Gun Control or Guns out of Control?

The recent school shooting in Newtown CT is the focus of a renewed effort to limit or define the limits of the right to keep and bear arms.

This conflict arose out of a desire to reduce mass shootings that result in terrible numbers of dead. This desire seems in conflict with the right to keep and bear arms. Though terrible tragedies occur, is it inviting a worse tradedy to limit the right for law abiding citizens to own any type of arms traditionally allowed under the second amendment of the United States Constitution?

The second amendment was passed in 1789. The law and related use has a long presence with various outcomes and perceptions associated with it. 

Clint, with a “glint” in his eye for guns and good.

Gabbi Gifford

When Guns are Trash, few will recycle.

A history of heroes with guns

Guns or Prescription Drugs?

Guns, guns, go away, take your shot another day!

The Sides:

1. Barack O’bama and  the anti-gun lobby traditionally have lost many a gun fight. This is the weaker side overall.  Democrats tend to own fewer guns than republicans at 32%-55% respectively. 36% of independents own guns. Overall, 41% of Americans have guns in the home.

1. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and all others who support unfettered acceptance of the 2^nd Amendment. This includes CATO, FEE, and Heritage Foundation, among others. The NRA has an image of immense political sway.

The Rival Goal: Limit the type of arms covered by the 2^nd Amendment or demand constructively limiting legislation such as background checks, or other processes that limit the ability to buy, carry, or exchange arms.

As in nearly all conflicts, the weaker side, gun control supporters, moved first to make a change in relationship since their ultimate goal was out of reach before the leverage this newest school tragedy provided. Until now most power was in support of the NRA.

Deeper interests: Both sides have security in mind as the reason for their goal. However, security of whom, and from whom is the difference. The dialectic is that government can be a source of security and threat.

The NRA is thinking about security from coercion of government. They may well and reasonably believe the framers of the constitution were OK with individuals owning everything from tanks to rocket propelled grenades, even though they did not yet exist. This is an important concept to them as they see it as protection from the misuse of legitimate firepower of government. There seem little indication that the right to keep and bear arms actually does this save the freedom America has enjoyed since the adoption of the Constitution.

Gun Control supporters believe that the easy availability of assault rifles and extra large magazine clips provide an undue opportunity for kids to do mass harm and that limiting their availability would help reduce school shootings and tremendous numbers of deaths. This may be true or this may be magical thinking along the lines of prohibition and the war on drugs if the problem is indeed deeper than surface.

The Social Rules: Upper Mid-level Power Differential.

The social rules  in which this conflict occurs will govern the outcome. The outcome will be measured in quality of internal security in the United States. It is predicted to have a moderate improvement as the balance of power at the upper middle level of the pattern is relatively high balance, a low power-differential.

The process is based on the political process in the United States. This means there is debate at the Federal level. The executive branch, senate, and house must find some level of understanding upon which to engage. This process has stronger and weaker representations when it comes to gun control and most other issues.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/whats-nra-really-packing/61141/

The social impact of guns is still in need of research. Politicians may have little systemic evidence to base a decision except what “feels” right. In the case of prohibition, weapons of mass destruction, and the drug war, along with former positions on gay marriage, political zeal, passion, and feelings can be woefully off. The best we could hope for is a call for true research into the deeper causes and the value of gun control. This would be a higher dialogue and create a more positive social environment which in and of itself can bring security and lessen deaths by violent outbursts.

States can enact laws at the local levels however the factors all remain the same as laws enacted at the Federal level. It will be a matter for sociological research.

Some of the processes are claimed to be secretly strategic by the government: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130118/NEWS/301180038/State-gun-law-what-got-banned-changed

Then, after all is said and done, the Supreme Court can reverse any decision no matter how it is created though research can sway the court to abandon precedents.

Outcomes:

The synthetic model predicts an improvement in the quality of security and related factors if both the supporters and detractors around gun control engage deeply and positively with each other to find a creative and beautiful approach. Just the example they set can set the tone for the rest of the nation on other factors as well. Irate and angry young people may find hope and comfort in leaders at any level transcending their bias to try to understand others in order to create a more beautiful world. That example may itself be enough. Every little bit helps.

School Shootings Conflict: What the hell is going on?

School Shootings Conflict: What the hell is going on?

School shootings and mass killings like the most recent Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary, or Colorado’s  “Dark Night Rises” massacre, and all the way back to Columbine, are horrific and tragic “crazy makers”.

Strength together and understanding possibilities.

These events make more common everyday positive citizens crazy with unanswered questions, empathetic pain, and worse of all, real loss of loved ones and lost sense of security.

For the most part, these actions involve adolescent males as perpetrators. The victims are their peers and younger, plus any adults who get in their way. Sometimes, a family member is also killed. Often the weapon of choice is a gun that has extreme capability to kill many people quickly.

Louis Pondy’s Organizational conflict model describes these events but only superficially. He describes conflict as a series of episodes:

1. Latent (everything is ready for a conflict, it is just a matter of time)
2. Felt (the party that will initiate the conflict starts feeling it strongly)
3. Perceived (the other parties start to feel it too)
4. Manifest (Whoops, there it is…as the song goes)
5. Aftermath (the conflict is over…now what happens? Are relationships in taters? Has there been improvements? What?

School-type shootings are of a “blitz” type. They are done before they are ever felt or even perceived. They manifest as a flash but the aftermath is forever in loss of human life. However, there is another aftermath after all these shootings: gun control. There is also an aftermath that is all too avoided: feeling and perceiving the potential of these conflicts before they manifest violently. Let’s start with gun control.

A focusing event leverages a public event to create some larger scale social change related to that event. Here, we have the shootings at a school. The great amount of energy and anger is redirected at gun control to stop such conflicts from ever manifesting again. Prevention is presented in the form of gun control. Gun control legislative talks are common after all mass shootings. Putting armed guards and employees in the schools is also discussed. Gun control becomes, now, a separate conflict and must be viewed separately or emotionally-based mis-calculations can and will occur. There are many drivers behind school shootings and access to guns is perhaps only a minor driver.

There are those who try to feel and perceive something deeper going on with these individuals or their social context. Interventions of identifying and reaching out to potential shooters is a work that defies the social structure of social success hierarchy. It defies the hierarchy because those who exercise sufficient influence over what is “should be” to downplay the importance of social hierarchy and thus, those outside of the hierarchy. A good overview of school shooting and its history in the US and world can be found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00008.x/full . This is a free and short article on Google Scholar! You can read it easily.

Now a quick analysis using the synthetic model:

Conflict: Lanza wants to kill others for reasons yet unknown but hinted at by his reclusiveness.

Power:

Strong side: Lanza…he has the guns and the element of surprise and free reign of his movements

Weak side:  People living in relative peace and tranquility and happiness

Goal:

Lanza wants to kill everyone, likely because he was not successful in building the type of relationships he found satisfying. Other options must appear hopeless and he must feel otherwise helpless. This may have led more delusion or some mindset of extreme hostility. Some looked for organic causes such as brain damage. School shooters have little evidence of brain damage in general.

School children and adults:  Everyone wants to live.

Outcome measured: Quality of life. Quality goes down due to coercion.

Power-differential:

This is an example of “jumping sides” from weak to strong by use of coercion. Lanza was socially weak in his mind. Others were in supportive groups. He felt somehow an outcast. Perhaps he was. Instead of learning social skills and dialogue. Instead of some children in our society having the social intelligence to reach out and bring him in, Lanza remained outside the circle of society in general. His voice had little influence. It does not seem the gun was a message of anything but irrational frustration leading to tragic ends. He went from weak, to powerful, to dead.

The school children and adults who were always strong, in the natural and healthy sense, were for a few terrible moments weak and threatened.

Jumping sides (see the basic model: http://conflictoftheday.wordpress.com/about/ ) from the weak left side to the strong right side has been tried by many groups. It nearly always ends disastrously. Most revolutions are subject to this because they use force rather than appealing to legitimate empathy and reason first and directly. Thomas Jefferson and Gene Sharp, in the US Declaration of Independence, and From Dictatorship to Democracy, respectfully, begin to address this. Gene Sharp helps get it to revolution but does not provide how to establish a republic of law and rights. Neither does Jefferson. The idea is that neither just “jumped” to a position of power or say that is the right way. Hitler jumped. Communists jumped. Watch out when jumping happens. Those who jump by only the power of guns are not ready to lead toward a human world of prosperity.

 A suggestion:

This activity is toward the bottom of the triangle indicating that consequences will be negative. The best answer goes well beyond knee-jerk legislation. It includes adults learning how to get along through dialogue so our children can be included totally too. Only positive relationships between Republicans and Democrats, CEOs and Unions, teachers and students, Black and White, female and male, and gay and straight, richer and poorer, can provide the example and context for total reaching out and inclusion at the level we need.

Oil or Environmental Sustainability

Pumping up Paradise or Hades? The Fossil Fuel Debate…Alex Epstein v. Bill McKibbon

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Parties/ Sides in conflict:

Alex Epstein: Center for Industrial Progress wants to Increase Oil use as much as the market can bear to assure a wonderful living experience in modernity. Political connections with Ayn Rand, Libertarians, and Objectivist groups.

Bill McKibbon: Lead Environmentalist wants to Reduce Oil use to save life and the environment. Political connections with Greenpeace, and environmentalist movement.

Goal

Reduction of Use of Fossil Fuels vs. No reduction and increase as much as possible.

Deeper Meaning of Goal:

For Alex: Fossil fuels/oil use is both necessary and healthy. It cannot be replaced with solar, wind or green technology. The planet is alive and well due to fossil fuel use. You are happy because of Oil, Coal, and Gas.  The next best thing is nuclear. This message must be conveyed! Love the crude!

For Bill: Fossil fuel was healthy and helpful to humanity but is now a clear and present danger to life, happiness, freedom, and the future of the planet. The polar caps have melted up to 45%, the sea is less alkaline, water level is rising, islands may be wiped out in some areas. Bill is a bit burned up about black gold, Texas tea, and the Arab Energy Oasis.

Power differentials: Who is stronger?

Alex: He is an articulate representative of the Oil producers, well spoken, passionate, focused, committed, and engaging.

Bill: Well studied with a deeply informed presentation. Represents the link between oil, global warming, and future disaster.

Evidence: In ethical/ political debates evidence is key. Here is the way this debate worked.

Alex’s research evidence pointed to increase in life directly, but not causally correlated, to fossil fuel production. Also, Alex showed and, eventually gave credit and date, a chart showing a decrease in weather related deaths as well.

Bill’s evidence is extrapolated from recent environmental changes. The changing sea will lead to deaths. The warming atmosphere is leading to reduction in crops that will cause starvation. Bill as well shows direct correlation but not causation for CO2 emissions and these changes though he connects them through logic.

What we have is two sincere and informed gentlemen with loads of evidence. Alex’s evidence is from the past and full of praise. Bill’s is toward the future and full of warning and doom. The audience is here, in the present. It is clear that Alex does not trust Bill or his evidence and neither does Bill like Alex’s evidence. I don’t think anyone’s mind was changed. Alex thinks Bill’s evidence is the dreaded “pseudo-science”. Climate prediction is impossible he claims. Bill thinks Alex’s evidence is irrelevant, a relic of past lives, and dead in the water.

A medium to low power differential is evident. Still in the medium power differential zone. The two are not talking to each other yet. The focus is not on the subject as much as “winning”. Alex called for this debate and used debate in the traditional antagonistic format to try and drain some of the supposed “hot air” from environmentalists. McKibbon tried to shine the sunlight of research to gain energy enough to rise up and win this debate. Both created light and heat. Let’s harness that for the future energy needs of creativity and power.

This meeting had strategic communication efforts by Alex as he feels the stance of McKibbon is dangerous and must be stopped at all costs short of physical violence. For Alex, the threat of outlawing fossil fuels is “suicide” and must be stopped. McKibbon did not deny the desire to outlaw fossil fuel use but said lowering it by 80% is a goal, not by 95%. Alex states either will be totally undo-able and harmful.

Adding the Global Social Norms, laws, and culture to the power mix:

The global community seems to favor less reliance on fossil fuels in word but not in deeds. Norms for such debates as this one at Duke University http://fossilfueldebate.com/ support that.  In this debate it appears that it is Alex Epstein and libertarians are taking on the larger scientific world.

The norms of debate held. Both had fair treatment by the moderator. No one had to actually talk to the other side civilly and, in fact, each could use an antagonistic approach as a sort of moral superiority or “moral high ground”. That is a typical tactic in times of ethical uncertainty. It sways audiences.

Outcomes: I see no visible change in the dynamics of the environmental concern about the use of fossil fuels from this debate. In the conflict model, conflicts at this level can have a positive impact, neutral, or slightly negative.  Overall, the environmental concerns will be sen in a more positive light and perhaps be more rigorously addressed by all. It is a step toward more meaningful relationships but it is not a set of positive relationships yet. Especially since Alex accuses Bill of misrepresentation and manipulation. Bill feels that big oil is public enemy #1. Here I am…stuck in the middle, maybe with you, maybe without you. You tell me and leave a comment.

Iran or Nuclear Iran: Let it Be? Applying the Synthetic Model to the Iranian nuclear aspiration program

 Here is the conflict profile and suggested outcomes of this conflict based on the laws of conflict 

Parties/ Sides in conflict:

Iran

Israel

Goal

Nuclear facilities built in Iran. They will result in the capability to build a nuclear weapon

(Iran wants it/ Israel doesn’t and this is not likely negotiable. It appears a “rival” goal)

Deeper Meaning of Goal:

For Iran: Nuclear facilities mean power, electrical generation and possible military/political options.

For Israel: Iran’s nuclear facilities mean threat to survival of Jewish state and Jewish inhabitants living there

Power differentials: Who is stronger?

Iran has individual power advantage: The home turf, where plants are built and centrifuges are spinning and being built to produce higher grades of enriched uranium

Israel has a power disadvantage: Military efforts to physically stop the Iranians are risky and results uncertain.

Adding the Global Social Norms, laws, and culture to the power mix:

Israel is pleading with the non Muslim world and those Muslims who support them publicly or privately to give an ultimatum that will increase Israel’s power position by threatening Iran with destruction of the facilities if they go on in enrichment passed a yet to be communicated “red line in the sand”.

Such an ultimatum would precipitate a physical intervention should enrichment continue. This was requested publicly by P.M. of Israel Netanyahu at the U.N. during the last week of September 2012.

Israel’s argument: There is no deterrent that is effective with an ideology such as militant Islam. If Iran, which if lead by militant Islamist gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it, at any cost, without regard to any other thing on planet Earth. The target of Iranian nuclear devices will be strategic targets in Israel. Mutually assured destruction, that worked well in the Soviet days, will not work. Only a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities will be effective in safeguarding Israel.

Global norms: Charter nations in the UN agree that an attack on any member nation is an attack on all member nations. The security council can rally all the ability of UN forces to attack aggressor nations. If Iran does strike, a UN intervention may follow. To this and all else Israel says, “So what? It is too late. Israel is destroyed, over-run by its enemies again, and without recourse. The entire Arab world will say, “Never again” to allowing a Jewish state in Israel to exist.

Level of Power-Differential: Medium but may escalate to high

Based on the observations that Iran is nearly there, sanctions have not stopped the progress, emotional rhetoric is high, there are not positive relations between the nations, neither yet is the physical violence, we are at a medium level of power-differential, howbeit, a high one, bordering on an outright high (physically coercive level).

In this level, communication is strategic (Habermas’ communicative action), appealing to norms and values to support each side’s “position” and orientation, toward the goal, as each plays to a wider audience.

The sides are not truly at the bargaining table as in Ury and Fisher’s interest-based bargaining. Instead there is posturing, perhaps bluffing, and as much cooptation of others as possible.

In game theory both sides perceive the other to have defected more often than being cooperative. In reality, they don’t play together. It is near a downward spiral except they don’t have to interact. Iran may feel powerless to achieve its stated goal: the eradication of Israel. Right now, playing together is not possible. They are not even really speaking.

From an organizational perspective of Louis Pondy’s model, the conflict is manifest and at the “system” level. Geography in the middle east puts them together. The latency of the conflict is ideological based on religion. Iran feels suppressed but is “mad as hell and not going to take it”…rightly or wrongly.

The managerial grid is at a negative set of relationships, nearing negative. This tone is set by the stronger party in the conflict. It is this negative attitude of Iran, the stronger side, toward Israel that is threatening to escalate the conflict from purely competitive to that of contending with Israel physically and avoiding Israel’s human qualities as a being like all others.

Outcomes:

In this middle area of power differential strategic communication without physical coercion is used. Outcomes vary. The higher the rhetoric, the more likely for a negative outcome. The stronger Israel becomes in defending itself without using coercion, the more positive the outcome for peace. That outcome will be measure in terms of national sovereignty. If Israel can remain safe and sovereign, the whole world will improve. The same goes for Iran. Both must be safe and sovereign for the whole world to be. That is the ideal condition.

While we know less than those in the intelligence communities of both Israel and Iran, here are some considerations offered based on what is known:

1. Iran will not stop trying to build nuclear facilities. Their efforts were stopped in 1986 with an air strike. They may be stopped today, tomorrow, or soon thereafter. But, Iran and militant nations will continue to try. In 50 years, if the ideology of war in both dominant and militant groups does not change across the world, efforts to secure military might with the most modern weapons possible will continue.
2. Iran is not “irrational”. They are acting in line with their goals of converting the world to Islam or a faith acceptable to “them”. Some do send people to carry out suicide attacks. Those sent are usually poor, young, and not of the elite ruling class.  There is little evidence that when it comes to their own lives, on the whole, the leaders of Iran or any other Muslim nation, are not as swayed by “Mutually assured destruction”. Likely they are as much any other group in the world. Mutually assured destruction likely will be successful.
3. This is an ideological battle in some origin. If ideology is more important than human life to some, the a threat of destruction of the sacred symbols rises to that of human life.
4. If there will be war, then the destruction of holy sites in addition to enemy soldiers may be the most effective deterrent to any “first strike”. Certainly an attack on Israel is an attack on its holy site. Thus Holy places are exchanged for human life and other Holy places in a mutually assured manner. An attack on Israel by Iran means Muslim Holy sites are in danger as well. If it happens, this is of the utmost seriousness and pressure is put on the entire Muslim world to stop and even not attack at all. That is the idea of mutually assured destruction.  This evens the playing field and I’m sure it has been considered. Lives for symbols when the symbols are more important than life to some.  This may keep the balance of power more even, in an otherwise unmanageable situation.
5. An attack on Israel will never destroy the heart of the nation though it would be terrible for the physical plant. Israel is a set of positive interpersonal relationships. Most Muslim people are or can be too. Militancy has a way of falling into disfavor in a world that is evolving in secure social relationships.
6. Given the options that Mutually assured destruction will still have impact if framed powerfully, that may be sufficient even if Iran does secure a device. Let’s hope they do not.

The global community works on a set of fair rules for war. Strategic targets are fair game. Holy sites are strategic targets. So are nuclear facilities. I still believe mutually assured destruction is a viable route if a device is secured sometime in the future. If a device is secured, it is all anyone really has anyway.

Learn about Iran in a YouTube Documentary

Colin Kahl and Kenneth Waltz argue back and forth and come to the same conclusion: If negotiation, economic sanctions, and diplomacy don’t work then Iran will get the device because military intervention is not an option

The Washington Institute: Speaking for American Interests? The group makes a proclamation that Iran getting a nuclear device would be against America’s interest then provide no evidence. Instead this institute talks about how Iranian retaliation for US military intervention will raise the price of oil. This is un-scholarship.

“Innocence of the Muslims”: The reviews are in and the world is divided!

The “Innocence of the Muslims” conflict is structured below. The structure is based on research synthesizing the five major paradigms of conflict management. Those five are: Jurgen Habermas’ Communicative Action, Robert Axelrod’s Game theory, Louis Pondy’s Organizational Conflict, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid, and Ury and Fisher’s Interest based bargaining.

There are four major factors of all conflict: Goal/sides/power differential/total value of contested goal as an outcome

Goal: Removal of the youtube video: “Innocence of the Muslims” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM&feature=related

The fact is that the video is up. 

Note: There is also a values (interest-based) conflict between both sides. The values in conflict are freedom of speech vs. limiting speech to that which only  conveys “Respect for Prophet Mohammed”.

Those who posted the video are not as concerned with the respect of the prophet as those who wish it removed. Thus, the fact and values are logically related to the sides taken in the conflict.

This goal, video up vs. video down, is a rival goal as are the values. It can’t have both ways. It is not a matter of semantics.  Video up equals disrespect. Video down is the mandate given by Mullahs to all those who do respect.

Sides:

(1)   Defenders of the character and reputation of Mohammed

(2)   Non-defenders of the character of Mohammed who placed the video and those who allow its continuance.

Note: It is important not to see this as an “international” conflict between nations. It is an ideological conflict between those who use free speech to “disrespect the prophet” and those who are appointed to “defend the character of the prophet”.

Power differential:

Stronger Side: The person who put the video up controls or has access directly to the video, media, and is supported by the right of free speech within the US. This is strong political, technological and sovereign power. They are the stronger side for now as the video remains up and they are in control. This is side (2).

Weaker Side: Those who want the video down have less power. They cannot unilaterally take it down as the owner (2) could. They cannot remove the right to freedom of speech supported by the US. The cannot breach sovereign immunity of the US and just kill the people or destroy property to “force” the video down.  These are side (1).

Each side, must plead its case in the public eye on a set of norms and international values that calls for legitimately agreed upon rules. This power difference is medium considered medium. If the power difference were high, defenders (1) could simply force the video down by brute force. If the power differential was low, both sides might come together to discuss the possibility of some “win win” solution. Neither will likely happen since the US embraces freedom of speech and separation of church and state. Many defender groups (1) are in cultures that embrace theocracy. In this case, the defenders would like to convince the non defenders that the “non defender culture” must change. This can be done only through legitimate channels and not by force of arms.

Medium power differential a state where each side can use empathy and logic only to convince other. Values and character issues are at stake. US Muslims can take to the streets or courts but cannot kill or destroy to stop such disrespect. Non US Muslims have options of media, international forums, and internet responses as well. They are using some of these to protest in their own nations where it is seen as appropriate. If this were the extent of the conflict behavior, it would be clear. But the conflict was escalated by killings.

Escalation: (See typology) The killing of US diplomats is an escalation of conflict from the medium power differential to a high power differential (coercive).

It creates a second conflict not between ideologies but between nations. This is based on sovereignty and diplomatic status/immunity.  This is a second conflict taken up, not by YouTube, but by the President and the State Department of the US. This assassination conflict can be structured in the same way as this YouTube video conflict analysis is structured.

Insurance will take care of the looting damage so that is minor issue we do not need to address at this time.

Total value of outcome:

The conflict paradigms all predict worse outcomes related to the goal when higher power difference is employed rather than a balanced approach to more positive relations. In this case, the positive relations refer to the relations directly between (1) and (2) and not any third party god or prophet or nation. If the goal was to remove the video, using physical rather than more legitimate means is predicted to have negative consequences. Such is the case.

The video is on YouTube still and has over 6, 174, 874 views on 9/18/2012, 10,812,000+ views on 9/19/12. The continued posting on Google’s youtube is dedicated to the death of J Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador.

Respect is not a tangible goal but a value…one that different people value differently.

If respect is forced by coercion, it will lead the entire world and most conflicts into the high power differential (coercive thought control) area. The five major conflict management paradigms note this as a place that is to be avoided assiduously.

Typology:

Escalation to level of a focusing event using violent coercive tactics. The conflict is made to be about more than the video by (1). It is extended to an ideological conflict and played to that end. A focusing event precipitates actions around any particular issue to bring wider change and power balance. Those who want the video down, may also try to use this to take down the US in the larger political picture.

Notes:

The response of the weaker defender side (1) was violence when marches mixed with reason and respect for human life could have been powerfully used. They escalated the conflict to physical violence without asking first asking that the video central to their complaint be addressed or without responding on the same communicative level. This is similar to the case of the Dutch Cartoons that were a satire on Islam. Certainly marching in the streets would have everyone’s attention. Such a march is similar to a movie drama but with real people in mass. Showing the contested parts of the video could have worked well. Simply saying that such videos are offensive and inappropriate was an option too, though it would have been quite ineffective, it seems the number of viewers would have been less than the many millions the video has globally today.

It may be wise to keep those such movies out of the lands where Islam is the official religion. Still, that is up to the media or the nation that censors the media. The US ideology keeps things at the medium level of power differential. Here, in the US,  there is  some defection and misrepresentation of everything, some bluffing, some playing the system, some competition, but no physical violence and, in the end, many religions are both mocked and adored without fear.

The reaction of the stronger side (2) is reasonable. To say that all the US does not believe the message of this video but that we value freedom of speech and will not have any more respect for Mohammed than we do for Jesus, God, Buddha, or anyone else is accurate.

Everyone is fair game for mocking in the US, even presidential candidates.

Have you seen the play, “Book of Mormon”. What if that play was, “Prophet Mohammed” but in a similar vein to the Broadway Musical? In the end, just what are the limits to comments that lampoon Mohammed? Perhaps this is a nice dialogue for the Charlie Rose show. I look forward to the day when everyone can positively engage each other without fear or coercion. We will see it.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Jim

How Anarchy Works: Gadaffi’s Son brings conflict between Niger and Lybia

Assaadi Gaddafi: Interpol Photo

Today, February 12, 2012, the nation of Libya demanded the return of Muammar Qaddafi’s son, through extradition, from the nation of Niger. The goal of Libya is to get Qadhafi’s son back in Libya so they can try him. The goal of Niger is to not send him back. Niger says it does not want to send him back because he may be executed. Niger may also feel that the execution would be politically motivated so the country of Niger does not want to be caught in the middle or facilitating such political maneuvering within Libya. There is no law between nations. Nations exist on this planet in a state of anarchy. Each nation does whatever it pleases and there is no government, no law, and no formal restriction to their activity. Yet it works. There were fewer people killed from wars between countries (where there exists no law) then were killed by their own government within countries (where there exists a formal law). Perhaps it is simply easier to kill people within the country them between countries but I suspect that it is a matter of power corrupting and there is no greater corrupting power than that of central government.

When individuals or nations live in a social environment with no government at all over them, it is anarchy. Interpol is the international police organization, like the United Nations, it has no authority of its own. Rather, it acts as a supporter for any of its 190 member nations. Criminals wanted from various nations are tracked around the world and brought back, when appropriate and possible, to face charges. Still, Interpol takes its orders from the nations and restricts its activities based on individual nations as well. If they are not welcomed by one nation to come in and apprehend a criminal for a second nation, they won’t. In the same way, the United Nations is restricted from its activities by all of its member nations. What I am saying is that neither Interpol or the United Nations has any real power to act like a government. Therefore, the nations of this world are in a state of anarchy. I’m all for it.

This leaves Libya and Niger to work things out for themselves just like two people might work something out for themselves. I don’t know who’s stronger or what Libya can do to force or convince Niger in some way to release Qaddafi’s son to them. Likely this will be a stalemate until the rewards are large enough to entice Niger or the punishments are large enough to entice Niger to release him.

Libya will try to rally global opinion. If Libya wants it may send in its own elite forces to deal with Qaddafi’s son.but in the end, without a central government over the world (and I am so thankful there is no central government over the world) Libya and Niger will be at a stalemate.

“Worker kills 3, then self”: Latent Conflict and Sudden Destruction

CrazyMaking: What Latent Conflict feels like

Violence occurs all around us, and often. Today, Friday the 13th, a worker for no well known reason shot three co-workers in North Carolina, then went home and killed himself. Read the story if you like. These things happen so often, all around the world, it is “crazy making” to people who are just watching. Yet, don’t each of us feel tensions and power plays all around that bring stress? Most of these feelings are diffused by personal strength and values, religious belief, comic relief, and also distractions like fun, excitement, movies, and even drugs and alcohol. So, how can these be understood in the “pattern of conflict”?

Before I share that pattern as applied here, I invite you to read what appear to be real suicide notes. I worked for years in Hospice and know there were people, who for various reasons, wanted to die. Still, I had never read a suicide note until I read these. Suicide Notes.

What is “latent” conflict? It is the anger, frustration, rage, angst, and just bad feelings between any people. Maybe they never speak even though they are near each other. Perhaps they put on a smile but underneath are seething. Perhaps they are paid wages to be nice even though their emotions are on the verge of blowing up. This “holding back” of emotions is sometimes called “emotional work” and it is draining. But then there are people who cannot control the feelings or do the emotional work anymore. This man who killed the others in NC is just such one. The ones who committed suicide were others who could no longer “handle it” for the most part. I want to be clear that those who committed suicide due to illness and pain are not the same as the others and do not represent “social conflict” as I consider it.

The ones that do represent social conflict see themselves as helpless and hopeless. They see themselves as powerless to face others in society or personal life. School shootings, random bombings like the one in Oslo last year 2011, snipers shooting innocent people, and workplace violence almost all fit in the “high power” differential or “perceived” high power differential situation.

When nations or communities have large differences in the way groups are rewarded, or the way groups are able to access equality of opportunity, this type of power differential exists. These conflicts are latent and only in the mind. The best way to handle it is not to kill ourselves or others but to talk about it with friends and family and others in a open and expectant manner. After talking, strategies for change and growing in power for the weaker side can be pursued.

Peace to all those who have experienced such tragic situations.