There seems to be no moralist movement which advocates repealing the Second Amendment and setting out legislation which states: “Unless you come within a listed exception, you may not own any kind of gun.” The exceptions could include gun clubs where guns are held under lock and key in the club premises, guns to kill animals humanely and shooting rifles for hunting which would be licensed.

If Americans want to know why western Europeans are different, here is a good example. We in Europe see no need to arm ourselves as no one is likely to come gunning for us. The trouble is that even if there was an anti-gun movement that achieved a repeal of the Second Amendment, there would be so many guns held by Americans, who would refuse to hand them back, that the repeal would be meaningless.

Ask yourselves, who suffers? Just look at the school shooting numbers. Is it worth all those lives just to have the right to bear arms?

Have You Clean Hands?

For the past two weeks and more, our newspapers and television screens have been dominated by the developments in the Ukraine. I have lost count of the times I have heard about “the flagrant breach of international law.” Effectively, the Crimea has been annexed to the Russia Federation and a referendum of the Crimean population last Sunday is looked upon by the self-designated international community as bogus. But there is some evidence that the vast majority of the Crimean population, who are Russian speaking, wanted to break away from a country they considered hostile. The response this far: the United Kingdom and the USA are imposing sanctions on twenty one Russian officials, making travel more difficult for them and freezing their assets. Hardly gun-boat diplomacy.

I consider the actions by Putin and his colleagues wrong but what justifies our involvement? Does the West have a strategic interest in the Ukraine? Is there likely to be ethnic cleansing in the country? What action can be taken by the West, save for starting a vast military operation? No statesman has suggested the latter, nor has the Ukraine government – the present one – asked for this. So what we have is a load of hot air generated by the Western statesmen as the Russians do what they want. Yes, it is a form of appeasement and yes, the Russians may seek further territory. But I prefer a cold war to a hot one.

I am writing about this topic because I consider the West to be using double standards. Neither the States nor Great Britain have clean hands. In 2001, what legal right did the Americans, supported by the British, have to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Where were the United Nations resolutions approving the actions? What we and the Yanks sought was regime change, a principle that has no foundation in international law. Add to this, the outrage of Guantanamo Bay where some men have been held prisoner for more than thirteen years without charge or trial. Had the Russians done this, the outcry would have been deafening.

In his Sunday Times column this week, Andrew Sullivan has detailed “the CIA’s vault of horrors.” His theme is that the USA threw Geneva conventions out of the window. When a Senate committee investigated the torture programme at Guantanamo and in Iraq, CIA head John Brennan protested innocence for his agency. However, at the same time, the agency was spying on the Senate committee staff. What did the Senate enquiry uncover? “Hanging prisoners by their wrists and ankles from shackles in walls, beating prisoners to a pulp, waterboarding hundreds of times, cramming prisoners into tiny boxes and God knows what else.” The accusations of undermining have been made by no less a figure than Diane Feinstein, senior US Senator for California and a respected defender of the intelligence services. Sullivan believes her, not Brennan. I think Sullivan’s right.

Poor President Obama. He is forced to hush up incidents arising under the administration of his predecessor. Without doubt, Dick Cheney was a prime mover in black ops and black site torture, as well as forms of barbarism that most Americans would find loathsome at any level. Arguably, Obama seeks to keep quiet the authorised torture under Bush as he justifies the authorised drone attacks of the current administration. It reminds me of the Pentagon Papers disclosures when President Nixon sought to hush up the actions of the Johnson administration. That came back to bite Tricky Dicky.

Nor does the United Kingdom have a clean record. Let’s not forget the 1980s “shoot to kill” policy, operated by the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and approved by H M Government. Not a week ago, a secret term of the Good Friday agreement, giving amnesty to IRA killers, was made public. Why was this not disclosed at the time?

Henry Kissinger coined the expression, “realpolitik,” as an expression to describe the way statesman acted in the real world. We have to face the fact that when a strong power exercises its might against a weaker, adjacent power, there is little that the international community can do to prevent it. Having statesmen like our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, huff and puff about Russia’s action in Crimea is no help and no use. And why talk openly about kicking Russia out of the G8 when it supplies vast amounts of energy to the west? Bring Putin to G8 and warn him then, behind closed doors.

So, pardon me if I don’t wring my hands about the Ukranian people. That country has had a potential revolution within its own borders for decades. History tells us not to get involved in another country’s civil war. Thus far, the West is listening to the past. Maybe it is washing its hands too.

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

This is a peculiar expression. Why a shoe and why wait for it to drop? I invite you to log onto Google for the answers. The expression is often used in the political arena when waiting for a follow-up to an announcement or event. An example is when a presidential nominee keeps the nation waiting for his or her choice of vice-president.

About two weeks ago, three things were reported on in the national press, then the media went quiet on them. The events were President Obama’s 2015 budget proposals, the Republican Party’s announcement that it had been too focused on health-care law and the Supreme Court declining to hear gun law challenges, aiming to acquire even more freedom for under 21s to own guns. So much for the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. Each of these stories was worth following up but there seems to have been little or nothing in the newspapers. Unsurprisingly, the situation in the Ukraine and the missing Malaysia Airlines airplane has dominated the news cycle of late but couldn’t the fourth estate be writing something about these three stories? I read the Washington Post and Huffington Post and have seen nothing, nor has anything been mentioned in the UK broadsheets.

Let me examine the three stories in a little detail to establish why they are of particular interest. First, the Supreme Court. In 2008, the Supremes decided there was a right to gun ownership for self-defence within one’s home. Two years later, the Court ruled that this right applied to state and local gun-control efforts, not just those at the federal level. Subsequently, the Court has declined to review appeals that seek to challenge restrictions, such as tight controls on who may carry a firearm.

However, this month, two challenges were mounted concerning freedom to own firearms. The first was a Texas law, barring 18 to 20-year olds from obtaining permits to carry handguns. The second was a federal law prohibiting licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to people under the age of 21. I am pleased to see that the Supreme Court refused these challenges. Long may this trend continue. There have been more than one hundred shootings in schools since Newtown. The Court’s refusals are a small but worthwhile rebuff to Americans and their love affair with guns.

The second story relates to the Republican Party potentially seeing sense over their approach Affordable Healthcare Act. When I say “seeing sense,” I refer to the Party’s political stance. Trying to change ACA whilst negotiating budget and debt ceiling issues was seen as blackmail by many voters. I went on record to say the Republicans were entitled to criticise the Act but in a different setting, namely when contesting the 2014 midterms.

It seems congressional Republicans are looking at the Act as the golden ticket for this year’s midterms. However, their strategy seems to be “repeal the Act,” i.e. carpet bombing instead of drones. If so, surely this is a hopeless attitude for them to adopt. The Act may be unpopular but forty million more Americans are now entitled to healthcare. That’s a lot of votes for the Democrats, especially if those voters are told by the Republicans, “if we win, ACA goes.” I expect to see some Republican candidates change their position and offer detailed policy solutions to resolve the Act’s problems. If not, the broad challenge to ACA may come back to bite them.

The third story relates to the President’s 2015 budget request, seeking tens of billions of dollars of fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to reduce the national debt by trimming Social Security benefits. The previous strategy, the “grand bargain” to raise taxes on the rich and rein in retirement spending, has been abandoned. I’m not surprised. In furthering the policy, the President managed to upset his Party while gaining nothing from the Republicans.

So, the new Obama strategy is a call for the end to austerity without any details of how the budget changes will be funded. Of course, any government delights in broad, voter-friendly rhetoric without commitment to the fine print. Is this strategy a vote winner? Is the President hoping that a radical policy like this will win him enough votes in November to keep the Senate majority while winning the House? I really don’t know but it strikes me that either the way to finance budget changes has not been agreed or the administration is keeping ideas in reserve until later this year. Both courses carry risks.

For the past two weeks, I have waited to see how these three stories develop. Nothing much happened until the special House election in Florida last week. The Democrats lost heavily in a contest they expected to win easily. So, how will they change their strategy to make the November mid-terms a success? I see some heated discussions ahead between Democrat Congressional leaders and the White House. Where is that other shoe when you need it?

Getting a Book Out There: Piece of Cake….Not!

There’s a saying: “Everyone has a book in him or her.” I don’t know how true this is but I can now say with justification that there is a book in me. My novel, “Truth to Power,” was published as an e-book last week. The experience from start to finish is like starting at the top of a high slide and finishing at the very bottom. Let me explain.

About four years ago, I completed my doctorate in American political history. There were suggestions that I should expand my thesis into a book, a work of non-fiction, but I’d had enough of academic writing. I thought, why not turn the research into a novel? After all, I had found out how corrupt US city government had become during the 1920s and 30s, and how journalists had reacted. There was ample material for a work of fiction.

On holiday in Miami Beach, I spent almost two weeks sitting on the veranda of our hotel during the day, writing a story. Every night, before I went to sleep, I would work out the next steps in the plot in my mind and the following day I would type on my laptop for hours on end. I loved it. I was having fun inventing characters and events. As for the troubling matter of finding evidence to support elements of the story, I could just make it up. By the time I returned to London, I had more than 60,000 words written. I never knew how enjoyable writing a book could be. Over the next weeks and months, I finished the story and polished it. The big question was, what to do next? After all, the experience so far had been nothing but positive and I hoped it would continue.

The real learning curve was about publishing. A writer may but submit a book to a publisher but what the writer really needs is to find a literary agent who will promote the work. I didn’t know any agents so I floundered. Suddenly, I wasn’t having fun. An accountant friend of mine told me he acted for a well-known literary agency. He suggested I send him my manuscript and he’d pass it on. A few weeks later, I received an e-mail from him. It recounted how the agent had not expected to get very far with my book but was now half way through it and enjoying the read.

Subsequently, I met the agent. She wanted to take me on as a client. The first step would be revising the novel. She sent a detailed list of suggestions. Anyone who writes knows that revising is the hardest part and I struggled but did as she asked. All seemed to be proceeding well when the agency dropped me. Their reason was that the book needed to be marketed in the US market and their current experience of American publishing was it was in dire straits. I believed the agent but felt very badly let down. It was back to square one.

It didn’t help when many friends kept asking, “When is your book going to be published?” Some months later, the literary agent contacted me. She suggested I get in touch with Acorn Publishing, who specialise in e-book publication. Thus began my relationship with Leila and Ali Dewji, a sister and brother who own Acorn. Leila is my editor. Boy, did she put me through my paces. Over several months, the novel changed, as characters were dropped, plot lines altered as confusing American city politics was clarified. I liked Leila in inverse proportion to what she had me do.

Once Leila was satisfied, the book was sent to be “close edited.” Here, I had to deal with more than 350 comments by another editor. I almost lost the will to live as I tried to cope not only with the comments but the Word software for reviewing documents. It did not help that in the middle of this exercise, my computer died. I bought a new one with updated software with which I am still coming to grips.

By the time the close edit was completed, I had lost count of the hours and hours spent by me on the novel. Any sense of fun and enjoyment which I got from writing had sunk without trace. Instead, the sale of Truth to Power has become serious business. But for Leila and Ali, publishing is what they do and I respect and appreciate their efforts.

A few days ago, Truth to Power was published as an e-book, available on Amazon, Google and all other e-book sellers. I now have publicists in America working for me and my first interview with an American magazine is scheduled for this week. Maybe my initial excitement about writing might be recaptured.

I do not want to be the next J. K. Rowling, a suggestion made to me more than once by friends and family. What I would like is that the novel finds readers who like a page turner and a story of the struggle for supremacy between two men against a political background.