As I mentioned in a previous blog, the problem I am most concerned about in Myanmar is the sectarian violence of Theravada Buddhism versus other population groups in Myanmar. Well, my fears are being borne out in Myanmar in the last few days. In Rakhine State, on the Bay of Bengal side of Myanmar, the Rakhine population (primarily Buddhist) and the Rohingya population (Primarily Islamic) have begun fighting in earnest. According to an article in the AP 56 people have been killed and 200 homes destroyed in the last few days. This violence is greater than that sparked in June of this year when a group of Muslim men were accused of raping a Buddhist woman and is part of a larger wave of violence since last October that has left at least 84 people dead and over 100 wounded. Disappointing to me is the lack of a statement by the NLD led by Aung San Suu Kyi in regard to the violence.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Top 5 Worst Nobel Peace Prize Awards
The awarding of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union requires me to think for a few minutes about the prize and particularly upon silly, or down right stupid, award recipient decisions. I mean really, you could not come up with a deserving individual--heck you could give it to Aung San Suu Kyi for a second time (she was awarded the prize in 1991) easier than giving it to an organization. What about the Syrian or Lybian activits that all of teh peace study people have run around touting in the last year? Heck, I'd even feel better about doing a 1939-43, 1948,, 1955-56, 1966-67, 1972 (years in which no peace prize was awarded (there are more of these if you want to go further back, but I was being lazy and just making a point here so I did not go back further). Since I like giving my two cents in the form of lists, here are my top 5 worst Nobel Peace Prizes.
5) 1965 UNICEF
The United Nation's International Children's Educational Fund. Children are great, I love my kids, as a Christian I love your kids too, in a charitable way. I love organizations that support kids (I serve on boards that support kids locally). Does any of this love earn a peace prize? No. Supporting kids has not remedied the exploitation of children around the world. UNICEF did not deserve the prize in 1965 nor any year of its existence.
4) 1988 UN Peacekeeping Forces
Seriously, what was up with this award. Peacekeeping forces prior to 1988 were even less successful than those after 1988. And those since 1988 include the peacemakers who use force to try to end conflict situations. Wow, come wear a blue beanie and we'll recognize you as a world class peace operator.
3) 2001 UN, Kofi Annan
Well, well, well. Kofi himself and the UN. Kofi, let us remember, was the UN under-secretary who in 1994 decided not to allow the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda to confiscate weapons caches that were used to arm the Interhamwe and kill 800,000 to 1,000,000 people. He and the UN really deserved to be recognized for championing peace in the world.
tie 3) 2007 IPCC, Al Gore
Since when is harping on global warming and carbon emissions worthy of recognition as a peace generating enterprise?
2) 2012 European Union
What is the recognition for? Did the EU keep the peace since the end of WWII? No, I believe that was largely a strong U.S. presence and then a strong NATO. Did the EU keep the peace after the cold war? No, that would be a strong NATO. By the way, the EU dropped the ball concerning the former Yugoslavia and that turned out very peacefully.
1) 2009 Barrack Obama
Well, in the future I might do something that might make a difference in bringing peace to the world. So, since I am not George W. Bush, and I might do something different in the future than my predecessor presidents of the U.S., I deserve this award and accept the award. Well, in the future I might think more of Obama as a peacemaker, but currently not so much.
Okay, so I gave you six (with a third place tie), I could give more, but wanted to keep it sort of short. And, I did not want to go Jimmy Carter (2002) bashing here, as Jimmy has enough detractors in the world. It would also have been too easy to bash Amnesty International (1977).
I'll give you my top two most worthy recipients:
2) 1991 Aung San Suu Kyi--you rock woman, keep it up.
1) 1929 Frank Billing Kellog--you really can't outlaw war, but hey, you gave it a real shot.
5) 1965 UNICEF
The United Nation's International Children's Educational Fund. Children are great, I love my kids, as a Christian I love your kids too, in a charitable way. I love organizations that support kids (I serve on boards that support kids locally). Does any of this love earn a peace prize? No. Supporting kids has not remedied the exploitation of children around the world. UNICEF did not deserve the prize in 1965 nor any year of its existence.
4) 1988 UN Peacekeeping Forces
Seriously, what was up with this award. Peacekeeping forces prior to 1988 were even less successful than those after 1988. And those since 1988 include the peacemakers who use force to try to end conflict situations. Wow, come wear a blue beanie and we'll recognize you as a world class peace operator.
3) 2001 UN, Kofi Annan
Well, well, well. Kofi himself and the UN. Kofi, let us remember, was the UN under-secretary who in 1994 decided not to allow the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda to confiscate weapons caches that were used to arm the Interhamwe and kill 800,000 to 1,000,000 people. He and the UN really deserved to be recognized for championing peace in the world.
tie 3) 2007 IPCC, Al Gore
Since when is harping on global warming and carbon emissions worthy of recognition as a peace generating enterprise?
2) 2012 European Union
What is the recognition for? Did the EU keep the peace since the end of WWII? No, I believe that was largely a strong U.S. presence and then a strong NATO. Did the EU keep the peace after the cold war? No, that would be a strong NATO. By the way, the EU dropped the ball concerning the former Yugoslavia and that turned out very peacefully.
1) 2009 Barrack Obama
Well, in the future I might do something that might make a difference in bringing peace to the world. So, since I am not George W. Bush, and I might do something different in the future than my predecessor presidents of the U.S., I deserve this award and accept the award. Well, in the future I might think more of Obama as a peacemaker, but currently not so much.
Okay, so I gave you six (with a third place tie), I could give more, but wanted to keep it sort of short. And, I did not want to go Jimmy Carter (2002) bashing here, as Jimmy has enough detractors in the world. It would also have been too easy to bash Amnesty International (1977).
I'll give you my top two most worthy recipients:
2) 1991 Aung San Suu Kyi--you rock woman, keep it up.
1) 1929 Frank Billing Kellog--you really can't outlaw war, but hey, you gave it a real shot.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Are You Kidding?
Anyone read the story today about the airport police office in Philly discharging a confiscated weapon and discharged the firearm instead. Let's see here, if I pull this the bullets will come out... Moron, firearms do not accidentally discharge, there are internal safeties built into nearly every firearm manufactured in the last 20 years to avoid accidental discharge. The biggest safety of all is often forgotten...
Onerous
Onerous--(adjective) burdensome.
How burdensome is proof of citizenship? Many complaints I have read about in news articles recently talk about making voters prove citizenship to register being onerous. When you become a naturalized citizen the U.S. government gives you documents that prove this citizenship. When you are born on territory of a state of the U.S. or territory of the U.S. or as a dependent of a U.S. government employ on recognized assignment in a foreign territory you receive a birth certificate that qualifies as proof of U.S. citizenship. What is onerous about showing this document along with proof of current residency to be given the privilege of voting (oops, it is a privilege not a right--people should go back and read the laws and cases regarding voting). Some states require a state issued photo identification card to be shown before you can vote--wow big, stiff requirement, this is a burden if I have ever seen one.
Continuing to read the drivel about burdensome requirements for voting is onerous to me. At least that is my two cents worth.
How burdensome is proof of citizenship? Many complaints I have read about in news articles recently talk about making voters prove citizenship to register being onerous. When you become a naturalized citizen the U.S. government gives you documents that prove this citizenship. When you are born on territory of a state of the U.S. or territory of the U.S. or as a dependent of a U.S. government employ on recognized assignment in a foreign territory you receive a birth certificate that qualifies as proof of U.S. citizenship. What is onerous about showing this document along with proof of current residency to be given the privilege of voting (oops, it is a privilege not a right--people should go back and read the laws and cases regarding voting). Some states require a state issued photo identification card to be shown before you can vote--wow big, stiff requirement, this is a burden if I have ever seen one.
Continuing to read the drivel about burdensome requirements for voting is onerous to me. At least that is my two cents worth.
Muslim Protests/Riots
"Iranian students chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the French embassy in Tehran in protest at the decision by satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish catroons of the Prophet Mohammad, days after widespread protests--some deadly--against a film made in the United States."
--Robin Pomeroy, "From Nigeria to Athens, Muslim Protests Rumble On," Reuters 9/24/12
Does anyone else look at this and say, maybe this is why people look at Islamists and cringe or worry about the intentions of Islamists in the pursuit of the spread of Islam in the world? Sure that idiotic film (hey I watched a 13 minute trailer--the film is just bad, regardless of the intended message) was made in California. But, I did not make the film, nor did the elected government of the United States. The cartoons were published in a European magazine--what do the people and state of Israel have to do with this publication?
Christianity and Judaism neither one teach violence in the spread of belief. But, Islam does (I have also read the Koran). Reasonableness is apparently lacking on the part of the Islamists, who equate every diminuation of their belief with an attack against all of Islam by the United States and Israel. Does this mean that I would be in the right to protest against the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Israel whenever a musical is made that depicts Jesus Christ as homosexual or sexually involved with Mary Magdelene? Oh wait, Christianity teaches love of enemy and acceptance of the authority of state in non-theological matters (As far as I can tell after also reading the Bible). Again, the greater point here is the lack of reasonableness, not the theological debate of the ages, but it seems that one faith leads to a lack of reasonableness.
--Robin Pomeroy, "From Nigeria to Athens, Muslim Protests Rumble On," Reuters 9/24/12
Does anyone else look at this and say, maybe this is why people look at Islamists and cringe or worry about the intentions of Islamists in the pursuit of the spread of Islam in the world? Sure that idiotic film (hey I watched a 13 minute trailer--the film is just bad, regardless of the intended message) was made in California. But, I did not make the film, nor did the elected government of the United States. The cartoons were published in a European magazine--what do the people and state of Israel have to do with this publication?
Christianity and Judaism neither one teach violence in the spread of belief. But, Islam does (I have also read the Koran). Reasonableness is apparently lacking on the part of the Islamists, who equate every diminuation of their belief with an attack against all of Islam by the United States and Israel. Does this mean that I would be in the right to protest against the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Israel whenever a musical is made that depicts Jesus Christ as homosexual or sexually involved with Mary Magdelene? Oh wait, Christianity teaches love of enemy and acceptance of the authority of state in non-theological matters (As far as I can tell after also reading the Bible). Again, the greater point here is the lack of reasonableness, not the theological debate of the ages, but it seems that one faith leads to a lack of reasonableness.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Myanmar's Real Issue
To be blunt, the real issue in Myanmar is not really the future of democracy, but really is the future of democracy. If you are not familiar with it, think long about Benjamin Franklin's statement about a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome. The problem in Myanmar is Theravada Buddhism.
A recent column in Foreign Policy states:
Suu Kyi has a Buddhism problem. Specifically, she faces an obstacle in the chauvinism and xenophobia of Burma's Theravada culture, which encourages a sense of racial and religious superiority among majority Burman Buddhists at the expense of ethnic and religious minorities. Although the world has been largely focused on the drama between Burma's military leaders and "The Lady," fraught relations between ethnic Burmans, who make up 60 percent of the country's population, and the non-Burman minorities, who make up the remaining 40 percent, could leave the country politically fragmented -- and strengthen the military's hand just as it has been forced to loosen its grip.(read the full article here)
I concur with this blunt assessment of the ethnic question in Myanmar. Will the Buddhist sense of superiority carry over into the democratic realm causing real issues for pluralistic growth in Myanmar? Would a democratically elected government treat Karen Christian's (about 20% of the Karen population is Christian, while the Karen population is a total of 7% of the population of Myanmar) differently than the current government or the military led juntas of the last few decades? Why does Suu Kyi not address the ethnic question when talking about being progressive and democratic?
A recent column in Foreign Policy states:
Suu Kyi has a Buddhism problem. Specifically, she faces an obstacle in the chauvinism and xenophobia of Burma's Theravada culture, which encourages a sense of racial and religious superiority among majority Burman Buddhists at the expense of ethnic and religious minorities. Although the world has been largely focused on the drama between Burma's military leaders and "The Lady," fraught relations between ethnic Burmans, who make up 60 percent of the country's population, and the non-Burman minorities, who make up the remaining 40 percent, could leave the country politically fragmented -- and strengthen the military's hand just as it has been forced to loosen its grip.(read the full article here)
I concur with this blunt assessment of the ethnic question in Myanmar. Will the Buddhist sense of superiority carry over into the democratic realm causing real issues for pluralistic growth in Myanmar? Would a democratically elected government treat Karen Christian's (about 20% of the Karen population is Christian, while the Karen population is a total of 7% of the population of Myanmar) differently than the current government or the military led juntas of the last few decades? Why does Suu Kyi not address the ethnic question when talking about being progressive and democratic?
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
An Accreditation Issue? Really?
For those who have been under a rock, totally separated from any form of information provision for the last year, ugly things happened on and around the Penn State University Athletics Department (in particular the football program) under the care of former head coach Joe Paterno. No, Joe Paterno did not do the ugly things, that was handled by Jerry Sandusky (as convicted by a jury in a court of law after a proper legal procedure). But, my musing here is not to rehash who did what, when and where at Penn State, but to comment on the latest information I have read about this ugly event, namely that an accrediting organization is using this unfortunate situation as an excuse to issue an notice of jeopardy of the school's academic accreditation.
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education accredits colleges and universities in the Mid-Atlantic region. Accrediting is the process created to supposedly maintain high academic standards for colleges and universities by having an outside agency decide if you are properly educating students. What this generally means is that the accrediting agencies decide how you should write syllabi, lecture, what materials should be used, what types of courses should be taught--but of course the organizations claim that they are only doing what they have been asked to do by the schools, while the reality is that they are doing what the dept of education of the U.S. govt tells them to do. Many opponents, myself included, believe that accrediting processes are designed to attempt to routinize education, so that academic liberty is at stake because eventually we will all use the same syllabus to teach the same material from the same books using the same lecture outline. So, instead of building academic reputation based on the quality of the students you graduate, you now get an instant "reputation" as an accredited college or university based on inspection and report from the accrediting organization. I'll stop griping about accreditation now.
So, here is my problem. What did the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal have to do with the quality of academic life at Penn State University? Under what reasoning is an accrediting agency throwing around its authority to ask Penn State University to submit reports by the end of September detailing the university's compliance with governmental requirements and the ability of the school to meet it's financial obligations stemming from the Freeh investigation and decisions of the NCAA (I may talk about this "august" body at some other time)? As correctly noted by Blannie Bowen, vice provost for academic affairs at Penn State University, "This action has nothing to do with the quality of education our students receive." So, for my two cents the Middle States Commission on Higher Education needs to butt-out and go back to aggravating people with stupid requirements regarding wording of syllabi.
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education accredits colleges and universities in the Mid-Atlantic region. Accrediting is the process created to supposedly maintain high academic standards for colleges and universities by having an outside agency decide if you are properly educating students. What this generally means is that the accrediting agencies decide how you should write syllabi, lecture, what materials should be used, what types of courses should be taught--but of course the organizations claim that they are only doing what they have been asked to do by the schools, while the reality is that they are doing what the dept of education of the U.S. govt tells them to do. Many opponents, myself included, believe that accrediting processes are designed to attempt to routinize education, so that academic liberty is at stake because eventually we will all use the same syllabus to teach the same material from the same books using the same lecture outline. So, instead of building academic reputation based on the quality of the students you graduate, you now get an instant "reputation" as an accredited college or university based on inspection and report from the accrediting organization. I'll stop griping about accreditation now.
So, here is my problem. What did the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal have to do with the quality of academic life at Penn State University? Under what reasoning is an accrediting agency throwing around its authority to ask Penn State University to submit reports by the end of September detailing the university's compliance with governmental requirements and the ability of the school to meet it's financial obligations stemming from the Freeh investigation and decisions of the NCAA (I may talk about this "august" body at some other time)? As correctly noted by Blannie Bowen, vice provost for academic affairs at Penn State University, "This action has nothing to do with the quality of education our students receive." So, for my two cents the Middle States Commission on Higher Education needs to butt-out and go back to aggravating people with stupid requirements regarding wording of syllabi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)