Music Video - Kali - MMM MMM (feat. ATL Jacob)

Video - #Colbert #Comedy - A Simple, If Extremely Difficult Solution: Reduce The Number Of Guns

Video Report - #Cannes 2022 : Andie Macdowell 'You have to love who you are '

Video Report - President Biden Delivers Remarks at the University of Delaware Commencement

A Supreme Court justice’s solution to gun violence: Repeal Second Amendment

By Frederic J. Frommer

Four years ago, when — as now — the nation was reeling from the horror of a mass school shooting, a retired Supreme Court justice suggested a radical solution: getting rid of the Second Amendment.

John Paul Stevens issued the call after 17 people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., in February 2018. The attack prompted hundreds of thousands to demand action the next month to end gun violence at the March for Our Lives. In a March 27, 2018, New York Times op-ed, Stevens praised the protesters and their call for stricter gun control laws. “But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform,” he wrote, about a year before his death at 99. “They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”Stevens said the amendment was adopted out of concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the states. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century,” he wrote.

An elementary school massacre spurred tighter gun control in the U.K.

He called repeal a “simple but dramatic action [that] would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform” and would make schoolchildren safer.But Stevens didn’t acknowledge the herculean challenge that his proposal entailed, as there was (and remains) zero chance that gun control advocates would get anywhere close to the two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states needed for repeal.Stevens’s proposal didn’t generate a lot of momentum, but it did get pushback from some fellow liberals.

“I admire Justice Stevens but his supposedly ‘simple but dramatic’ step of repealing the 2d Am is AWFUL advice,” tweeted Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor. “The obstacle to strong gun laws is political, not legal. Urging a politically impossible effort just strengthens opponents of achievable reform.”

Tribe expanded on his argument in a Washington Post op-ed, headlined “The Second Amendment isn’t the problem.” “The NRA’s strongest rallying cry has been: ‘They’re coming for our beloved Second Amendment,’” he wrote. “Enter Stevens, stage left, boldly calling for the amendment’s demise, thereby giving aid and comfort to the gun lobby’s favorite argument.”

In his op-ed, Stevens wrote that repeal was necessary to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling that Americans had an individual right to bear arms. He was one of four dissenters in that case.

They were killers with powerful guns. The president went after their weapons.

“For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation,” Stevens wrote in the op-ed.Republican President Gerald Ford nominated Stevens to the court in 1975, at a time when Supreme Court nominations were not as politicized as they are today. Stevens eventually became one of its most liberal members. Although his 2018 proposal didn’t go anywhere, calls for repeal continue today.

A portrait of the late John Paul Stevens in the Great Hall of the U.S. Supreme Court as the former justice's casket rested inside the court building in July 2019. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP) “Who will say on this network or any other network in the next few days, ‘It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment?’” liberal filmmaker Michael Moore challenged during a feisty appearance on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” this week.

“Look, I support all gun control legislation,” Moore said. “Not sensible gun control. We don’t need the sensible stuff. We need the hardcore stuff that’s going to protect ourselves and our children.”Writing in the New Republic on Thursday, Walter Shapiro, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and a lecturer in political science at Yale University, said that “the hard truth is that the core problem is the Second Amendment itself. And America is going to reel from one mass murder to another unless the Second Amendment is repealed or the Supreme Court drastically reduces its scope.”

“As a starting point,” he added, “Democrats should drop the mealy-mouthed formulation, ‘Nobody supports the Second Amendment more than I do, but still. … ’ Claiming fidelity to the Second Amendment has never convinced a single NRA supporter of a candidate’s sincerity, but it has stopped bold thinking about lasting solutions to America’s gun crisis.”

The first U.S. school shooting was in 1853. Its victim was a teacher.

But repeal hasn’t been a mainstream cause. Just last month, President Biden declared, “I support the Second Amendment,” although he said that didn’t mean people could get any gun they wanted. In the wake of this week’s Texas elementary school massacre that killed 19 children and two teachers, the president said the Second Amendment is not absolute, and that common-sense gun control would not “negatively affect” it. Stevens’s op-ed came just a few years after he issued a proposal to amend the Second Amendment, in his book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” which was excerpted in a 2014 Washington Post opinion piece. Stevens suggested adding five words (in italics below) to the amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/28/supreme-court-stevens-repeal-second-amendment/

Video - کل بھی بھٹو زندہ تھا،آج بھی بھٹو زندہ ھے

Video - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Adress To Nation After Indian Nuclear Tests

The Nexus Of Capitalism And Democracy In Pakistan Keeps Getting Stronger, Is There Any Hope For Change?

Zoha Asim Banday Capitalism is a term which represents an economic or political system run by private owners for gaining personal profits and benefits. Once this approach is adopted in a state, it not only affects a specific sector, rather it tends to embed itself in all the sectors of that state.

For example, if we take into account the situation in Pakistan, it is evident how this factor is affecting the education as well as healthcare systems etc. Nowadays, the youth has only been limited to memorizing the bookish information instead of focusing on the actual essence of the discourse. Students have been set on a path of competition for gaining marks rather than embracing the concepts that are being taught to them which might be beneficial for them in the future. The teachers are also not sincere in their jobs as they are getting their paychecks whether they properly teach the students or not. As long as the students keep bringing in good grades resulting in more admissions, they have less regard for how much knowledge they are obtaining.

Another drawback is that ideal states and information about other countries are being promoted more in our curriculum instead of our own, which makes these students completely unaware of the things going on in their state. Similarly, hospitals have also become places of business instead of institutions that provide healthcare. It has become impossible for average people to access even basic healthcare services without a hefty sum of money being demanded from them. If we focus on what kind of capitalism is being followed at the state level in Pakistan, it is evidently crony capitalism. In this type of capitalism, the resources are not spent just for monetary gains but rather on a conglomeration of the elite and the politicians. This means that monetary investments are made in the campaigns of political leaders; as money is a major factor in politics and in return, vocational benefits are acquired e.g. laws and policies being framed in a way that proves beneficial for them.

In its worst state, crony capitalism gives rise to corruption where political entities are given bribes to get benefits. Sadly, our country has gotten far ahead in this stage, many politicians have been charged with corruption and many more are being suspected. Still, no hard and fast rules have been made to deal with this issue once and for all.Pakistan is said to have a democratic form of government. Democracy means that the citizens of the country have the power to elect a politician of their choice to run the state and also question them if things start to go south. However, if the current scenario is observed, the freedom that the citizens are entitled to, is being compromised for the personal gains of politicians and the elite class. Even when crucial decisions are being made concerning the welfare of the citizens, they are not consulted. The people in power sit together in an enclosed room and make all the decisions for them. Therefore, these decisions are seen to be favourable for themselves instead of the people. Everyone in the political race is power-hungry; they have no empathy or even remorse for mistreating their voters. This shows that democracy is far from its true form, it only exists on paper and in certain aspects like elections when votes are being demanded but that is also debatable as usually cases of rigged voting are heard.

Capitalism is said to go hand in hand with the democracy of a state. They are claimed to be two sides of a coin but even though, it plays a necessary role in democracy, political inequality and violation of liberty are also observed consequently.

A well-known example of how capitalism is threatening the democratic ideology, can be the sugar industries and their relations with the politicians of Pakistan. Annually, the government announces support prices for sugar and wheat which help the farmers, so they can obtain these items at lower prices but it is observed that the mill owners are enjoying the perks of this more than those it is meant for. This makes the farmers’ conditions even worse than before by causing a surge in food prices and general price levels. It also contributes to a rise in sugar prices locally in comparison to international prices which leads the government to provide them with subsidies. This shows the conglomeration between sugar mill owners and the political elite of our country. The lower class might shift from 2 meals a day to only 1 but the elite class won’t have to face any difficulties and that’s all they care about.

Despite all this going on in the country, the citizens are yet to raise their voices against these crucial issues and the ones who do are unceremoniously silenced. If this mindset remains in play, it is going to be detrimental to the country in the long run. We are headed towards a dark tunnel from where there is no turning back. Looking at these conditions, it seems like there is no hope for even a light at the end of the tunnel since it will only worsen with time. No one cares about the betterment of the country or its citizens, all they care about is their own pockets, and as long as they are filled, they remain satisfied.

https://en.humsub.com.pk/4014/the-nexus-of-capitalism-and-democracy-in-pakistan-keeps-getting-stronger-is-there-any-hope-for-change/

Opinion: Pakistan’s foreign minister calls for a reset. Washington should hear him out.

By Josh Rogin 

 Pakistan’s new civilian government is already under attack by the forces of recently removed prime minister Imran Khan, who is pushing the conspiracy theory that President Biden somehow orchestrated his ouster. Last week, the country’s new foreign minister came to the United States to explore yet another attempt to repair the U.S.-Pakistan alliance, which might look unsalvageable. Washington should hear him out.

Leaders in both U.S. political parties have largely written off Pakistan. Yet it is a major non-NATO ally, the world’s fifth-most-populous country and a nuclear power situated strategically among China, India, Afghanistan and Iran. After years of mutual distrust between Washington and Islamabad, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the idea that either side is capable — much less willing — to do the hard work of reviving the alliance.

But the basic argument for trying again is sound. And Pakistan’s new foreign minister, the son of two previous Pakistani leaders, believes that both nations can learn from the mistakes of the past. Besides, he told me, letting the alliance further deteriorate makes little sense.

“The way in which this relationship progressed in recent years doesn’t serve the interests of the people of Pakistan, but it also doesn’t serve the interests of the people of America,” Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari told me in an interview. “And I still believe that Pakistan and the United States agree on far more than we disagree on.”

Zardari, only 33 years old, brings with him to the job two giant legacies. His mother, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, led the Pakistani People’s Party in a fight to wrestle power from the military and intelligence agencies that have controlled Pakistan — mostly from the shadows — since its inception as a modern state. The first woman to lead a democratic, Muslim-majority country, she was assassinated in 2007.

His father, Asif Ali Zardari, was Pakistan’s president from 2008 until 2013. The Bhutto-Zardari family’s archenemy was three-time prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Today, Sharif’s brother Shehbaz Sharif is the new prime minister and Zardari serves in his cabinet.

“It’s like the Trumps and the Clintons being part of a coalition government,” Zardari said.

The main lesson Zardari took from his family’s epic battles with other powerful Pakistani institutions was that change should be pursued slowly and through negotiation, not confrontation.

“Even though I'm young and I'm supposed to be a lot more idealistic and revolutionary, because of our [family’s] experience, I actually believe in evolution over revolution,” Zardari said.

Perhaps this strategy of lowering short-term expectations and focusing on incremental progress could be applied to the U.S.-Pakistan relationship as well. Although Khan’s accusations of U.S. meddling in Pakistan’s politics are ridiculous, they play off an anti-Americanism that has become deeply rooted in parts of the Pakistani polity. Likewise, in Washington, there’s no strong domestic political constituency for improving U.S.-Pakistan ties.But there are reasons to think progress is possible, Zardari said. The main issue of contention, the war in Afghanistan, could now be an area of cooperation following Biden’s troop withdrawal last year. Now, the two countries’ interests there are largely aligned around encouraging the Taliban to behave better and bringing stability to the Afghan people.

“Now we can move beyond that disagreement without having to go back and litigate the past,” Zardari said. “There’s a lot more common ground now and less fog of war.”

Diversifying the relationship beyond military issues might also help, he said. In his meeting with Secretary of State Antony Blinken in New York last week, they discussed moving toward more cooperation on trade, climate change, tech investment and food security. Skeptics in Washington will quickly point out that the ultimate power in Pakistan still seems to reside with the generals and spy chiefs. Many in Washington are rightly critical of Pakistan for failing to condemn China’s human rights abuses and refusing to join Western sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.

Don’t expect the Sharif-Zardari government to change those policies anytime soon. But unrealistic expectations on both sides are a big part of why the relationship got so bad in the first place.

“If we're going to let our emotions get in the way of a constructive relationship, then we would both be cutting off our nose to spite our face,” Zardari said. “How do we tackle that? The only answer is engagement.”

Those still not convinced must answer this question: What exactly is the better alternative? If Washington isn’t happy that the Pakistani military has the bulk of power and influence, engaging civilian leaders is a way to balance that out. If the United States doesn’t want Pakistan to go from being a U.S. ally to a Chinese client state, Zardari’s offer of a reset must be embraced, not ignored.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/26/pakistan-foreign-minister-zardari-reset-united-states-democracy/

Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto stresses engagement with US for ties reset

 FM says Pakistan and the United States agree far more than they disagree.

Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has called for a reset of the strained Pakistan-US relations through engagement, saying that he believes the two countries agree on far more than they disagree on.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Foreign Minister Bilawal cited his family’s epic battles with other powerful Pakistani institutions stressing that change should be pursued slowly and through negotiation, not confrontation.

“The way in which this relationship progressed in recent years doesn’t serve the interests of the people of Pakistan, but it also doesn’t serve the interests of the people of America,” he said. “And I still believe that Pakistan and the United States agree on far more than we disagree on,” he added.

”Even though I’m young and I’m supposed to be a lot more idealistic and revolutionary, because of our [family’s] experience, I actually believe in evolution over revolution,” Post correspondent Josh Rogin, quoted him in his write-up about the interview that appeared in the newspaper on Friday.The foreign minister came to New York on May 17 to attend the high-level meetings at the United Nations on food security. On the sidelines of the meeting, he met a number of world leaders, including the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.Responding to a question, Foreign Minister Bilawal noted that in his meeting with Secretary Blinken in New York, they discussed moving toward more cooperation on trade, climate change, tech investment, and food security.

In the interview, Bilawal, while emphasizing that there was a lot more common ground now and less fog of war, stressed the need for diversifying the Pakistan-US relationship beyond military issues, saying that it might also help. Letting the Pakistan-US alliance further deteriorate makes little sense,” he added.

The foreign minister believed that there were reasons to think that progress was possible. “The main issue of contention, the war in Afghanistan, could now be an area of cooperation after [US President Joe] Biden’s troops withdrawal,” the foreign minister said.

“Now, the two countries’ interests… are largely aligned around encouraging the Taliban to behave better and bringing stability to the Afghan people. Now we can move beyond that disagreement without having to go back and litigate the past,” the foreign minister said.

On May 18, against the backdrop of strained ties between Pakistan and the US, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with FM Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari.

Blinken assured the FM that the administration of President Joe Biden was looking forward to working with the new government in Pakistan and discussed “expanding partnership” between the two countries.

This was the first high-level face-to-face contact between Pakistan and the US since the change of government in Islamabad.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2358572/bilawal-stresses-engagement-with-us-for-ties-reset