Dan Djurdjevic

It was late December 1989 (almost exactly 23 years ago) and I was in Belgrade. The dark clouds of future wars were gathering inexorably. Ugly nationalism, racism, tribalism – call it what you will – was rearing its ugly head, foisting the increasingly (and perplexingly – for me anyway) popular Slobodan Milosevic on its shoulders. "There," my late, much loved, uncle said, pointing across the river Sava, "is where we came together as a nation – thousands of us – to declare a new era." I had heard that Milosevic had addressed a rally there some months before, stirring up nationalist fervour and racial/tribal paranoia to a level that hadn't been seen in Serbia more than a generation. My uncle then pointed to a huge placard of their new leader on a nearby wall. "Yes - he's our man. He's the one who is going to save us." "But uncle, isn't he just part of the existing communist establishment? You have a chance to get rid of that wh

Introduction I've had a great number of responses to my article  "We need to talk about the whole gun thing"  and I thought I'd address them – preferably in one article. Many of the responses share a common feature: the tendency to assume one or more variables that are  false , but that are nonetheless  intuitively appealing  – so appealing we can't relinquish them to see the situation for what it truly is. I liken this process to the  "grip reflex"  of which I've previously spoken: as a species, humanity often seems to have difficulty letting go of something that seems intuitive (ie. that which comes to us automatically and just feels "right") – especially if it makes the issue with which we're confronted look "simple" or "common sense". We end up thinking: "I've got a real grip on this problem and I'm not going to let go, dammit!" Nagging, contradictory (and seemingly counterintuitive) d

I'm continually surprised to read the number of posts on Facebook of people (almost always so-called "conservatives") urging others not to discuss gun control in the wake of the latest mass-shooting tragedy at Sandy Hook, Connecticut. They say that to do so would be to "point fingers" and "make politics" out of this tragedy. In other words, they're saying: "You're not to discuss the 'elephant that has crept into the room', namely gun control . It would be 'unseemly' and 'political' for you to do so." It's as if they want a special dispensation not to discuss the most relevant legal, political and social issue impacting on this tragedy "out of respect for the fallen and their families". Well I'm sorry: you can't silence the debate in relation to its most relevant issue – all on the basis of some purported "moral high ground". If we shouldn't talk about gun con