Too Far?

Anyone who has been associated with a college or university knows about the issue of attracting applicants and enrollees.  We build new dorms, recreation centers, student unions, dining halls, digital classrooms, etc. to attract students.  We tailor academic programs, create new majors, etc. to attract students as well.  DII and DIII schools use athletics to attract students (hard to do, but still done in DIII where there are no athletic scholarships).  But can this behavior go too far?

Robert Morris University--Illinois (not associated with Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh) has announced that they are incorporating eSports--organized video-game competition--into their athletic department.  Read about this announcement here.  Not only are they incorporating playing a video game into the athletic department, but they are going to give 45-50 scholarships covering 50% of tuition, room and board and hire a "coach" for the team.  The "team" will have uniforms, regular practice sessions, post game meals, and tutoring support the athletic department.  

For my two cents, what a bunch of wasted money.  I understand the use of athletics to attract students.  I also point out to my readers that the athletic events are attended by students, alumni, community, and other fans (often from far away).  Athletics may not break even or come close to being cost effective at most colleges, but they serve recognized physical and social purposes.  So, how many of you are going to show up and watch 10-12 kids playing on computers?  The major gaming conventions and challenges draw as much as 20,000 people, but these are 20,000 mainly participants or wannabe participants.  Donations are made to athletic departments because people see the games.  Money is spent in the community because people come to see games played.  So you have just added a non-athletic thing to your athletic department with little hope of producing any revenue.  However, you are going to give scholarships, meals, uniforms, tutors, and coaching which all costs money.  If your college has so much money to throw away, can you make a donation to the Sam Stanton Research Fund (doesn't exist, but I'll start it if anyone has some money to give me)?  

Money aside, since when is playing on the computer athletic?  I do not consider a great many activities that are athletic to be sports,* which is why we have athletic departments, not sports departments and I am fine with scholarships, training, etc. for athletic events as well as sports.  Playing of the computer is neither a sport, nor an athletic activity.  If you break a sweat playing on the computer, you probably need to go see the doctor.  So, Robert Morris University--Illinois, my opinion is that you made the wrong call.

*for the soccer fans among my readers, remember that in the footsteps of George Carlin I classify soccer as athletic, but not as a sport.  Some of the most athletic people I know play soccer.      

Myanmar, A Success for U.S. Foreign Policy?

In September and October of 2012 I wrote about Myanmar.  I questioned then the real freedom and liberty being touted by the Obama administration (particularly by secretary of state Hillary Clinton) as driven by U.S. engagement with the authoritarian regime of Myanmar.  I was hopeful of change in March of 2011 when discussions about open elections began, and hopeful of real change in Myanmar when somewhat open elections did take place in 2011.  But my hope was gone by fall of 2012.

Now comes Hillary's new memoir and Obama's speech at West Point.  In both of Obama's speech and Hillary's memoir the opening up of Myanmar is touted as a success story.  For my two cents, a fair assessment needs to be made before touting success.

Positives:
--restoration of diplomatic connections with the government of Myanmar

Negatives:
--no real movement toward individual liberties and freedoms
--continued sectarian violence toward Muslims, ethnic Kachin and Karin populations
--continued government strict control of information flows to public
--continued purchase of weapons from China
--continued human rights abuses by police and military

Ok, so what is the success again?  Sorry, If Myanmar is the success story of the Obama era foreign policy in Asia, then what is the failure?

An Actual "Cold" War?

Well, my title is kinda silly I think.  But the purpose is to get someone's attention long enough to get readers to consider some information.  And, in the case of this information it does deal with cold climates and spying.

I found this story in the AP wire line (by way of Yahoo News) to be interesting.  That Norway purchased a spy ship may seem interesting, but remember that the Norwegian navy has a fairly effective submarine force and submarine forces are about stealth, deception, and spying.  The article goes on to explain the geopolitical and economic concerns surrounding the melting of artic ice and ability to navigate these waters.  For my two cents, I was fairly surprised by the extensive amount of espionage activity related to this issue area.  I will have to spend some time considering this area.  

World Cup, Oh well...

When thinking about sports I am considered by some to be a neanderthal.  I make no apologies for the fact that I love football (I am from the southern region of the United States, football to me does not mean football to someone from Brazil, and I really don't care if you want to play linguistic games, numbers games on language usage, etc. football requires helmets and pads and people hitting each other intentionally).  My second favorite sport is rugby, we can hit people without pads being worn (Australian Rules Football is close in my esteem to rugby).  Baseball and softball follow football and rugby, my favorite college programs did/are doing well.  Alabama made it to the Womens College World Series in softball, hats off to Florida for their victory.  Texas Tech (I spent 6 years in the bleachers above the first base dugout, held unofficial office hours there during the season--bought an extra season ticket so students could come talk to me during games) has reached the College World Series in baseball for their first trip to Omaha.

No where in my list is soccer, yes soccer--it is not "football".  I go Carlinesque on soccer, not really a sport because there are spots on the ball (yes, I know contemporary soccer balls do not all have spots).  In my little slice of the world, soccer was the sport played by youth whose parents would not let them play football for fear of injury, or any other reason.  To be honest, I realize that soccer has some benefit on the cost-benefit scale of physical activity because it does not require expensive protective gear for people to play the game and people can still get a good dose of exercise playing the game.  Pretty sure this reasoning would put ultimate frisbee in the category of game--extremely physical, but not really a sport because most people can toss a frisbee around at a family picinic and frisbees remind me of pot addled mullet heads from my youth--and I like ultimate frisbee.

Anyway, I guess I am one of the minority of people in this world (yes, soccer is followed by more people and a game played by more people than those who watch or play football) who can honestly say about the upcoming month of games in Brazil, oh well... For my two cents, what the heck is wrong with not liking soccer?  You may not like football, so you can say "oh well" during the super bowl or during college bowl season while fans of the game like myself watch the R&L Carriers Bowl between two teams that have no business in a bowl game, but hey it is football.

Keeping my own two cents in mind, here is the late George Carlin talking about sports.  Get a grip, don't get upset about being comical about your favorite games/sports.  The funniest stuff starts around 2:45 into the 10 minute routine.

To Deal or Not to Deal

Anyone with half of their brain present and/or functioning knows that governments are in the business of making deals.  Deals must be made for agendas to be accomplished.  Deals must be made to realize a set of national goals (and the lack of dealing is surely showing up in the lack of national goals in the U.S. these days).  When governments do not make deals elite/ruling coalitions are unable to give voice to the interests of the constituents they represent in meaningful and constructive ways.  So, stop telling me that the U.S. government should not have made a deal with the Taliban for the return of a U.S. soldier.

While states (governments) remain the primary actors in the international system, sane individuals must realize that other transnational actors exist and must be engaged with in the current configuration of the international system.  Among these transnational actors are psuedo-governments (Taliban) and terrorists.  At the end of the war in Vietnam the U.S. government did make deals for the release of U.S. service members held as POWs.  Now, we can argue semantics here about the Taliban as psuedo-government or terrorist organization and thus was Bergdahl a POW or a hostage.  Oh wait, we negotiate hostage releases too (sometimes in manners not quite above reproach--anyone remember the late 1980s).

So, I am not at all off-put by negotiating and dealing for Bergdahl's release.  I will question a few things about this deal.  One, if the law says a 30 day written notice must be given to the U.S. Congress by the U.S. President prior to releasing, swapping, whatever of prisoners at Gitmo, then the U.S. President broke the law and deserves the full weight of punishment for violating the law, as I believe our president is not above the law.  Second, did we make a good bargain?  Bergdahl, by credible evidence and reports, is a deserter and what is the value of a deserter.  For my two cents worth we over-paid for Bergdahl's release.  Two very high ranking Taliban members and three more to boot for Bergdahl is too much, negotiate better next time Mr. President.