Too little, too late

GPS host Fareed Zakaria led with a piece yesterday on the role of social media in propagating lies and prejudice at the expense of facts and the effect this has on polarization. Sadly this isn't a new phenomenon; I commented on this in 2011.

Sadder still perhaps, is that the reason he drew attention to this issue, one that has profound implications for society and civil discourse, is that he was personally the subject of malicious rumour-mongering.

While it's unfortunate that he has been personally maligned, it's far worse that the phenomenon he belatedly laments has infantilized public debate, fuelled the polarizing of society, and made political compromise needed to get things done in the political sphere significantly harder.

Regrettably, the news media is (as in the case) partly to blame for failing in their responsibility to shine a light on falsehoods, duplicity, and dis-ingenuousness. News, even that purporting to be serious (Fox not included here), has crossed into the realm of  entertainment, leaving journalistic principles and integrity behind.  

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First, a "militia" has three seemingly relevant definitions:

a) "A military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, esp. to supplement a regular army in an emergency, freq. as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers"

b) "A paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology, esp. one that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army."

c) "The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed."

So the first question is: which definition of a militia best fits Amon Bundy's group and those like his?

It can't be a) since it is clearly not "to supplement a regular army in an emergency". 

It probably isn't c) either since i) there is no threat against which they are mounting a defence and ii)  standing armies have been developed.

So that leaves b), "A paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology". 

Next, consider the second clause: "being necessary to the security of a free State". It's hard to see exactly how such a "paramilitary force motivated by religious or political ideology" is necessary to the security of a free State. 

Arguably groups like this represent the opposite, a threat to a free state and the power of an elected government. They are simply anarchists, refusing to accept the rules collectively created for the functioning of a society.

So the question we must eventually confront is this; do we want an amendment in our constitution that protects the right of anarchists to get what they want at the barrel of a gun?

(De)escalation

The recent arrest and prompt release of 10 US service personal illustrates the importance of a measured response and the bearing fruit of improving diplomatic relations; blow-hards please take note.

In a similar incident several years ago, British naval personal were held for a week. In contrast the US service members were treated to a good meal in almost luxurious conditions. Of course some might argue that is a reflection of US projection of power, but thsoe are the same people who complain about how little fear and respected the US has has abroad; both can't be true.

Escalation, generally though bellicose rhetoric, would have been unlikely to provoke anything but a similarly belligerent response. And that goes nowhere  but stalemate very quickly from which climb-downs are hard for both sides. Better not to get into a position you later have to back away from.

The same dynamic is played out at an individual level when the police act aggressively in their initial encounter and meet indignation, particularly from  from innocent members of the public; that indignation is perceived as belligerent un-cooperativeness and leads to further escalation. The result is ugly an confrontation that could easily have been avoided, as for example in the tragic case of Sandra Bland.