Mein Kampf to be re-released with notes countering Hitler's arguments

When I heard that Mein Kampf was to be allowed be published again in Germany (due to the copyright, currently held by the German government, lapsing) while not being exactly cheered by the news, overall thought a necessary evil, since simply banning the book would I believe be the wrong approach (fueling the oxygen of parnoic conspiracy arguments). But it is actually refreshing to read the details behind the story, namely that the Germans are publishing it themselves precisely to counter the inevitable surge in readings once it leaves copyright.

Mein Kampf to be re-released with notes countering Hitler's arguments | World news | guardian.co.uk

"Academics are working on producing an annotated version of the book which will include commentaries on the text that will seek to dissect and rubbish Hitler's arguments. A separate, more simplified version for schools is being produced together with academics from the Munich Institute for Contemporary History, which Bavaria's finance minister, Markus Söder, said was necessary, as more people would be reading it. The expiration of the copyright in three years' time might well lead to more young people reading Mein Kampf," he said, adding that he hoped the school version would help to demystify the book – which lays out the Nazi version of Aryan racial supremacy – and emphasise the "global catastrophe that this dangerous way of thinking led to", he added.
" 

Surely this is overall the best approach with despicable books, don't ban or bury them, but hold them up to the 'market place of ideas' and make the case against them, since it is often the case they achieve more through mystique and fame, than meaning and fact.

Balancing the oxygen of publicity with the free air of democracy

While secret, closed door trials are going too far (even if not on principled grounds then on pragmatic ones like pre-empting conspiracy theories of cover ups etc.) , it is disgusting how the trial of the guy responsible for the Norwegian massacre (who doesn't even merit naming) gets such detailed media coverage. It's not simply that equality under the law entitles him to a platform, it's how we as a society react. If principles demand he be allowed speak then so be it, but we do not need to listen,  and the news organizations should responsibly limit their coverage to the bare facts. Not of course through censoring, but through sensitivity to what we want to hear,  which is then our responsibility to shape.
Anders Breivik is a terrorist, so we should treat him like one | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian
As Freedland says:
"What, then, is the right way to bring such people to justice, whether Breivik or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The cost of the Norwegian approach is that, by treating Breivik like any other defendant, the courts have given him that global megaphone. That represents a perverse reward for his actions: he would never have got such a hearing had he confined himself to ranting on a blog. More alarmingly, the Oslo trial has surely supplied an incentive to any would-be Breiviks: kill as he killed and you too will get the attention of the world.
And yet, by trying Mohammed behind closed doors, the US too has handed the forces of terror a kind of victory. They have declared there are limits to the open society, that the rule of law is not strong enough to cope with every eventuality. In a small way, they have conceded ground to the terrorists' view of the world. How much more appealing is the message of the Norwegian PM last summer, who declared his country would respond to Breivik with "more democracy, more openness and greater political participation".

Whichever approach we take to such crimes, Oslo's or Washington's, one duty is surely clear: we have to be consistent. We cannot apply different standards to terrorists depending on whether they are fanatics of the white supremacist or jihadist variety.

And yet we do just that. Scott Atran, an eminent anthropologist who has briefed American officials on the nature of terrorism, explains that we adopt radically different approaches depending on whether we believe the threat is from within or without.

Outside attackers, like the 9/11 hijackers, are treated only in terms of the impact and consequences of their actions; those who come from "our side", as the Norwegians see Breivik, are examined for their intentions, what made them act the way they did"

Greece burns, but not its German arms contracts

Definitely it does sound hypocritical for the Germans to be demanding such social austerity in Greece, while at the same time maintaining massive arms contracts.  While of course Greece was profligate and would need help anyway, it needs to be highlighted when countries like German and France are imposing tough conditions, to lend money which will be used to pay bills owed to them! Furthermore it is a valid question as to whether inner core countries have been able to reduce military spending partially due to relying on (poorer) peripheral countries who have to maintain the border. Of course there is some sharing of resources in the EU, but psychologically there is more drive if one is on the perimeter. And of course military spending is often accompanied by corruption, so will always appeal to the government/elite who can profit from it, and in border countries the psychology may again enable them to convince the public to pay for it (and worth noting even some German companies have been fined/settled out of court with regards to corrupt deals with Greece).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/19/greece-military-spending-debt-crisis?INTCMP=SRCH

America's deadly devotion to guns

"All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a stranger to be incomprehensible or puerile," suggested the 19th-century French chronicler Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. "And he is at a loss whether to pity a people who take such arrant trifles in good earnest or to envy that happiness which enables a community to discuss them."
America's deadly devotion to guns | World news | The Guardian


While this might be taking it a bit far, when it comes to guns, I have to agree with Tocqueville. Surely there can be no more nonsensical concept in the modern day, than that citizens should be armed to keep the government in check. The whole point of modern democracy is that people have yielded this right in return for the benefits of a working modern society; otherwise it is mere temporary pause from anarchic feudalism.  How to differentiate between the terrorists, the Timothy McVeigh's etc, and justified cause? Why when have a democracy which can vote out politicians could it ever be the only option? And finally, how could it ever work, since surely no matter how many assault rifles the average joe has, if it ever came to an actual conflict the US army would decimate them. Unless of course private air forces and perhaps nuclear arsenals are formed. Lunacy, utter lunacy.
The only halfway reasonable argument is ironically the ability to defend oneself due to lack of government rather than too much - i.e. when under threat in one's own home, but even then I am convinced that arming both sides increases the risk, since the stakes are so high for the burglar, and the facts are it doesn't work as a deterrant. And of course despite being pragmatically against the interests of the average citizen, the willingness to tolerate as necessary cost the annual collateral damage of dead and disabled kids is disgusting.

Maybe the deep problem is that, as is evidenced by calls for 'small government' and endlessly lower taxes, the US still has trouble as viewing itself as a society at all, an evolved and chosen insitution where government is overall a benefit, and reason to discard the tools of our primitive past. As the article says :
"Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust other people or not," says one gun control activist. "We do, they don't." The ideas that the government might protect you, that the police might come, that if nobody had guns then nobody would need to worry about being shot, are laughed away. "By the time you call the police it could be too late," says Britt, who has never had to pull a gun on anyone but has had to make it clear he might a few times. "All they can do is write the report." When the breakfast is over I tell Britt that I am heading into town to see some people. "Be careful," he says. "St Louis is a very dangerous place."

The European Citizen's Initiative

"The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI),  -  Hailed as the first transnational instrument of participatory democracy in world history, it allows members of the public to call for new European laws on issues of their choice, provided they have a million supporting signatures from at least seven member states. But despite its stated aim of bringing the EU closer to its citizens"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/eu-citizens-initiative

BUT - while there is obviously a risk that a body such as the EU ends up being ruled by a kind of 'elite' of bureaucrats, I am also slightly sceptical about referendum/petition based politics. On the one hand they do provide help raise ignored issues, and give a voice to a perhaps too often paternalistically ignored public, but on the other they are very prone to populism, and the 'tyranny of the majority'. The problem is, apart from those affecting disenfranchised minorities (which by definition cannot result in such tyranny), often the topics which get people most exercised about, are those which are aimed at the behaviour of others (moral issues, social friction issues), and this is what is most dangerous about populism. And of course there is the risk of manipulation by well funded special interests. So overall while the EU needs more public involvement, I am wary of such initiatives unless properly balanced and controlled.