Yes - the guns are the problem

"Seven years ago an elderly Los Angeles woman who had agreed to move out of her daughter's apartment bought a handgun. She cleared the background check, passed the safety test and practiced on targets at the local shooting range. Then she shot and killed her daughter and her daughter's fiance -- my brother David."

Seven years ago Jenny Price penned this column following the shooting of her brother by someone who had passed a gun safety check and was registered to use a gun.  The Washington Post published the story back in 2005.  Only 3 percent of such deaths are accidents, since most murders are committed with legally purchased firearms. 

The problem is with guns being too easily available in the USA.  As Jenny Price wrote on Christmas Day 2005:

"The problem is that 65 million people in the United States own handguns. The gun used to kill my brother was a Glock 19, a light and portable semi-automatic. These guns are designed to kill people: That's their sole purpose. Nearly 12,000 Americans annually use guns to do just that, and the majority use handguns. Twelve thousand: that's comparable to the number of AIDS deaths each year in the United States. (Great Britain has about 100 gun deaths each year.) ".

The organisations that benefit from lax gun laws are primarily the arms manufacturers.  Certainly the tens of thousands of Americans who are killed by gunfire each year do not.  Nor their families or communities.  Most civilised societies have a full time police force to maintain order.  They choose to do this instead of letting citizens arm themselves in a "law of the jungle" mentality which was more suited to the 18th and 19th century wild west.

President Obama has done much to restore America's tarnished image in the international community.  But Americans need to take back their nation and tell the gun lobby that enough is enough. One of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the constitution is "life" - the freedom to live.   The biggest threat to that freedom right now is not the US government .  It is the Gun Lobby.

 

What do Centrists stand for?

Someone asked me the other day what centrists stand for?  The assertion they made was that centrists just make themselves equidistant from the left wing and the right wing and become a kind of bland unprincipled lot.  The truth of course is very different.  

Most centrists have their own, often strongly-held, principles.  However, they do share a common distrust of both extreme State Socialism where government agencies are expected to solve all of a country's problems.  The Soviet Union showed that such a system becomes dysfunctional and will eventually collapse under the weight of its own inefficiencies - as well as its abuse of human rights.  At the same time most centrists abhor the injustices perpetuated by unregulated monopolies and the large gaps between rich and poor that deny many people equal opportunities on the basis of race, class or gender. A healthy and stable society will have a high degree of social cohesion where all citizens can participate.  The institutions of civil society - such as families and religious, sports or cultural organisations help build such belonging and cohesion. 

History has shown that allowing people to trade goods and services freely usually results in innovation, prosperity and improved relations between cultures and nations. But governments have a legitimate role to play in developing effective laws and regulations that protect the environment, help the disadvantaged, protect the security of all citizens and ensure that everyone has access to good quality health, education and welfare. In general centrists believe in a property-owning society under the benign guidance of a fair and just government.  

In many ways centrists act as the glue that holds political processes together.  They can see the effectiveness of the policies they seek to implement and are prepared to work with legislators to improve policy settings. 

In the US context, for example, the need for principled centrist legislators has never been greater.  Whether they be in the Democratic Party -or the Republican Party - centrists need to find common cause and ensure there is progress - particularly on the control of semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles.  Dwight Eisenhower, a moderate Republican, showed during the 1950s that Congress and the White House can work effectively for change. President Kennedy showed the same thing during the 1960s. It's time for ideology to be put to one side and the safety of children to be put first. 

Best Chance Yet For Effective Gun Control

WASHINGTON (AP) -US Vice President, Joe Biden, who is overseeing the administration's response to Friday's killing of 20 children and six adults at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, said he and President Barack Obama are "absolutely committed" to curbing gun violence in the United States.

"Even if we can only save one life, we have to take action," he said.

A longtime gun-control advocate, Biden met Thursday with Cabinet members and law enforcement officials from around the country. He said he wanted to meet with the group, which included representatives of at least a dozen law enforcement organizations, because they "know better than anyone else what's needed out there."

It's encouraging to see that the administration is seeking out expert advice on how best to reduce gun violence in America.  President Obama has indicated he is prepared to take measures which will be effective even if they are unpopular.  In addition, some prominent gun-rights advocates on Capitol Hill - Democrats and Republicans alike - have expressed willingness to consider new measures.  wtop

   

Obama takes action on Gun Laws

WASHINGTON — President Obama declared on Wednesday that he would make gun control a “central issue” as he opens his second term, promising to submit broad new firearm proposals to Congress no later than January and to employ the full power of his office to overcome deep-seated political resistance. New York Times

Trans Pacific Partnership?

Legitimate questions are being asked about the trans-pacific partnership negotiations currently underway.  Will foreign tobacco corporates be able to intimidate future NZ governments by claiming damages if our government signs the TPP agreement?  Why won't the government tell the public what it is advancing as the NZ position?  Australia refused to sign the TPP on the grounds that it would compromise the sovereignty of Australia.  Why does our government believe that we can maintain our sovereignty and still be compliant with the TPP?  Finally, will US and EU pharmaceutical companies be able to leverage the provisions of the TPP to bring pressure to bear on New Zealand's PHARMAC agency and thereby sell medicines at higher prices to kiwis? 

Export-led recovery needed now

One of New Zealand's risk areas is its 40 year habit of borrowing to sustain the lifestyle we have become accustomed to. Since 1973 NZ has run ongoing current account deficits - that is we have been paying out more for imports and debt servicing then we have been earning from exports each year. The end result is that on a per capita basis NZ Inc (public and private sectors) now owes almost as much as the basket case economies of Greece, Spain and Ireland. Contributing factors were: the oil price shocks of 1973 and 1979; the UK's entry into the EU and the loss of traditional trading markets; and poor policy decisions here at home.

To get out from this hole NZ needs to change a few things:
1. Stop digging a deeper hole - stop borrowing so much overseas - earn more from selling high value products in overseas markets.
2. Invest more in research & development - especially into high value products for the export market.
3. Ensure we have an efficient and well-maintained infrastructure - transport, broadband communications, and financial services.
4. Make it easier for overseas investors to live and do business in NZ - including joint ventures, PPPs, and high-value exports where the economic benefits flow back to the national economy.
5. Provide policy settings than encourage kiwis to work or start their own businesses - rather than rely on welfare, promote education and training for 21st century living and working; encourage savings and investment rather than consumption and spending.
6. Encourage kiwis to look outwards to the global economy for their incomes - while living in NZ and building a strong sense of national identity and of place here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
7. Promote equal opportunities - regardless of class, gender or race. Break the long tail of underachievement and ensure that all kiwis have the chance to be part of the economic, educational and social mainstream of Aotearoa NZ.
8. Keep our clean green environment in good shape for future generations.

If any politicians out there want to pick up this recipe - feel free. Oh- one other thing - NZ should be setting a course and sticking with it - we need to avoid these lurches to the right and the left - especially on matter such as employment law, superannuation and compulsory saving. A good piece of bi-partisanship would be very helpful to our long term future. Both major parties know superannuation needs to be made affordable and the age probably needs raising. Why not agree on a few principles that the main parties will work within?  I think the public are ready - provided there is plenty of notice and no one has the rug pulled out from under them.

Rumblings Rising on Right

The Standard claims that a change in ACT leadership is likely following Don Brash's leadership bid announced today.  Unfortunately for ACT its problems may be deeper than a question of who holds the leadership position.

While ACT won some public support for its tough stance on law & order and its exposure of public sector extravagance (much of the credit for which goes to Hide) it also turned off many voters with its fundamentalist adherence to the purist free market - an ideology rejected by most centrist voters in successive elections.

Voters have concluded that selling off more of our economy to foreign ownership offers only a short term palliative at best and at worst is a betrayal of this country's long term economic interests. At a time of economic sluggishness and high unemployment opposition parties could normally be expected to be gaining ground. However Labour has identity problems of its own. 

Damien O'Connor voiced the thoughts of many traditional Labour voters (and some Labour MPs) who are centrist on economic policy but conservative on social issues.  Rightly or wrongly such voters feel Labour no longer represents them.

A genuine centrist party is a movement based on the aspirations of mainstream hardworking kiwis who are fed up with those politicians who seem to be increasingly out of touch with ordinary people.