2015 Retrospect, 2016 Ahead

I am thinking about the last year and the new year this morning, much as everyone else has this week at some point.  The highlights of the year kinda thinking, as well as academic stuff and globally important stuff.  So what are my highlights, what sticks out to me about the last year and has me excited for the next year?

First, my wife and I celebrated our 16th anniversary on Christmas Eve.  For my two cents, the most amazing thing in my life is that she puts up with me and stuck around for nearly two decades so far. She makes it possible each day for me to get up get dressed, go to work, etc.  Even when I fail, she is still there supporting me.

Second, my sons are a joy.  The oldest finally started caring about his school work.  The youngest continues to rock on through school.  They both still play football, but new positions for them both this year--the oldest is now a wide receiver and defensive back, the youngest now plays center and defensive end, and a few snaps at receiver to run the ball on a reverse (a 25 yd. touchdown run and two other 20+ yard runs for his 3 carries).  The oldest also plays basketball (not well, but I can't dribble or shoot, so what do I really know about the game).  The youngest is wrestling, another sport I never learned beyond practicing Saturday morning TV wrestling moves on a trampoline and being a teenage boy once around other teenage boys.

Third, I still love my job.  I took a sabbatical in spring 2015, it was great.  Of course now I can't have another for about six years.  But more importantly, time to rest, read, research left me rejuvenated for the effort of serving my students, my colleagues, and the college.  Learning and passing on knowledge and techniques for learning to bright young people is such a great way to spend ones time. Hey, I even get paid to talk about things I enjoy.

And then there are the things of this world other than my family and my work.  The blog post I made that gathered the most attention this year was about Syrian refugees.  Guess what, I still support accepting refugees--we do need to vet them closely, we do not have to allow them full and free access to our country (refugee camps anyone, don't we still have the FEMA trailers and facilities that can be repurposed?).  I think Vladmir Putin is a major threat to the U.S. vision of global order and stability--because he has his own vision and his own population to please.  I believe Daesh needs to be defeated and serves as proof of the ugliness of extremism regardless of underlying religious ideology.  I believe that the security of individuals can never be guaranteed by a government or any collective and thus support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms (not just in the U.S. but everywhere in the world).

As troubling as the travails of this world may seem, I remain assured of the truth.  Good news does exist for all mankind.  Jesus Christ eschewed his role as God, came to earth as a man, died for our salvation.  The blood He shed still remains as the source of cleansing us from sin if we answer God's call to us.  I can handle success, I can handle failure, I can enjoy my wife, my sons, my life because God is with me.  All of the problems of this earth are just that, problems of this earth, they exist because we humans are at our core a pretty rotten lot capable of great destructiveness and banality.  But God remains our hope, our salvation.  I hope you all have a blessed 2016.
      

Saving Matt Damon

I finally watched The Martian a few days ago.  I was excited to watch this movie, the book was excellent.  The movie was a better than average coverage of a complex book.  After all, the book was SCIENCE fiction. I might also add Matt Damon is one of the few actors whose work I actually want to see, as I consider his bad works to be better than most other actors' good works--maybe he is just better at picking scripts that are not stupid/boring/totally ignorant/supply your own words.  And then I saw this headline as I perused a news service this morning:  "More than $900 Billion Has Been Spent Saving Matt Damon".

The article details that in all of the movies where Matt Damon has played a character that had to be saved about $900 billion would be the 2015 cost of saving the character.  The list and the author's suggested cost:

Courage Under Fire (Gulf War 1 helicopter rescue): $300k
Saving Private Ryan (WW2 Europe search party): $100k
Titan A.E. (Earth evacuation spaceship): $200B
Syriana (Middle East private security return flight): $50k
Green Zone (US Army transport from Middle East): $50k
Elysium (Space station security deployment and damages): $100m
Interstellar (Interstellar spaceship): $500B
The Martian (Mars mission): $200B

For my two cents the problem is the list.  I do not recall that Damon's character (Cale Tucker) was "saved" in Titan A.E.   Also not really sure I would call what happened in Syriana related to Bryan Woodman a "saving" event.  No "saving" of Max happened in Elysium--though Max's altruistic end might have saved some people.  Also, was Dr. Mann (Interstellar) really "saved" or just woken from cryo-sleep as part of NASA's Lazarus Missions?  And Dr. Mann does die when he tries to take over the spaceship for his own use.  Under my own figures saving Matt Damon has really cost:

Courage Under Fire:  $300k
Saving Private Ryan:  $100k
Green Zone:                  $50k
The Martian:               $200B

Total for saving Matt Damon:  $200,000,450,000 (or just over $200 billion U.S. in 2015 dollars), which is still a hefty sum for saving an actor. 

"One Nation..." Not Hardly

Over the years in talking about nationalism with my students I have often tied the concept back to what I find silliest about the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.  Ok, aside from pledging allegiance to a symbol being merely stupid, what I find silly is the claim that we are "one nation".  I do not even get to the point of considering the question of whether the "nation" is "under God" (I am, not sure about most of my fellow citizens or members of the nationality to which I belong).  I usually talk about the Native American "Nations" with which the government of the U.S. has bound us to recognize by legally binding treaties (which, of course, our government and our population have never really obliged themselves to honor).  But this morning I came across the following chart while surfing through sporting news and clicking on cute little boxes meant to get our attention at the end of the story (this box promised me 10 charts that would change my life--probably did not change anything).

 For my two cents, hillariously true.

Reacting to San Bernadino, The Good and the Bad

Last week something terrible happened here in the U.S.  Religious extremist violently attacked known unarmed people in San Bernadino, CA.  Note, I could have said Muslim extremists, because they were Muslim, but that is not my point here.  People had their living days on earth cut off, I will personally never understand why people die when they die--I am not God--but we can know how they died  In this case, they died at the hands of religious extremists who see the world as a cosmic war of good vs. evil where they represent the good and everything else is evil.  They died at the hands of intolerance, religious extremists are intolerant of all who do not accept their specific understanding of their specfic religion--hence Muslims extremists have killed as many Muslims as they have Atheists, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.  Also I must truthfully say they died as a result of semi-automatic gunfire. 

How should we react to such an event?  I was taught by my dear ole dad (D.o.D) to react with common sense rather than fear--do not let fear or common sense stop you from doing what you want to do he often told me, which was his way of saying "think about it, don't be stupid."  For my two cents, I have thought about it, and divide a few of the reactions into two categories, good and bad.

The good:

The U.S. House of Representatives is tightening restrictions on non-visa entry into the U.S.  Currently we allow citizens of a number of countries with valid passports to enter the U.S. without a Visa if they are staying less than 90 days.  The House passed a bill that would require a Visa for anyone who has traveled in a list of hot spots for extremist training and violence.  This action is great, a real actual security measure that can be taken.

Rand Paul's reaction to Donald Trump (see below): in an interview with Katie Couric, Rand Paul stated that having a religious test for immigration and entry into the U.S. is wrong, stricter scrutiny is good.  Paul did say (before some of you get angry) that it would be foolish not realize that there is a religious "aspect to the war" (his words).  Again, I feel it more important to realize it is an extremist religious aspect and not representative of the vast majority, just as Timothy McVeigh was an extremist whose actions were not representative of all Christians.

The bad:

Gun Grabber talk/ammo panick talk.  So the people used guns to shoot other people.  So they used "military style" guns to shoot other people.  So they possessed about 5000 rounds of ammo.  Guns are tools, I am going to use an old statement that will not assuage the gun grabbers, but one that still remains true, "Guns do not kill anyone, people kill people".  Tools can be used however we desire to use the tools, does taking away one tool mean that people cannot use other tools to complete their chosen task.  Honestly, how many of you rednecks out there have hammered with whatever heavy object or metal object, or shoe, happened to be handy?  How many of you have used a pocket knife as a screwdriver?  In 2011, according to FBI crime statistics, more people were killed by hammers and clubs than by rifles (don't know about all guns, but rifles seems relevant as the San Bernadino shooters were using rifles--but again don't let common sense stop you from thinking whatever you want to think--thanks D.o.D).

Donald Trump.  I could probably just stop with mentioning his name.  The demand to stop all Muslims from entering the country is XENOPHOBIA plain and simple.  Do not let fear run your life.  Resist the urge to make hasty reactions to bad things.  Sure, we all are alarmed that Muslim extremists just committed another act of terror in the U.S.  But, the answer is not to ban all Muslims from entering the country--since when do we punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty (ok, aside from the fact that the U.S. people pay for the acts of Congress and the President regularly, and back in the day the whole class got a swat from the paddle because a few people were talking).  Do we not still hold to the principle of justice that says all people are innocent until proven guilty?          

Credible Partners in...

I like lists.  Lists allow us to make some generalizable statements.  Lists allow us to categorize our thoughts. 

I spent the last week grading papers, grading exams, grading homework.  For me, this effort was typical for the week of Thanksgiving Break here at GCC.  Of course, I take off Thanksgiving Day to be with my family and the Saturday afternoon following to watch the Iron Bowl.  Between papers and exams I read, I read blogs by other scholars, I read AP stories with headlines that intimate some subject about which I am interested in knowing more, I peruse news services looking for headlines not found in the AP.  I read quite a few stories in the last week about credible partners for the U.S. in fighting terrorism, in addressing climate change, etc.  I thought then about how to categorize, rank, organize credible partners.  For my two cents, what follows are the lists of credible partners in...whatever I title the list.

Partners in Crime:
10. Ivan (my dog deserves to make some list)
 9.  5FDP (if you have to ask, you will not understand anyway)
 8.  the boys (we will always have each other's back)
 7.  A.M. (never hurts to have a LEO with you if you are being stupid)
 6.  B.M. (even if you did by a 5.56, at least it is a cool one)
 5.  E. P. (always have a home-brewer along)
 4.  B.C. (Take along someone big enough and potentially mean enough)
 3.  B.B. (yeah, you get to be a partner in crime--probably already were)
 2.  K.E. (the crowd needs some mellowing)
 1. T.D.G. (yeah, you know why you're here on the list)

Ok, really, the lists are supposed to be about real stuff:

Partners in Counter-Terrorism
10. China, PRC  (still not convinced they are fighting terrorists versus wanting to kill Uighurs, etc)
  9. Russia (pretty sure Putin just wants to look tough and hates most Muslims, as do most
                   xenophobic Russians I ever met)
  8. Saudi Arabia (pretty sure they are really part of the problem)
  7. Belgium (lots of CT practice in last 30 years)
  6. United Kingdom (fanatics with cameras everywhere, MI5 and SAS are good at their jobs)
  5. Canada (please keep north of the border and keep anyone who enters North American through
      your borders north of our border)
  4. India (may seem strange, but the Indian govt does quite a bit of CT work)
  3. France (they have some really well trained CT groups, just haven't always used them well)
  2. Germany (efficiency matters)
  1. Israel (you want to know how to do CT, learn from the best)

Addressing Climate Change
 3.  Anyone silly enough to suggest the the U.S. should foot most of the bill (which basically means
       every other country in the world).
 2.  China, PRC (yep, now they are on this list twice, once as part of 10, here because they are right,
       do not believe for a minute that a one size fits all solution is practical for addressing climate
       change)
 1.  Canada (hey we share a really long border, electricity producing facilities, etc. we should
       cooperate a little better on climate change--besides noone will really believe I put Canada this
       high up on any list)



 

Syrian Refugees in the U.S.

Quick someone read the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocols.  Look at the list of signatory states---who is there?  Yes, you read the list correctly, the United States is a signatory.   Our country has agreed to accept people meeting the strict definitions of refugee who apply for refugee and asylum status in this country.  I have written earlier in my blog about the appropriateness of considering those fleeing Syria as refugees (read it here).  Today I am writing to address a different issue--not whether we should accept refugees, but the absolutely idiotic idea that we should limit this to only Christian refugees.

Quick, grab a seat ladies and gentlemen.  I do not want you to fall over while I make a simple statement to you.  The United States is not, has never been, a Christian country.  Our population has never been limited only to people passing a litmus test of religious belief.  Indeed our Constitution as amended flatly denies the right of the government to create or limit the practice of religion (never says Christianity, it says religion--period).  In my humble opinion, we would be quite hypocritical to only accept Christian refugees into this country. 

Note, I did not say anything about not vetting the refugees to attempt to ensure that militant extremists (of any belief system) are not included in those allowed into the country.  Militant religious extremists represent less than one percent of all people professing any faith.  To blame all of the Islamic population in the world for the actions of some Islamic extremists is the same as blaming all of the Christian population of the world for the actions of Timothy McVeigh (who was, according to some reports, a supporter of the World Church of the Creator--an extremist, Christian sect).  Nonetheless, the U.S. government can and does do background checks on those applying for asylum and refugee status in the United States.  Potentially, some extremists might slip through the vetting process--life is tough that way some days.

I do not hide from the fact I am a Christian.  After careful consideration of my faith, I am confronted by the fact that believers are to model Christ-like behavior.  And, we are to model that behavior not just to other believers, but to non-believers.  I will not deny access to me to the non-believers of the world.  Should this position put me at risk of life and limb, I will defend my physical self as needed.  Should this position cost me my life, let the living know that as one of the redeemed I have gone to a better future.

For my two cents, the knee-jerk reaction to terrorist attacks in Paris by people associated with Daesh of saying do not let in any non-Christian Syrian refugees in the U.S. is based on fear.  Ladies and Gentlemen, you can live your life in fear, or you can live your life.  As for me, I will live my life.  Prudence dictates being prepared, being prepared does not always equal a winning outcome.  But living in fear will always lead to a losing outcome.

Is the Cold War Back? Did it Ever Go Away?

I read blog posts from my mentors and former professors regularly.  Particularly I still read Dr. Saideman's Blog (Saideman's Semi-Spew) on a routine basis.  Usually some good stuff to think about and much that I find humorous in the presentation.  Yesterday he posted about a presentation he gave at a NATO Association of Canada conference.  Apparently the Russian representatives in the room were not thrilled with Steve's presentation. 

One line caught my attention.  "Anyhow, I realized that the Russians do a fine job of making me take hardline stances--that the cold war is back and we might as well remember the old playbook of tripwires and credible commitments."  So, I asked myself is the Cold War back?  For my two cents, I am not sure, particularly as I have been stressing to students for about 15 years the need to remove ourselves from Cold War mentality in determining security threats, security needs, and strategic planning.  Then I thought about my critique of U.S. foreign policy and strategic decision-making in the last 20+ years and realized that indeed most of the decision makers are Cold War bred.  So I ask now, did the Cold War ever end?

German Spying

Guess what ladies and gentlemen, the German BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) spied on governments and non-governmental organizations (read about it here).  Wow, what a revelation.  I am shocked.  Can you believe it, one of the allies of the U.S. engaged in espionage that included looking into some of our own diplomatic communications. 

For my two cents, so what?  Really, this information is news?  In the words of my favorite tennis player of all time--you cannot be serious.  The International Business Tribune headline calls it "Germany Surveillance Scandal 2015."  Really, what is the scandal, a spy agency representing the interests of its government spied on other governments and organizations?  Shocked I tell you, shocked I am.

Myanmar's Elections: Real Democracy?

Anyone who has ever listened to me for very long knows that I am not a big fan of many forms of government, as I feel as Churchill did that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  Recognizing this fact, I favor the expansion of democratic values and institutions throughout the world as the best alternative to having no government (see JS I am not an anarchist).  I do not, however, believe that simply having elections is the hallmark democracy.  Having elections in many places is actually dangerous (see Paul Collier's work for an explanation).  As I have followed Myanmar for years in the study of ethnic conflict and the general mix of Southeast Asian international relations, I have watched with interest the lead up to and events of this week in Myanmar.  Hey, they went and did it finally, they had elections.  Now the tough part, will elections in Myanmar improve the quality of the practice and institutions of democracy in Myanmar.  For my two cents, to quote a Saturday morning favorite, "not so fast my friends".

First, I see nothing in any of the electoral behavior or in even the rhetoric of either the existing government/military power brokers to indicate that the military will relax its grip on the country.  While the military has given its blessing to the elections, it did so after creating its own political party stocked with retired senior officers and after rewriting the constitution of Myanmar to give the military party 25% of the seats (guaranteed) and giving the power to assume state powers if the military determines a state of emergency exists.  Also, the constitution was rewritten to specifically bar some opposition party members--read Aung San Suu Kyi--from holding the office of president (in her case the law states that no family member of a presidential candidate can hold foreign citizenship, which her sons do hold).

Second, I am not certain that Aung San Suu Kyi is really interested in democracy.  Ok, right now I hear the gnashing of teeth and the gasping of many people.  But, Aung San Suu Kyi may not view democracy as such an open ideology and set of institutions as those of us in settled democracy view democracy.  For instance, Aung San Suu Kyi said last week that it does not matter if she can be president, she will be the real power above the president.  As read in Robin McDowell's article in the AP wire line on Nov. 5th, "I'll be above the president...I'll run the government".  This statement does not make me feel most comfortable with the future of democracy in Myanmar.

Finally, I see nothing in the behavior of the majority Buddhist National League for Democracy party led by Aung San Suu Kyi recognizing the rights of ethnic minority populations in Myanmar.  Given the number of problems involving ethnic minorities highlighted in the past year's news from Myanmar, I would expect democratic proponents to be more favorably disposed toward respecting the will of the majority while recognizing the rights of the minority.  And I just do not see this right now in Myanmar.

Maybe I am too pessimistic. Maybe not.

Boots or Sneakers on the Ground in Syria--Does it Change the Game?

The big news of the past few days is that the U.S. will be sending Special Forces troops (U.S. Army contingent in U.S. Special Operations Command) to Syria to work with rebels there who are anti-ISIS, anti-Al-Nusra, anti-Assad.  What does this activity represent? 

I do not believe it represents an intent to escalate U.S. activity in the area.  We will continue to provide air strikes, limited ammunition to some allies, some intelligence support and other logistic support.  I also do not believe that it represents a caving-in to the "we have to do something/we have to do more" crowd.  In fact, I am not really sure that this action has any immediate impact on Assad, Al-Nusra, or ISIS.

For my two cents, it is a means of sending a message to the Russians.  By embedding U.S. Special Forces with some anti-Assad rebels, we make it difficult for the Russians to continue air strikes and support for Syrian Government ground attacks.  While the Russians are willing to negotiate (as long as Assad remains in power (for now) and Iran is involved) they had not backed down from their activities which were designed to carve out a coastal zone of control for the Assad government.  Now the Russians have to slow down and determine if the "terrorists" they are attacking on behalf of the Syrian government are "good terrorists" or "bad terrorists".  After all, according to the Russians all Syrian rebels are terrorists and all terrorists are bad terrorists.  Laissez les bon temps rouler

Congrats K.C.

Congratulations to the Kansas City Royals, World Series Champions 2015.  The Royals are the one team in professional baseball that I follow each year.  My family lived in the Kansas City metro area while my father was in seminary in the mid 1970s and I became a fan in the age of George Brett, Freddie Patek, Frank White, John Mayberry, John Wathan, Buck Martinez, Amos Otis, Willie Wilson, Al Cowens, Hal McRae, Al Fitzmorrs, Paul Splittorff, Dennis Leaonard, Doug Bird, and Mark Littell.  I watched in great angst as Buddy Biancalana became an unlikely post season hero in 1985 after batting under the Mendoza line for the regular season and Saberhagen, Black, Gubicza, Leibrandt and Quisenberry provided the pitching.  Wilson, Motley and Sheridan patrolled the outfield while Wathan and Sundberg did the catching.  Brett and White remained, joined by Steve Balboni and Concepcion platooning with Biancalana at shortstop.  I can probably name about five or six of this year's roster, but congrats guys.

Trying Hard to Look Like Gary Cooper

Thanks Jerry Holbert for the laugh that I needed this gray, rainy morning. 

For my two cents, I have decided on my own limited anecdotal observations that Putin wants to reinstate the Cold War and that the leaders of the U.S. are perfectly willing to return to the Cold War.  Putin wants Russia to be relevant, the U.S. leadership doesn't know how to make that happen without feeling that they have given away being number one in the world.  Not to mention that we still have the PRC to interact with on a regular basis.  So, we return to our political comfort zones--was Mearsheimer correct, do we miss the Cold War?