Sadie Out

Today, I announced at PSR that I am out.

No joke. I am going on a largely wifi-less vacation next week, so it makes sense to use that as a point of departure as any.
Moderating here has become far more time intensive over the past year, and, as one of my friends put it, there is far more noise and less useful signal here. I have had a hard time focusing on my work over that time frame thanks to the daily crises in DC, so I need to cut out some of the noise. Also, on the occasion of my recent birthday, I resolved to have more positivity in my life--that I was getting to be too whiny on the ultimate field. The same applies for my internet life. One could say that I am just not as comfortable as I used to be.
This will be a chance for a natural experiment or two to test the claims that I have never believed--either that this place would collapse without my lending it whatever legitimacy I gave it or that the marketplace of ideas will function adequately.
Over the years, I have enjoyed many of the conversations and give and take. This place has inspired me to think about a variety of aspects of the profession, so I am grateful for that.
Anyhow, if folks want to ask me stuff, rather than go to the Ask Sadie thread, you can find me via twitter or email. I wish y'all heaps of tenure track jobs and publications in the 20 top 3 IR journals. Good luck!

Moderating became too much of a slog as the election and folks linking to PSR at some of the more toxic places on the internet led to far more crap than before.  We shall see if I can still be easily trolled when I am no longer spending much time there. 

Update: That the place crashed for a while after I posted my message was a fun coincidence, but I had nothing to do with that. One consistent false belief over the years was that I have any technical ability to run that place or do anything more complicated than pushing delete buttons.

Three Fictional Characters Exercise

The latest thing to spread on Facebook is to put three pictures of fictional characters that somehow describe you or that together help to explain one's character.  Or something like that, as it is not well explained. 

Here's what I chose:

Kevin Arnold from the Wonder Years

Hawkeye Pierce from M*A*S*H

The Professor from Gilligan's Island

 Why?
I think one is not supposed to explain the choices, but, hey, since when have I ever followed the rules?  One of my friends guessed that two of these characters never had sex, at least not on the show, and that was pretty close.  Damn.

Ok, Kevin Arnold since he was the youngest kid of the family with a few siblings, and FOMO (fear of missing out) from not being able to participate in their stuff was a key dynamic shaping me for the long run.  Also, Kevin got his heart broken on a regular basis when he was young.  Check.  He was not in any of the major groups, but seemed to be in the clique of the folks who were clique-less (at least, that is what I remember of the show).  Finally, he seemed to over-think just about everything, or at least his voice-over did. 

While Kevin Arnold was a character that kind of depicted the age I grew up (a bit early but close enough), Hawkeye Pierce was on a show that was on TV during my pre-teen and then teen years.  A smart aleck who thought he knew better than most/all?  Um, yeah.  Rebelled against authority much of the time?  Yes.  Likes to drink?  Well, I am not a cocktail fan as much as a beer fan, but sure.  The womanizing part?  Not so much.  Plus that whole war thing.

The Professor from Gilligan's Island?  Well, I had to find a prof and almost went with Professor Flitwick (I am not as brave or as resourceful or as rugged as Professor Jones, nor as smart as Professor Dumbledore, nor as lecherous as the profs in most movies.  I am not as creative as the Professor on GI, but lots of stuff I try seems pretty inventive until it doesn't work.  So, how about that?  Also, since I consumed so much bad TV growing up, this character helps cover that part of my personality.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Knee-Jerkiest Comments

Yesterday, I had an op-ed advocating that Canada participate meaningfully in the new NATO persistent presence mission in Eastern Europe published in the Globe and Mail.  Because I was stuck on hold for more than 75 minutes, I did what folks tell you not to do: I read the comments on the piece. Oh my.

There were some intelligent comments that led me to post some elaboration--that the op-ed was about Canadian participation and not about explaining why the NATO effort was a good idea. 

Much of it was back and forth between fans of Russian irredentism (hey, what belonged to us in some point in history belongs to us now and Putin has not threatened the Baltics, yada, yada, yada) and more reasonable folks.  But I was amused by the competition to be provide the laziest, least thoughtful comments. 

One of the very first comments accused me of being a war monger.  Which means they didn't read the piece or could not understand it since I am advocating for a deployment of military units to deter and prevent a war, not to cause one.  The whole idea is to stop a war from happening.  How does that make me a war monger?

Vying for lazy/knee-jerkiness were arguments related to the military-industrial complex--that this deployment is about maxing out the Canadian defence budget.  Um, have you seen Canada's defence budget politics?  More importantly, deploying two hundred or so troops to reside in Latvia is not going to help boost the size of the military or its budget nor benefit many defence contractors.  It might help a few property owners and businesses in Latvia, but the scale of this thing is so small as to be irrelevant for those of us who are card carrying members of the military-industrial-academic complex.  Arguing that this is being done for profit is just silly.

What can we learn from this exercise? That folks seem to have enough time on their hands to comment but not enough time to read?  No idea, but I need to find something else to do when on hold for such long periods of time because reading the comments was not very educational.

Internet Trolls are Like Terrorists

How is that for a clickbait kind of title?  My point is not that internet trolls kill people or cause lots of damage.  No, the point is that both are highly asymmetrical.

The Guardian studied its own blocked comments and determined many things, including the possibility that most of the most obnoxious stuff was posted by a small number of people.  The toxicity that is on the internet is not representative of the broader public, but of smaller groups of people who post a lot and are obnoxious a lot.  They can do a lot of damage, quickly and cheaply, and can create an environment which makes it seem like there is a very large community of awful people.

To be sure, there are more awful people than we'd like to have out there. And I am not trying to write a #notallmen kind of post.  But the point is that if these people who are doing the damage are actually rather small, it makes it both easier and harder to deal with.

Easier?  Because if this is true, we can realize that it is a few people causing the problems, and then we don't have to develop broad approaches aimed at entire publics.  Although, yes, trying to get rid of rape culture and other broadly problematic dynamics are worthy in and of themselves. 

Harder?  Because if this is true, we cannot aim policies at entire publics but have to figure out who the potential folks are and aim policies at them.  Discrimination in the sense of hitting the target is hard.  It requires intelligence (identifying the problematic people) and developing targeted policies.  Not easy.

The parallel to terrorism is instructive in this sense.  The aim of terrorists is to terrorize.  If we don't overreact, we can limit the gains the terrorists make when they successfully launch an attack.  The aim of internet trolls is to piss people off and, for some, to indeed terrorize.  Perhaps we can support the folks who are attacked but not in ways that reward the the trolls.  For the latest example, see the helicopter parent hoaxer who turned out to be an internet troll of the worst kind.

Of course, there are internet trolls and then there are internet trolls.  Some do more than just troll but dox, swat and in other ways endanger people.  And we do need law enforcement to take that stuff far more seriously.  So, maybe my metaphor is breaking down, but I guess the point is that we need to figure out how to live in a world where some people have outsized effects.

I don't have any answers, and this post is just part of thinking through this stuff.  I also realize that this is all easy for me to say as a white man.  I have gotten some threats, but the internet is far less abusive to me than it is to people of color and to women, as the Guardian piece makes abundantly clear.

So, any thought would be most appreciated.

The Double Edged Sword of Internet Anonymity

Like any technology, the internet can be used for good or bad.  Lots of folks complain that anonymity protects the trolls.  But anonymity can protect the people who want to speak out without being discriminated against.

Perhaps a clear tale of the dynamics going both ways involve Academic Batgirl.  Yep, Academic Batgirl.  Here's her tale.  I had seen her tweets get re-tweeted and enjoyed much of what she had to say: a nice mix of snark and insight and a perspective by a female academic faced with many challenges that white guys like me know little about.  Her use of pictures and memes and her reliance on one of my favorite characters growing up have made her stuff quite appealing to me.

Alas, of course, some asshole has to try to squelch her.  Someone figured out who she is and then threatened her.  Which sucks.  I wish we had this guy's identity so that he could pay some social consequences, but I guess she chooses not to identify him to minimize the risks to herself.  And I get that.  My satisfaction at shaming someone is less important than her ability to return to the internet and be the voice that is so very powerful.

Given my posts of late about the paucity of women full professors, this is great news:



So, congratulations and welcome back, Academic Batgirl. We need superheroes like you to inspire and inform.

PSR Diaries, Continued

It has been a particularly combative few days at Political Science Rumors.  Folks are not pleased that some ISA goers engaged in a bit of fun as they cosplay-ed a panel on Game of Thrones and IR.  They think it hurts the profession, and got especially upset when I defended (perhaps not articulately) those who engaged in the supposedly shameful behavior. This devolved into accusations that I hurt the profession by lending legitimacy to PSR because I mod and post there under my own name (nearly everyone else is anonymous). 

I have gotten that from time to time--that I am just an attention seeking hound and that my participation at PSR is bring shame upon me and the profession.  The former is true, the latter is not.  Of course, I don't participate at PSR for the attention or for the strange and disturbing cult of Sadie that pops up.  I get plenty of attention via blogging and twitter, thanks. 

I started because people were being incredibly wrong about the job search where I was employed.  Denying the rumors didn't work so well from a position of anonymity.  After that, people asked me questions, and I felt like being a voice of reason was not a bad thing, even though it was occurring online at a place where there was much unpleasantness.  I eventually started moderating at the old site (PSJR) and then the new (PSR) so that I could delete attacks on my students as well as students elsewhere (I leave nearly all of the attacks against me alone--I post there so I accept the consequences). 

This led to some attacks upon me on the site, and when I asked the community whether I should stay or go, I got much support to stay.  So, I have stuck around.  I now get emails from people who ask for particular items to be deleted, and I do so.  So, perhaps some folks in the profession view me negatively because I am active at PSR, but others are thankful that I am there, the only moderator that is not anonymous, that can be reached.

Someone today raised the possibility that I make the place worse, that trolls are there because I moderate and post there.  My response?  Well, the place had much negativity before I started, so unless the place has a Benjamin Button kind of dynamic, the person has a bad grasp of social science.  Plus PSR is hardly alone on the internet in producing some toxicity from the brew of anonymity and a lousy job market/anxious graduate students.

I try to be myself there--a combination of earnest desire to help (which probably annoys the hell out of some folks), a weakness to trolls (I have a hard time not responding when folks poke at me or at things I care about), and a tendency to snark.  Indeed, I have been tempted to post this in response to all of the concern that cosplay at the ISA might be damaging to the profession:






I actually don't think that PSR does much damage to the profession either, although it certainly is more problematic than a handful of people dressing up at the ISA.  Any accusation that I am hurting the political science profession is giving me far more influence than I actually have.  I would argue that the Putin apologists in the NYT are doing far more damage to our kind.

Wifi Entitlement

Free wifi might not be an entitlement, but any hotel that decides to block alternative sources of wifi is going to lose my business.  The good news is that the FCC might not let Marriott and its ilk do this.  The bad news is that I have little faith in regulators these days.

While I would like to have free wifi at airports (some do, some don't), I merely expect that the hotels have decent wifi for a minimal cost (around $10 per day).  It is pure profit, of course, not unlike the baggage fees that airlines charge these days.  But charging a ransom for using wifi during a conference?  No thanks.

Last year, I organized a panel on twitter for the ISA that took place in Toronto.  The Sheraton wanted to charge $75 per person for wifi in the conference rooms.  Because most of the participants were not Canadians and were roaming, they could not resort to using their cellphones to participate in the twitter conversation associated with the panel.  I had much sympathy for the audience and panelists since I am usually the one looking for low/reasonable wifi since I roam while I am in the US.

Charging extravagant fees for wifi is a sure way to alienate a clientele.  Providing free wifi is a great way to gain clientele.  Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, McDonalds all have gained my loyalty since they are islands of free wifi while traveling in the US.  Hotels?  I may not go to hotels that offer free wifi, although I do seek higher status in my hotel loyalty program so that I can get free wifi.  I certainly will avoid hotels that charge too much, and will definitely avoid Marriott as long as they seek to block wifi.  We know they are not interested in consumer protection but in accumulating unearned profits.

I may not be entitled to free wifi, but hotels are not entitled to high fees for wifi either.  I will vote with my feet and my grant budgets.

Update:
I got this response from Marriott:

@steven_metz @smsaideman You may have heard about the @FCC filing, take a moment to understand our point of view: http://t.co/vUCKD9tFMU
— Marriott Hotels (@Marriott) January 4, 2015

My response: I would believe them if they didn't charge exorbitant fees for wifi in their conference spaces.  So, no, I don't believe them.

Twitter Outage Ambivalence

I often whine about losing access to the internet when I stay with my in-laws over the holidays.  This year was no exception, except that my forays to Starbucks was more limited due to a nasty cold that still plagues me.

This year I am more ambivalent.  I am still very much driven by the fear of missing out on stuff-- my self-diagnosed most significant neuroses.  Being off the net means that I am missing stuff that is going on--conversations on facebook and twitter, news at various places, silly stories at the usual websites, etc.  On the other hand, I was kind of glad not to be sucked into some discussions (whether civil-military relations applies to the NYC cop situation).  I do find myself being weak--being easy to troll, having a hard time avoiding engaging in arguments that I see in my feed.

Having a technological barrier that imposes costs (no wifi at the in-laws) can both be boon and bane.  I read and reviewed all the papers in the volume I am co-editing.   So, there's that.  I also plowed through a bunch of Michael Connelly mysteries.  But I missed my snark outlet.  It was nice to be able to tweet this morning this:

Does he start with himself? RT @CanadaNATO: Putin outlines threats to Russia’s security: http://t.co/FFm1TwIgqJ #FT
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 28, 2014

Of course, the big bane is that I do enjoy being connected to my friends, and hate being disconnected.  If I was healthy and could spend time at brew pubs over the holidays, maybe that would have lessened this sense of disconnection.  Instead, I was stuck.

Anyway, I am back, and ready to think aloud on the internet again.  Probably not a good thing ;-)

Happy New Year!

Virtual Path Dependence

Saw this figure tonight from the Washington Post (thanks Theo F)--top twenty websites since 1996:

New Media Meets Old Media

This afternoon, at 5pm, I will be on an internet radio talk show: Midrats.  Details are here.  It will be at 5pm eastern time.  I have done plenty of radio over the course of my career, but I don't think I have ever been on for an hour, and certainly never have done an internet radio show.  And to do what?  Talk about a book, which is pretty much as old as it gets, in terms of medium of communication. 

So, stop by and listen, you can even ask questions as it is a talk show.  And since it is radio, I don't have to worry about what my hair looks like.  Woot!

Greatest TV Openings: Desperate NY Apartment Hunting Edition

Adam Scott has done the world a huge favor by re-making classic openings of TV shows.  This time, he chose one of my all-time favorite short-lived TV shows: Bosum Buddies.  Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari were so very good and had such great chemistry that it did not need the cross-dressing stuff (which they tended to dump later on).  The intro combines Billy Joel with a variety of short bits displaying the talents and timing these guys had.  Turns out that Adam Scott and Paul Ruud were up to the task:


My wife probably liked the show simply because it is one of the very few to capture semi-realistically the challenges of finding an affordable place in NY (unlike, say, Friends).

The Joy of the Internet

The joy of the internet is that a TV critic (such as Alan Sepinwall) can ask for a gif or video and the folks "make it so."

BB spoiler below

The Internet is a Strange Place

The internet is just a heap of fun.  Check out this Sam Jackson story.  Yet more fun is when we can do some comparative analysis.  This list of the ten top controversial wikipedia posts by language has gotten some play, so I thought I would ponder it a bit.

Source: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.5566.pdf

You can read the paper.  I will get to that eventually, but I thought it would be fun to point out some stuff anyway.

Free Speech and All That

The guy who was the biggest troll on Reddit has been outed.  An abuser par excellence, he finds himself hoisted by his own petard.  Folks like this seem confused--free speech means free of consequences, right?  No, not right.  The 1st Amendment and all that stuff applies to government restrictions against speech--that government should not abridge speech with some notable exceptions. 

Ah, but if you are an asshole and people find out that you are an asshole, well, then they can shun you.  I am not sure they can fire you from your job, but that depends on the contract, doesn't it?  If one used employer resources, such as the employer's network, to be the troll, then it sucks to be you....  So, live by the hateful rants and you may find yourself outed and then facing a heap of wrath. 

I think many people are now enjoying something more than mere schadenfreude today... righteous indignation and satisfaction for what goes around comes around?

The internet is a net boon, no doubt, but the ability of people to post anonymously has been most challenging.  Yes, it can facilitate whistle-blowing, but it also gives people the chance to commit significant harm yet deny responsibility.  They can view their trolling as a game until they get caught.  So, all I can really say about this one guy is--about time.

Sunday Silliness: Detective Mashup

I really did enjoy Blue's Clues when Kid Spew was younger.  Not just because the hero shared my name, either.  To this day, when I hear the word "clue", I think BLUE'S CLUES.  So, it is only super-appropriate that this mash-up features Blue's Clues and my daughter's favorite detective these days (one curse):

    CollegeHumor’s Favorite Funny Videos

When Technology Pre-empts Thinking

My memory is shot. Instead of trying to figure out something, I just google or wiki it.  The 21st century breeds a bit of laziness with our dependence on the internet.  I often see folks asking questions on message boards that should be easy to figure out or perhaps they can talk to someone.  Sure, I have crowd-sourced a few times lately when I might have gotten some answers if I did the work myself. 

Why is this a problem?  It is a problem if that breeds habits when one enters the policy world.  In a very interesting post on civil-military relations, Rosa Brooks conveys a story about folks in the White House responding to a crisis and asking to move a drone to cover the event.  Josh Foust points out that there are other assets in play that might work better.  Also, drones have complications attached to them, like who says they can fly over? 

This is more than just the "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem that armed drones made endemic lately.  This is a problem with policy folks who see only one means by which to gain info, when there are many, each with pro's and cons.  But as Josh points out in a subsequent tweet, getting agencies to share information is hard even though that was lesson #1 after 9/11 (and, of course, lesson #1 before 9/11).

I am not anti-drone.  I just think that any technology can be used well or poorly.  Drones, since they don't risk American lives, have been to the go-to tool for all problems, even when there are other means available.  It is not just risk-averse but lazy. 

But I can say that because I am comfy at my desk.  I am not about to drive to a library and look through stacks.  So, I guess it takes a lazy, unimaginative person to know one?

Twitter Retrospective

In honor of my 20,000th tweet (which I messed up by hitting enter as I was editing it), I thought I would consider the past few years of many, many, many really short messages. 

Like many, I was a twitter skeptic.  I didn't think one could say much or learn much in 140 characters.  However, the ability to have links to websites and pics shrunk immediately meant that twitter is an incredibly way to share stuff.  Much more handy than just telling people where I am going or what I am doing.

I have not maintained a consistent twitter profile.  My twitter stream is much like my blog posts here as much as I thought that I could maintain distinct personalities.  But my lack of filter/attention deficit disorder means that both outlets are pretty scatter-shot.   I cover mostly the same topics now in both areas, with the addition that I use twitter to advertise my various blogs here and thither.

The key advantage of twitter for me, compared to blogging, is that it is far more interactive and conversational.  I have had interactions with a range of people from all over the world on a variety of topics from Australia's efforts in Afghanistan with a couple of Aussies yesterday to folks studying Yemen to TV critics to Ottawanians long before I actually move there to folks deeply embedded in policy-making debates in DC (think tank dwellers and beyond).  The past year's highlight was participating in Twitterfightclub, which allowed me to meet and learn from a bunch of national security experts.

Thanks to twitter, I do not feel like I am Rudolph anymore.  Or at least, my red nose is useful for something.  I don't really believe I have "klout" on things like cafes, Dubai, Android, Oslo, Media, Social Justice, Pirates, the Dark Knight, Georgia or Advocacy, despite klout.com may think.  But I do not feel as left out as I used to feel.  The joy of twitter is that one can select who to follow, which can help to create a very biased worldview, and folks can choose to follow me or whoever, creating virtual communities.  I have found these electronic communities to be pretty damned supportive and definitely very engaging.

I find it both strange and thrilling to have followers.  What a concept.  I do respond to most folks who engage me on twitter, and have found these conversations to be entertaining, engaging and educational.  Thanks!

I absolutely spend far more time on twitter than I should, but I get so much more information about things I need to know about, thinks I want to know about, and thinks I could not care about.  For someone whose primary personality flaw is impatience being a lousy listener sloppy indiscreet narcissism curiosity, twitter is incredibly addictive and fun.  I look forward to the next 20k tweets which will be mostly the same except for less stuff on Montreal roads, Quebec politics, undergrads (since my new job will not involve teaching undergrads) and more stuff on Canadian politics, Ottawa, and complaints about food selection (Montreal is hard to beat).

We Live in an Awesome Time

Why?  This video reminds us of two things:

1.  Heaps of great superhero (and no so great) movies over the past couple of decades with Avengers just days away.
2. Folks now have the ability to edit and soundtrack heaps of clips.  The timing on this is fantastic.

Canada and the World: Unanswered Questions

I just participated in a live chat at Canadian International Council.  Check it out as we got through a bunch of interesting issues.  But what a bit of chaos--responding to a bunch of different questions all at the same time!

I am going to hit some of the questions we got and didn't answer here.

Phil: A big part of the Canadian defence policy debate between 1995 and 2005 focused on Canada's lack of influence and importance. In redressing this problem, did the Canadian government go too far, as Roland suggests?

Me: I think there is a logical disconnect here: Having the military have more influence and importance does not mean that the civilian side has less.  The CF had a tough decade after Somalia, and played mostly at the kid's table not just in Ottawa but in Brussels, Sarajevo and elsewhere.  In and due to Kandahar, the CF had more influence and importance.  This did not require that DFAIT and CIDA had to take a back seat.  They could have stepped up.  Circumstances and their own limitations made this difficult.  The Harper government constrained these agencies from talking about what they were doing in the field.  These agencies, especially CIDA, had such top-down management styles that limited ability to adjust and adapt--which is what counter-insurgency and alliance warfare absolutely requires.

roberteisenberg: How successful has Canada been at changing our reputation in the world as war-fighters?

Me: Absolutely.  Canada was one of a minority of allies willing to fight hard in a difficult spot. Only British, Danes, Americans and a few others were comparably capable and willing.

Mahmud Naqi: Mark Collins argues that our ability to afford a blue water navy is may be coming to an end, what do to think?

Me: The shipbuilding exercise suggests otherwise. I do worry that the F-35 will crowd everything else out, but the Harper government seems committed to building more ships.  So, the question will be how much blue water navy, not if.

PostWarHist via twitter The OMLT concept took off in Afghanistan post-2006. Do you see this commitment as mission-specific or a trend?

Me:  Mostly mission specific, as it required a willingness to put soldiers into harm's way.  Not sure that willingness will come back anytime soon.

Cyber question: I punted.  I just don't know enough.

If you had questions that we didn't see, shoot them my way here or on twitter at @smsaideman.

Oh, and keep an eye on CIC's series.  There will be more interesting stuff by other folks.  And I will keep on posting there.  Thanks to today's experience, I have a theme for May--thinking about Canada's Grand Strategy.

Twitter Tactics: When Do You Block?

To the folks out there twittering, do you block followers?  Which ones?  My rate of new followers is slow enough that I can and do hit each follower's profile to discern whether the person is real or not. 

• Bots get blocked.  Some are easier to figure out so I don't even need to look at their profile, but some do.  The latest trend seems to be bots with pics that are not as suggestive and with the short profiles that are no so suggestive, but doing to their longer profile reveals a weblink with a key word or two that gives it away. 
• I also block people who are real but whose profile is a sales pitch.  While one can argue that everyone on twitter is selling themselves, when the profile is an ad for stuff, I block them.

Does my blocking become less rigorous when I am about to reach a new threshold of followers?  Um, sure.  But now that I have reached a particular level, I am less concerned about the ego-gratification of having heaps of followers.  So, this was a morning of blocking and reporting of spam folks.


Do you bother?  Are there categories of folks you block that I have not included here?   And yes, blocking a follower is easier than de-friending in facebook or in person.  I have yet to block an overly enthusiastic retweeter/commenter, but the temptation does exist.