Obama and Afghanistan

In an interview, Obama indicated that he will not add more troops to Afghanistan unless/until there is a strategy that requires it. The interview, like the earlier post today, reflects a reality-based administration that considers the various alternatives, takes seriously dissenting opinions and then makes considered decisions. You may or may not like Obama's decisions, but one should respect the improvement in the decision-making process. He also demonstrates some keen insights--that sometimes the military, just like other bureaucratic agencies, think more of x leads to better outcomes.

It is interesting that I am now getting flashbacks to my days in the Pentagon, where the US and its NATO allies conflicted over which term should be used in the documents: benchmarks or milestones.

Obama didn’t answer directly on whether he supported a timeline, but said his strategy contained “benchmarks” for achievements to assess the progress of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan

Benchmarks are condition-based ways to view progress and milestones/timelines are time-based. Bush sought milestones in the Balkans so that the US could get out, while Europe, which would feel the consequences more directly of any failures in the Balkans, generally preferred for conditions to improve before pulling out. Ironic is it not that the Dems in the Congress are pushing for timelines and Obama is focused on conditions.


For the latest on Canada's views on Afghanistan, including a few quotes of yours truly, see this story.

European Missle Defense continued

In today's NY Times, SecDef Gates explains and defends the decision to change the plans for defending Europe against missiles. The plan now is to deploy ships with anti-missile missiles and then down the road put other interceptors into Europe.

The money quote is:

I am often characterized as “pragmatic.” I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith. I encountered this in the debate over the Defense Department’s budget for the fiscal year 2010 when I ended three programs: the airborne laser, the multiple-kill vehicle and the kinetic energy interceptor. All were plainly unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed — but had nonetheless acquired a devoted following.

My love affair with this SecDef continues. While this change might have been handled better, and I do believe that one reason to change the plan is to reduce the anxieties of Russia, which Gates underplays, the basic decision is a sound one.

And while it may not be politically acceptable these days to suggest that one is changing a policy to reduce the threat posed to Russia, it does follow from the logic of the security dilemma and my lectures in Intro to IR this week: that in anarchic system (no world government), countries must rely on themselves and that means if one country arms, then others will react, despite the stated good intentions of the first actor. So, Russia can only look at missiles (even defensive ones) on its borders as a threat and react accordingly. Will Russia consider naval vessels with anti-missile missiles parked in the Black Sea as less of a threat? Thus far, that looks likely.

Anyhow, making policy based on the costs and benefits of the various systems is the right way to go, even if one downplays one of the key benefits. Certainly better than making policy based on "theology."

Blame the Internet? Nope, says book I have not read

I wrote a post last month that there is much hysteria blaming the internet for a variety of problems and that it was exactly that--hysteria. I suggested that the internet was not all that different from the advent of the phone, etc. And, as it turns out, I am not alone. See this salon piece that reviews a book makes the same argument, more or less, but better with things like facts.

Every communication advancement throughout human history, from the pencil to the typewriter to writing itself, has been met with fear, skepticism and a longing for the medium that's been displaced.... "A Better Pencil" is both a defense of the digital revolution and a keen examination of how technology both improves and complicates our lives.

I start with Plato's critique of writing where he says that if we depend on writing, we will lose the ability to remember things. ... Of course we remember all this because Plato wrote it down -- the ultimate irony.

But the people who yearn for the good old days of older technology like typewriters don't seem to realize there never were any good old days. At the same time, in looking at new technology, it never does everything that people promise it will.

More juicy stuff--read the post and perhaps even the book!

When Does Transparency Become Invisibility

Very interesting post at the Columbia Journalism Review on the changing relations between media and US military in Iraq (thanks to Marc Lynch's tweet). Lots of interesting stuff here, including the idea that the US military is the most transparent in the world (more so than the Canadians if you ask the folks on the parliament's defence committee); that Petraeus and his folks did not see the media as an adversary to be contained (perhaps as a tool to be manipulated?); and that some of the responsibility of declining access is due to cutbacks on the media's side with fewer reporters and less time spent in Iraq.

A few key quotes from the piece:

Yet the military is increasingly reticent to deal with those who do remain. Even driving onto some military bases for interviews requires embed approval—a form which asks reporters, including those based in Iraq, to submit samples f their work and story ideas. Coverage is often killed by bureaucracy.

American reporters since last year have been denied the access badges that are given to any U.S. contractor. The badges prevent them from having to wait in areas most vulnerable to suicide bombers in order to enter the Green Zone.

But if the sophistication of the troops has increased, it’s not always mirrored among military public-affair officers, who tend to have far less contact with Iraqis.

Definitely a worthwhile read--a quick education on the state of embedding today.

Don't Let a Few Facts ....

So, is there a bit of racism in the opposition to Obama? Steve Greene throws a few numbers into the old regression machine and finds out: duh! Indeed, attitudes about race affected perceptions of Obama.

As a scholar of ethnic conflict, I am shocked. Ok, I am not. Anyhow, check out lil' Steve's blog entry on this.

First Time for Everything: A Class That is as Snarky as Me

My Intro to IR class (600 students) continues to impress me. And today, it left me speechless. Literally, I could not speak. I was laughing way too hard. This is hard to explain if you were not there, but I will forever remember the day that the phrase "Kangaroo Milk" caused me significant pain via laughter.

The context was a discussion about who is and who is not a Great Power, with the students recommending Canada and my use of that as an example of "Conceptual Stretching." That is, if Canada is squeezed into that category, then the category loses its analytical value. Continuing a theme of the previous classes, milk came up and then maple syrup, but when I suggested that Canada were a Great Power, then Australia would be one, too. And that led to Kangaroos and then kangaroo milk.

Good times.

For a different take on Canada's greatness (thanks to Jacob Levy for this reference),

Analogy of the Week

The Dolphins' offense is like watching two drunk people try to fool around. Just a lot of thrashing and apologizing.--Bill Simmons, ESPN Sports Guy

New TV Season!!! Start Your Tivos!

Started well with a great Office episode and then a new fun comedy--Community. It is based a community college, where a typical bunch of very different folks form a study group. Any show based in an educational environment is going to get my interest, and this one was actually pretty funny. Very deliberate references to Breakfast Club didn't hurt, plus the romantic interest of the lead was told several times she looks like Elisabeth Shue, and the truth of that also does not hurt.

So, the general goal each year is for us not to get addicted to any new shows, and NBC is doing its best to make that happen by blowing five hours of primetime on Jay Leno. But Community looks to be a keeper.

A Breakable Vow and Gary Coleman

I have been whining much the past week, but my week of mourning ends today. My 13 year old daughter is sick of my complaining, and, so if I stop now, I can throw it back in her face the next time she complains for a week ;) Plus I biked for the first time in a while and as I was arriving back at my home, this song was on my ipod.

End of European Missile Defense? [update]

Obama has announced that he will not pursue Bush's plan for expanding land-based missile defense systems to Eastern Europe. I am sure that the right wing will argue that Obama is selling out the East Europeans, as this has been a major thorn in the side of Russia-US relations. There is more to it than that, including how expensive the program is (not to mention of somewhat dubious reliability). Ricks suggests that this decision is a boon for the US Navy, which can station ships in the Black Sea (regularly or during a crisis?) to shoot down Iranian missiles.

Obama did notify the concerned countries ahead of time, and their reactions seemed to be mixed, with Poles perhaps quite annoyed. Poland has been one of the largest contributors of troops to NATO's effort in Afghanistan and has been a steadfast supporter of the US. This will not change, as Poland obviously sees NATO's raison d'etre to be still relevant--the Russian threat.

UPDATE: Fred Kaplan sees this as good news too

Academic Survival Strategy #1: External Audience and the Portfolio Approach

In a discussion of tenure on the Political Science Job Rumor Blog, which is now for pretty much all aspects of Poli Sci, not just job rumors, the topic of co-authoring came up. I didn't really address that too much, although I have stated my thoughts on that topic, but instead focused on what I think is a key way to survive and thrive in academia.

There are always two audiences that an aspiring professor must consider: the internal audience (aka the department) and the external one--the wider discipline. It is easy to get so focused on the internal audience because you may constantly be exposed to the opinions of your colleagues that you forget what the standards of the larger community may be.

For instance, at my old job, articles had much value and books were seen as being less valuable (the equivalent of three articles) for getting tenure, so if one paid attention only to the internal audience, investing the time and effort in a book project did not make much sense. However, I sensed that among the wider group of North American political scientists who study International Relations, books have a great deal of value. Indeed, in the discipline of political science, some departments are article places, some are book places and some are in between or more flexible. I knew that the external audience valued books, so to play to that audience, I wrote a book (of course, this is not all strategy as I had a book I wanted to publish).

Why does the external audience matter? Principally for two reasons:

• as part of tenure and promotion processes, outside scholars are asked to write letters evaluating the candidate's contribution, so meeting the external standards is important.
• if one wants to move, then one needs to meet/surpass not just the internal standards but the external expectations.
• a third reason also matters: the internal standards can be subject to fluctuations depending on who is there at a given time (changes due to sabbaticals, retirements, hiring, etc), but the external standards, as a general consensus in the profession, tend to evolve more slowly.

All this leads to and supports my governing pluralist philosophy: there is no one single way to be a political scientist nor should a department try to develop a single model of success. I do not think any one method or approach is right all the time. I, therefore, encourage my students to develop a solid portfolio of skills and attributes. I write books and articles so that my work will appeal to wider audiences than just one or the other. I have co-authored with a wide range of folks, and I have been solo author on about half of my publications. I use quantitative methods (statistics) when that method is most suitable, and I use qualitative methods (case studies) when the question requires that technique. I have been aiming to publish in all of the major journals rather than just one or two.

For my department, the best way to proceed is to cultivate a diverse set of skills and approaches. Not everyone has to be writing books, for instance. You can have a few folks more focused on policy audiences even while the overall commitment is to the academic audience. Not everyone has to be a stats guru, but having a few around is a good thing.

The idea is to manage risk a bit but also to maximize visibility and relevance, as these will lead to better reputation, which in turn leads to better students, better hires, more funding, etc. Focusing narrowly on one form of publication, one methodology, or one style can work for some places, but it requires consensus and commitment to that one form (the formal modeling places like Rochester or NYU). The portfolio approach makes the most sense if super-specialization is not available or attractive.

A Year That Has Stuck With Me

It has been seven years since I spent a year at the Pentagon, but I was reminded yesterday how much that year has stuck with me. I was talking to a colleague and I said I would "ping" someone. This is a term I picked up from the folks in the pit (office space) I shared in 2001-2002. To ping someone is to send a message and hope to get a response, as in using sonar to send out a sound and then when the wave of sound its something, you get a return sound.

How else has that year affected me?

• I use the word "sir" far more often than I used to do so. Of course, using it once a year would be far more often.
  
• I will occasionally complement a student or my daughter by saying "very professional!"
• I have a knee jerk response whenever anyone refers to the US Dept. of Defense or the Pentagon when they really mean the Secretary of Defense. This is less severe with Gates than it was when Rumsfeld was still screwing everything up.
• I still occasionally say "we" when referring to US military guys.
• And, of course, my current research agenda on NATO and civil-military relations directly flows from some of the things I saw and experienced during that year.

I will probably be revising this list as more lingering effects come to mind.

A Real Examination of A-Stan Strategy

Looks like John Kerry may be a better Senator than Presidential candidate. Well, that would not be too hard. But he held hearings on Afghanistan and asked really good questions of three distinct experts. See here. If only Canada could have such an informed discussion. Instead, heads are mostly in the sand as folks inside the government don't want to talk about it at all. PM Harper did say that Canada still intends to do development stuff and more civilian activities as it pulls back militarily. Not what US wants to hear, but I don't think Obama is going to piss all over Canada as the previous admin did over Iraq. And that is what I said on CBC Montreal radio today.

On the other hand, really good discussion about Afghanistan in Montreal tonight with an American and an Afghan (or Canadian/Afghan). There is a really interesting program, the Sauve scholars, affiliated at McGill, that brings in 13 or so young (under 30) people with amazing backgrounds and incredible aspirations. I am a mentor to one of the folks there and my department is over-represented among the mentors (4 of 13). So, I went to the reception, met the Principal (equal to University President), and got a tour of an amazing building--the residence of the scholars and the base of the foundation. Very impressive.

Should be an interesting year.

Death Star Conspiracy Theory

Just a priceless video about the death star's destruction from the point of view of the Stormtroopers (thanks to Ora, my TA extraordinaire for directing me to this).

And, of course, one can interpret the discussion anyway you want.

New Idiot to Add to the List of People Who Should Be Ignored

In previous posts, I have wondered why people care about what Dick Cheney and other folks have to say. Seems like Fox is adding to this list: Dick Morris said some stupid stuff about professors, but I don't really have to respond to it because: a) his track record speaks for itself; b) the other folks have posted intelligent responses.

Or one could check my September to do list, which my family found quite surprising.

I am trying to figure out whether the lazy stereotype is better than the lecherous one.

Are Elections The Solution?

One of the big lessons I learned in grad school was that electoral competition can lead to bad outcomes. Specifically, Donald Horowitz and others talked about ethnic outbidding, where the election process essentially becomes an auction where the two or more candidates compete to be the best nationalist. Not good.

Well, jump forward twenty years, and we still see elections as potential panaceas. Marc Lynch does a nice job of discussing the tradeoffs and complexities. I am no expert on the Middle East (despite the occasional depiction as one when I appear on Montreal TV), but the dynamics that Marc describes in these cases are not unique and we should not be surprised.

I think much of this has to do with wishful thinking more than analysis, since:

1. "bad guys" can win elections;
   
2. competition lead to outbidding, including Karzai trying to outbid his opponents and the Taliban on the collateral damange issue;
3. corruption during a campaign can undermine the legitimacy of the effort;
4. elections can serve as focal points for political violence.

Anyway, read Marc's stuff to see why Iraqi elections may not provide the dramatic ending to the US mission there.

Changing Roles

At Texas Tech, I became aware that I was the Colonel Hogan of the department. In Hogan's Heroes, Colonel Hogan was the senior Prisoner of War, so he was the leader of the Allied prisoners, seeking to undermine the buffoonish Germans led by Colonel Klink.

As I was the senior assistant professor for my last couple of years, I was one of the leaders of the reasonable junior faculty who had to manage the Chair of the department, who had been appointed by the dean, as well as the tenured professors.

Now that I am at McGill, I am no longer a junior member of the department, but I am among the most senior of the Associate Professors. I am also no longer the leader of the pack, but, instead, my formal seniority and plus my tendency to blog about things (among other behaviors) make me perhaps Colonel Crittendon--the British officer who was technically senior to Hogan and would undermine the efforts of Hogan and the gang through his own inept escape attempts.

I am not too sure how I feel about this realization.

For illustration, see below. Of course, finding a German version of HH on youtube was just too ironic:

Renting a Victory? [update]

I have wondered since my visit to Afghanistan nearly two years ago (Dec 2007) whether this is an optimal level or form of corruption that would allow the government to be semi-self-sustaining and legitimate enough. I realized that we could not eliminate all corruption there (or anywhere), and changing all of the norms of the political and the economic system seemed a bit ambitious.

Asking that question of the CIDA [Canadian International Development Agency] rep in Kandahar caused her head to spin. The military guys did see the value of the question, but they never changed their polling to determine which kinds of activities that we call corrupt were more or less likely to alienate the community.

Anyway, Fred Kaplan reviews the Senate committee hearing on the renewal of the Chairman of the Joint Staff. Afghanistan came up and the failure to develop governance was a focal point of the discussion--that more troops will not lead to more legitimate government. So, Kaplan goes to the extreme of suggesting that we rent some warlords and perhaps buy support throughout the society. Well, at least for a while. An interesting although problematic thought.

For the opposite perspective, arguing that corruption is THE problem to fight and how to fight it, see here.

Significant International Reputation

As part of this week's academic theme, I want to consider an interesting standard for promotion to Full Professor: Does the Candidate Have a Significant International Reputation?

This might seem to be a bizarre standard, as the job of a professor in terms of research is to create knowledge, which sounds mighty high falutin', but basically to provide original contributions--add to our understanding of a topic or two or three (whether the research always focuses on one topic or changes topic is something one could consider). Being well known actually may not be that highly correlated with adding to one's field. To take a not-so-random example, I joke in class that Sam Huntingon, in his last couple of decades, served as a black hole of knowledge--destroying understanding and facilitating ignorance--and was more famous for it. Whether you buy my argument about Huntington, the point remains that the quality of the contribution may not be tightly related to one's renown.

Still, there are good reasons for universities to develop such a standard. Professors with better reputations, holding all else constant, are more likely to attract more and better graduate students, more outside grant money, more donations, better new hires, and simply more visibility for the department/university (and other stuff as well--must remember what that might be).

But then the problem becomes this: how do we evaluate whether a person has a significant international reputation? What is significant and what counts as international? Not to mention reputation for what? Let's try to take those in turn:

• Significant: Statistically this would mean that 95% of the time ..... what? Perhaps 95% of the time, a majority of respondents in a given field would be able to recognize the name and identify the realm of research/theories that person has published. Seriously, this significant thing is pretty hard to measure, but I guess it would mean that more than a handful of people would know of the candidate's work and its contribution, but less than a supermajority.
• International: Across how many countries must a reputation spread to count? Two? Three? 180? Moving from the US to Canada would have made my rep expand to two countries and thus qualifying for international? ;) Ok, perhaps more than just those two then. Is the significant modifying the international then, suggesting more than a handful of countries?
  
• Reputation: Reputation for what? Publishing a lot? Publishing ideas, methods, findings that are interests? Persuasive? Ground-breaking? Field-defining? Life-changing? Law-breaking? Idol-recovering? Code-breaking?
  

Aye, there's the rub. This is an elusive standard. The way to get through this is to send out requests to top people in the field to serve as external reviewers, so that they can evaluate the contribution of the candidate. Notice, we are back to evaluating their contribution. I am pretty sure that the letter-writers are not asked whether someone is popular or not. This is not high school.

If external reviewers are not yet consulted (they come into play at the Dean's committee level at McGill), then one could focus on the publications--where has this person published (which journals, which presses)? How much? And that is usually the default--counting pubs--which is like counting dead enemy bodies in a counter-insurgency--the more the better, sure, but does it really measure progress/contribution? The idea is that if tougher outlets like your work, then it must be good. Not an unreasonable approach, but it is indirect to either contribution or reputation because journals have been known to publish crap and your reputation should not affect the willingess of your stuff to be published in journals with blind referees (books are not reviewed blindly--the referee does know who the candidate is, so reputation could facilitate book publishing).

If one really is focused on reputation, then one could focus on indicators of popularity and exposure, such as citations, usage in syllabi, invitations to join various select clubs (editorial boards, leadership positions in various organizations, awards, fellowships, etc), and/or invitations to represent one's area of expertise. Is this a complete sample, a random one, or just one that favors my case?

Of course, one could wonder what impact co-authorship might have on one's international reputation. I considered the issue of co-authorship the other day. The issue should only matter if co-authoring affects the candidate's significant international reputation--deadweight? Or contributor to knowledge.

That is my take--yours?

Short Sports Rant: The NFL Overtime Rule

Is just fine. People whine that whoever wins the flip has a better chance of winning the game. Boo-frickin-hoo. It may be the case that one team never gets the ball in overtime. This happens almost a third of the time. Most of the time, both sides get the ball at least once in overtime, with the original winner of the flip winning the game 60% of the time. So, the team that starts first does have an advantage. To avoid this, try winning in regulation. No need for silly college football rules.

The only change I would possibly recommend is that the game cannot be won by a field goal. Make the first team to five points wins, so that the defending team can have some room for error and does not have to worry about the opponent just getting to the 30 yard line. If the one team gets two field goals before you get one touchdown, well, you deserve to lose.

Predispositions and Position-Taking

Again, back to the recurring theme of perceptions and reality. I had a fun conversation this afternoon with a reporter from the NY Times about the perceptions in Canada about how Canada's efforts in Afghanistan are perceived. It was funny that we got the real starting point of the recent upsurge in this debate at the end of the conversation--that the request by the new NATO Secretary General (Anders Rasmussen) for Canada to stick around in Afghanistan provoked a big backlash.

That is, Canadians seem to think that their contribution in Afghanistan, now at 130 soldiers lost, significantly more wounded and billions of Canadian dollars, is undervalued. But when someone outside of Canada says, we have really relied on you guys and want you folks to stick around, it seems outrageous?!! Yes, there is a huge burden-sharing problem in Afghanistan as my research agenda on caveats and other restrictions is exploring. But, to say that we gave at the office is kind of a strange response.

Canada is definitely punching above its weight class in Afghanistan, doing a lot of the heavy lifting and doing much of it better than other countries. Yes, this is unfair, but, this disproportionate burden is being recognized.

A personal irony in this is that the idea that the reliable get asked to do more is not just a NATO story, but an academic reality. The question one has to ask every step of the way as reliable collective action sucker (as opposed to a free rider) is: are the benefits-costs now for saying no less than or greater than the benefits-costs of saying yes? Is there a long-term benefit for being a good departmental citizen and helping the community? Are there tradeoffs or kickbacks that are rewarding?

Umm. Not right now.

For Canada, yes, there are, I think, as Canada is worried about Russia and that is a problem with NATO's name written all over it.

Curiosity as Sin or Virtue

Stanley Fish has an interesting post on curiosity in the NYT.

In short, curiosity — sometimes called research, sometimes called unfettered inquiry, sometimes called progress, sometimes called academic freedom — is their God. The question, posed by thinkers from Aquinas to Augustine to Newman to Griffiths, is whether this is the God — the God, ultimately, of self — we want to worship. Given the evidence, including Chairman Leach’s address, the answer would seem to be yes.

Interesting that in the entire post, Fish does not mention the opposite of curiosity might be ignorance or something like that (apathy?).

It is obvious where I stand on this as one of my key strengths/weaknesses is a deep curiosity about a great many things. That is why my choice of profession is ideal.

Canadian Pre-Campaign Ads

Since I am laptopping while watching the Patriots-Bills, I am once again frustrated by the limited variety of ads on the Canadian feed.

So, I have seen the same negative ad, where the Conservatives blast Ignatieff, focusing on a few key sins:

• possibility of "reckless" coalition (tying Iggy to last winter's possibility of a coalition with the NDP (left/greenish party) and Bloc Quebecois (separatist party);
• tying Iggy to his American past--playing upon anti-Americanism;
• blaming Iggy for another election (we have had a bunch the past few years here).

There has not been an election called yet, but all sides are preparing for it. The supposed virtue of parliamentary systems is that the election season is supposed to be short. Not anymore. Sigh.

Cheering for Canada

Pepsi has the strangest competition I have seen in some time. They are seeking submissions for a cheer for Canada for the next major hockey competition.

The ad starts with Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi. U-S-A, U-S-A!!

Canada has been around since 1867, more or less. It has been competing for years and years at international competitions, including many, many hockey tourneys. You would think that a cheer would have emerged by now. And Pepsi, an American multinational corporation is going to be the one to find it???

If I was not already confused by events closer to home, I would be now.

Costs of Afghanistan

This article does a great job of identifying the costs of the US effort in Afghanistan. This does not count the Canadian dollars, the British pounds, the Euros, but is still instructive.

I do hate the "well, we could have spent it on x in the US." This is true of lots of stuff, including the Bush tax cuts and deals made with the drug companies. I think we can figure out that the magnitudes here are quite significant.

Of course, the real question is costs down the road--as the costs already paid are just that. Can't change them now without a time machine.

Return of Osama

Bin Laden has a new tape out, and Marc Lynch provides an excellent analysis. Well, it looks good, but I have no clue since I do not understand Arabic and this message apparently has no subtitles, something that Marc notes.

I am sure Marc has made more sense of it than the coverage in the usual media outlets.

Phenomenal!

I always use the same word to describe McGill's undergrads: phenomenal. And they proved it again just a few minutes ago. I was teaching Classical Realism to my class of 600 students, mostly new to McGill and new to political science. And towards the end, a bunch of them started asking really smart questions that showed that they had done the reading, had thought about it, and had developed some good critiques and questions about the stuff thus far.

I may have to revise my lectures since they seem to be way ahead of me.

A good problem to have, I think.

Considering Co-Authorship

When I was just a young, callow, immature lad at Texas Tech, we were considering hiring someone who had an extensive publishing record but almost entirely of co-authored work. I raised questions about this individual, but lost the battle (as usual). And that was a good thing because this person turned out to be a phenomenal colleague--was perfect for the department's needs. And, of course, TTU failed to keep him.

His co-authorship was a concern because it was mostly with more senior people (including his advisors), and I was worried that this potential hire might not be making a significant contribution and that his productivity might decline if he lost his relationship with those co-authors.

When considering hiring, tenure, and promotion, the considerations should be centered on whether the candidate has/is likely to make a significant (original/insightful) contribution to the body of knowledge in his or her chosen area of study.

Co-authorship comes into the equation when considering how much of a contribution an individual makes. If all of the publications are with senior scholars (especially the same one or two), then one could be suspicious that the candidate might not be adding that much. On the other hand, if all or most of the pubs are with junior scholars, then one can be a bit more certain that the candidate is bringing something to the table.

What is the best way to figure this out? Besides considering how the candidate has actually indicated how much of each pub is their own work (percentages are often included in the candidate's application--this book is x% mine, y% my co-authors), one could actually read the person's body of work to detect the ideas and methods that are consistent even as the co-authors vary (that is, those making the decision might actually practice some social science of their own and engage in comparative analysis). Or one could depend on outside reviewers who read the body of work and evaluate. One could also consider where the person's pubs are--in top ranked and highly selective presses and journals?

Of course, this issue is most important for hiring, a bit less for tenure and not so much at all for beyond that, as the question really revolves around whether the candidate is going to be a productive scholar. This is a big concern early when the record is pretty thin and at tenure since you are making a decision about someone's trajectory. Beyond that, the record is pretty clear about what someone is going to do because they have already established a post-tenure pattern that is likely to endure. Indeed, at that point, there are other measures of whether a person has made a contribution and has an international reputation--citations, membership on editorial boards, reviews of the existing work, etc.

With the possible danger that folks with limited vision might misunderestimate one's co-publications, why co-author?

• To bring different skill sets together. For instance, I have co-authored with other people so that I can add cases to my study without becoming an expert myself in Eritrean politics.
• To bring together different research resources. For instance, I am working with a pal from grad school who works at the National Defense University, and thus has connections to the US military. He is working with me, in part, because of my connections to the Canadian Forces.
• To tackle very difficult projects, more minds at work might be of assistance. I am currently applying for a grant to do a very difficult project on diasporas, collecting much data and trying to figure out some pretty complicated questions.
• To bring contrasting perspectives together so that the final product is the result of some intellectual wrestling.
• To ease one's workload. I could have written my second book by myself, but it got done faster and the work itself was better through the efforts of Bill Ayres the non-terrorist. Bill's work allowed me to work on other projects as well as lead the department in phd supervision.

Co-authorship does vary by field (hard science often has articles with dozens of co-authors), but has become increasingly common in Political Science. Again, the question is less of statistics, and more of considering the question when engaged in hiring, tenuring or promoting: is this person making a significant contribution? If the answer is yes, then hire, tenure, promote. If the answer is no, well then, don't.

Why I Root for Tiger Woods and Against the Yankees?

I root for Tiger Woods--the most dominant player in a sport that I don't play and didn't really watch before his arrival. I root against the Yankees, in part because I am a Mets fan, and in part because I don't want to just be a bandwagon-jumping front-runner. But isn't that what I am doing as I cheer on Tiger?

I don't think so. I follow Tiger because he is a phenom. He does things on the course that no one has done. He is always capable of a moment that is simply stunning. I have started watching NBA playoffs to watch Lebron James do the same thing. I regret not watching Michael Jordon much during his peak. I do remember watching Dr. J swoop around the Lakers and the basket in one of the most amazing feats of all time.

On the other hand, I have been rooting for the New England Patriots for the past seven years or so, which is a classic case of front-running. Is it because they are a once in a lifetime collection of athletes? Well, two years ago, they were on offense. But no, the reason why is the same as one of the reasons why I want Obama to succeed--I enjoy watching intelligent, strategic folks operating at a high level. What makes the Patriots so very good is their ability to adapt and adjust to the strengths, weaknesses and tendencies of their opponents. Of course, they cheated and I find that problematic.

But I justify it in my own mind through a variety of tricks of cognitive consistency (an old running theme at this blog).

Mything Afghanistan

Colin Kenny, the leading Canadian senator on Defense matters, called for a retreat from Afghanistan in today's paper. Obviously, there can be merit in such an argument. Last month, I blogged about why NATO should stick around and I wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail that received heaps of attention (critical, that is) for arguing that the mission in Afghanistan actually matched Canadian values and interests.

What drives me crazy about Kenny's argument is not the conclusion but how he got there--by repeating the same myths that everyone else does. So, let me focus some attention on these (I already blogged about the myth about how long we have been doing COIN):

• No one has ever won in Afghanistan. The British were initially defeated, yes. The Soviet Union was defeated. But the British came back and did serve as the colonial power for quite some time. And then there was a government in Afghanistan for decades. This is very similar to the ancient hatreds argument to justify non-intervention in the Balkans. Violence always varies, and there are always periods of peace. We would be better off understanding this and trying to figure out what conditions were associated with the peaceful periods than ignoring those eras entirely.
• Afghanistan is the "Graveyard of Empires." That is, not only do great powers lose in Afghanistan, but it hurts them so badly that the empire falls apart. Well, it is pretty hard to trace the end of the British Empire in the early 1900s to a lost battle in the first half of the 1800s. Indeed, after the British were defeated in 1842, the empire expanded significantly in between India and England--the Middle East and Africa. While the Soviet Union was damaged by the war in Afghanistan, it is fallacious to think that the war caused the USSR to disintegrate (but join Bin Laden in that club). The Soviet Union faced a variety of stresses and strains due to its economy (which began to fail in the 1970s), the costs of subsidizing similarly failing economies in Eastern Europe, a bankrupt ideology, and a geriatric political strata.
• Perhaps most importantly, that war is a process by which victories steadily accumulate. The advanced democracies are incredibly impatient, expecting victory within hours (like the Kosovo bombing campaign), when even conventional wars last years and when victories are followed by defeats which are followed by victories. Lincoln had to wait for Gettysburg to emancipate the slaves since he wanted to do it after a victory. The Allies lost their first real battle with the Germans in North Africa at Kasserine in 1942. The Italian campaign was really a series of defeats for the Allies throughout 1943 and 1944. If the invasion of Normandy happened today, I wonder what the media and the politicians would make of being stuck for more than a month on the beachhead.
• One last myth or, more accurately, false logic: the price paid thus far in lives and money should neither be a justification for continuing (sunk costs) or a reason to depart, as they costs have already been paid. To make decisions about tomorrow, we should use the best information we have about the costs and benefits going forward.
  

My previous posts revealed my doubts about the mission, but progress in a counter-insurgency campaign is not going to be steady. The opponents do get a vote in how things progress, and violence was expected to increase as the US increased its troops on the ground.

Progress on the governance side of the effort is the key, and we are right to be disappointed by recent events. We can be skeptical about the effort, but let's do so in an informed way, rather than just repeating the false myths.

I Think Love Thy Neighbor Does Not Mean Loving the Lobbyists

What is it about family values Republicans? Hat tip to Steve Greene and his blog for the following clip.



The clip is as amusing for the local TV coverage (he won't respond to me, waaah) as it is for the idiocy of this horny, lobbyist-shagging politico. Incroyable!

Author Recommendation: Chris Moore--More Foolish than Full?

I just started reading Christopher Moore's Fool, which takes King Lear from the perspective of the Fool. Moore has a knack for writing incredibly humorous novels that are "sick in the best sense of the word" as Carl Hiaassen has noted. My current favorite is Lamb, The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. But Fool may surpass that one, as Fool is wonderfully profane. Sure, no Zombies or Vampires here (at least, not yet), but Ghosts aplenty--that interact with the Fool rather than just utter their rhymes and take off.

And the timing is great (we had the book tied to another order at Amazon--the first year of Wiseguys DVD for about $10!!!) since I could use the humor as I suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Yes, I am mixing my Shakespeare, but I do not have any handy Lear quotes to use .... yet.

Frustrating Safety Valves in Canadian Politics

Jacob Levy, my erudite and articulate colleague, has a blog post about a piece in the Globe and Mail (not mine) on the Bloc Quebecois, which is the national-level (meaning it sits in the Parliament in Ottawa and not at the Provincial level in Quebec City) separatist party (yes, they call it sovereigntist--I thought I had blogged about it but have not--so coming soon). The basic idea is that the BQ may make a real separatist campaign harder by providing Quebecers with enough influence and ego-stroking to provide a release for separatist passions.

This does not surprise Jacob since he has written about this in the past, nor does it surprise me since I have written about how governments play a dual role in any civil conflict--as a deterrent against violence but also assuring folks that they can block abuses of the state. With the BQ as a major actor in the system (and because parties need enough support in Quebec to win a majority at the national level), folks can feel assured that the government will not abuse them and may actually favor them.

From the op-ed piece, a very apt conclusion:

Heaven never came. The Bloquistes scored at the polls and won concessions in Ottawa, but in so doing moved further from realizing their cardinal ambition. As such, we should salute them as builders of Canadian unity and wish them continued success. They are one of the great backfiring stories of our time.

Financing Civil War

Over the past ten years or so, much of the focus of the study of civil war has been on financing. The starting point was essentially that the present of easily lootable resources such as diamonds or drugs facilitating the development of insurgencies and helped to prolong civil wars. In part, the idea was that other forms of money were taking the place of the superpowers in the aftermath of the Cold War. In part, the World Bank (Paul Collier et al), amongst others, noticed that poverty and civil war go together.

Quickly, the debate matured from whether grievances, such as discrimination, or greed (resources) drive civil war to the different impacts of various financing mechanisms. Jeremy Weinstein wrote a great book a couple of years ago about how the abundance or absence of resources shapes the destiny of the insurgency by shaping its organizational structure.

There is much work to do in this area, and I was struck that financing of an insurgency is less problematic than the first works in this area suggested. All you need is some smart people to figure out a comparative advantage, whether that is conflict diamonds (Congo and other African locales), location (the Balkans), poppies (the Taliban), the ability to hold oil pipelines hostage (Columbia, Nigeria), taxation/protection rackets (more than a few), a good pr story/spokesman (one of the implications of Clifford Bob's book, Marketing Rebellion), etc.

And today, I learned of a new mechanism, although it was used by the government's side, which usually not seen as the side needing extra money: the selling of kids.

Guatemala has the world's highest per capita rate of adoption and is one of the leading providers of adoptive children for the United States. Nearly one in 100 babies born in Guatemala end up with adoptive parents in the United States, according to the U.S. consulate in Guatemala.

Adoptions can cost up to $30,000, providing a large financial incentive in a country where the World Bank says about 75 percent of the people live below the poverty level. Officials fear that often times mothers are paid -- or coerced -- into giving up their children.

This should not be surprising, but it is. Killing parents so that one can sell of the children is about as awful as it gets. It confirms what I had always believed--an imagination/entrepreneurial spirit is a key ingredient for prolonged civil war. So, the finding that wealth (Gross Domestic Product per capita) is highly but inversely correlated with civil war may mean that the folks who could be crafting ingenious ways to fund insurgencies choose not to do in rich societies because they have less risky, more profitable ways to earn a living.

Why No Big Attacks Since 9/11

For an interesting range of theories, see here.

On the extreme range of the "not much of a worry" to "yikes", one end is:

Dumb Terrorist Theory:

Nearly eight years after the attacks, it remains physically sickening to review these for-want-of-a-nail details about what the U.S. government knew prior to 9/11. The various intelligence agencies' failures to pool their knowledge about the plot should surprise no one familiar with Washington's bureaucratic culture. But it's equally true that to count on so extreme a degree of government dysfunction, as al-Qaida effectively did, was foolhardy in the extreme. The terrorists took an unacceptably high risk that they'd get caught, and, just barely, they beat the odds. That they succeeded does not prove they were smart to try.
Nor is it clear that they were smart to succeed.

Another theory is the Melting Pot:

Whatever the reason, American Muslims appear far less inclined to support the global jihad than their European counterparts. In the United Kingdom, 81 percent of Muslims consider themselves Muslims first, British second. In the United States, only 47 percent consider themselves Muslim first. After 9/11, 58 percent of American Muslims said they approved of President Bush's response to the attacks. In a 2007 Pew survey, 51 percent said they were very concerned about the rise of Islamist extremism, a proportion the report termed "much greater than the concern expressed by Muslims in most of Western Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere."

Burden of Success Theory

According to this theory, the 9/11 attacks were so stunning a success that they left al-Qaida's leadership struggling to conceive and carry out an even more fearsome and destructive plan against the United States. In his 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine, journalist Ron Suskind attributes to the U.S. intelligence community the suspicion that "Al Qaeda wouldn't want to act unless it could top the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with something even more devastating, creating an upward arc of rising and terrible expectation as to what, then, would follow."

I always got the sense that AQ did not do minor stuff in the US because it is entirely about mass carnage. Even if they cannot exceed 9/11, the challenge of doing something very big might be prohibitive, whereas something much smaller would be possible but not suitable.


More interesting stuff in the piece. Read it.

How the NHL May Be Like A Committee of Full Professors

Just read this. The National Hockey League does not want to get Jim Basillie of Blackberry to by the Phoenix Coyote team, currently in bankruptcy court, because he wants to move the team from Arizona to Hamilton, Ontario--that is, from where no one plays hockey or watches it to where the people are positively rabid. And the NHL is opposed.

Restraint for a Change

No blogging today, or, at least, not until I get home. Too frustrated about circumstances but feel it is wrong to really unload on 9/11. Also awaiting more information about my status so that I can then rant about injustice, pride and stupidity.

Coming soon.

9/11 Eight Years Later

I probably should not mark the anniversary of 9/11, but it is hard to resist. Especially since my students overwhelmingly consider that event to be their first significant memory of an international event.

I was in the Pentagon at the time the planes hit in NYC, but on a bridge between the Pentagon and the State Department when the plane hit in DC. I told my tale a few years ago on radio. I think I would have as strong a reaction to conspiracy theories about 9/11 even I was not in DC that day. I don't have much tolerance for them or for stupidity in general. Unless you believe that Osama Bin Laden is not real and Al Qaeda does not exist, then you need to consider the real conspiracy--a bunch of folks boarded planes, held hostages and drove those planes into buildings--and those folks were from the Middle East, not the Bush Administration, CIA or Mossad. Give credit where credit is due--and doing otherwise is racist--that Arabs and Muslims are incapable of planning and implementing such a set of actions.

Thinking about that day and the waste of human lives then and the political capital since puts my own concerns and annoyances into perspective. It really does not matter what status one has, or how the combination of vanity and cowardice can lead to unjust outcomes over relatively small stakes.

Anyhow, perhaps the best way to capture the feelings of the time is to see Dave Letterman and his finest hour.

I am sooooooo sorry

Check out here for a good (humorous) take on Joe Wilson's apology.

Don't Read This!!!

There was a column written that suggests what the poor girl might have missed, spending years being kidnapped, in the way of sports news. And this post suggests that what is now considered the worst sports column ever is likely to make money for the site because it is so very bad. This, of course, is the very same dynamic that has been driving the GOP and its propaganda machine the past several months--the more stupid you are, the more eyeballs will see your crap.

The internet is amazing and I cannot begin to suggest how many different ways it has improved my ability to do my job. But the ease of transmission of information does not necessary mean that the best information will flow the fastest (unless it is an SNL viral video involving Justin Timberlake), but that actually it might provide the strongest leg up for the very worst stuff (not just p-rn).

To Be Haunted By Ghosts

Check out the letter that Ted Kennedy wrote to Obama last May after he learned his cancer was terminal.

Kennedy was quite flawed, but his passion here is obvious and touching. If health care is not significantly reformed, Kennedy's semi-last words will haunt the Senate.

Do Not Underestimate Obama

I am beginning to think that there is one guy in DC playing chess and the rest are playing checkers (or perhaps tic tac toe). Obama may dither or it may be that he prefers to let others set the stage and entrap themselves. While I did not watch the speech last night (too tired), the coverage today seems to be pretty clear: the Republicans looked like fools (not the good kind of fool in Chris Moore's latest book that I just started). Nothing makes Obama look more Presidential, more moderate, and more reasonable than the juxtaposition of blackberry-tapping, fer-shaming, "You lie"-ing with the speaker of our time.

In conversations last week at APSA, I was kind of wishful thinking that Obama was setting a trap for the Republicans. I am not sure whether this was really deliberate, but perhaps Obama is the shrewdest opportunist of them all. He could not have anticipated how nutso the GOP would act, but I think he is now reveling in it. As Bill Clinton learned when Newt Gingrich shut down government, being the reasonable one is a powerful position.

Of course, health care reform is still going to be very difficult (as noted by Machiavelli). However, I am now pretty sure that Obama understands that there are larger games being played here, and he plans to win the big ones, even if he has to sacrifice the occasional piece along the way.

Sin Down, States Suffer

Gambling is not as recession-proof as believed. Apparently, folks are not gambling as much or there are more outlets competing for a relatively fixed pie.

“When budgets get tight, expanding gambling always looks to lawmakers like the perfect quick-fix solution,” said John Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois who studies the impact of state-sponsored gambling. “But in the end, it so often proves to be neither quick nor a fix.”

Indeed, the advent of lotteries, sold to publics as a way to finance education, did not really lead to more money for schools, but let legislators move money around.

One possible boon to the federal government would be the regulation of internet gaming. A few years ago, internet gambling was essentially made illegal as it was snuck into a bigger and more popular bill. Since then, there has been much lobbying for a change, and Obama has been for it. Rather than have lots of offshore (including in Canada) servers and companies with no regulation, the idea would be allow not only the internet sites (which cannot really be blocked) but also legalize the means by which money travels to and from the sites.

As a self-interested gambler, I would be in favor of the regulation of internet gambling. I would not expect it to solve the budget deficit or even make that much of a dent, but the current reality of semi-enforcing an unenforceable and hypocritical law (lotteries are legal despite being numbers rackets with far worse odds and payouts) is hard to defend.

Perhaps We Ought to Kill Grandma

In a pretty harsh but perhaps entirely on target post, Ira Rosofsky insists that senior citizens are pretty darned selfish when it comes to health care:

Polling by the Annenberg Institute indicates that old people have historically been the most opposed to spending more on healthcare for children.

When I taught American/Texas Public Policy back at TTU, I learned a great deal (having never studied American politics or policy before that), including how distorted public spending is on folks over 65 when compared to those under 18. "Children are our future" is just so much hogwash. The reason, of course, is that senior citizens vote, and those under 18 cannot. I am not advocating that kids should have the right to vote, but perhaps the senior citizens ought to think about other folks than themselves. Not going to happen, but I can dream--I am still young.

Ricks as Comparativist

See Ricks on his latest post, considering Afghani and Iraqi leaders running away from the US.

Maliki might get further away by embracing Iran. Karzai is more likely to face the Vietnam solution--losing power to a military coup. So, if I had to bet, I would bet on Maliki, because the other horse may well end up as glue.


and Ricks links to this piece about a reporter under fire. These guys simply don't get paid enough. I wonder who will cover the costs once the newspapers disappear.

Facebook Friends

It is amazing how facebook and twitter have exploded. I guess I am such an attention-hound that anything that gets me a smidge more networked/included is addictive to me.

And, so, now my favorite FB feature is the friend-suggesting that happens every few days. The system combs through the friends of my friends and suggests who I should friend. While most of the choices are pretty random, there is occasionally someone listed with whom I would like to be linked. And getting the little box at the top that says someone wants to friend me--well, I find that moment of mystery (who likes me???) to be disturbingly thrilling.

I know, I need to get a life, but electronic Steve has, indeed, taken on a life of his own. Any thoughts?

Following My Footsteps? Not a Chance [update]

In the afterglow of the APSA and with a dissertation proposal defense this morning, I started thinking about my grad students past and present, and the thought that keeps coming to mind--how little their research and orientation overlaps with mine! This is not a bad thing: I am definitely not producing clones of myself.

My first student came the closest and the most recent one is most distant: let me take a jog through my PhD students (only those whose dissertation committees I chair).

1. Sam S.: Ended up studying the impact of the environment upon ethnic conflict--so his dependent variable is the same, but I have never spent much time applying green-itude to my own work.
2. Brent S.: He sought to understand how identity affects foreign policy in the Middle East. I did once write a piece on ID and FP in the Middle East, but it was the conclusion to an edited volume. What I know about most ME countries is not much (a recurring theme).
3. Jonathan P: He actually chose my exact research topic--before he met me. And spent his dissertation trying to prove me wrong.
4. Suranjan W: Scapegoatability--why there is spatial variation in the targeting of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. Yet another country of which I have little knowledge.
5. Amy C: Why do communities vary in their support for terrorist groups? Quebec, Northern Ireland, and Corsica. I live in Quebec--hence my expertise.
6. Sarah-Myriam MB: When will peacekeepers be successful, using Sierra Leone and Liberia as her cases. She did cross the border into Somalia--so I guess we share common research interests.
   
7. Ora S: Why the choice of strategy (material vs. non-material) affects the destinies of militias? Focusing on those fighting Israel. Her touching on the international support side does mean she gets to cite me, but that is about as close as it gets.
8. Aisha A: Explaining the success and failure of Islamic parties in failed states.

What do they all have in common? I don't know. Why do students choose me despite my lack of research in their area? Maybe they are modeling after me, since my adviser did write one piece on ethnic conflict but is almost entirely an International Political Economy guy with an eclectic theoretical viewpoint.

At Texas Tech, I only picked up one student, partly because few students studied IR there and mostly because I had higher standards than my other colleagues. Does having more grad students than most of my colleagues here at McGill mean I have lower standards? Hmmm. Or it might just be the result of a series of independent decisions that they made?

Of course, the benefit to all of this is that I get to learn a lot about places and dynamics beyond my usual comfort zone (the couch, How I Met Your Mother, Star Wars parodies, Bejeweled and Pokerstars). And, thus far, each of those who have finished have found long-term employment.


Update: I knew I jinxed myself. I write a post on ph.d. students and the same day I add another to the mix. Sigh.

Spreading the Dogma Far and Wide

Apparently, via Tom Ricks:

The three most popular books at Guantanamo's library for detainees reportedly are:

1. The Harry Potter novels
2. Miguel Cervantes's Don Quixote
3. Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father

I don't know what this means--says Ricks.

I think it depends on who the detainees see as Harry, Dumbledore and Voldemort.....

Afghanistan--Better Defended by Someone Else

In this piece, a better defense of the Afghanistan mission is presented than I did in my blog struggles the past couple of weeks.

I would argue that the Afghan situation is not yet hopeless. As I wrote on the eve of the election, there is still a definite Afghan majority in the country that wants not only peace but some version of democracy. The central government still has a modicum of legitimacy, though it may not last for long. The plan to increase troops in the near future in order to give the Afghan army time to grow stronger in the long term is neither stupid nor naive, particularly if accompanied by sensible investments in roads and agriculture. But such a plan cannot be carried out without public support, and public support will not be forthcoming unless politicians agitate for it.

It does also address the failure of civilian leadership to explain the war, and hopes that Obama can make the case.

Mad Men word/phrase of the week

Tending.


If you like the show, Slate has a weekly conversation among three of their writers that is always interesting. The latest entry is here.

The Academic Job Market

The Chronicle of Higher Education was at APSA and apparently was following the Poli Sci job market.

while there is much debate within the profession about whether graduate students should be encouraged to publish articles prior to their dissertations, those doing hiring answer the question with a decided Yes.

Um. Huh?!! Who is debating this? The job market changed about 16 years ago--when finishing quickly was replaced by pubs. This is not news.

Likewise, raising questions about how many students go into the pipeline and when to tell them to find another path is an old question as well:

Several chimed in to say that they agreed that it would be far more humane to such individuals to be honest after two years, rather than letting them face a long time in graduate school to be followed by potentially fruitless job searches.

We are a bad guild, and I often felt like there were two big ethical problems at my previous job:
Can we place our graduate students? Do I feel right if we are successful in placing them.

Otherwise, the article, especially its suggestions of what folks should do, is pretty good.

Afghanistan continued

A good brief news analysis of the issues in play in Afghanistan: counter-terrorism from a distance vs. counter-insurgency and some of the tradeoffs in play.

Back to School Etiquette: Plagiarizing Drezner

Dan Drezner has a useful addendum to the NY Times op-eds on back to school. His post focuses on cell phones and wifi (turn them off in class), reading the syllabi, and using wikipedia to find resources but not as a source itself for papers. An excellent start.

After teaching for something like 15 years (started in 1993, but minus one sabbatical and one leave), I am still learning and still surprised by what students do and expect. So, here are some additional tips, many focused on stuff I observed either last year or this year on the first day of class (my second day is tomorrow). Remember, most of these are based on very large lecture classes, although nearly all apply to small classes and even seminars.

1. Coming in late occasionally is understandable, but leaving early is much less so and much more distracting.
2. Don't plan on using the course as a forum for your announcements--the prof has limited time and cannot let every student organization. [My class of 600 is a desired market, apparently and people seem to think they have a right to make announcements]
   
3. Don't plan on announcing your deep love or intense like for someone in the class and make sure your dim-witted boyfriend (who is not taking the class) understands this. [Yes, this actually happened last year].
4. Don't interrupt the prof when he/she is lecturing. Raise your hand and if he does not answer you, wait. And ration your questions. If it is a very large class, don't expect to have a dialogue with the prof--don't expect to ask more than 1-2 per class. I had a student who practically took over the first day and even began to ask questions whenever I took a breath (which is not all that often). The good news is that it build solidarity among the rest of the students in an us vs. them kind of way (with the one student being the them).
5. If you are a tour guide for the campus admissions department, do not, I repeat, DO NOT, lead your followers through the classroom from one side to another. Just peak in from the top corner. Do not be a distraction. Of course, I have no clue why anyone would want to show a huge lecture hall to potential applicants. This happened twice last year!
6. Be kind to your teaching assistant--they are the class "Death Panel" as they grade the papers, the participation and the like. And they do communicate to the professor, especially when a student is a "challenge."
7. Monitor your own sucking up. There is a curvilinear relationship--that means that too much sucking up can be as bad as or worse than none at all.
8. Do watch TV and see some movies so that you can get my pop cultural references. Sample discussion question--is anarchy in International Relations more like Lost, Survivor or Deadwood?
   

This may sound negative, but the don't's are easier to develop than the do's. I have a great respect for McGill students, and most problems tend to emanate from a very few students. The rest are polite, respectful, attentive, incredibly sharp, and most interesting. Just the old 10 percent problem at work.

Man Men #4 [Spoilers]

I am watching Mad Men via iTunes as the program is not broadcast in Canada. It was last year, but not now.

Anyhow, there were two epiphanies in last night's episode. I will focus here on mine, rather than the wife of a certain someone.

I tended, I guess, to be much more sympathetic to Betty Draper than other folks, as her husband is a cad (although I, too, find Don Draper/Jon Hamm to be super-cool). That she is a crappy mother was something that I found funny--yelling at her daughter about the plastic bag on her head in season 1--because of the possibility of wrinkled laundry. But last night was, indeed, a turning point for me. Her lack of support for her daughter during a time of grief was predictable perhaps, but less forgivable than her previous sins. I now see Betty for her ice queen/spoiled child personality, despite the fact that she is still the victim of Don's dishonesty.

One semi-epiphany--the meaning of a Draper--someone who covers up and obscures by putting drapes on windows perhaps?

The show this week was of a very different tone than last week, but still rocked. If you are not watching, you are missing some great TV--great acting, great writing, and great production values.

APSA Update: Other Blogs

For other takes on the APSA meeting, see Dan Drezner and Marc Lynch. They did a better job of attending panels than I did. I need to find the attention span I once had.

The September To Do List

Professors are always frustrated when folks think that we only work a few hours a week in the classroom. But, we profs shouldn't get too uptight about this misperception. Below, I am putting my list of things I need to do this month just to help clarify what our job includes and also for me to figure out what I am going to have to do next month that I forgot to do this month:

1. Lecturing Intro to IR three times a week until it goes back to two times a week towards the end of the month--not much prep required as I have taught this class many times.
2. Lead seminar on advanced graduate research. This requires some prep since I was dumb enough to assign new reading. This course also involves a speaker series, but I have a fantastic post-doc (pre-doc?) helping to run the details.
3. One dissertation proposal defense.
4. Multiple dissertations that I am chairing, so drafts coming in and going out.
5. Heaps of questions from students in the Intro to IR class as it is the first class for many, and they will not be working with their TAs until the end of the month.
6. Interviewing several potential undergrad research assistants for a year long position.
7. Revising the APSA paper so that it can be submitted to a journal.
8. Start using the APSA paper as the basis for the chapters of the book, which will be the focal point of my efforts later this fall and through the spring.
9. Finish the SSHRC grant application.
10. Write a 2000 word essay on the future of NATO peacekeeping as payment for my trip to London in July.
11. Discuss another project with a different co-author.
    
12. Appear at least once on CTV (Montreal) with whom I have an on-going relationship and perhaps a few other media outlets as Afghanistan becomes prominent in the news again whenever the election results are announced.
13. Act as a Sauve Mentor, which includes meeting with the student and going to a reception this month.
14. Write letters of recommendation for current and past undergrad and grad students.
15. Peer review one article and one book.
    
16. Participate in the department's orientation festivities.
17. Avoid any additional departmental service obligations.
18. Await my destiny.

Again, I love my job and I enjoy most of these talks. The hard part is just keeping track of all of them and making sure not too many of them slip. The analogy I always use is juggling--I am not so concerned about dropping a particular ball but tripping over those already on the floor.

What Did I Learn at the APSA?

It has been a very productive semi-week here in Toronto, and, before I leave, I would like to enumerate some of the things that I have learned:

• The bagels in Toronto are just as lame as those in Montreal.
• All of the whiners who complained about the location of this year's APSA were off target--despite the bagels, this was an excellent location with amazing weather, nice people, heaps of cheap restaurants nearby (underground food courts), cheap and easily accessible tickets to major league baseball around the corner, and even free massages next to the book area of the convention center sponsored by the Toronto tourist board.
• I prefer the less painful kind of massage to the pinch-the-muscle kind.
• I know more people than I thought. I amazed a McGill grad student with whom I was chatting in a hallway of the convention center, and was saying hi to many folks as they walked to and from the Tim Horton's (talk about a strategic location!). It was fun to see this through her eyes, although I did caution her of her observation bias--she didn't notice all of the folks who walked by whom I didn't know nor those who were avoiding me.
• Graduate students are all the same--one of the papers I discussed was written by a student who edited and slimmed it down--AFTER sending me the longer draft. My students have the same nasty tendency to edit after I get a longer, less polished version.
• My poker skills have indeed gotten much better since I started playing in graduate school, not much of a feat.
• I need to blog more about ultimate apparently (or so says my 2nd-bff).
• I am still a ditz (left the key card in the room once).
• I am not the only one obsessively seeking external validation (multiple observations).

I was also reminded of many things that I already know, including that:

• I love my job as a political science professor.
  
• My current project, (with Dave A.) on the challenges of operating multilaterally in violent places like Afghanistan, is inherently interesting and is hard for me to screw up the presentation. A Tale of Three Omelets, indeed!!!
• Despite my complaints about McGill and the differential burden-sharing problem, I am incredibly lucky to have a very good position--a Canada Research Chair with great students and some terrific colleagues in a pretty desirable location--despite the challenges of living in a political unit (Quebec) that is run both poorly and expensively.
  
• I have managed to pick up some great friends over the years in grad school, past jobs, previous conferences, and wherever else I have wandered.
  
• As I get older (and I am now solidly middle-aged, like many of my friends [Sorry]), I think I appreciate stuff more. Or at least my recent blogs would suggest that I do.

Oh, and I made a certain friend laugh almost out of her chair when she realized how apt it was that I described myself as a narcissist. Apparently, she, among others, does not read the sidebar of this blog.

Regrets! Bah!

Despite all my whining about TTU and its tragic flaws, I consider myself lucky to have traveled through Lubbock along the winding road of my academic career.

It was a good first job as I had plenty of time to get research done, learn how to teach, and accompany my baby/infant/toddler/child to the emergency room. More importantly, at the time, for a very short time, there were a group of wonderful people who made lunch and various get-togethers endlessly entertaining. I had dinner with one of them tonight, and it reminded me of how I survived six years in West Texas.

Mucho gracias.

Stunning Science

Ok, sometimes science just confirms what we already know: men become idiots around attractive women. Still, nice to have confirmation.

APSA Update: Caveats Rock!

I meant to blog earlier about APSA, but I have been distracted by the actual conference.

I presented the Dave and Steve paper on Caveats that is built on the research earlier this summer in Europe and is part of the larger book project that is now gaining momentum. Dave stayed in DC, delegating to me the job of presenting the paper. It went very, very well. The panel's papers actually talked to teach other, and our paper was the last one presented.

I had struggled ahead of time how to summarize the three cases, but figured out that there is a Tale of Three Omelets [Observer, Mentor, Liaison Teams] that illustrates the CA, FR, and GER approaches in Afghanistan.

The paper received the most questions--friendly, interested ones, not hostile (are you mad?) questions. The feedback was most useful, and I look forward to revising in the next month so that we can submit it.

Today, I serve as discussant. More later.

Sweet Goodbye?

Salon has an interesting take on the Cupcake boom or bubble as they put it. All I know is that Magnolia's does have the best cupcakes I have had in years and are now something I track down when in NYC.

I do wonder about the economics of the business, but, then again, walking in malls and on streets with specialty shoppes, I always wonder how such businesses survive. Indeed, I hope that Porter has a good business plan as it seems like a great idea that might not survive the medium term.

But then again, I have no clue about how the business world works. So, I just hope that folks will continue to eat thy golden cupcake so that I can visit these shoppes again.

Flashback of the Week

Apparently, there is an airshow in Toronto in the near future because the Canadian elite flyers are soaring overhead in very loud F-18s. It reminded me of UCSD, which was positioned between the Top Gun training base and the Pacific until Miramar became something else (Marine air station?).

Anyway, I was eating lunch with someone and remarked that we didn't hear the jets the night before--perhaps the Canadians were following German rules of engagement--that they cannot fly at night! But, of course, once it was clear it was practice for an airshow, the timing made complete sense. Still, we had a good laugh.

One Way Ahead in Afghanistan

Check out this interesting piece that poses some reasonable but radical steps to improve the Afghan National Army's performance. Unlikely to happen, but intriguing.

Short Report from the APSA: A Quick Tour of Christian Colleges

This morning, I had appointments with a friend from grad school and with one of my grad students from Texas Tech. Both now teach at Christian colleges in the U.S., and it was interesting to see how life is both the same and different at religious schools as compared to my own experiences at public universities.

Despite different personalities and religious backgrounds, both reported that they were largely able to teach what they want how they wanted. Of course, given their personalities, they were unlikely to declare religion dead or that the students might be fools for following a certain belief, but they have been able to teach and research political science with significant freedom.

Of course, I felt uncomfortable enough at TTU where the large majority of students had pretty narrow imaginations so I could never teach at a Christian college nor would any of them hire me. But these conversations were instructive that I should not be so narrow-minded to think that there are other ways of doing things and other places where folks can get good educations, even if it means that they have to live in a single sex dorm on campus :0

Of course, right now, I am reveling in my gambling success at last night's annual poker game, so the juxtaposition of last night and this morning is especially amusing to me.

The Ten Percent Problem and Large Classes

In any class, somewhere between five and ten percent of the students have a hard time following directions. This tends to be closer to 10% for intro classes and perhaps closer to 5% for senior seminars although I have not studied this systematically. The problem, of course, is that ten percent of 600 is 60. So, the two big challenges of teaching the huge class are: managing a large team of Teaching Assistants (TA's) and dealing with the 60 or students who seem unable to follow directions.

I have long been tempted to ask those students to move to one part of the classroom so that we can keep track of them, but I know they would not respond too well:

• Some would stand on their head
• Some would lay down on the floor.
• Some would turn to face backwards.
• and most of the 60 would not realize I was talking about them.

Don't get me wrong--I love teaching the big class. It is pretty exciting and fun when it is going well, getting 600 hundred people to pay attention and have them react to what you say (Severus Snape killed again!). And I have the highest respect for McGill undergrads--they are very, very bright, work very, very hard, possess very critical minds and are quite creative. Just a handful of them make it a bit more challenging because they have a hard time figuring out how these courses work and following the instructions.

If you want a tough teacher, with a heart of gold, take Mr. Hand.

Mad Men in the Skies?

My flight from Montreal to Toronto felt like a step back in time. I am new to Porter Airlines, which flies turbo props in and out of Toronto. Walking on the plane, the flight attendants (2 for a small-ish plane!) were wearing throwback uniforms, complete with box-shaped hats. The interior of the plane was new, I got a free beer (a local brand--Steamwhistle--first beer in a can in quite some time) with my lunch, and the service was friendly. I even got a real glass to go with the beer--even though I was not in first class!

To be clear, there was no Don Draper-esque outcome. No interactions with Porter personnel after I got to the hotel.

The airport is small so I got my bag quickly. The airport is on an island about 100 yards from Toronto's shore, so there is a five minute ferry, and then a free shuttle to the center of downtown.

But a very nice start to the APSA, combined with fantastic weather and free internet in the hotel.

Theory Illustrated

One way to pad my blog as I teach is to post some of the stuff I present in class.

So, here is what I show the students to illustrate what theory is not:




See, it is description, not a theory, as there is no causal argument. Indeed, one could even call A. Elk's Theory is really an Ideal Type.

Light Blogging Alert

I have my first day of class and then I am off to the APSA conference in Toronto. So, I will probably not be blogging much, but will keep notes of all the blog fodder I find.

Nuts for Science

Slate has a good post on food allergies, raising some questions behind the science/hysteria. I have some relatives with nut allergies, and their experiences are hardly imaginary. BUT we tend to react to those things that scare us the most (peanuts, terrorism) rather than those that harm us the most (accidents, bad diets).


Key quotes:

The authors may not have perceived a conflict of interest, but a close look suggests that a problem may, in fact, exist.

If you want to influence the answers in a survey, how you ask a question matters as much as what you ask.

The social scientist is me hears alarm bells ringing, but that could be the sand in my ears from the wipeouts during my week at the beach. Yet the connections between legislation and interest groups here seems very familiar (cue the music for suspicion).

Academic Comedy?

Salon has an early review of the much hyped/buzzed "Community" which is a pretty snarky series about life at a community college. In the first episode, there apparently is even a motivational speech by the anti-hero, in the great tradition of trash movies. So, let me spread the hype and buzz even though I have not yet seen an episode. I have lamented all summer about the lack of imagination in Hollywood, so I need to support a comedy that does not take place in a coffee house, among 5-6 friends, in a hospital, law office or police department.

More on TTU's Latest Hire

The decision to hire Alberto Gonzalez gets some analysis from the NY Times Ethicist. I have already asked the reader about this hire, and just wanted to update y'all. The NY Times piece also contains a link to an interview the paper had with the disgraced former Attorney General.

I am not so upset at the $100k salary, as it is more than just one class--the major part of the job is supposed to be attracting minorities. I do hope attitudes have changed in that area since I left. I still remember quite clearly the affirmative action/diversity training we received one summer that left me aghast, including the following quotes uttered by the trainers (not the trainees):

"We have to do this because of big government"
"We just need to avoid lawsuits."
"Orientals"

And so on. It was awful, and remedying these attitudes by hiring Gonzalez, who is the poster child for opponents of affirmative action, seems like more of the same.

Much Ado About Nothing? The Military and the Press

It has recently been discovered that the US military has been tracking the media. Tom Ricks suggests that this may not be as problematic as it sounds, as he has seen the files the military has on him, and actually they were useful as feedback--that he could be more persistent!!

Of course, Ricks is perhaps a bit friendlier to the military than other journalists, having a good relationship with General Petraeus and frequently blaming the civilians for messing up the military's plans (Fiasco, anyone?).

Of course, it does remind me of a conversation I had during my first month in the Pentagon:

Me: So, is the State Department the enemy?
Colonel x: No, the Washington Post is our enemy.

Of course, in reality, during the early aughts (2001-2006 or so), the enemy of the military was really the civilians in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, micro-managing them into mission failure.

Anyway, we need to keep in mind that the journalists do have pretty good access, as I often saw the CBS Pentagon expert wandering the halls of the building by himself--he had a badge that allowed him to that, whereas we had to provide escorts to most other visitors. Of course, having that badge just gets you into the halls, not in the offices.