Stephen Miller Is Too Much of a Schmuck to be a Lousy Realist: Greenland edition

Stephen Miller is the most powerful and malevolent actor in the Trump Administration other than Trump himself.  His personal history is chock full of hate and resentment.  While most of his rhetoric is nakedly white supremacist and betrays his own family history (a self-hating Jew is an over-used accusation but he is the poster boy), Miller sometimes advances claims based on other reasons.  Which gets us to Greenland.

"Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. ...The real question is, by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? Obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States," he said. 

People are suggesting that Miller is invoking the Melian Dialogue from Thuycidides's History of the Peloponnesian War, where the Athenians provide an ultimatum to the Melians, telling them that the strong do what they want, and the weak do what they must.  First, that is probably giving Miller too much credit--that he is not so thoughtful as to try to invoke the supposedly original Realist text.  Second, the Athenians in this account are not just the bad guys, but they ultimately go on to pay a huge price for this war.  But his language suggests that he is a "Realist" as he is saying the "US is the power of NATO" which entitles it to do what it wants.  

The problem here is that Realism has many flavors and none really work here.  My favorite flavor, Neo-Realism a la Ken Waltz, argues that countries pursue security, which then leads to all kinds of behavir including the security dilemma, where the efforts by one country to unilaterally improve its security, which causes others to respond in kind, so that the first state is left off as or more insecure.  This helps to explain things like arms races.  In this case, how does poaching Greenland improve US security?  At this moment in time, the US already has heaps of access to Greenland, and attacks upon it or through it are already deterred by Denmark's membership in NATO and the US nuclear umbrella.  There is no threat to US from Greenland's status as a dominion of Denmark.  However, seizing Greenland or coercing Denmark into giving it up will weaken US security as it is likely to break NATO--the biggest ally threatening and even warring against one of the most reliable allies will end the alliance.  And this will make the US less secure as it will have less help when the US needs it, it will have greatly increase the chances of a war beyond Ukraine in Europe (American security has always, always been affected by war in Europe going back to the Revolution itself and the War of 1812).  

A more rancid flavor of Realism that focuses on the quest for power also can't explain the Greenland effort. The US will be less powerful after a successful annexation of Greenland.  Yes, the US will have more territory, but it will have face economic sanctions and have fewer allies, which means it will not be as able to exert influence in the world.  That is what power is: the ability to get others to do what they would otherwise not do.  

A third way to think about Realism is realpolitik--which focuses on how best to use judiciously one's power to achieve one's ends--more as policy prescription than as grand theory.  How is seizing Greenland a judicious use of power?  This means we have to figure out what are the ends of this, rather than just assuming the accumulation of power or security.  What is the point of annexing Greenland other than Donald Trump's 1970s real estate mindset?  That he would feel better about himself if he expands the territory of his holdings?  And, yes, he does look at the US through a monarchical lens where the US is his real estate holdings and growing that makes him feel more powerful.  But again, alienating powerful countries, and, yes, Europe has much power, even if it is not always harnessed, for a vanity project is not very judicious.

So, there is no way that Miller's and Trump's designs on Greenland match up with any version of realism--the idea is just too dumb and counter-productive.  I would guess that some players within this administration might see the destruction of NATO as a cool consequence of this effort, but that is not driving this train.  

What Realism does tell us is that countries will react to this in ways that are inimical to the American national interest.  However, Trump does not have any conception of the national interest, just his own interests.  What are those?  Greed and resentment and ego.   

Miller? He's Trump's Iago but without a real plan and none of the charm. 

Seven Years of Activities and Research: Presented and Celebrated

Last month, we celebrated seven years of CDSN-ing.  Our seven year grant ends in March,* so we held a Symposium on Monday focusing on our various activities and we filled our annual Year Ahead conference with our research teams presenting the culmination of their reserach projects.

Both days were terrific, and overall, it was a blast, as I learned a lot and I enjoyed how much everyone appreciated all the work we all did over the grant's timeframe.   

Our first day started with a roundtable about partnership, appropriately enough.  We had speakers from across the defence and security community: Caroline Leprince of DND, Cesar Jaramillo formerly of Project Ploughshares, Adam McCauley of CANSOFCOM, and our Visiting Defence Fellow Shawn Guilbault.  We talked about the challenges of bringing together actors with different perspectives, what each needs from and contributes to our partnership, and how we can better bridge the various gaps.

The second session focused on our post-docs--formerly (or still) emerging scholars who spent a year at one of our research centres, receiving mentoring on their research as well as much professional development and networking.  Linna Tam-Seto and Thomas Hughes now co-host our Battle Rhythm podcast, Manu Ramkumar may be doing similar stuff in the future, and Sanjida Amin is our current post-doc.  It was great to hear what they got out of the experience with us, and I am grateful for the insights and energy they brought the CDSN.  

The third session focused on our podcast network.  We started out with just one podcast on someone else's network, and now we have seven programs on the CDSN podcast network.  So, we talked about what each program was trying to achieve and what they learned along the way.  I chatted with Hannah Christensen of the NATO Fieldnotes podcast, Frieda Garcia Castellanos of Bylines and Frontlines from Women in International Security-Canada, and ....  They came to the podcast network in different ways, so it was really interesting to learn what they had picked up and what they wanted to do next.

The fourth session featured the victims of our book workshops--emerging scholars who had their books collaboratively scrubbed by local colleagues and experts the CDSN brought in. Stephanie Martel, Sara Greco, and Thomas Hughes spoke about their experiences with Srdjan Vucetic moderating the panel.   

Our fifth session had our past and present Undergraduate Excellence Scholars discuss their experiences.  Our aim was to include undergrads from historically excluded groups more involved in our network and in the Canadian defence and security community.  Chimdinma Chijioke, Armon Jeffries, Stella-Luna Ha, and Bianca Siem did different things, some were more involved in our stuff, some less so, some have moved on to graduate programs in defence and security, others are now employed in this sector, and some found work elsewhere.  This effort was not part of the original grant, but became a key CDSN activity as we realized we could do more to help foster a diverse, inclusive, and equitable network and community.  These folks proved that our modest investment was well worth it.

The last panel of the day focused on what the CDSN Co-Directors learned from seven years of partnership, research, and my nagging for reporting.  Anessa Kimball, JC Boucher, and Stefanie von Hlatky were instrumental in our success partly because none were shy about telling me and the rest of the team what we could do better/differently, and this roundtable illustrated that nicely.

That evening, we had a wonderful reception that helped to celebrate our accomplishments and continue the networking that has been both vital to our efforts and helpful to the individuals who found us along the way.

The second day of CDSN fest was a twist on our yearly Year Ahead conference.  Usually, we ask our partners in the defence and security community about the issues that most concern them in the near future--the year ahead--and then organize panels around those issues.  This year, we did something different--we had our SSHRC-funded research teams present on some of the stuff they learned over seven years of research.

The first panel was our Operations theme--what is the CAF doing in the world and what are we learned about it.  Alex Moens presented the state of the NATO Field School, which has been his passion project for at least a decade.  Andrea Charron discussed the challenges of US-Canadian relations as it affects continental defence, which spoke nicely with Stéphane Roussel's analysis of the efforts to develop greater autonomy from the US.

The next session was our Civil-Military Relations theme organized and moderated by JC Boucher.  Nik Nanos, a key partner, focused on the trends he found in the polling he has done with us.  Alexandra Richards discussed  her research on how the different generations of Canadians vary in how they see defence and security issues.  Caroline Elie from DND's Public Affairs spoke about the challenges of informing Canadians about defence even as it becomes a very high priority and very salient issue. 

The third session was a keynote speaker: LGen Stephen Kelsey, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff.  He did an excellent job of providing a short talk that gave us lots of time and material to spawn a really fascinating Q&A.  

The fourth session was our Security theme roundtable.  It was interesting to see how much of the focus was on NATO as our original intent with this theme was to ponder a variety of conceptions of security.  Srdjan Vucetic addressed what would endure from Trump's NATO skepticism.  Maxime Philaire presented on defence cooperation beyond treaties.  Anessa Kimball considered the credibility of NATO's new 5% standard on military spending.  

Our last session focused on our military personnel theme, which was really the most timely as their work got underway before the abuse of power crisis that dominated the CAF from 2021 onwards.  Irina Goldenberg addressed the reserves, which has gotten more attention as of late.  Stéfanie von Hlatky discussed the efforts to broaden the CAF to be more inclusive.  Linna Tam-Seto discussed the transition of military people to civilian life.  Joakim Berndtsson addressed the total defence idea that is so real in Sweden and, in my words, pretty imaginary in the Canadian case.  

We had one last CDSN 1.0 dinner to mark the occasion with most co-directors, staff, and myself celebrating seven years of researching, connecting, and amplifying.  We recognized each person's
contribution with a CDSN shirt with an affectionate nickname on the back.  Our post-docs, Manu and Thomas, came up with this one for me and it is perfect:

    

 I am so very grateful to everyone involved in the CDSN--the staff, the co-directors, the students, the partners, the participants, and everyone else.  The seven years flew by because everything was so very interesting and fun and engaging.  I learned a great deal about Canadian defence and security, about partnerships, about administering and leading, about reporting, and much, much more.  Thanks again!

 

 

*  As I mentioned last summer, we have applied for a new grant that would extend the CDSN's life another seven years. Given the relevance of the grant's focus, civil-military relations, and our proven ability to deliver (see above), we feel our chances are very good.  We do have a MINDS network grant that will continue our operations until the end of 2026 and maybe beyond that, but that program is under review. So, our best chance of keeping this thing going is with SSHRC.  

Greenland and NATO: Is It All On the Table?

 With the Danes being super-concerned about American threats about Greenland (imagine if someone was making similar claims about Hawaii or Alaska), folks are talking about Article 5 of the NATO alliance.  So much is misunderstood about this key clause--an attack upon one equals an attack upon all. 

Ooops, that is incomplete: a) it requires consensus, like all NATO decisions of any consequences; b) each country can respond as each deems necessary.

In an intra-alliance spat, such as Greece vs. Turkey, which has happened, NATO can't respond because it can't come to a consensus.  So, the Danes could try to bring the issue to the North Atlantic Council, NATO's decision-making body, but the US would block consensus.  Part b is less relevant in this case (very relevant in a certain book, with a sale on the ebook!).  

Of course, the US hasn't attacked .... yet, so A5 is not relevant at all.  

BUT there is something else here: that any failed attempt to invoke Article 5 could break the alliance.  Any member that has been attacked that fails to get help will have good reason to withdraw--what's the point if help will not come when it is requested?  So, the threat to try to get the alliance to invoke A5 is an attempt to say: if you don't support us, the alliance is dead.

This is why countries, when attacked, haven't tried to invoke Article 5--cyber attack on Estonia, Syria hitting Turkey, Russia breaking sea cables, etc--because a failed effort may be fatal to the alliance.

In semi-normal times, one could look at the Danish hints at A5 discussions* as a way to increase the stakes to get more support.  The problem is: these times aren't normal.  Trump might just leap at an opportunity to break the alliance.  His hostility to it is well known, and his ignorance of how most of it works is also well known.  But if his advisers tell him that initiating a Greenland crisis might be a pathway to breaking NATO, Trump might just grab that chance.  

And then Putin's investment in Trump will pay off in the biggest way possible.

This is all scary and awful, but it is not out of the realm of the possible at this point.  The stakes involved in Greenland, where the US is already getting all the access it needs, are huge.  The very foundations of security in Europe and beyond are at stake.  A much bigger deal, ultimately, then Venezuela, which is already pretty important. 

 

*  Or the Danish PM is referring to NATO to make the obvious point--that there is no need for the US to take over Greenland since it is already under the US security umbrella via Denmark's membership in NATO.  Too bad Trump is a bad faith actor and this bit of reality is irrelevant. 

Dating? In the 21st Century? Yes, Please!

Warning:  In the early days of the Semi-Spew, personal stuff, pop culture, and random stuff made up most of the content.  It is only with the passage of time, exhaustion of various ideas, and, yes, the onset of autocracy that I began blogging almost exclusively about politics and especially the dark times.  

I separated from my ex-wife in May, so I started dating, and since I haven't dated since the early days of the second Reagan Administration, I have very little experience and many thoughts.  Not only has dating changed with online dating, apps, and speed dating, but apparently deep into his middle-ages Steve is very different from desperate teen Steve, including the fact that I am now a trained social scientist.  So, I can't help but think comparatively, to analyze, to generalize, to build theories, and to develop policy implications (well, for me, not for the policymakers).  

And, yes, it is truly a bad idea to blog about dating when one is dating since the women I am dating could find this blog,* so I will step carefully and make this spew less semi and more fully baked.** So, I will not talk about individual women but about the larger patterns or surprises along the way of my still quite short adventure into the unknown.

First, this is really a lot of fun (I am aware that my experience is gendered, more below). Unlike my teen years, there is really no self-imposed pressure.  Back then, damn near everything seemed to ride on whether the girl I was seeking liked me or not, and since few liked me as more than a friend, I was miserable and my self-esteem was in the toilet.  These days, it does not not weigh that much.   It is also really fun because women of my age have really full and interesting lives and experiences (I have dated women as young as 45 and as old as 60ish).  I apparently suck at keeping dates to an hour as each one ends up being a very long and delightful conversation.

Second, at least in my small number of observations, there simply is much less bs and much more clarity. A few of the women I have dated have quickly realized that I am not in the same cycle of life as they are, being so close to the separation, so they just tell me that and move on (the others took four dates to figure that out).  The date may have been fun, but they see that I am not what they are looking for, and that's it.  

Third, while people can lie on their profiles (thus far, I haven't experienced that myself), I have found that dating someone I met via an app provides more info than one I met via speed dating or setup.  Eight minutes is not much time, and then remembering what each woman said on a night where I talked to ten is challenging.  The person setting up with someone had very little info to give me, so I was mostly going in blind. Before a date with someone I met online, I can refer to the app and be reminded of the basics: age, whether they are vegetarians, whether they drink, various interests, and so forth.   For women I met speed-dating, again, just what I can recall--might be their job, whether they have kids, stuff like that.  The other difference is that online dating usually required a week or two or three of chatting before setting up a date, where as the speed dating led to setting up dates as soon as we got the contact info from the speed dating organizers.

Fourth, speaking of dating profiles and lies, it is interesting to see people insist that their pics are recent or that other info they put on their profile is real.... which may be the case, but, then again, I am not sure it provides more credibility than not insisting such things are true.  A case of applying credible commitments and other concepts from poli sci and international relations to dating. 

Fifth, what the fuck is it with crypto?  I had two online matches lead to chatting back and forth, and then the two women raised crypto as an interest.  Since I am crypto-skeptic, I asked to talk about other stuff and ... then that ended the conversation.  So far, the only ghosts have been crypto people.  I guess it is the same with all scams--you don't have to be successful very often, you just need one every once in a while to make a sufficient profit to stay in the grifting business.  From now on, I will simply be the first to end the convo when it comes up.  

Sixth, my quest to find a replacement for ultimate frisbee may end up with a p-sport: pickleball or paddleboard. Those two sports come up more than most in women's profiles, although that might be my confirmation bias at work as I am not paying as much attention to those who mention sports or activities that I am unlikely to pursue, such as hiking. 

Seventh, I have gotten to see more of Ottawa as the women live all over the place and as they have various ideas about things to do that I didn't have in mind.  So, I have been to a baseball game, to a show, to the art museum (which I had meant to do but never got around to), sailing, to a Zombie Run, to a spa, and so on.  This process also inspired me to do things I used to do--go to a comedy show and so forth.

Eighth, I am much more aware that the threat environment is different. Most of the women didn't give me their last names or phone numbers until after a few dates, only one was willing to have me pick them up at all and thus revealing the location of of their home on a second date.  They have to be more cautious because either lots of men are assholes or the few assholes get around a great deal.  On the flip side, none of the women I have been out with raised any alarms at all.  I doubt it is my keen ability to sort.  

Ninth, I have had only one major failed experience.  I tried an organized singles night at a bar.  While I learned that I can detect disinterest pretty well, it was hard to approach women with no introduction at all.  The contrast between the ease and fun of a speed dating event and a singles event at a bar is pretty stark.  It was also a young group so there were few women who were in my range.  And hearing "hey prof".... not great.  Luckily, she was not a student of mine but did go to my program.    While I will be trying more speed dating events and the like in the future, I am not going to be repeating the single's night at a bar experience.

Tenth, rules?  What rules?  My first first date was the most open, wide-ranging conversation I could imagine.  I often don't think I have much of a filter, and then I meet someone who truly has no filter, and I feel positively restrained. This woman asked a lot of questions about my breakup, my sex life, and more, and told me a great deal about all that as it applied to her.  My second first date included a conversation about Gaza, and I thought talking about Israel/Palestine was a no-go area for a first date, just like one should not talk about one's previous relationship.  Each person and thus each pairing is different and I never tried to steer any conversation.  I was and am completely open, and will answer any question (as that first first date proved).  So, yeah, no real rules for what to talk about except--I kept asking questions, not just talking about myself.  My curiosity was and is fully engaged. 

Finally, in a short period of time, I experienced a heap of rejection and it does not phase me in the least.  Match lets you know how many people have seen your profile and it keeps a list of all the people who you have swiped right on--who you wanted to meet....who did not reciprocate, so one can always see how low one's batting average is. I dated a number of women who realized within one and four dates that they weren't into me--some because of no vibe but mostly due to a mismatch of timelines/preferences.  And that is perfectly fine.  I have had fun, my ego/self-esteem has been boosted, and my life is quite interesting a result.  I am learning, I am doing stuff that I wasn't doing before, I am getting out and about.   

I think one reason why folks are so soured on online dating (well, besides women having to deal with a ton of assholes) is that they are trying to find the one, which is damned hard to do.  I have had a more pleasant time as I had a simpler set of goals--to have fun (broadly defined), to learn, to get out.  

And now? Well, so far, so good. Did I have my girlfriend read this before posting?  Yes, yes, I did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* One of the things I quickly realized is that having blogged, tweeted, skeeted, podcasted, and been recorded in a number of ways (conferences, media hits, etc) is that women can quickly find out pretty much everything about me.  Unlike some guy who might be catfishing or otherwise being engaged in deception, my cards are out there on the table, face up, so women have a decent idea of what they are getting into.  At least one even looked up my salary on the Ontario sunshine list.  Not sure any found my rate my prof scores.   

 ** Of course, early in my blogging days, I wrote a piece I had long thought about discussing academic politics and I still managed to get another job after that, so maybe I just think I have as much impunity as the typical Trump official?

 

Top Ten Worst Things in the Trump National Security Strategy

 Is this really a bottom ten?  You make the call.  I was offline this weekend so I don't know if anyone has a great analysis of the NSS.  Since I had to read it to answer some questions on the radio, I have some thoughts, and the easiest way to approach this on a Sunday night is to come up with  a top ten list. From least to oh my these guys are the absolute worst.

Bottom line up front: the writers of this doc (not Elbridge Colby, the Undersecretary for Defense Policy, since he is most focused on war with China) are ignorant, arrogant, racist panderers.

Honorable mention: Didn't make the top/bottom ten, but:

References to Trump ending a bunch of wars.  Nope, didn't happen; Peace through strength yet gutting many of the things that provided the US with strength--its educational system, USAID, its competent civil servants who being driven out, the nonpartisan military, etc.  The US is much weaker now that it was on January 19th; the notion of being pro-worker while gutting regulations and undermining unions; its definition of fairness which is anything but fair.  The idea that competence and merit matter as Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and others have the highest positions despite being both dis and unqualified.  Indeed, there are a lot of projection and bad faith in this document, but that should not surprise anyone.

10.  The complete blindness to the reality that most international institutions and international law were designed by Americans to perpetuate the American interest.   

9.  The assertion of sovereignty while seeking to deny the sovereignty of others--that countries in the Western Hemisphere can't trade with whom they want, that European countries must give their far right more access to power, etc. 

8.  The whole first paragraph of principles is enough to make any IR scholar puke:  "

President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being “pragmatist,” realistic without being “realist,” principled without being “idealistic,” muscular without being “hawkish,” and restrained without being “dovish.” 

It is meaningless without having any meaning.  And, no, the only principles driving Trump's foreign policy are racism, greed, resentment, and racism.  

7.  The whole concept of reindustrialization.  Who is going to work in deregulated dangerous factories if not new immigrants?   

6.  The focus on oil and gas and coal energy and not wind and solar--not a surprise, but still appalling.   

5.  The repeated references to Soft Power completely misunderstand the concept and shows a tremendous lack of self-awareness.  Soft power refers to the ability to influence others to do things they might otherwise not do (the classic definition of power) because of the popularity and power of one's example, of one's system, culture, values.  During the Cold War, the US had a huge soft power advantage as many people around the world wanted to wear jeans, listen to rock music, watch movies made in Hollywood, shop in markets like those in the US, and the like.  

4.  The civilizational bullshit aimed at West Europe. I talked about this in yesterday's Guns and Butter.  Just out and out white supremacy and fascism as the Trump Regime wants its kin in Europe to gain power. 

3. The document is super contradictory as I have already enumerated, but also includes the whole crap on Europe, ask Europe to do US's bidding.  I talked about this in today's Guns and Butter. You can't expect allies to respond well to your demands if you are seeking to have them overthrown by their far right.

2. Sure, wanting a stable Western Hemisphere makes sense and is no "Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine."  The Trump fixation on the Western Hemisphere is actually the greatest threat to destabilize the hemisphere from Greenland to Venezuela.

 1.  Fucked up priority #1. Not only is migration not the most important issue facing the US, but it also helps to amplify this administration's racism, xenophobia, and Great Replacement Bullshit.™.

 

I am just thankful it came out after my US foreign policy class was over.  Yuck. 

Yet More Guns, More Butter

 Heaps of baking today as I spent yesterday at the Diefenbunker, learning more about the Cold War and Canada's role in it.  So, two more episodes of Guns and Butter:

Cream cheese as a central ingredient was a focus today for these recipes, while I talked about the spat between the Democratic officeholders who had served in the military or CIA and Trump over illegal orders. 

• 

  Cinnamon roll 
  blondies

  Cookies and cream cookies 
• Cinnamon roll blondies 
  
• Sparkle sugar cookies.  I just dropped the almond extract since I don't want to trigger any allergies. 
• Maple cinnamon star cookies.  These are not quite done since Sally says they should be frozen before the last step of dipping into melted white chocolate.  So, that will have to wait until just before the delivery date. 

I did a second Guns and Butter reel to talk about the aforementioned dipping challenge, the difficulty of rollout cookies requiring a consistent thickness of dough, and, yes, stupid ways to think about burden-sharing. 

A Hidden Part of Professing: Assessing

 I was talking to someone recently, and I said something about the quality of someone else's argument, I guess, and this person joked that I was being snobby, that I was judging someone else's ideas.  And it made me realize, as much as our job of professing is to generate ideas and share them far and wide, a huge hunk of what we do is judging the ideas and arguments of others.  

It starts with, alas, yes, the literature review.  In damn near every academic publication, after we get through the intro, we start by evaluating the state of the field--what the relevant ideas and arguments are, where they fall short, so that we can show where our contribution is supposed to fit in.  Indeed, I used to joke that grad students are first trained in how to destroy and that the hard part of creating awaits them after comprehensive exams where again much of the effort is in criticizing.

Once we finish our phd and get a job, we are asked to assess and assess and assess:

• Grading: in ye olde days, I don't think we called the assignments assessments or assessment opportunities, but we evaluate whether the students understand the material, can apply it, have applied it, have done the research, and put together cogent, well-evidenced arguments.  Or whatever the assignment is, we assess it.
• Teaching: not only are we grading, but we are assessing the field's arguments so that we can present the material to the students.  We don't assign them craptastic reading unless we do so to make a point (Clash of Civilizations? Yuck but yeah).   When we present the stuff in our classes, we often assess it along the way or we encourage the students to assess it or both. 
• Reviewing: so much of what we do is reviewing.  
• We review manuscripts submitted to journals and presses--are the arguments original, is the research design appropriate and well executed, are the findings interpreted well, are the implications reasonable. 
• We review job candidate files--is the work interesting and well executed, does the person have potential for more good work, will they be a decent colleague, can they teach,etc.
• We review promotion/tenure files: has this person done enough research to make a contribution?  Do they have a good trajectory? 
• Discussant/Moderator/Commentator:  when we are on panels at conferences, our job is to assess the paper and the presentation, giving our take on the ideas and how they are executed.  
• Media: For those of us who engage traditional media, we are often asked to provide factual answers but much of the time we are asked to weigh in on competing claims, evaluating the competing ideas and those advocating them.

People often talk about the marketplace of ideas.  That analogy has all kinds of problems, but in any market, you have experts evaluating products (markets of stuff create markets of assessors?) which then may affect the demand for and consumption of some ideas.  In the marketplace of ideas, there are those who have much invested in the ideas they are espousing, including jobs, power, income, etc, and those who have much less at stake. We call the latter academics.  Sure, academics can get money through their advocacy of ideas and even power, but most are just doing their usual assessing and not getting much in the way of money or pay for it.  Over my career, I have made very little money doing media stuff--some here and there but not enough to buy me or even rent me--and no, it has not led to power, at least, again, not that much.  I absolutely believe it is important to have disinterested or less biased folks in any marketplace of ideas assessing what is bs, what is based on good science, and so forth.  We may not be listened to as bad ideas often have a greater elective affinity than good ideas.  But we try.  

In all of this, yes, professors are constantly assessing and judging.  It may appear that we are arrogant--that we think we are better than other people.  And certainly that applies, but it is not that we all think we are smarter than other people.  It is that we think we have been trained to make assessments, that we are professional assessors.  We should stick to our lanes of expertise, but, well, some of us (me) tend to drive outside our lanes quite a bit.   

This post is just a rumination of a different way of looking at my job and what I do.  That it is not just about creating knowledge (which always sounded a bit high falutin' to me) but judging ideas and arguments.   

When Episode Themes Get Stretched

 I posted this yesterday--the latest Guns and Butter. The inspiration was that two of the recipes/batches had hidden ingredient--caramel in one, marshmallows in the other.  But the peppermint brownie ones.... didn't really apply.

 

So, I guess I have throw a flag at myself:

 

 And, yes, my blog is one place for me to store the Guns and Butter Reels in case instagram gets funky (which has been lately).