Wishful Thinking?

I have been thinking for quite some time that the demagogues on the right  have been overplaying their hands on immigration and Islamophobia.  I have been hoping that this is more of Obama's rope-a-dope strategy--give the dopes enough rope to hang themselves.  Is this just wishful thinking?  At a time where economic trends are pretty depressing, where there are lots of real problems with difficult choice sets, it is perhaps easy to rely upon fear and blame-casting.  But is it good politics?

That is, we may find that short term polling indicates that many Americans will buy into Islamophobia, but will this really lead to support for the Republicans this fall and beyond?  How do we reconcile these polls registering intolerance (and fundamentally anti-American attitudes) with other polls that suggest progressive attitudes winning?  Gay marriage is more popular than ever!  Ok, that is a bit much, but more Americans are supporting the right of gays to marry than ever before.

I pondered last night with my wife--did the Prop 8 folks fall into a trap or at least generate unintentional consequences?  By restricting the rights of a minority, these folks created opportunities for that minority to seek redress through the courts.  If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, which is now very likely, it may (just may, no certainty) lead the Court to rule that equal protection under the law requires non-discrimination against gay marriage.  And wouldn't that be ironic/karmic for the voices of intolerance to spark a process that leads to greater tolerance?  Or am I wishful thinking again?

One last note of irony--there is now a small movement to alter the 14th Amendment that grants American citizenship to all those born on US territory.  The funny thing is that it causes folks to overlook the real power of this amendment: Equal Protection.  This amendment is now rivaling the 1st Amendment as my personal favorite.

Here We Go Again

NYT has an article about the uncertainty of the next milestone (or is that benchmark) in Afghanistan's political development: parliamentary elections.  There are concerns that it will go just about as well as last year's Presidential election.  This is the first but not the last story about how difficult the security situation is for an election and how these challenges will just facilitate yet more corruption.

Too early to say right now, but could it possibly be worse than what happened last year? 

“We know it’s not Switzerland,” said Staffan de Mistura, the special representative of the United Nations secretary general for Afghanistan. “But I am concerned, and I am raising a yellow flag.”

Oh, forget I asked.

Viral Madnews

I have marveled over the past couple of years about the spread of various video clips on youtube and elsewhere from strange marriage vows to Star Wars parodies.  The pace has gotten to be so fast that we now go from stunt to revealed hoax to getting behind the scenes of the hoax in about 24 hours.  The latest is the Jenny and her whiteboard resignation bit.  Truly an enjoyable set of pics (not even video).  And now we have a CBS.com interview with the actress and the creator. 

This is one of those days where I wish I was a sociologist. I'd love to see what kinds of stuff get the most play and when.  Clearly, the Jenny (what is it about Jenny?  I still know her phone number--867-5309)* here gets much play given the economic context--lots of frustration over lousy jobs, few jobs, economic distress, etc.  I am sure there is already a grad student out there trying to figure this out.  But, of course, the problem is, as the kids say, the FAIL cases--which stuff does not spread.

Two last comments: the interviewer here is a bit weak: "Do you like the internet?"  And The Chive?  Really?  How far from the The Onion?  Hmmm.  I do like the site's humility: "Probably the Best Site in the World."





*  There is a website dedicated to a guy trying the number throughout the US.

Why Kansas City Royals Are a Lousy Team

Because they let Darth Vader throw out the first pitch at their minor league team's Star Wars day.
More importantly, we can learn two things from this event.
First, we can all get along:

Here, we have a Stormtrooper proposing to a Naval Officer.  If these kids can put service rivalry aside for love, we should all be able to work together.















Second, in the next photo, we discover that UnderArmor (my favorite sports gear company) helps equip the Empire.

The symbol on the Stormtrooper's head gear gives away Underarmor's double dealing.  I do not know how I feel about wearing the same heatgear and coldgear as the minions of the Emperor. 

Either/Or vs Both

Fred Kaplan has another excellent column addressing the cuts that SecDef Gates wants to make in the defense budget.  The basic point is that Gates is trying to change how the Pentagon operates but not really cut spending much.  Gates wants to change the culture, trying to reduce the number of expensive senior officers, reduce reliance on contractors (woo hoo!) and so forth, and shift savings towards procurement.  That is: reduce overhead and get more stuff.  Kaplan notes that this is probably unsustainable in a time of deep budget deficits where the military is really the heart of the non-mandatory spending.  Kaplan almost makes it seem that Gates is fooling himself into thinking that smaller but steady growth in the defense budget is likely.  Perhaps. Or perhaps Gates is cutting the overhead before he is compelled to cut further into the procurement side of things. 

It is clear that Gates is serious about buying stuff that is necessary and no more.  He is already running into heaps of opposition for cutting F-22 engines from the shopping list and for other cuts, but I don't think Gates is unrealistic.  The defense budget is going to have to go down.  It is just too big at a time where deficits are too big and the foreign threats are relatively small.  The US is spending way more than the rest of the world.  Some of the budget declines will occur "naturally" as the Iraq mission goes away, but we are stuck in Afghanistan for a few more years.  So, the US will have to really re-think how many subs it needs, how many carriers it needs, and so forth.  The number of brigades may be less likely to be cut given how stretched the Army is right now, as the past decade has taught us that war is still labor intensive, revolution in military affairs be damned.

But Kaplan is right, basic questions will need to be asked--what do we need, how many do we need, what tradeoffs need to be faced.  Gates is right--the era of endless money is at an end. 

Waiting Has Its Costs

It seems inevitable that the US military will drop Don't Ask, Don't Tell [DADT].  SecDef Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen oppose the status quo, and are seeking to change it.  They face opposition inside the military and inside the Congress, but the requirements of wartime are on their side--that we need qualified people, and sexual orientation should not disqualify them.  So, it is going to happen eventually.  But they have decided to go through an extensive review, including a survey, to make sure to cover their asses do it right. 

What is the cost in waiting and delays?  This.  The conflict between the integrity required for a good officer and the lies required by DADT forced one of the best cadets to leave West Point.  These are precisely the people we need leading the military as it ends two wars and recovers from the breaking point.  Well, tries to recover.  So, the delays mean the loss of more of the future of the Armed Forces.  I understand the politics of the situation requires some caution, but, at this point, I wonder if there are any supporters of DADT who would ever vote for Democrats/Obama anyway.  I guess the change will come shortly after November--after the next set of elections.

It will be late but perhaps not too late. 

The Americans are Coming, The Americans Are Coming

I find it funny that just as I return to the German case for the book on NATO and Afghanistan that the NYT starts a series on a particular military unit (1st BTN, 87th Inf Regiment, 10th Mountain Division) that just so happens to be working in and near Kunduz, smack in the middle of Germany's sector.  The deployment of significant numbers of Americans into RC-N (Regional Command-N) is part of the larger surge, but has also been read as an explicit critique of the German effort.  While ISAF has been undermanned throughout Afghanistan for its entire existence, this was seen as much less of a problem for German troops in RC-N than Canadians in Kandahar. 
Even more striking in this article is that the focus of this unit and of the article is on the police mission, for which the Germans used to have the lead responsibility not just in RC-N but in the entire country.  But they are largely omitted except for this:

The Afghan security forces have their own trust issues with troops from NATO. In April, German soldiers fired on a truck carrying Afghan soldiers rushing to the aid of a German unit caught in an ambush in the Chahar Darreh district. Six soldiers died.
“We are not afraid of the enemy; we are afraid of the Germans,” the district police chief, Gulam Maideen, said.

To be fair, any country that is new to an area will be seen as perhaps a bit more trustworthy since the longer a country has been deployed to a spot of Afghanistan, the more likely it has killed the wrong people.  

The real difference between the US and German effort in Kunduz is this:

So building mutual trust was crucial, and commanders with the battalion said the best way to do that was to be with the police night and day: “Live, train and operate,” they called it.

Perhaps most troubling: "The Afghans spoke no English, the Americans spoke no Dari or Pashto, and there were only two translators, neither of them fully fluent in English."  This late into the game and we still are so short of people who can communicate.  This is a critical gap.

Best Perspective Redux

Edgar Wright explains why bystanders in his new movie, Scott Pilgrim vs the World, do not seem all that impressed by the fights despite their very magical nature:

“It’s like magical realism,” says Edgar Wright about the lack of onscreen interest provoked by the movie’s duels. “Magical things happen, and it’s just accepted in the logic of this universe that this is the way it goes. It’s like a musical in a sense. In Grease, nobody ever says at Rydell High, ‘Did you see it yesterday when everybody sung, ‘Summer Nights’ with all the harmonies? Yeah, they were all up in the bleachers! It was amazing!’ That was my feeling with the fight scenes. They’re like musical numbers.”

Wow, that makes more sense of musicals than I ever considered.  Of course, Edgar Wright is best known for Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, two movies frequently referred to here.  Anyway, I like his perspective, especially on The Greater Good:

Theme of the Week: People Have Way Too Much Time

I posted earlier the clip that shows all of the lightsabers that were ignited and retracted for all six Star Wars movies.  And now, all (or at least some) of the cigarettes in Mad Men, again demonstrated that some folks (whoever put this clip together) have heaps of time to blow:


Best part is the insertion of Brady Bunch in a key point.

And, yes, I am wasting time watching and re-posting it.  Oh well.

Strangest End Credits Ever

My family went to see the Other Guys with Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg last night.  It was quite entertaining as a spoof of the buddy cop movie and general silliness ensued.  It opens with Sam Jackson and Dwayne Johnson (the Rock) as hero cops that engage in outlandish acts of destruction while pursuing criminals--incredibly over the top.  But most interestingly, it ends with a serious of graphs and figures to illustrate the inequalities in the economy, including an illustration of Ponzi schemes, the ratios of CEO pay to workers, the costs of the bailouts, the number of people who got bonuses after the bailouts, and so on.  I expect to see rants about inequality by my lefty friends. 

I don't expect to see it at the end of an action comedy, although one of the key bad guys in this movie was a hedge fund type, played by the always funny Steve Coogan, who was moving money around to cover up his previous losses.  So, there was an element running through the movie of a bit of outrage about the financial folks who abused the economy.  I just wish life imitated art--that more of the folks responsible for today's mess did make bad deals with Chechens and Nigerians like the Coogan character as a bit of karmic payback would provide more than a bit of schadenfreude. 

One spoiler after the break:

Numbers and Metrics: Who Counts?

I have been thinking about metrics of success in counter-insurgency since my trip to Afghanistan in 2007.  Officers involved in the ISAF effort made it clear that they did not see body counts as a way to measure success--that is, killing lots of Taliban was not the way ahead.  I do wonder sometimes if the Taliban does use body counts as a metric, given their efforts over the past few years.  The enemy, however united or not, is killing more ISAF soldiers, more Afghan soldiers and police and more Afghan civilians.  The latest numbers--that more Afghan civilians are dying even as the outsiders are doing a better and better job of avoiding collateral damage--are not very surprising. 

The trends to show that the ISAF effort to minimize the harm it does is working.  Intent is not always successfully implemented, especially by a large and unwieldy alliance.  There has been controversy about "courageous restraint"--limits on the rules of engagement that do increase the risks to the ISAF soldiers.  These trends indicate that these risks are paying off in terms of leading to less collateral damage.  Whether that leads to more support among the populace is another thing entirely.


But is this what success looks like for an insurgency?  The Taliban still seems to be largely unpopular throughout much of the country, perhaps proving one of my grad student's points in her dissertation--coercion is a limited tool for gaining support from the populace.  The question remains--who is getting blamed and who is scoring political points now?  Do the people of Afghanistan recognize and blame the Taliban or the outsiders for the violence?  The violence does increase with a greater operational tempo by NATO and its partners, but the violence is mostly a series of explosions triggered by the Taliban.  I would not be surprised if the Afghan people are confused and blame both sides.  After all, it is the job of ISAF not just to do no harm but also to protect the population, and these trends indicate that ISAF is not doing that well on that score.

However, as predicted before, the surge would be accompanied by greater violence.  The real question is what happens next? Will the presence of more and more troops lead to more security on the ground as the troops are dispersed from large bases and live among the people?  And, of course, protecting the populace from the Taliban is only the first step.  Protecting them from rapacious government types would be the next one.

Be Careful What You Ask For

When the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations could donate money like people can, it raised a whole lot of issues.  But the unintended consequences may, just may, bite the corporations on their asses (if they can be people, they can have asses).  The focus is on Target, which has donated to anti-gay lobbying groups, as has Best Buy.  As this piece suggests, Target is now appropriately a target for boycotts.  What does this mean?  Well, it may mean that corporations and their unaccountable bosses may learn from this experience and avoid taking sides in hot political battles.  Or they may decide that the boycotts may not really be that harmful.

It if funny because in the old days (of Mad Men), companies were worried about their advertising appearing in or near controversial political messages.  Now, companies are willing to sponsor controversial political messages. But the internet may just serve as a balance to the cash that these corporations can dump--that the information can get out pretty quickly because our American form of corruption is still pretty transparent.

If I was a smart CEO, I would have preferred that the Supreme Court stayed out of it.  Better to have no ability to take sides than to face lots of difficult choices about all kinds of issues.  After all, once you can condemn a company for supporting one side of an issue, you can condemn it for not supporting your side.  Either you are for us or against us.....  as both GW Bush and Anakin Skywalker asserted.  Perhaps they may not be role models, but political combatants will use that view to "target" any corporation that is not sufficiently enthusiastic for their cause.

People worried that companies would have endless $$$ to fund lobbying that would give them lower regulations, more tax benefits and so on, but the dollars here may, ultimately, be swamped by the complexities of their involvement in other issues.

As always, be careful of what you ask for.

Mad Men's Very Happy New Year

Just a few thoughts about the ringing in of 1965, as I ponder the following year.

Spoilers, of course.

SW Parody of the Day

HT to Ain't It Cool: Blaxploitation meets Star Wars:

Gone But Not Forgotten

The summer of Freaks and Geeks continues.  We had a bit of an hiatus due to overnight camp and then a family vacation got in the way of good TV.  We are enjoying it very much, even if the show often has Apatow-ian bursts of painful squirming comedy, like Sam walking through school wearing a Parisian night jumpsuit.  Ug.  I am proud to say I never tried to feather my hair like he did.

Anyway, before getting the new duds (meant both ways), Sam asked his dad for money to go shopping, and his mom started to plan to take Sam, including a stop at the Magic Pan.  Yes, the Magic Pan!  This led Mrs. Spew and myself to engage in a bit of reverie about this unique bit of foreign food in the malls of 1970's America and then we had to explain it to my daughter.  Foreign food is not so foreign to her, as we now have all kinds of options at the average American/Canadian mall.  Plus we live in the land of crepes, so the idea of a creperie in a mall is not so strange.  But it was to us back then.

And that led to a brief discussion of Shakey's Pizza.  What did they have in common?  Both chains got much attention for showing the making of the food.  You could see the automated crepe machine at the Magic Pan, and I do remember seeing pizza dough being tossed at Shakey's.  I think we first encountered Shakey's in Maryland, and my NY pizza-loving family was far from enthused.  I remember this as one of the first distinct moments as the family outlier--that I liked this pizza and the rest did not.  Just like they like wine and I drink beer. 

Anyhow, Magic Pan is gone, Shakey's has retreated to international waters plus California, Georgia and a few other places.  I am trying to remember a restaurant that sold spicy shrimp and sangria, but the name is eluding me now [update: Beefsteak Charlies!].*  What other restaurant chains have come and gone?  I am far less nostalgic about Arthur Treacher's except for its potential inspiration of the competing fish food chain in Fast Times:

So, the question to the readers: what chains do you fondly remember but cannot find anymore?



*  The wikipedia entry is pretty useful--I remember the all you can eat shrimp, but not all you can drink elements (I was usually a designated driver with my enormous 1971 Buick Elektra so I am not surprised that I don't remember that).  And the entry also reminded me that there was a location on the other side of the street from Mrs. Spew's office when she worked in NY while I was still in college.

Best Zombie/Pizza Ad Ever

Check this out:


Choose wisely, as your choices will determine whether the guy delivers the pizza or dies in the attempt.  Just good wacky Zombie fun.


HT to Ain't It Cool News

Poverty's Endless Consequences

Slate's Explainer addresses the question of why so many Americans cannot swim.  Between 37% to 54%, depending on the study.  Yow!  That is simply stunning.  I knew the percentage would be significant but between one third and a half?  It turns out that these numbers are highly correlated with ethnicity and income.  African-Americans have the lowest percentage of swimmers, and, not coincidentally, "Black children between 5 and 14 years old are more than three times as likely to drown as their white peers."  Kids who get the reduced-cost lunches (a way to measure who is poor) feel twice as uncomfortable in the shallow end. 

So, this reminds me that poverty's impact is more complex and less visible than we might ordinarily consider.  Poor people drown.  They not only have health problems, nutrition issues, live in areas with more crime, but they drown.  And of course, no irony intended, this drowning problem is merely the tip of the iceberg.  There are probably lots of other kinds of outcomes that we would ordinarily not connect with poverty but are related.

Inequality will always exist, and I actually do not have a huge problem with the fact of inequality as I think capitalism is better than alternative economic systems (just as democracy can suck at times but is better than the alternatives).  It is not the fact of inequality but the depths/heights/skewness of it.  Being at the bottom end does not have to be so nasty.  And yet we are cutting pre-K education programs to cut the deficit.  Of course, that cuts one kind of deficit perhaps (very marginally so) while deepening a more substantial deficit--the human capital deficit.  We owe a great deal more to the folks at the bottom end, and, with less education at the beginning, we will owe even more. 

Phew! Eight Lowest-Paying Majors

Nice to see poli sci is not on the list of concentrations leading to poor wages: social work, athletic training, recreation and leisure, interior design, religious studies, horticulture, education, and culinary arts.   Of course, political science is not on the list of top paying majors either (mostly engineering and hard science stuff). 

Most striking about this list is that these majors are applied (even religious studies, sort of), focused on getting training for a specific kind of job.  They are not part of the classic liberal arts and sciences set of majors (again, religious studies is perhaps the exception), so it is striking that studying for specific jobs leads to poorer pay than  more general educations that sharpen (theoretically anyway) critical thinking, writing, communication skills that might just have a wee bit more flexibility down the road.  The list does not mention English, Sociology or Philosophy (who knows, they might be on the bottom 15 list, or not), so even these majors help folks develop skill sets that are marketable in some way, despite what folks on Avenue Q might sing.


Of course, the irony is that I am using money to argue that the pursuit of knowledge is better than the pursuit of money.   Ooops.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

Afghanistan President Karzai is upset that American efforts to help his government find corruption found some corruption.  One of his top aides was arrested by an Afghan unit supported by the American effort.  Ooops.  I guess it is ok to go after corruption as long as it only nails folks who are on the outs with the el Presidente for life Karzai. 

At issue are two powerful anticorruption organizations set up in the Ministry of the Interior, initially with the president’s approval, known as the Major Crimes Task Force and the Sensitive Investigative Unit. American agencies, including the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration, are extensively involved in the units.

The title of this post is, of course, sarcastic.  Of course, Karzai is going to block serious anti-corruption efforts.  Nothing he has done over the past couple of years has helped to build lasting, accountable institutions so why should he start now?  This particular event is especially problematic as the American effort is shifting in two related and highly significant ways--it is trying to deliver more money through the government rather than through contractors and it is trying to have more accountability at the same time.  All I can say is: good luck with that.

Lost Epilogue

Really?  Really!  Really??!!  Really!
Right here.
I don't know how long it is going to stay up and available but go now.  Run, do not walk.  I will not spoil.  But will eventually post about it.
The shorthand: this is what answers look like!

UPDATE:  They pulled it.  Funny because Lindelof on twitter did not seem upset about it, but apparently Disney likes its DVD sales.  

Preparing for the Fall

The Simpsons has done a fine job over the years of tweaking grad students:


A little gallows humor is probably appropriate as we are about to start the next cycle in the academic job market.  Due to keen strategic planning a series of coincidences, I have more students on the fall job market at one time than ever before. 

The good news is not just that they are all very bright and doing interesting, relevant work, and they are hardly identical.  They will mostly not be competing for the same jobs I have failed to produce carbon copies xeroxes clones--each has a different mix of strengths, skills, interests and experiences.  Each works on political violence but vary in how much focus is on the international side of things.  They vary in the processes they emphasize (the strategies of armed groups, the pressures and opportunities of international aid, the key actors in failed states, the targeting of some groups and not others).  The geographic foci border on each other but rarely overlap (Israel/Palestine for one, Somalia/Afghanistan/Pakistan for another, Indonesia for a third, a bunch of SE Asian countries for the fourth) [why mostly Asia?  I have no clue--again an accident rather than by design].  That is not a surprise since I have no geographic focus--just whatever my question of the day requires. 

So, we are preparing for the job market this fall at the same time we are preparing for the next few years (which is why I was thinking of long term vs short term) as things shake out.  Not every candidate will be successful the first time.  In this market, few will be.  Next year, they will be more competitive with dissertations completed (only one has a completed dissertation this fall), with more publications, more teaching experience, etc.  So, we need to plan for today and tomorrow--how to compete well this year while completing the dissertation and publishing so that they are more competitive next year.  This is not bad training since multi-tasking is a huge part of the academic enterprise.  Might as well get used to it. 

To be clear, each one will be a great hire this year with heaps of potential to make significant contributions.  That potential will simply be clearer to see next year with longer records.  If you are interested in employing any of them (or all of them!), I am easy to find.  You can learn more about my students on my website.

Light Saber Much?

This video is most interesting to any Star Wars buff:


It documents every light saber ignition from start of the original trilogy through to the prequels and then retraction going backwards.  My first reaction is: wow, very few light saber appearances in the original trilogy and heaps in the prequels.  Is this why the original is better?  Is less more?  Um, no.  The light saber stuff in the prequels was among the best parts--the battle scene with Darth Maul was the highlight of the Phantom Menace.  The action in the prequels was quite good.  The other stuff in those movies was lacking--story, dialogue, direction, acting, casting--but the action rocked nonetheless.

Any thoughts by the other SW geeks reading my blog?

Re-evaluating Jimmy Carter

Apparently, beer production was de-regulated during Jimmy Carter's presidency, producing this outcome:

Not quite good enough to make him Best President Ever, but perhaps the past president who has affected my life most obviously until I go on Medicare. 

Short vs. Long Term

We see it everywhere--how to finesse the competing demands of doing what is possible or correct now versus what is best for the long-term.  The best illustration of this now is efforts to cut state budgets and federal deficits at a time where the economy is fragile and where the cuts may have long-lasting implications.  The latest job figures show that governments cut over 200,000 jobs in the most recent period.  Stimulus?  Ha! 

Sure, most of those losses actually are due to temporary census workers competing their assigned tasks.  But one might actually expect more government hiring rather than stable or less right now.  Stimulating the economy is not just a good short-term idea but is good for the long run as growth is the best way to fight the deficits.  But it is easier to take a stand against more spending today, even if it harms the economy today and tomorrow.    Even if it means that classrooms become way too full and cutting pre-school. 

One does not have to think that Republicans are just soul-less machines to be upset by this.

Comparative Analysis Du Jour: US and Canadian Amusement Parks

I have had the chance in one week to experience Six Flags parks in New York (Lake George) and Montreal, so of course I thought about the differences between the two experiences.  Because Great Escape was as much or more a water park as a regular amusement park and La Ronde is entirely an amusement park, the comparison is not one of two nearly identical entities.  But as an IR scholar, I am used to comparing Apples and Oranges. 

Anyhow, some differences:

• At Great Escape, it was far easier to find recycling bins than regular trash cans.  Not easy to find recycling bins at La Ronde although they exist.  At G.E., they even had places to stack the pizza boxes.
• At La Ronde, the attendees were far less obese.  Americans, sad to say, really are in bad shape, and a water park illustrates that only too well. 
• I guess the prices at G.E. for food concessions were more outrageous, but it can be pretty close.  Better food at G.E., although beaver tails vs funnel cake is a tough battle.  But G.E. had Ben and Jerry's which trumps La Cremerie by a mile.  
• La Ronde had Fastpass for virtually waiting and needed it for the big coasters.  G.E. didnot have coasters that drew the crowds that needed it.  And most of the waterpark rides developed their own equilibrium so they didn't need it either.  Carrying a big tube and having a finite supply of big tubes tends to make the lines reasonable.
• I had no clue about the instructions for the Terminator Laser Tag game as it exceeded my french skills.  Indeed, most of the instructions were not just in french at La Ronde but in superfast French.  Was not really a problem except that I had a hard time getting my lasertag vest on.  But I still managed to take out a terminator machine gun nest, so we are safe for another day from the Machines.
• La Ronde is on an island in the St. Lawrence right in the middle of the Montreal metroplex, so it has very limited space and a strange design so getting from point a to point is never too long but often not very straight.  
• La Ronde had a surprising number of closed shops/concessions/games.  All the rides were working as far as I could tell, but lots of shutters.  I was not too surprised to see them for the places that try to sell you pictures of yourself on a ride, but the rest did surprise me.  
• La Ronde had two games I had not seen before--you get to shoot on a hockey goal or a soccer goal which is partially blocked and must score a certain amount.  Real stick/ball/puck and everything.  I didn't play but was much harder than it looked.  G.E. did not have that.
• GE had far more Saidemans and wet ones.
• Both places were hot--nothing like a bunch of concrete to heat up.  

It has been a great couple of weeks, with much work now about to crash on my head.  But twas worth it.

The Limits of Power and the Limits of Realism

Stephen Walt issues a report card on the Obama Administration's foreign policy--basically going 0 for 4 on Iran, Iraq, Israel and Ifghanistan (ok, Afghanistan, but it ruins the alliteration).  His post demonstrates two things: that Walt has an amazing talent for creating arguments that attract a lot of flak and the fact that he sometimes is a poor realist.  I really do find Walt's ability to say stuff that gets heaps and heaps of attention to be amazing.  Especially when he commits significant errors/omissions/sins.

This leads to the second part: classic realist thinking a la Morgenthau focuses on the limits of power--that one must be prudent in the deployment of the resources of a country as getting others to do what they would otherwise not do (the classic definition of power) is not easy at all.  Expecting significant victories in the relations with these four countries is pretty, dare I say it, unrealistic.  It is not realistic in the sense that these are likely outcomes and it is not Realistic in the sense that the US has deployable power. 

Why this oversight?  Mostly because Realists tend to downplay domestic politics.  Of the four countries, three have had elections that are the defining events of the past year and the fourth has a domestic political situation that produces behavior that is unfortunate to say the least.  Let's take them in turn and consider if the US could have changed things much:

• Iraq: The US is getting out while the getting is good.  Walt has no problem with that.  But that the surge (which was Bush's, not to mention the war itself) did not produce a strategic victory.  Why?  Because Iraqi domestic politics is not something that the US can easily twist to its liking.  And this is a country where the US had more than a hundred thousand troops and spent a trillion dollars or so.  Because outside power may have its limits in shaping electoral outcomes.  Oops.
• Iran: The Iranians are actually in somewhat of a corner, having lost much authority and legitimacy with their election.  But again, it was their election, driven by domestic dynamics and the lack of real change (still the power rests in the theocrats, etc) is not something that can be blamed on Obama or any other outside.
• Afghanistan: The biggest event of the year was the election and Karzai's efforts to undermine any effort to develop institutions rather than personal power.   Again, heaps of troops and dollars, but with few choices, there was little the US could do.  
• Israel:  No election, but coalition politics in that country limit how much outsiders can do to influence the situation.

Drezner points out that Obama has been successful with other great powers (ones that Realists tend to care more about)--Russia and China.  One difference between these two countries and the others is that their leaders are less constrained by domestic politics.  Another is that changes in relations with them and in the situations require less drastic moves and less ugly choices.  It is easier to get someone to move an inch than a mile.  Making progress in Iraq or Afghanistan is far harder than improving relations with the Chinese or Russians.

I don't think that the Obama Administration has made all of the right moves, but given its own domestic constraints (a hostile opposition party that will sees any Presidential success to be a bad idea, budget deficits, a difficult economy, the protectionism of his own party), the President has not had heaps of freedom of action either. 

So, to be realistic, we need to take seriously domestic politics and the constraints it imposes.  We cannot expect the domestic politics of other countries to be easy to manipulate (or irrelevant), so we should try to avoid creating situations where we have to hope that we can.  And for the IR theorists out there, it probably is not a mundane or irrelevant question about which matters more/first--domestic politics or international constraints.

Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

William Saletan makes the point quite clearly that Newt Gingrich (and others) is helping Osama Bin Laden out by turning the conflict into one of religions (I hate the civilization reference).  So, is Gingrich a traitor? Not perhaps knowingly, but his efforts do seem to be undermining the US national interest.  But, as long as it gets him a few more votes in a primary or at least some more attention now, it is all good, right?

Where Is a Sicilian When You Need One?

Always useful to illustrate the challenge of trying to figure out how to think and out-think someone.  At what point do you stop?  A challenge for poker: is the other person weak?  Are they acting weak because they want me to bet?  Are they acting weak because they are weak but will think that I will think that they are acting weak?  And so on.  This problem is well known in the spy game, as Fred Kaplan's column discusses.

Deception must be taken for granted in the spy game. But how far do you go? At some point, even the most careful spies will just screw up and reveal their true colors. But at what point, and how can you tell the difference between a feint and a blunder?

It is an interesting piece, but does it really address the core question--why more now?  The answer seems to be that the "great game" has just been continuing all along, that the recent series of stories--the Iranian re-defector, the Russian middle class spies, etc--is just part of the ebb and flow.  Actually, that is probably the case--that spying has continued.  But perhaps years of criticism of over-reliance on technical means (satellites, etc) have led to renewed focus on the softer side of intel-gathering.

Either way, novelists will have plenty with which to work.

I Cannot Quit You (Lost, that is)

My family is looking forward to the 12 minutes of the Hurley and Ben show.  For a taste:

Religion Again?

 Yep, this is religion week here at the Spew.  Didn't mean for it to be, but this is an events-driven blog.  And what event is inspiring this post?  The marriage of Chelsea Clinton to a Jewish dude.  I was not paying attention to this event, as it reeked of slow news and celebri-trivia (is that a new term?  can I coin it?).  But I caught this NYT piece which indicated that Clinton was marrying into a Jewish family.  So, this raises all of the usual issues of inter-marriage, including some pride that a Jew could be a suitable mate for the child of an American President and of a Secretary of State/Senator. 

In an editorial, The Forward, a liberal Jewish affairs newspaper, called the Clinton-Mezvinsky marriage “a milestone of sorts, a measure of social acceptance, a sign that we’ve arrived.”  But it took note of the conundrum: “This nuptial is also representative of an increasingly vexing challenge within American Jewish life because we know that — apart from the celebrity and the Secret Service — the Clinton-Mezvinsky union is fast becoming the new normal.”

Is ambivalence a key part of Jewish identity?  "Great, they love us.  Crap, we love them."  Of course, the big concern is the intermarriage part:

Commentators like The Forward are reacting to surveys that show that the intermarriage rate has spiraled up in the past half-century, particularly outside the New York area. The last major population study of the nation’s Jews, in 2001, found that since 1996, 47 percent of marriages involving a Jew were interfaith. Before 1970, the rate was 13 percent.

Nice to know that I was ahead of the curve in the early 1990's.  Clinton's wedding is timely for me as I just had the latest argument with a relative who stands out as the only one who has opposed my wedding to a non-Jewish Mrs. Spew (Spew is not a terribly Jewish name, perhaps it should have been Spew-stein or Spew-berg).  This relative is not even upset, so he says, about the religion part but about the ethnic part--that I will not be passing on the traditions and identity to my child (wee, little Spew Junior).  Indeed, not only do I lack faith, but I am, as we have seen in this blog, skeptical of tradition.  Doing something because it has always been done this way is, to me, not much of a justification.  Yes, some traditions are swell (the hava nagila, menorahs), but others are less so (oppression of women, family feuds).  I was hostile to tradition long before I met and married Mrs. Spew.  Indeed, I remember questioning all of this while I was going to Hebrew school and before I began the semi-painful training for my Bar Mitzvah--painful because it combined improving linguistic skills and singing, my two great weaknesses (other than a lack of discretion and an insatiable need for attention).

To me, the best part of being American is about challenging tradition (such as monarchy) and valuing people for the content of their character* rather than the color of their skin, their heritage (inherited class or ethnic background), their religion, their language, etc.  That is a tradition worth valuing.



*  Obviously expressed far better by Martin Luther King.

Mosque Madness [updated]

I have not posted before on the issue of the building of a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center mostly because it really is not and should not be an issue.  Other folks have posted on this including the Mayor of New York Mike Bloomberg,* who is showing Sarah Palin who is wearing the cajones now. 

"I believe this is as important a test of the separation of church and state as any we may see in our lifetime - and it is critically important that we get it right."

Damn straight. Of course, this is mostly about position-taking, and it is easier for Bloomberg to take this position in multi-cultural/liberal New York, and it is easy for the Gingriches of the world to take the opposing position since they can write off NY as well as voters who think in terms of religious freedom in general.  Instead, they can pander as they wish since they seek the white evangelical votes that are so important in Republican primaries.  Indeed, as I have written before, there is a logic of outbidding here, where each Republican must participate in this auction of extremism, becoming ever more enthusiastic a defender of the Christian faith.  This should not be surprising to scholars of ethnic politics, but then again, wishful thinking tends to push us into believing that it would not happen here.  Well, it does.  

But Bloomberg has it right:

“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That’s life and it’s part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.  On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives."

I just lost much of my post due to a firefox glitch, so read the rest of Bloomberg's speech.  And realize that the folks who are grandstanding against this are either insincere or delusional.  And they are certainly anti-American, just as un-American as book-burning.

From slate:

I can't think of a surer way to lose both our national soul and the struggle against terrorism. Yes, Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Palin, there's a cultural-political offensive afoot to undermine our civilization. And you're leading it.
 

Update:  Salon has a short piece reminding folks of a Washington Post story--that there are Muslims praying inside the Pentagon.  Much closer to another ground zero.  No demagoguing this.  Why?  Two quick and dirty explanations: a) Most folks really see 9/11 as a NYC/World Trade Center event with the Pentagon out of the focus due to the lower level of casualties and destruction; b) hard for the crazy-cons (David Klinghoffer's term) to launch rhetoric against the military.


* HT to Marc Lynch for his tweeting the link to Bloomberg's speech.

These Kids Today

Do not seem to understand authorship, or so this article says (notice that I am citing the source).  The funny thing is that the end of the article essentially shows that it is not about changes in technology but a more basic and enduring truth. “Writing is difficult, and doing it well takes time and practice,” he said. 

There are plenty of anecdotes in the article, but it is really hard to say there is any trend going on.  Perhaps as universities become more credential providing places rather than the centers of learning and critical thinking, then plagiarism may be more likely.  But I don't know.  I have not seen more or less of it.  I have sent it.  In an honors class, no less. But it was not a question of not understanding the rules, but a conscious effort to game the system, lying to me about the project and then weaving together several papers into one.  And it got this student an F and he/she would not be gaining admission to our grad program anytime soon nor get the honors degree that was the original ambition.

While McGill does allow and support profs who use turnitin.com's tracking system, I do not use it.  I assume honesty and go from there.  It may mean we miss a few cheaters, but I try to design the assignments and the grading to separate those who do not do the work from those who do.  I do need to state more clearly at the outset of my classes my expectations.

But I am perhaps spoiled as the students at McGill tend to be there for the right reasons (unlike many of the folks who play reality TV show games)--to learn, to figure out what they think and why.

Mad About Don?

I am not going to post extended comments on each episode of Mad Men, like I did about Lost, because there are others who do it so well.  Sure, Doc Jensen covered Lost but at length.  Sepinwall covers MM clearly, sharply and briefly, so there is not much for me to add.

But here are a few comments on last night's Christmas episode:

I am a Potter-ite?!

I had an extended conversation recently with someone who was trying to explain their feelings and beliefs, perhaps to justify a set of unpopular decisions.  And then I had an epiphany--I didn't really care what this person believed or felt.  What I cared about was what he/she had done and would do.  I realized that JK Rowling, in the teachings received by Harry Potter, reminded me that it is not our thoughts but our actions that count. 

It is our choices ... that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.  Chamber of Secrets.

One can have all kinds of beliefs, but if one does not alter one's actions based on the lessons of the past, then what is the point?  Unfortunately, the person with whom I was conversing was not a Harry Potter fan, so I could not use that example to persuade him/her that the key would be a change in behavior.  Of course, since the cognitive consistency here was so deep, so much more than confirmation bias, the invoking of Harry Potter and JK Rowling could not/would not have an impact.

Just as it was the pursuit of Horcruxes not Hallows, it is the behavior and the decisions that matter.  Does that make me a Potter-ite, a believer in Rowling-ism?  I don't know.  The personal moment of clarity was, of course, combined with extreme frustration.  

WikiLeaks cont

I have not had a chance yet to read much of the stuff leaked or analyzed in the past week, due to my aforementioned vacation.  And I am no legal scholar either.  But for a reasonable take on the accusations about war crimes, see Charli Carpenter's post at Duck of Minerva.

What I Learned on My Summer Vacation

I just got back from a great week at Lake George with my family (parents, siblings, everyone's kids).  Blogging suffered a bit, and I didn't get a chance to post regularly about how sad I felt for Pakistan as it was grappling with accusations it is playing a double game in Afghanistan.  So, what did I learn, instead?

• Steering a powerboat around a big lake is pretty easy, except for two things: pushing various buttons upset the settings; and docking is really hard, especially when the wind comes up.  
• People have different styles of dragging kids behind their boat on tubes--I tried not to blast the kids off of the raft, but others seemed to have that as their objective.
• As always, getting 12-15 Saidemans to a restaurant is like herding cats.  I find myself trying to present faits accompli and perhaps even promoting some separatism (taking the teens to the roller coaster at the amusement park, leaving my parents and the youngest kid in the dust).
• Frangelico with Bailey's, I knew, is a great drink, but with coffee is terrific as well.
• The best service ended up being on main strip in town at the cheap but very good pizza place, and not at the more expensive places.
• My instinct to always order the sampler of beers at a brew pub was proven to be the right one.  
• When the hotel answers the question "which place has the best pizza in town?" with "we do!", the next question should be: "who has the second best pizza?"
• When you find an incredible breakfast place with terrific fresh-baked doughnuts, go back again and again.  We only went once.  
• Missing the right place to turn is no big deal when the scenery is so good.  
• Lee Child writes some very good thrillers, and gets in the way of reading chapters from my grad students.
• Really enjoyed teaching the next generation of Saidemans how to throw a forehand so that they can some day become ultimate players.  The youngest picked it up the fastest. 

Rank Rankings

Montreal has been deemed second happiest place on the planet. 

Montreal is clean, welcoming and refreshingly multicultural, according to Lonely Planet. In a nod to the city's harsh winters, it noted that Montreal is especially happy and lively in the summer months.
The Just for Laughs festival and the Latin Quarter also drew raves.

I thought the ranking was a bit screwy, and then to see the city considered clean makes me ponder what is the  basis of comparison.  Lonely Planet did the ranking, so perhaps this outcome makes sense since this is an excellent city for tourists, especially single ones I would guess.  The fests are terrific and the city is very multicultural.

But folks who live here are pretty frustrated by the city administrators who have grand plans but could not implement a peanut butter sandwich without cost over-runs, trouble with unions, and screwing it up.  

My usual quote about living here is that I love Montreal and hate Quebec due to the nationalist costs.  I do enjoy how dynamic Montreal is, how it appears to be the case that it is illegal to have a lousy restaurant (very Darwinian business here), the Just for Laughs festival, the ultimate frisbee scene, and the society in general.  So, I probably should take this ranking and run with it, but I do fear that it would allow politicians to say: we are just fine, thanks.

Anyhow, Montreal is a great place to visit, and living here is worth it even it is more costly than it should be be.

Poker in the 21st century

Much of poker is online.  US law essentially prohibits it, and a couple of years ago a law was passed to make it harder for players to deposit and cash money into offshore poker sites (like on First Nations reservations in Canada and on islands somewhere else).  And Americans (and Canadians) continue to win and lose billions of dollars playing poker. 

Much lobbying has ensued, with the regular (brick and mortar, as they are called) casinos not entirely sure where to stand, as online gaming has been seen as both boon and bane.  Giving folks an outlet other than Vegas and the other places to gamble but also directing people to the big casinos via satellite tourneys where winners gain seats online into bigger tourneys, including the World Series of Poker.  The NYT has a debate about whether gambling should be legalized. 

I have not read the entire exchange, as I am busy vacationing.  But given confirmation bias, I am sure I would be swayed by those folks who support legalization.  My basic view is that if states can run lotteries, then citizens should be able to gamble online.  They actually have a decent chance of winning in a poker tourney, whereas the lottery is mostly for people who do not understand math.  Which one is more or less moral?  Yes, poker online can give gambling addicts more opportunities to lose their money, but keeping it illegal is just going to move those folks deeper underground.  Yes, kids can play online but not in regular casinos and that is a problem.  But how about we give parents some responsibility on that.  There are all kinds of things online--we need to figure out how to handle that challenge besides all or nothing, one size fits all solutions. 

I am in the midst of a book on the history of poker: Cowboys Full.  Poker has a pretty deep tradition in the US, with multiple Presidents making money and using the game to build networks, including Obama.  The game involves some understanding of probability, risk, decision-making under uncertainty, patience and judgment.  Funny that the opponents seem to lack most of these qualities. 

Anyhow, it is not clear to me that gambling is inherently immoral, and it is probably not the job of government to put a blanket ban on online gaming.  Perhaps there is an interest in keeping sports betting illegal, since there is more overlap with organized crime there.  But I am not clear why adults cannot gamble online if states are actively promoting gambling in another form--lotteries--where the odds are much more against the player.  I do, however, understand the desire for politicians to play to certain blocs of voters to demonstrate that they are sufficiently religious/observant.  So, I am not sure the status quo will be changed, but there has been more progress than I would have expected.   I guess I shouldn't gamble on the outcome.

Tweet Up of the Week

Making fun of the wikileaks is wookieleaks--Star Wars version via twitter.  The Atlantic posted some of the ones they liked the most.  If you are on twitter, use #wookieleaks.  If not, well, hit the Atlantic link for a taste.

My first attempt (which may have already been done): Need to work on Stormtrooper accuracy.  They cannot hit broadside of a converter station.


And for COIN analyst on the great galactic war, see here.

Best Snarky Post of the Week

Terrific entry on 7 Keymasters for the internet.  Rick Moranis is not one of them.  Just a wonderfully snarky take, and I love the first comment, especially since I have taken from my first IR prof the habit of using Burkina Faso as a random example.

Get 'Em Early

As always, if you measure what you need to measure rather than what you can measure, you actually might learn something.  This article shows that better kindergarten experiences may not produce long-lasting improvements in test scores, but might actually produce better life outcomes.

As Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist, says: “We don’t really care about test scores. We care about adult outcomes.”

So, what is going on?

The economists don’t pretend to know the exact causes. But it’s not hard to come up with plausible guesses. Good early education can impart skills that last a lifetime — patience, discipline, manners, perseverance. The tests that 5-year-olds take may pick up these skills, even if later multiple-choice tests do not.

MC Exams are best at testing MC exam taking skills.  The other thing going on here is that you enjoy your first tastes of the educational system with great kindergarten teachers (like my daughter did in our one year in Virginia), it might create more enthusiasm and interest in learning.

As an educator, I, of course, buy into these results due to self-interest and identification.  The broader context?

Barely a week seems to go by without a newspaper or television station running a report suggesting that education is overrated. ....  But the anti-education case usually relies on a combination of anecdotes and selective facts. In truth, the gap between the pay of college graduates and everyone else grew to a record last year, according to the Labor Department, and unemployment has risen far more for the less educated.

When I was teaching American (and Texas) Public Policy, I would always show some graphs on education levels and pay, and the gap between college graduate and high school graduate was always quite steep.  So, I would point out that my class, required for graduation, was going to make all the difference between different lifetime outcomes.  Good to know I am still right about that.

Of course, the bigger problem is not necessarily measuring the outcomes of the kids but the quality of the teachers and the programs.

But more data, studied by folks with good educations, help to make sense of what is going on.  Well, as long as it confirms my biases.

21st Century Professor?

This article does a nice job of addressing a relatively new and exploding part of the job: email.  I guess I only started to take this seriously when my TAs asked to have non-office hours contact included as part of their 180 hours of labor each semester (an accounting process that is required by the union/university deals and drives me absolutely nuts).  The reality is that a significant hunk of time for TAs is the email from undergrads.

For the first several weeks of the term, before the students start interacting with their TAs, I get the traffic.  And a lot of it could be answered by closer readings of the syllabus (or outlines as they are called at McGill).  I have already blogged about the ten percent problem, where about ten percent of the students tend to have problems following instructions. 

How do I respond to the email?  Depends on my mood, of course.  I tend to be tolerant of heaps of email as I am online all the time and find it easier to keep track of things that are emailed than phone calls or office visits.  Indeed, I tend to tell a student to email me after a phone call or office visit to confirm the decision so that I have a record of it.  However, I respond more slowly to questions that are more impulsive (could be answered without emailing me), have been answered, and so forth.  I will not reply to email-nagging.  If a student emails again and again with the same question or different ones, then I will not respond quickly at all.  I do use the course website to explain stuff and answer general questions.

I do think that setting a clearer policy might be in order, but my outline/syllabus is already chock full of McGill-required stuff.  Adding more instructions/regulations to the syllabus will mean that more stuff gets ignored.

Any thoughts from my professor-readers?

Concussions continued

I have posted earlier on concussions, especially in the NFL, so I thought I should link to the latest news: the NFL is now posting in each lockeroom a poster that informs the players of the latest information:

The new document also warns players that repeated concussions “can change your life and your family’s life forever,” a clear nod to retired players’ wives. 

Much more needs to be done--legislating the correct helmets, altering practices to minimize the repetitive minor concussions, perhaps some effort to get ESPN and the other major televisors to reduce the focus on the big hits or at least cover them more responsibly, and so forth.  But progress is progress.

Good Timing

I happen to be on vacation when the apparent equivalent of the Pentagon Papers gets leaked.  Ooops. 

The documents cover the period from 2004 to 2009, and portray American forces as being starved for resources and battling an insurgency that was getter larger and better coordinated year by year.

Is either part of this really news?  Only sort of.  It has been very clear to observers that the US/NATO effort never had enough guys on the ground until recently, never had enough helos, drones, and other stuff to be effective, not to mention being limited by the restrictions (caveats and other limits) facing allies.  I think the idea that the insurgency has had a steady upward progress is deceptive.  COIN is a dynamic up and down process, so the effort has had some accomplishments, but the insurgency is obviously more effective now than five years ago.  

One side note: "The Times has spent a month examining the data for disclosures and patterns and verifying the information for the articles that it published Sunday."  Really?  Verifying information?  Why bother?  This seems admirably quaint in the aftermath of the Sherrod controversy.  Perhaps a little more due diligence is in order, me thinks.

That Pakistan has been playing a double-game (or triple or quadruple) is not a surprise, and the fact that we cannot do much about it is also widely known.  We face lots of poor alternatives with limited leverage.  That is just the way it is--superpower status has heaps of advantages, but getting Pakistan to do something is not one of them.

I have not read the stories about the leaks (just one meta-story) due to time constraints.  I will read the stuff when I get back to work, and think about them more.  I will suggest one thought now--this might not be bad for the Obama Administration because in 2011, a decision will have to be made.  More understanding is better than less, and it might facilitate a change in course, like getting out.  Not that I am suggesting that the administration was responsible for the leak.  Or that it wasn't.

Ultimate Goes Mainstream

Nice to see a highlight from the recent World Ultimate Championships posted on Sports Illustrated/CNN's website. 


An excellent layout for a score and looks to be the game-winning point.  Very cool 

Mad Men on Vacation

They are not, I am.  Lite blogging to ensue. 

Tenure's Future

Lots of debate these days about tenure, especially given the economic crisis facing universities.  The NYT has five perspectives on it to promote debate.  I guess I think of tenure the way that we tend to think of democracy and capitalism: the worst systems except for all of the others.

Yes, tenure does provide lots of perverse incentives, including tenured folks doing less once the pressure is off, the challenges of maintaining accountability in the face of job security, and so forth.  I am just not sure that a market of free agency would be much better. 

First, why tenure?

• The obvious reason is intellectual freedom.  The ability to teach, research and write without being fired for producing unpopular stuff is important for the development of probably all disciplines.  Critics argue that folks are never hindered by the prospect of getting fired.  Hmm, hard to observe non-events.  We do know that state officials regularly grand-stand at the expense of academics at public universities, including most recently the Virginia attorney-general targeting a scientist studying climate change.  Would the absence of tenure create a chilling effect?  Maybe.  
• People worry about the impact of corporations upon universities as funding may cause administrators to bend (as we have seen with BP recently), and this could be worse if administrators gained more power over the professors.
• There is also the tradeoff between job security and pay.  Aspiring professors are, in part, willing to take lower salaries when compared to folks with similarly high pay for job security.  Would people seek out jobs in the academic world if there was no job security at the end?  Would they be willing to move across the country/globe for jobs if they could lose their job after five or seven years (whatever the new contract term would be)?
• Critics would say we need fewer profs, so discouraging folks is a good thing.  Perhaps, but what kind of selection effect would result?
• Lifetime employment, more or less, also has benefits for the colleges and universities as the folks who tend to run much of these institutions are the professors who develop lots of knowledge about the institutions.  Lots of service by profs is required to make these places work.  If you introduce lots of turnover, what will that do to the running of these institutions?  Shorter term temp-faculty do not provide much service or any in most places, just teaching classes.  So, you could see whatever savings there are in the greater efficiency on the hiring of professors lost by hiring more and more administrators 
• Numbers of administrators are almost like body counts---just as you cannot have less total deaths from a war (unless resurrection is possible), it is almost as nearly certain that number of administrators does not decline.

How would the academic world run in the absence of tenure?

Stan Lee's Next Move

Is putting himself into a comic book, not unlike his many appearances in Marvel movies.  I love the premise--that Stan Lee, creator of comic books, runs into seven aliens who are stuck on Earth.  He decides to give them superhero identities and roles. 

But one complaint--he is wrong about this:

Mr. Lee said he endowed other characters with powers never seen before; for example, “Think chubbiness as a weapon.”

And I would think of the Blob:

But the article does conclude with a more accurate and insightful quote:

“Stan is probably Stan’s greatest character anyway,”

Good Company?

I guess I am in good company.  I was wondering where my invitation to Chelsea's wedding was, perhaps lost in the Canadian Post oxcart, but it seems that lots of folks are not getting invites to the big event. 

While this a fun little story about the differences between friends and political friends, I wonder what it says about the NYT that this is on the front of its webpage?  What does it say about me that I clicked on it? 

Mad Men Countdown, part two

Fun stuff online as we await the new season: this link directs you to examples of Betty Draper's parenting.  And the next video that comes up is Roger Sterling's quips.  Good times.  Great writing.

Under the Category of About Time

Pentagon Faces Growing Pressures to Trim Budget.  Ya think?  Given that the only real way to cut the US budget is to cut defense, medical spending (medicare/medicaid), social security and raise taxes, it is only time that this gets considered, especially since it is the easiest to cut of these categories.  Of course, that is not saying much--does this make defense the sixth rail of American politics (social security as the third rail, medicare and taxes as the fourth and fifth)?  Or is that just abusing a metaphor?  Oh, it is.  Never mind.

Getting out of Iraq will certainly help. Getting deeper in to Afghanistan, not so much. 

To be clear, the dollars are a lot, but the % on GDP is not as much as you would think:

Still, it is a heap of money.  And the problem is that many programs do pay well to various Congressional districts and states so cutting big programs will be politically difficult.  Not just bases, either.  A lot of bases have been closed.  Instead, some serious thought about what the US will need in the present and future will be required--what wars will be fought, what kind of stuff will facilitate conventional and nuclear deterrence, etc.  Just as the Canadians cannot seem to figure out what they need (F-35s?), the Americans are likely to be bad at finessing these decisions as well.

Gates has promised: “Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny,” Mr. Gates said. “The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.” And it will be harder for Congress to ask for tens of billions of dollars to be spent on stuff (like alternative engines) that the military does not necessarily want. 

Unfortunately, just as with the entire budget, the military side of things is also heavily weighted towards people costs:

Two-thirds of Pentagon spending is on personnel costs. It is possible that the Pentagon will have to look for the first time at cuts to the health benefits provided to active and retired military personnel and their families.Some analysts said the Pentagon would eventually come under pressure to reduce the size of the armed forces.

 This is not good news.  The services, especially the Army, are already stressed doing alot with too few people.  But if and when the US gets out of Afghanistan and Iraq, one could imagine some downsizing, but not too much if the US continues to aspire to being a superpower with interests around the globe.  The weighting of commitments and capabilities is basic to grand strategy but so very difficult politically. 

Tough choices ahead.  Finessing them will be difficult to get right even before we take into account both the pork barrel politics involved and the Party of No (that would be the Republicans).

Frustrations in News Coverage

The LA Times, syndicated to the Montreal Gazette, the Dallas Morning News, presented little insight about the ICJ decision on Kosovo.  Indeed, the article was badly edited, I guess, as the sub-title " The ruling could nudge more nations to recognize the Balkan country, and encourage separatist movements elsewhere" was not even addressed in the text of the piece that was published elsewhere.  In the LA Times itself, this issue is covered quickly by a quote from James Ker-Lindsay who might be an excellent scholar on Cyprus but has not seemingly written much about the IR of secession.  [NY Times cites the same guy--why is he getting all the media coverage] Unlike yours truly.  [Not that I expect a reporter to find me, but find anyone, ANYONE!, who has a decent understanding of the real pattern of behavior].

It cites the usual crap about countries with secessionist problems of their own not recognizing Kosovo with the usual suspects of Russia, China and Spain.  Of course, this again ignores "vulnerable" states that did recognize Kosovo including Turkey, UK, France, Belgium, US (if you count Alaska, Hawaii or Puerto Rico), Canada, Croatia, Macedonia, and Somalia.  See my first book, my IO article, and/or my JPR piece for the realities of the International Relations of Secession--vulnerability does not deter or inhibit if countries have compelling reasons to recognize.  And remember the supposedly deterred Russia has been supporting secession in Georgia, Moldova, and it has in the recent past supported Armenia's irredentist campaign against Azerbaijan. 

Instead, countries are following their scripts, as I predicted: Russia is going to ignore the decision since it went against their position.

Exemplar in Ultimate Spirit

I frequently talk about the spirit of the game--how ultimate, a hippie creation, maintains a key philosophy/shared understanding of the sport--that it is competition combined with respect and good cheer, essentially.  Last night, as my team was getting throttled by a smart, athletic, well-led team, one of the players on the other team approached mine at halftime and gave us some very helpful advice on how to be more successful against their zone defense (or any zone defense for that matter).

I have been playing on and off for about 25 years, and I have never seen such good spirit.  He knew his team would win, but gave us a chance to make it more competitive and help us learn so that we can do better down the road and his and other teams.  It definitely helped take the edge off a very frustrating game, not just because they played so well, but because I sucked big-time.

Reminds me that even bad ultimate is better than no ultimate.   And when an opponent displays such a great appreciation of the spirit of the game, the bad ultimate is not so bad at all. 

ICJ and Kosovo: Modest Decision with Modest Impact?

See Bieber's analysis of the decision. 

The ruling is far from revolutionary and does not set a precedent in international law: It is clear that declarations of independence are not illegal–their relevance arises from recognition. Whether or not recognition of declarations of independence break international law appears to be a question to be answered another time.

Of course, that leads to the next question--when is recognition illegal?  Good luck with that one.

See yesterday's post for my predictions of how folks will react.  The key is that it will depend on domestic interests but not vulnerability to secession--as countries that are vulnerable to secession are not deterred--namely, Russia.

The Future is Looking Good for Zombies

Not only is there a new textbook that applies IR Theory to a potential Zombie outbreak, but the movie of the best Zombie book, World War Z, is now proceeding.  Brad Pitt is to star and the movie is supposed to come out in 2012.  This fall, AMC, the channel that brought us Mad Men, is bringing Walking Dead, a highly acclaimed comic book to, ahem, life on TV this fall, with Frank Darabont as the producer (Darabont directed Shawshank Redemption and the The Green Mile and also wrote much of the under-rated Young Indiana Jones Chronicles).

Having spent part of this summer catching up on older Zombie movies (Romero and re-makes, one of the Resident Evil movies), I am looking forward to the next few years of undead entertainment.

Mad Men Countdown

It starts now with a less spoiler-filled preview/review.  We can count on Sepinwall to do right by the show--point out the weak spots, put things into perspective but not spoil the big stuff.

I will be frustrated as I will be on the road during the premiere and will have to avoid spoilers unless the hotel carries AMC and I can ditch the entire Saideman clan for an hour.  Combined probability: 5%.

If those who read my blog were glad to see Lost leave as an obsession, well, MM is crack to Lost's ordinary cocaine.

Offense or Defense Dominant

Jacob Levy linked to an interesting blog/essays about sports and whether and how to evaluate what can and does make a spectator's experience better or worse.  Written by a political theorist, Wayne Norman, it specifies a starting assumption or first principle:

“The ultimate spectator experience in sport will always involve an equal appreciation for both offensive and defensive play/tactics.”

This makes much sense to me, as American football is perhaps the most enjoyable sport to watch as offense and defense are both taken quite seriously by players, coaches and the media.  It is not just about Drew Brees and Peyton Manning but about the defenses that can stymie them.  One of the sneaky things about football is: there is just a bit more scoring than in soccer but seems like much more so since the points are magnified--one touchdown is seven points (an average game of 21-14 is really 3-2).  Defense is huge in this sport.  The essay goes onto argue that few folks who watch or cover soccer find defense to be interesting or well-analyzed.

Best paragraph for a scholar of IR:

One cannot help comparing the romantic appeals for the contemporary Brazilian and Dutch teams to celebrate their glorious historic offensive personalities, even in a losing cause, to the demands of aristocratic generals in the First World War ordering the troops to charge out of their trenches and face certain mass casualties across a battlefield that was now defended by machine guns.

Preparing the Scripts

The International Court of Justice has been asked by the United Nations General Assembly to rule on Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence.*  The decision is due tomorrow.  Steffan Wolff has a good post addressing the likely outcomes.  Florian Bieber also considers the possible outcomes for the region and especially for the Kosovo/Serbia situation.  My task here is a bit different: to sketch out the scripts that are already essentially written for each outside actor depending on which way the decision goes.

As Wolff and Bieber note, if we boil things down and simplify, there are really three possible outcomes: the ICJ says Kosovo's independence is legal; that it is illegal; or that the situation is a bit mixed and no general principles can be applied/developed. 

Under Scenario 1, the ICJ says that Kosovo did not break international law:

• Those strongly supporting Kosovo will go along their way, patting themselves on the back but also note that the decision only applies to Kosovo and does not create a general right for all secessionists to run with the decision.
• Those strongly opposed will question the legitimacy of the decision, blaming undue American influence, and ignore the decision.  And say that there is no general right to secession.
• Quebec sovereigntists will take a positive decision to justify yet another referendum because Quebec is just like Kosovo.  
• Canadian federalists will assert that Kosovo and Quebec are distinct, with the former escaping from significant oppression and the latter having both significant autonomy and power within the federal system.
• Other separatists around the world will not become suddenly inflamed because they know that their major opponent, their host state, will not suddenly swoon and obey the ICJ ruling.