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?

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.

Cost of K-12 Education

I read an article this morning about the rising cost of sending your kid back to school (read it here).  I guess I went to schools that were "out of line" with other schools.  If you played sports you sold stuff to your neighbors and friends or your parents paid for your share of the athletic costs.  If you played in the band you provided your own instrument or you rented one from the school.  If you did extra-curricular anything, you paid for the cost of the program.

The article says that parents are required to pay for some classroom materials.  Well, we had to pay for our own pens, pencils, paper.  If you took an art class you had to pay for colored pens, pencils, chalks, paints, etc.  I guess I am not very sympathetic to the complaints.  If you want your kid to go to school, participate in extra-curricular activities, and have fun, you have to pay for it.  My parents paid for it, I pay for it with my kids sports activities, what is the big deal?  So what if I have to buy paper and pencils and pens for my kids to use in school? Quit whining, prioritize your spending habits, take care of your kids. 

By the way, in Grove City, PA we have kids that legitimately come from families that cannot afford to pay for extra-curricular activities and school supplies.  Two things come to mind.  One, life is generally tough and not very fair.  Two, many of our community make donations willingly to help those in need.  Just my two cents, but charity comes from people, not the government, regardless of the type of aid required by people who need assistance. 

Can Reporters Please Report Correctly

I am seriously getting tired of members of the news media incorrectly reporting about assault weapons and the 1994 "Gun Ban".  The items in question are what is an assault rifle, and just what was banned by the 1994 law that went out of enforcement in 2004?  So, let me give you my two cents on this matter.

To clarify what an assault rifle is for those, like most journalists, who do not understand much of anything about firearms, let me put some information on the table.  An assault rifle is a long-barreled (we generally take the term long-barreled to refer to any barrel over 10 inches in length) firearm designed for military and security (police, private security firms, etc.) forces.  We refer to them as assault rifles because they are used to "assault" enemy troops/defenses.  The major difference between assault rifles and other rifles is number of rounds that can be fired with one trigger pull and capacity of the magazine.  Of course, prior to design changes most assault rifles were lever action or bolt action, but in the contemporary world assault rifles are magazine fed and capable of automatic fire--which means more than one round is fired each time the trigger is pulled.  NOTE:  Many rifles exist which clone (look like) assault rifles but are not assault rifles because they do not fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger.  Because assault rifles are generally magazine fed, designers have spent much energy and research on developing magazines that have high capacity (high capacity is generally any magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition).

In 1994, the U.S. Congress determined that assault rifles should no longer be transferred from one private owner to another private owner or imported into the country for sale to a private owner.  Of course caveats to this decision existed.  One, if the rifle was made before and imported into the country before Jan 1, 1987 the rifle could be transferred using the approved system created in 1934.  Two, any rifle that looked like (cloned) an assault rifle or had certain features like a pistol grip was also included in this ban--with exceptions.  The exceptions to clones was that they had to have a certain number of parts from a list created by BATFE regulation that were manufactured in the U.S and the parts other than those which were U.S. manufacture were required to be manufactured prior to a certain date.  So, assault rifles were not banned, transfer of assault rifles to private owners was limited.  Dealers could still import for their businesses, but could not transfer those firearms to private citizens.  Private citizens could still purchase an assault rifle if it was already in the country prior to 1987.  And dealers and private citizens could make, sell, trade, etc. clones of assault rifles if they had the requisite number of approved U.S. manufactured parts from the required parts list.

What was banned?  What the 1994 law really banned was manufacture, import, sell of modern high capacity magazines.  U.S. based companies could not manufacture a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds of ammunition.  However, again if the magazines were already in the country, they could be sold, traded, etc.  The real intent of the 1994 law was to limit the number of rounds that could be easily fired at any one time from a firearm.  Of course, this law assumed that most users of firearms would not purchase several extra 10 round magazines and become proficient in their use, or that many firearms users would find high capacity magazines on the open market and purchase these magazines.

To illustrate my point I mention two rifles and one state's laws (California).  What is the difference between and AK-47 or AK-74 and an AKM?  An AKM is not capable of selective fire (that is to say that the AKM can only fire one round when the trigger is pulled).  Most of the bird brains in the press corps have not figured this out and incorrectly call every firearm that looks like an AK-47 an AK-47 (including the AK-74 which uses a different round and has some distinctives that trained eyes recognize).  What is the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 (or any variant thereof, like the M-4)?  The AR-15 is not capable of selective fire.  Now, both the AKM and the AR-15 can handle high capacity magazines, including some magazines that hold upto 100 rounds.  Most states do not keep owners from purchasing firearms that utilize high capacity magazines.  California does limit magazine capacity.  CA requires some types of weapons to have fixed magazines (magazines cannot be dropped and replaced rapidly) and limits capacity of even non-fixed magazines.  Has this made much difference in CA criminal use of firearms--well, you can check out those facts for yourself.

Again, for my two cents, I really wish the journalists would get things straight and call the firearm what the firearm really is and not what they want it to be or think it is without having made certain the information they are reporting to the general public.    

Photo Evidence--I really Did Go To Russia

I know, I promised awhile back to post photo evidence.  Been a busy summer.

Is There Something We Should Do?

Unless you were stuck without access to any form of news media for the last week and this is the first digital media you have looked at since your loss of access to news media (I am grateful, but really?), you have been made aware of the events in Aurora, CO.  A mentally disturbed (reportedly) young male went on a rampage using an AR-15 and two Glock pistols that resulted in 12 deaths and over 50 wounded.  (The toll could have been higher but the AR-15 jammed). 

Now we will hear from those who hate guns and U.S. gun culture.  They will claim again that the guns killed people and that we should do something to keep guns away from people.  These claims and thoughts will come from the usual suspects like the Brady Campaign  and from respected academics (yes, this is my mentor and PhD advisor's blog) and will be challenged by the usual suspects.  Since this debate will occur, I have decided to add my two cents.

First, I want to address reporting errors.  Four guns is hardly an arsenal.  Yep, the shooter owned four guns (AR-15, 2 Glock pistols, and a shotgun).  Be honest, how many of us know people who own 20+ firearms?  20+ firearms might be a good start at a personal firearms arsenal.  But, four is not an arsenal.  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, an AR-15 is an assault rifle clone.  To actually qualify as an assault rifle, the rifle must be capable of full automatic fire (that is you must be able to pull the trigger once and empty the magazine), an AR-15 allows one bullet per pull of the trigger to be fired down range.  The misguided notion regarding what is and what is not an assault rifle is the same sentiment that has us putting orange tips on toy gun barrels.  Clips hold ammunition, they are not the vessel used to put ammunition in a firearm, those vessels that place ammunition in a firearm are called magazines.  The difference is quite noticeable.

Aside from the reporting errors, the big question that should consume our thoughts is what should we do in response to this event and other similar events that happened in the past and might happen again in the future?  After all, we are thoughtful human beings capable of finding solutions to problems.  But to collectively find solutions means to collectively legislate.  In making every issue political are we going too far?  I think we are going too far, not every issue needs to be politicized.  I ask the same question in regard to issues of value, lifestyle choices, etc. should we make everything a political question?  I am a political scientist and I have real doubts about the efficacy of making so many things in our lives political questions.  Governance is not the answer to all of life's problems.

What if we had laws limiting the number of firearms or type of firearms available?  Do you really think this would stop someone determined to use firearms for deadly purposes (does the name Breivik ring a bell for anyone)?  I think the answer is no.  Indeed, the Aurora shooter was also a "brilliant science student" and police found his apartment heavily booby-trapped.  The potential exists that this "shooter" could have been this "bomber".  Manufacture of homemade explosive devices is not really that difficult and does not require an exorbitant amount of scientific knowledge, skill, or equipment, but with a higher aptitude or amount of knowledge, skill, or equipment...well, guess what is possible.

What if we had laws limiting the showing of movies after 8 pm?  What if we had enforcement of laws limiting minors from being out after 10 pm without parent/guardian (I ask this because every city I have lived in has these types of laws and I have rarely seen them enforced)?  So, Is there something we should do? 

Operating from a premise of imperfect information (sorry news media, ya'll do not have the complete set of facts and probably never will, so neither will I), I do not believe there is a collective answer.  I know what I will do based on my imperfect information.  I will hope that due effort is made by law enforcement to ensure that the perpetrator of the shooting will be found, tried, convicted, penalized to the fullest extent of the law.  I will continue to pray for the comfort and ease of pain for those who lost loved ones, friends, family in this ugly event.

To Fly or Not To Fly

Ok, tomorrow is the 4th day of the month of July.  A few years ago--236 if I can still do subtraction--a group of people we call patriots* in the U.S., but were called traitors in Britain, declared the territory they represented to be independent of the British Empire.  Great, hip hip hooray, I am pretty sure that I prefer the system of government that was created better than the system of government that has evolved.  I am also pretty sure that I appreciate what has evolved more than many other systems of government. 
         *Patriot--one who loves and zealously supports his/her own country.

So, tomorrow we show our adulation for country by backyard cookouts, fireworks, waving flags, etc.  I really love this stuff--well most of this stuff.  I cook brats, throw firecrackers around the yard, set off fireworks at dusk, watch the town fireworks display.  After all, this stuff is fun.  For the people out there who think citizens/residents of the U.S. are going overboard, maybe we are, but so what?  Are ya'll really so full of spite and hatred that you have to be that petty?  I do not recall getting upset over Canada celebrating Canada Days.  I do not recall really caring that you staged a week long fanfare for the Queen in England.  Last time Russians celebrated anything I am sure that I did not mind (though I really hope it irritated the ghosts of Lenin and Stalin that food courts and souvenirs stands were going full tilt in a show of capitalism on Red Square)  Sure, I recognize that my country has faults, heck I dislike the people who want to run the show here so much that I have not voted for a major party candidate since 1988, I recognize that my country does some really dumb and harmful things (but what do you expect with Neocons and Liberal Interventionists running the show?), but I am a citizen and I celebrate that heritage tomorrow, I am not celebrating being "better than you"--in fact, we may not be better than you--I am commemorating the declaration/founding of my home country.  Come on by the house, I'll throw a firecracker at you and hand you some to play with too--I love to celebrate with everyone.

But there is one real question:  Do I have to fly the U.S. national flag?  This flag did not exist in 1776.  Besides, I have a really nice collection of Confederate States of America national flags (I rarely fly the "Battle Flag" because I am not at war or engaging in conflict with anyone to the best of my knowledge).  I am currently flying the second national flag of the Confederacy outside my house.  What say anyone who reads this--must I fly the U.S. national flag tomorrow?