- My first reaction was: Next title: why too much research is bad for IR....
- As folks pointed out on twitter and on facebook discussions, it seems ironic at the least that someone who made a variety of testable predictions that did not come true (the rise of Germany after the end of the cold war, conventional deterrence, the irrelevance of international institutions, etc) would suggest that testing our hypotheses is over-rated or over-done.
- When I was preparing for my comprehensive exams long ago, I worked with a member of my cohort who was a Political Theorist just trying to get through the process. He would just read everything and ask "what would Ken Waltz think of this?" Well, invoking the WWWD mantra here, I think he might wonder why M&W are writing this stuff when they could be producing yet more Grand Theory or more Grand Theorists. Waltz produced Walt after all ....
- Which leads to the next question: what does this complaint say about their students? Either they failed their students (their students did not learn to do good grand theory) or the students have failed them (their students have focused on stuff other than grand theory). I know a good number of their students, and their work is often quite terrific and influential, so I am confused.
- If M&W have failed to re-generate themselves, it could be because they and their generation of grand theorists have answered all of the big questions, leaving us with the small questions and the dirty work of testing hypotheses. Perhaps they should be happy that their work is done and ride off into the sunset?
- Perhaps the utility M&W really seek to maximize is citations (given what they say at the end of the piece, I guess I am wrong here...). I became convinced in the early 1990s that producing controversial work seemed to be more important than producing convincing work. Mearsheimer's piece blasting the False Promise of Institutions seemed to be citation-bait to me. Similarly, Walt's article finding fault with the move towards formal theory seemed aimed not so much at convincing people but at attracting counter-attacks. [It is interesting that their latest piece cites approvingly the Fearon 1995 IO piece on Rationalist Explanations for War that Walt considered old wine in new bottles way back when].
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Leaving Grand Theorists Behind
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have written a piece that is critical of the supposed move to hypothesis testing and the failure of IR folks to do grand theory. I have many reactions to this development that I thought I would engage in a bit of listicle:
Friday, January 4, 2013
The Academic/Media Gap in Canada
While I was out of town, the Canadian journalists started to ponder lives without political scientists. Or at least they pondered whether it would be better to ignore my kind more....
Here is my response at CIC.
Here is my response at CIC.
Stress This Redux
Lots of academic folks are upset today as Forbes ranked our jobs as least stressful. That would be ok, but they make it seem as if least stressful = no stress. Plus it contradicts studies that show a high level of occupational stress. I addressed such a survey/news report last spring so I don't have much to add here except key omissions:
- the academic job market will deposit many people in places where they would rather not live. This creates a daily dose of stress when confronting mud-storms in West Texas or higher taxes/crappy services due to separatist politics in Quebec, for instance.
- that limited job mobility might mean being stuck with people one hates for two or three decades. Sure, that can happen in other jobs, but the joy of job security/tenure means that this happens all the time in our business.
Why Did the Lava Cross the Road?
Last week, my family (The Spews plus my parents and siblings and their kids) spent a heap of time in Hawaii and had a glorious time. When we went through Volcano National Park, my wife and I were most surprised--that much had changed since our visit during our honeymoon twenty years earlier. One could not get nearly as close to the crater since it was spewing out rocks the size of washing machines, and the road that went to the edge of the island closed a mile earlier. There had been a lava flow in 2003 that changed things pretty signficantly although these two pics do not do it justice:
vs.
Sure, it just looks like the lava crossed the road despite our best efforts to hold it back, but it was much, much deeper and broader. Of course, this should not surprise us since the entire Volcano park experience testifies to how the island is still becoming bigger and how flows continue to change the topography of the island, but to realize that there are rocks younger than our marriage and younger than Teen Spew mentioned in my previous post still seems pretty strange.
Anyhow, when we got to this part of the park, we ended up dragging our families much further than expected, as the road is closed about a mile down from where this pic was taken. Before, you could just drive up to the flow, hop out, take pics and hop back in (also the traffic was far greater this time).
 |
| Lava 1992 |
 | |
| Lava 2012 |
Anyhow, when we got to this part of the park, we ended up dragging our families much further than expected, as the road is closed about a mile down from where this pic was taken. Before, you could just drive up to the flow, hop out, take pics and hop back in (also the traffic was far greater this time).
Breast is Best but Confused
I saw this piece last night at Jezebel and went on a twitter tear. Why? Because of searing memories from nearly seventeen years ago. So little has changed in this area, compared to pretty much everything else. The Jezebel story asserts pretty convincingly that doctors know diddly about lactation despite the past few decades of increasingly pressuring women to breastfeed their babies. Yes, yes, yes, breastfeeding is better for babies, but it does not always work out very well. When people insist that breastfeeding is natural, I retort: so is infant mortality. Why? My tale from long ago:
When Teen Spew was just a few days old (Baby Spew), the timing/connection for breastfeeding to work didn't synch up well. A sleep-deprived Mrs. Spew and I were averse to trying anything other than nursing because we were told that using bottles even just a little bit would mean that the kid would not be able to return to the breast. Yes, my wife got some help from the lactation experts at the hospital, but not before we had to go back to the hospital a couple of days after my daughter was born--she was dehydrated, which amped up her slight jaundice. Which led to a little game I like to call "Pin the IV on the Dehydrated Newborn." Watching a nurse or two try to put the IV needle into my daughter and failing again and again was pretty painful for me to watch probably painful for her. They had to get a nurse from the neo-natal intensive care unit to find a spot to insert the IV and where did she choose? See below:
The red thing is a pacifier, the white stuff over her eyes were to shade her from the lights used to deal with the jaundice and that thing on the back of her head is the IV. Lovely. Just freakin' lovely.
My wife and baby Spew finally got the connection going and managed to do the nursing thing quite well for quite a while, but the first week was hell and damn near killed the kid. So, I have a great deal of sympathy for women who cannot get the breastfeeding going, and a great deal of animus towards the medical community for failing to research lactation with even a bit of the enthusiasm erectile dysfunction has received. One area involves life, death and the health of babies; the other involves men's sex lives mostly in the second half of our lives.
Good to know where our priorities are.
When Teen Spew was just a few days old (Baby Spew), the timing/connection for breastfeeding to work didn't synch up well. A sleep-deprived Mrs. Spew and I were averse to trying anything other than nursing because we were told that using bottles even just a little bit would mean that the kid would not be able to return to the breast. Yes, my wife got some help from the lactation experts at the hospital, but not before we had to go back to the hospital a couple of days after my daughter was born--she was dehydrated, which amped up her slight jaundice. Which led to a little game I like to call "Pin the IV on the Dehydrated Newborn." Watching a nurse or two try to put the IV needle into my daughter and failing again and again was pretty painful for me to watch probably painful for her. They had to get a nurse from the neo-natal intensive care unit to find a spot to insert the IV and where did she choose? See below:
My wife and baby Spew finally got the connection going and managed to do the nursing thing quite well for quite a while, but the first week was hell and damn near killed the kid. So, I have a great deal of sympathy for women who cannot get the breastfeeding going, and a great deal of animus towards the medical community for failing to research lactation with even a bit of the enthusiasm erectile dysfunction has received. One area involves life, death and the health of babies; the other involves men's sex lives mostly in the second half of our lives.
Good to know where our priorities are.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Math, Military Style
General Allen (yes, the one who writes to Jill Kelley way too often) has finished his recommendations to Obama and Panetta on what the US contingent to Afghanistan should look like after 2014:
6m000 if one wants to gamble (high risk)
10,000 if one wants to accept the various risks (medium risk)
20,000 if one wants to avoid risk (low risk).
My first reaction is this: strategy means taking the number you want and then posing alternatives by multiplying and dividing by two (is this what they teach as strategy at the War Colleges?). This represents learning from the McChrystal era where his surge proposal was something like 10k vs 40k vs 80k, knowing that the 80k would be tossed out immediately just as 20k is today. The clever folks tinker so that 6,000 is a bit more than half of 10k, so we might not think there is a sophisticated algorithm at work (divide by two).
These numbers are driven by three scenarios:
The last option is out. Not sure that 4k Americans and a few other folks from elsewhere are sufficient for training ANA, but perhaps provide some logistical support that will desperately be needed.
I get it. This is what the military is supposed to do--provide options. And I have not seen the paperwork behind these numbers, but I could have guessed last month or even last year that these would be the options. We knew 10k was going to be the key number, but to do WHAT? Training or counter-terrorism? Or both? Or support for the Afghan National Army, which cannot operate on its own yet and will probably not reach that capability in a magical two years. Given the green on blue attacks where the people NATO is training are firing on NATO troops, it is not clear how training would be sustainable in 2015.
To do the counter-terrorism mission, more than just special ops and drones are ultimately necessary as that stuff is intel-driven. How does one get intel from around Afghanistan when one is no longer operating around Afghanistan? I have no clue. I guess we will have to wait for more reporting and leaking before we figure out what these numbers really mean, besides lost hours by staff officers who had to come up with slides to fit the x2 and /2 output.
6m000 if one wants to gamble (high risk)
10,000 if one wants to accept the various risks (medium risk)
20,000 if one wants to avoid risk (low risk).
My first reaction is this: strategy means taking the number you want and then posing alternatives by multiplying and dividing by two (is this what they teach as strategy at the War Colleges?). This represents learning from the McChrystal era where his surge proposal was something like 10k vs 40k vs 80k, knowing that the 80k would be tossed out immediately just as 20k is today. The clever folks tinker so that 6,000 is a bit more than half of 10k, so we might not think there is a sophisticated algorithm at work (divide by two).
These numbers are driven by three scenarios:
With 6,000 troops, defense officials said, the American mission would largely be a counterterrorism fight of Special Operations commandos who would hunt down insurgents. There would be limited logistical support and training for Afghan security forces. With 10,000 troops, the United States would expand training of Afghan security forces. With 20,000 troops, the Obama administration would add some conventional Army forces to patrol in limited areas.
The last option is out. Not sure that 4k Americans and a few other folks from elsewhere are sufficient for training ANA, but perhaps provide some logistical support that will desperately be needed.
I get it. This is what the military is supposed to do--provide options. And I have not seen the paperwork behind these numbers, but I could have guessed last month or even last year that these would be the options. We knew 10k was going to be the key number, but to do WHAT? Training or counter-terrorism? Or both? Or support for the Afghan National Army, which cannot operate on its own yet and will probably not reach that capability in a magical two years. Given the green on blue attacks where the people NATO is training are firing on NATO troops, it is not clear how training would be sustainable in 2015.
To do the counter-terrorism mission, more than just special ops and drones are ultimately necessary as that stuff is intel-driven. How does one get intel from around Afghanistan when one is no longer operating around Afghanistan? I have no clue. I guess we will have to wait for more reporting and leaking before we figure out what these numbers really mean, besides lost hours by staff officers who had to come up with slides to fit the x2 and /2 output.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Christie Does Better Than Media
Christie called out the GOP in Congress.
Just stunning. He does not blame Washington--he blames the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The rant is fact-filled (NY, NJ as donors of federal funding, rates of response) and persuasive, but, of course, I am easily persuaded by this kind of argument.
Still, oh my. So, to be straight, this Congress denied aid to Hurricane victims AND killed the Violence Against Women Act.
The GOP in the House clearly prioritize opposing everything and being the mean-spirited party. Good times.
"We have jobs to do ... for the people that sent you there." Indeed.
"Unlike people in Congress, we [Christie and Cuomo] have responsibilities ...."
Just stunning. He does not blame Washington--he blames the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The rant is fact-filled (NY, NJ as donors of federal funding, rates of response) and persuasive, but, of course, I am easily persuaded by this kind of argument.
Still, oh my. So, to be straight, this Congress denied aid to Hurricane victims AND killed the Violence Against Women Act.
The GOP in the House clearly prioritize opposing everything and being the mean-spirited party. Good times.
"We have jobs to do ... for the people that sent you there." Indeed.
"Unlike people in Congress, we [Christie and Cuomo] have responsibilities ...."
Bags vs Gallon Jugs
In my eleventh year in Canada, I think I must finally take on directly the fundamental question of US-Canadian relations: bag of milk vs. gallon jug. In my previous post, one of the commenter's raised the question: why wouldn't people use bags of milk? Well, besides pointing to the vast majority of places that refrain from such ill-conceived milk-carrying technologies, one could simply point to the reality that bags in which milk may be delivered have no other purpose. A gallon jug, on the other hand, has a vast array of re-purposes. Indeed, a quick google reveals heaps of disagreement: are there five, forty, ten or thirty-five different uses for a milk jug?
In contrast, google a question about bags of milk and you get a heap of people trying to answer this conundrum--why use an inferior technology? Here are some examples: here, "so we drink milk in bags, does that make us weird?" [yes, yes it does], wiki and here.
To give bags of milk a fair shake, here:
I do love how this video shows how complicated this milk delivery system is: need to cut the bag just right, need to keep the big bag's clip with expiration date (which is stamped on plastic jugs), and so on.
Of course, the real superiority is that one can simply open a gallon jug of milk and pour. If you have bought bags of milk, you need to get a container, make sure it is clean, open the bag without spilling anything (no crying necessary with a gallon jug), pour it into the container and then pour some of the contents into one's bowl of cereal (like this bit of Hawaiian hotel holiday excessiveness):
The arguments about the milk bags are more efficient argument might be instructive, except that in Canada, the dairy industry is so highly protected that it can charge quite a lot and is relatively immune from the market--supply management or mismanagement as I like to call it. So cry me a river of milk tears if you think that the market up here is efficient in any way, including in the use of bags.
In contrast, google a question about bags of milk and you get a heap of people trying to answer this conundrum--why use an inferior technology? Here are some examples: here, "so we drink milk in bags, does that make us weird?" [yes, yes it does], wiki and here.
To give bags of milk a fair shake, here:
I do love how this video shows how complicated this milk delivery system is: need to cut the bag just right, need to keep the big bag's clip with expiration date (which is stamped on plastic jugs), and so on.
Of course, the real superiority is that one can simply open a gallon jug of milk and pour. If you have bought bags of milk, you need to get a container, make sure it is clean, open the bag without spilling anything (no crying necessary with a gallon jug), pour it into the container and then pour some of the contents into one's bowl of cereal (like this bit of Hawaiian hotel holiday excessiveness):
The arguments about the milk bags are more efficient argument might be instructive, except that in Canada, the dairy industry is so highly protected that it can charge quite a lot and is relatively immune from the market--supply management or mismanagement as I like to call it. So cry me a river of milk tears if you think that the market up here is efficient in any way, including in the use of bags.
Correcting the Canadians
Saw this list at Macleans--terms that Canadians think are confusing to Americans. As the official American-Canadian translator, I must certify/verify/correct. Plus I need some blog posts to reverse the slide of late.
1. Two-four (24 beers)
Yes, in the US, we call this a case. As in a case of swill. Unless it is microbrew, then it is a case of beer.
2. Loonie (and, of course, toonie)
Of course. Americans think that the US dollar is or should be the only currency in the world. Nearly there (if one includes holding US debt)
3. Toque
Thanks to pop-culture, I think Americans get this one even if they would not know how to spell it.
4. Klick (kilometre)
Given that the US military measures in metric and that Hollywood has plenty of war movies that use klick, this is actually far more familiar to Americans than other metric terms (well, coke users know what a gram is but who else?)
5. Toboggan
Please. The real difference is not toboggan versus sled, as many Americans in the upper half of the country have used such a device. No, the real difference is that Canadians go sliding, it seems, while Americans go sledding.
6. Peamealor back bacon
WTF? Been here ten years, never heard this before.
7. Washroom
Americans use either term washroom or bathroom, thank you very much. WC is far more foreign.
8. Serviette
Ok, that is one, but how many Canadians use that word?
9. Chinook (the wind, not the helicopter)
Sure, but do Canadians know what a Santa Ana is?
10. Mickey (e.g. a mickey of vodka)
Hmmm, old school American drunks know this one.
11. Knapsack
Please. Americans know that one as well.
12. Kerfuffle
Probably class specific, but I heard of kerfuffles long before I moved Beyond the Wall.
Still, the reigning culture shocks for Americans when they visit Canada are: hockey leading the news, bags of milk in the grocery stores, and folks wearing fur (tis not murder up here). What was most surprising when I moved to Canada was how little difference there is between Canadian and American English. Sure, heaps of extra u's, dropped "the"s, holidays instead of vacations, but no references to lorries, torches and w.c.'s. The language up here is far closer to American than the Queen's English. If I can only keep track of defense vs defence, I will be ok.
1. Two-four (24 beers)
Yes, in the US, we call this a case. As in a case of swill. Unless it is microbrew, then it is a case of beer.
2. Loonie (and, of course, toonie)
Of course. Americans think that the US dollar is or should be the only currency in the world. Nearly there (if one includes holding US debt)
3. Toque
Thanks to pop-culture, I think Americans get this one even if they would not know how to spell it.
4. Klick (kilometre)
Given that the US military measures in metric and that Hollywood has plenty of war movies that use klick, this is actually far more familiar to Americans than other metric terms (well, coke users know what a gram is but who else?)
5. Toboggan
Please. The real difference is not toboggan versus sled, as many Americans in the upper half of the country have used such a device. No, the real difference is that Canadians go sliding, it seems, while Americans go sledding.
6. Peamealor back bacon
WTF? Been here ten years, never heard this before.
7. Washroom
Americans use either term washroom or bathroom, thank you very much. WC is far more foreign.
8. Serviette
Ok, that is one, but how many Canadians use that word?
9. Chinook (the wind, not the helicopter)
Sure, but do Canadians know what a Santa Ana is?
10. Mickey (e.g. a mickey of vodka)
Hmmm, old school American drunks know this one.
11. Knapsack
Please. Americans know that one as well.
12. Kerfuffle
Probably class specific, but I heard of kerfuffles long before I moved Beyond the Wall.
Still, the reigning culture shocks for Americans when they visit Canada are: hockey leading the news, bags of milk in the grocery stores, and folks wearing fur (tis not murder up here). What was most surprising when I moved to Canada was how little difference there is between Canadian and American English. Sure, heaps of extra u's, dropped "the"s, holidays instead of vacations, but no references to lorries, torches and w.c.'s. The language up here is far closer to American than the Queen's English. If I can only keep track of defense vs defence, I will be ok.
21st Century Traveling
I promised to complain less in 2013, especially since I rung in the new year a beach in Waikiki. So, I will not whine that our bags did not make it all the way home with us. Yet I cannot help but complain about the following:
Our United flight did not serve any food even though it was a non-stop from Honolulu to Newark. 9.5 hours plus another for a delay in Honolulu, and the flight attendant did not seem enthused about us buying the over-priced and under-nourished snack packs, not to mention any chance of buying a hot breakfast sandwich. The personnel announced that there would not be any heated meals for the economy folks--that is, we could not buy the breakfast sandwich--due to the timing of the flight.
Um, it is a non-stop, red-eye flight--what is wrong with the timing of letting folks get breakfast? I fly plenty of redeye's to Europe, and one usually gets both dinner and breakfast on thsoe. Sure. I know that United and the other American airlines are facing budgetary problems, but I am not even complaining about having to pay. Not being able to buy is the problem. Since we had a short connection time (just made the next plane), we could not eat at Newark. Of course, this is a first world problem if there ever was one, and I have to say that the United folks were great in pretty much every other way (handling our lost baggage claims on both ends of the trip, for instance). But this policy of not feeding people on a nine hour flight is ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous than having to turn off my iPad--the downside of relying on e-books for trips.... especially when the delays on the tarmac go on and on.
Still, it was a great trip, so consider this my last whine until the next one.
Our United flight did not serve any food even though it was a non-stop from Honolulu to Newark. 9.5 hours plus another for a delay in Honolulu, and the flight attendant did not seem enthused about us buying the over-priced and under-nourished snack packs, not to mention any chance of buying a hot breakfast sandwich. The personnel announced that there would not be any heated meals for the economy folks--that is, we could not buy the breakfast sandwich--due to the timing of the flight.
Um, it is a non-stop, red-eye flight--what is wrong with the timing of letting folks get breakfast? I fly plenty of redeye's to Europe, and one usually gets both dinner and breakfast on thsoe. Sure. I know that United and the other American airlines are facing budgetary problems, but I am not even complaining about having to pay. Not being able to buy is the problem. Since we had a short connection time (just made the next plane), we could not eat at Newark. Of course, this is a first world problem if there ever was one, and I have to say that the United folks were great in pretty much every other way (handling our lost baggage claims on both ends of the trip, for instance). But this policy of not feeding people on a nine hour flight is ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous than having to turn off my iPad--the downside of relying on e-books for trips.... especially when the delays on the tarmac go on and on.
Still, it was a great trip, so consider this my last whine until the next one.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Plus ça change
The old phrase is the more things change, the more they stay the same, more or less. Well, I resolved via a twitter that in 2013 that I try to do a better job than the US government of matching commitments to capabilities. What does that mean? Well, as I blogged in early 2012, grand strategy is all about committing to do what one can do and no more or adding capabilities to match the commitments one has made. The entire sequestration debate (I hate fiscal cliff as a phrase) has pretty much ignored that the US must consider revising its commitments so that it can spend less on defense.
For the personal side of this, I have been accumulating commitments so much that I am way behind on my next book (due at the end of 2012, oops!). For the academic, the major capability restraint is time. So, I need to figure out a way to stop saying yes to cool projects (such as going to Scotland next fall to predict the various dynamics of the 2014 referendum) since there is no way I can add time (the US could deficit spend a heap more and keep the defense budget where it is--with some consequences) as I do not have a time-turner or any other time travel device.
Perhaps returning to winter late tonight will mean that I have more time than I have had the past ten days or so. To be clear, I am pretty sure my priorities, which have meant reduced blogging over the holidays, have been in the right place:
Happy New Year to all, and as I wished last night: may all your resolutions be easy or irrelevant!
For the personal side of this, I have been accumulating commitments so much that I am way behind on my next book (due at the end of 2012, oops!). For the academic, the major capability restraint is time. So, I need to figure out a way to stop saying yes to cool projects (such as going to Scotland next fall to predict the various dynamics of the 2014 referendum) since there is no way I can add time (the US could deficit spend a heap more and keep the defense budget where it is--with some consequences) as I do not have a time-turner or any other time travel device.
Perhaps returning to winter late tonight will mean that I have more time than I have had the past ten days or so. To be clear, I am pretty sure my priorities, which have meant reduced blogging over the holidays, have been in the right place:
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Always Learning!
Today was another pretty amazing day in paradise! I have not been blogging as I have been very busy and very tired, but I thought I would post what I learned today.
I learned there are two kinds of lava: a'a and the other kind (the former is the darker, rockier; the latter is the smoother, river-ier [front and back in this pic]).
I learned that Kona pie has disappeared from Hawaii's dessert menus thus far. And that is very sad. I enjoyed it (graham cracker crust, kona coffee ice cream, stuff) greatly long ago.... but so far, no find.
I learned that there has been much lava flowing since we were last here. The spot where the lava crossed the road (not unlike the chicken) is now much more encased in lava than 20 years ago.
I learned that we could not see as much of the main caldera (volcano crater) as the old viewing platform got crushed by flying rock. Plus the clouds of sulfur gas make that part of the area un-wise for tourists. Well, closed for tourists. Despite understanding that volcanos are all about change, we were quite surprised to see geologic/geographic realities changing since 20 years ago. My wife realized that our marriage is older than the rocks we desperately tried to hold back:
We learned that the Saddle Road is not even a little bit treacherous. Sure, some fun curves at first but mostly just an interesting drive through the island between mountains and through so many micro-climates.
Oh, and you can tell the locals vs. the tourists--the former drive at or below the speed limits. the latter? Not so much.
I learned there are two kinds of lava: a'a and the other kind (the former is the darker, rockier; the latter is the smoother, river-ier [front and back in this pic]).
I learned that Kona pie has disappeared from Hawaii's dessert menus thus far. And that is very sad. I enjoyed it (graham cracker crust, kona coffee ice cream, stuff) greatly long ago.... but so far, no find.
I learned that there has been much lava flowing since we were last here. The spot where the lava crossed the road (not unlike the chicken) is now much more encased in lava than 20 years ago.
I learned that we could not see as much of the main caldera (volcano crater) as the old viewing platform got crushed by flying rock. Plus the clouds of sulfur gas make that part of the area un-wise for tourists. Well, closed for tourists. Despite understanding that volcanos are all about change, we were quite surprised to see geologic/geographic realities changing since 20 years ago. My wife realized that our marriage is older than the rocks we desperately tried to hold back:
We learned that the Saddle Road is not even a little bit treacherous. Sure, some fun curves at first but mostly just an interesting drive through the island between mountains and through so many micro-climates.
Oh, and you can tell the locals vs. the tourists--the former drive at or below the speed limits. the latter? Not so much.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Best Excuse For Not Blogging
I am running away from smoke monsters, polar bears, and other menaces of the South Pacific. So, don't expect much blogging this week.
I hope you are enjoying your holidays as much I am enjoying mine. Aloha.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Narcissism in 2012
 |
| McKayla is probably not impressed by this post either |
The posts that got the most hits here in 2012 (unless something changes in the next ten days or so) have been:
- Self-Hating Political Scientist, where I was most critical of someone on the left for lining up with the folks on the right to oppose US funding of political science.
- Hogwarts Houses: a post I wrote in 2009 that still gets heaps of hits (probably the briefest of hits because of Harry Potter fans ending up in the wrong place)
- Game of Thrones and US politics--just a widely distributed picture. My only post in the top twenty that has zero Steve added.
- Going Old School, ranking of Star Wars, from 2010, showing that Star Wars is almost as good google bait as Harry Potter.
- Present and Future of IR: I entered a debate about the future of my field, and was relatively optimistic.
- Not Alone in Narcissism: I talk about a bunch of survey work done by the TRIP project at William and Mary. Little did I know that I would be sucked into the vortex of navel-gazing!
- School's Out, Let's Talk about School: about whether one should go to grad school, even a policy school. I entered a debate on twitter about this stuff.
- Meme This-- a deadlink!
- Most Important Question of Our Time: The classic would you rather fight 100 duck-size horses or one horse sized duck?
- Politicology, No Thanks. An extension of post numero uno.
- Back to the Past: Montreal student strike goes on a tangent when satirists invoke Mao.
- When It's Time to Change--a 2011 post announcing my move to Carleton and Ottawa.
- Sex or Gender--pondering sexual harassment in academia.
- Purposes of Comprehensive Exams. Apparently a lot folks care about comps?!
- APSA Boycott. Overcome by events. Best example of how writing blogposts can change my mind. Started out as a justification for attending but became reasoning for why I was not attending.
- Guide to ISA in Montreal (another old post)
- Wuffle's Law--that any new ranking will improve the status of the institution of person recommending the new ranking
- Guide to SD ISA
- Rules for Writing CVs: combined narcissism with public service!
- Decision Time, Phd Style: Link to a Duck piece on deciding on grad schools.
Anyhow, it is has been a fun blogging year, even if my output at the Spew has declined a good bit.
I hope you and yours have had a great year. I have been very lucky this year--a great trip to Orlando, a pretty painless move to a great place, Princeton University Press is going to publish the much mentioned NATO and Afghanistan book, I am only six months behind on my next book project, and as this post hits, I will be flying someplace warmer than Ottawa.
I hope you have the very best winterfest and a happy new year!
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Obama's Christmas List and New Year's Resolutions
My latest at Current Intelligence although it may not be all that current or all that intelligent: http://www.currentintelligence.net/analysis/2012/12/21/obamas-christmas-wish-list-and-new-years-resolutions.html
Supply Mismanagement
Supply Management is the name given to agricultural protectionism in Canada. It has made the news since some folks sought to use the inflated prices to their advantage by stealing some syrup (ok, a lake of syrup) and then sell nearby to make a killing. Sure, I wanted a Breaking Bad type story, but what we got was a story about protectionism.
Canada, a country that loves equality in theory and in rhetoric, has a system in place where the few gouge the many. Sure, agricultural protection exists in most places to varying degrees, but the systems in place in Canada seem especially bad. They are focused on maple (as we have seen), poultry and dairy, so that prices for milk, cheese, eggs and chicken are significantly elevated. Sucks to be poor or lower middle class in such a situation. But politicians here are just as chicken (yes, I went there) as those in the US who are afraid of the sugar industry.
By calling it supply management, the government does its best Orwell but is fooling fewer and fewer people these days. I doubt that it will change soon, but it is becoming increasingly clear that supply management is an obstacle to international trade negotiations as well as a burden that most of Canada must suffer to protect "small" farmers.
It is a lousy way to manage agriculture and the industry around it, but path dependence is a bitch. Changing this policy will mean upsetting powerful lobbies, so I don't expect significant change in the near future.
Canada, a country that loves equality in theory and in rhetoric, has a system in place where the few gouge the many. Sure, agricultural protection exists in most places to varying degrees, but the systems in place in Canada seem especially bad. They are focused on maple (as we have seen), poultry and dairy, so that prices for milk, cheese, eggs and chicken are significantly elevated. Sucks to be poor or lower middle class in such a situation. But politicians here are just as chicken (yes, I went there) as those in the US who are afraid of the sugar industry.
By calling it supply management, the government does its best Orwell but is fooling fewer and fewer people these days. I doubt that it will change soon, but it is becoming increasingly clear that supply management is an obstacle to international trade negotiations as well as a burden that most of Canada must suffer to protect "small" farmers.
It is a lousy way to manage agriculture and the industry around it, but path dependence is a bitch. Changing this policy will mean upsetting powerful lobbies, so I don't expect significant change in the near future.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Qualifications for Being US SecDef
It seems to be that to be Secretary of Defense, the key qualification is that you want to slay all of Israel's adversaries, right? Heaps of news about criticisms of Chuck Hagel for not being sufficiently pro-Israel. But since when is it the Secretary of Defense's job to manage relations with Israel? Given that the fiscal challenges the US is facing, it might not be on the top ten of the SecDef priorties. Let's listicle, shall we?
So, if Hagel is been blasted by those who think we should identify American interests as being defined by Israel, then that means that I want Hagel to take the job, even if I would prefer to have a Democratic in the job. It turns out that the end of 2012, beginning of 2013 is "Obama Must Stick to His Positions" Season.
- Right-sizing the American military budget. Clearly, the past decade has led to some very bad habits, in addition to the inherent tendencies in the institution, so that spending more and more on less and less is not sustainable. So, just figuring out what the US can afford is job 1.
- Figuring out how to balance present commitments/conflicts versus future threats. The first item was guns vs butter. The second step is: which kinds of guns? Those needed in the counter-insurgency fights or those that might be needed some day against China? Robert Gates had to push and push for the USAF to focus a bit on drones. These questions are not settled.
- How to manage the military in peacetime? For most of the current generation of enlisted folks and much of the officer corps, there is little experience in garrison. The past ten years have been very much focused on being at war. What happens when there is not a deployment on the horizon?
- We have some general problems about our generals. The Petraeus fiasco (yes, pun intended as Fiasco is the title to a very good book written by a Petraeus fan about poor generals [and politicians] ) may reveal much since he was supposedly the best. He might still have been, but his behavior in Afghanistan and since raises questions. General Allen and his email with Jill Kelley raises the same questions.
- What is the role of DoD in the drone war?
- How do we deploy Special Operations forces in places where the US is not supposedly at war? The secret squirrels do not like oversight, and SecDef has far more ability to oversee these folks than the people in Congress.
- F-35? This goes back to item one and two--guns versus butter, which kind of war we plan to fight, and then the big challenge--quantity versus quality.
- Concussion, post-traumatic stress, and the costs of health care. The military budget may be crowded out by spending on health care. The health care costs are increasing for a variety of reasons, but two legit ones are taking concussions more seriously and taking PTSD more seriously.
- The Academy problem. Lots of spending on officer education but heaps of problems here--that the USAF Academy has been essentially captured by a religious group, that West Point may be facing the same challenge as well.
- If there is a foreign relations problem for the SecDef, the first one is not Israel but managing the US relationship with NATO given the burden-sharing problems inherent in alliances and amplified by the varying ways that democracies do civil-military relations.
So, if Hagel is been blasted by those who think we should identify American interests as being defined by Israel, then that means that I want Hagel to take the job, even if I would prefer to have a Democratic in the job. It turns out that the end of 2012, beginning of 2013 is "Obama Must Stick to His Positions" Season.
A Pun-Tastic Crime Enters the Dessert Phase
The eagle stuff may or may not be faked, but there was, indeed, a maple heist up here.
Monumental maple mugging!!
Eagles? No, It is the Health Care!
People wonder why I moved from Montreal with its hip and lively folks and from the Harvard of the North, McGill, to the squarest city, Ottawa, and to Carleton which is far less famous.
The answer of the day would appear to be death from above:
No, we did not move because of the threat of eagles grabbing my kid (teenagers are probably a bit too big). One of the major drivers was a dissatisfaction with everything the Quebec government touched, which is quite a lot. One of these things is health care. When people lauded the Canadian health care system and compare it to the American one, I always scoffed, saying that health care is not national but provincial. And today I had my first encounter with the Ontario health care system (well, besides the Children's ER), and I have to say, damn, I am glad I moved to Ontario. I might have to start admiring the Canadian health care system....
I didn't have to wait past my appointment time to be seen, the doctor met with me while the blood pressure machine was still cycling, the clinic was clean, the doctor was friendly and engaged. The pharmacy next door was super-helpful.& It was like I was in fantasy medical treatment land. Sure, this is just one encounter, and perhaps it will suck in the future. But the juxtaposition between my old health care in Montreal (free in price and free in quality as in quality-free) and my new setup here is night and day.
So, keep in mind that when you hear "Canadian health care", it really does vary by province. If your kid gets picked up and dropped by an eagle, I hope it happens in some place other than Quebec.
The answer of the day would appear to be death from above:
No, we did not move because of the threat of eagles grabbing my kid (teenagers are probably a bit too big). One of the major drivers was a dissatisfaction with everything the Quebec government touched, which is quite a lot. One of these things is health care. When people lauded the Canadian health care system and compare it to the American one, I always scoffed, saying that health care is not national but provincial. And today I had my first encounter with the Ontario health care system (well, besides the Children's ER), and I have to say, damn, I am glad I moved to Ontario. I might have to start admiring the Canadian health care system....
I didn't have to wait past my appointment time to be seen, the doctor met with me while the blood pressure machine was still cycling, the clinic was clean, the doctor was friendly and engaged. The pharmacy next door was super-helpful.& It was like I was in fantasy medical treatment land. Sure, this is just one encounter, and perhaps it will suck in the future. But the juxtaposition between my old health care in Montreal (free in price and free in quality as in quality-free) and my new setup here is night and day.
* Next door to the pharmacy? The Beer Store!
So, keep in mind that when you hear "Canadian health care", it really does vary by province. If your kid gets picked up and dropped by an eagle, I hope it happens in some place other than Quebec.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Seasons Greetings to You from Sam and Anne
NSFW but very funny. Sam and Anne are most amusing.
But Anne wins in my book, because I have no interest in seeing her movie--too depressing.
But Anne wins in my book, because I have no interest in seeing her movie--too depressing.
Balloons That Get Too Much Air ~ Pacific NATO
Player A: Alex, I would like over-expansion for $400, please.
Alex: Balloons, NATO, Tires
Player B: What are things that will pop when they are enlarged too much?
This piece argues stretches the NATO concept to the point where it might burst. NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but people love the idea of a Global NATO or a Pacific NATO. As if adding either members or responsibilities is unproblematic. In a time of fiscal austerity, one would think expansion is a bad idea. In the aftermath (well, soon, it is not yet "after") of an unpopular, unsuccessful extended campaign that had severe burden-sharing problems, increasing NATO's realm of responsibility seems unlikely in the extreme.
Getting NATO to agree to modest steps to protect a key member (Turkey) as it faces a civil war next door is hard enough. Which countries in the Pacific would count as being sufficiently important for NATO efforts? All of them? Probably not. So, who counts? Already, NATO is contemplating adding Georgia to NATO, when it is hardly an Atlantic country (the Med counts) nor a European one if you trust the geographers. Worse, a security guarantee from NATO might encourage Georgia to over-step in its handling of its various ethnic and Russian issues.
Again, NATO has a hard enough time dealing with problems close to home. Is it going to get consensus on stuff around the world? With smaller and more constrained militaries? Good luck with that.
Alex: Balloons, NATO, Tires
Player B: What are things that will pop when they are enlarged too much?
This piece argues stretches the NATO concept to the point where it might burst. NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but people love the idea of a Global NATO or a Pacific NATO. As if adding either members or responsibilities is unproblematic. In a time of fiscal austerity, one would think expansion is a bad idea. In the aftermath (well, soon, it is not yet "after") of an unpopular, unsuccessful extended campaign that had severe burden-sharing problems, increasing NATO's realm of responsibility seems unlikely in the extreme.
Getting NATO to agree to modest steps to protect a key member (Turkey) as it faces a civil war next door is hard enough. Which countries in the Pacific would count as being sufficiently important for NATO efforts? All of them? Probably not. So, who counts? Already, NATO is contemplating adding Georgia to NATO, when it is hardly an Atlantic country (the Med counts) nor a European one if you trust the geographers. Worse, a security guarantee from NATO might encourage Georgia to over-step in its handling of its various ethnic and Russian issues.
Again, NATO has a hard enough time dealing with problems close to home. Is it going to get consensus on stuff around the world? With smaller and more constrained militaries? Good luck with that.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Academic Prank Du Jour
I enjoyed this especially as I inteviewed at this school a long time ago. It was one of the stranger experiences since none of the folks in the department (four of them) had apparently interviewed anybody since the 1960s (and this was 1994 or so).
Any, frickin awesome.
(H/T to CNNSI.com hotclicks)
Any, frickin awesome.
(H/T to CNNSI.com hotclicks)
Tenure is ...
Today, there is a thread at Political Science Job Rumor's pondering "Tenure is..."
Which reminded me of this. Ok, not so much the Peanuts version, but the camp version. Every summer, I think, the end of the summer camp season would have a show where a version of this song would be sung but with it being about the camp, "Camp Airy is" and would list all the things that Camp Airy was. Of course, the idea that Camp Airy = Happiness would be implied.
Well, tenure is not always happiness but is often the case:
Which reminded me of this. Ok, not so much the Peanuts version, but the camp version. Every summer, I think, the end of the summer camp season would have a show where a version of this song would be sung but with it being about the camp, "Camp Airy is" and would list all the things that Camp Airy was. Of course, the idea that Camp Airy = Happiness would be implied.
Well, tenure is not always happiness but is often the case:
- Tenure is relative immunity from dysfunctional senior faculty (so glad, so so glad that I didn't accept the first offer at my last job--hey, why don't you start without tenure).
- Tenure is less stress. More work, but less stress as job security is a beautiful thing.
- Tenure is more work. At places where junior faculty are protected from service, well, the protection ends. Regardless, people expect more, such as tenure reviews (which I am doing now because it is more fun than finishing grading, which is like saying that being punched in the gut is more fun than being punched in the groin).
- Tenure is freedom to write what you want where you want how you want. Folks tell me that they will start blogging once they are tenured. I actually doubt that folks got denied tenure for blogging, but there is no doubt that people can be less discreet after tenure (still, so glad that twitter and blogs did not exist when I was untenured)
- Tenure is more work. Bears repeating--students will seek out more supervision from tenured than untenured faculty.
- Tenure is sabbaticals. Only at elite and rich places are profs eligible for sabbaticals before tenure.
- Tenure is more work--only tenured folks can be chairs (except at insane places) or directors of programs (ditto).
- Tenure is limited movement. Fewer job ads for tenured folk, compared tenure-track positions. One can move, but not so easily.
- Tenure is having to judge other people's cases. Not just in tenure letters but in one's own department. Voting to deny tenure is incredibly hard but sometimes necessary thing to do. Writing a negative tenure letter is an incredibly hard but sometimes necessary thing to do. No joy in that stuff at all.
- Tenure is no. That is, tenure means you can say no a bit more often. It also means both the need to say no in order to get things done and heaps of pressure to say yes.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Doing What We Can
There is no response to the events in Newtown that will eliminate the murder of children and those that protect them. All we can do is make these events less likely and less catastrophic when they do happen. I am not an expert on gun control, but I understand only too well that politics is the art of the possible. We have reached a moment in time where some stuff might actually be possible.... too many spree shootings this year (although one is, of course, too many).
To be clear, just like the terrorism fight should be more than just about killing terrorists, reducing these kinds of events requires a multidimensional approach. When folks were juxtaposing gun control and improved mental health care as alternatives, I tweeted something that got re-tweeted a bunch:
People I don't know tweeted me as they saw the re-tweets. Many seemed to agree wholeheartedly. Others asserted that gun rights are gun rights. My take on the latter is simply this: no rights are absolute. They are regulated (well-regulated militia, right?) so that the rights of the individual and the conflicting rights of other individuals are addressed. You can be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater despite the first amendment's declaration of free speech. Same is true for slander and libel, same is true for revealing government secrets.
I would not propose to ban guns. It is unrealistic. I would simply propose that we ban any weapon that requires a magazine to work--rifles and handguns. I would ban magazines. Why? Because one does not need to rapidly reload to hunt, to sport, to ward off an intruder. The capacity to shoot many bullets is only good for killing heaps of people. Who needs to do that? Sure, one could use a revolver quickly and re-load quickly, or toss aside the expended revolver and then use another one but this would still be slower than swapping in fresh magazines which are designed for exactly that purpose--to reload quickly. One would need five revolvers to equal the capacity of the magazine in the rifle that killed the kids and their teachers. And the killer would still be that much slower.
To be clear, just like the terrorism fight should be more than just about killing terrorists, reducing these kinds of events requires a multidimensional approach. When folks were juxtaposing gun control and improved mental health care as alternatives, I tweeted something that got re-tweeted a bunch:
Not sure why people see gun control and better mental health policies as alternatives.Lets do both.
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) December 15, 2012
People I don't know tweeted me as they saw the re-tweets. Many seemed to agree wholeheartedly. Others asserted that gun rights are gun rights. My take on the latter is simply this: no rights are absolute. They are regulated (well-regulated militia, right?) so that the rights of the individual and the conflicting rights of other individuals are addressed. You can be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater despite the first amendment's declaration of free speech. Same is true for slander and libel, same is true for revealing government secrets.
I would not propose to ban guns. It is unrealistic. I would simply propose that we ban any weapon that requires a magazine to work--rifles and handguns. I would ban magazines. Why? Because one does not need to rapidly reload to hunt, to sport, to ward off an intruder. The capacity to shoot many bullets is only good for killing heaps of people. Who needs to do that? Sure, one could use a revolver quickly and re-load quickly, or toss aside the expended revolver and then use another one but this would still be slower than swapping in fresh magazines which are designed for exactly that purpose--to reload quickly. One would need five revolvers to equal the capacity of the magazine in the rifle that killed the kids and their teachers. And the killer would still be that much slower.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Managing Risks, Not Avoiding Tradeoffs
My latest at CIC, where I try as much as possible to emphasize that the first step for the twelve stepper needing to address their military procurement problems is to admit that tradeoffs exist and that risks exist with the focus having to be on managing risks.
So, here is my trivia question for the day: since the end of the Cold War, have there been more relatively problem free military procurement programs than successful peace operations/interventions? For Canada? For the US?
So, here is my trivia question for the day: since the end of the Cold War, have there been more relatively problem free military procurement programs than successful peace operations/interventions? For Canada? For the US?
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Impressive, Most Impressive
I spent this afternoon at a workshop on Ethnic Politics. I was most impressed with the participants--most of whom are finishing PhDs or very junior professors. I felt like I was playing ultimate--nearly everyone else is much younger and faster than I am.
Anyhow, the quality of work people are doing these days is incredible. Very clever research designs, fundamentally important questions, very challenging research designs.
My favorite part--there was a paper on Alien Rule (like colonialism, occupation, etc.--not ET type aliens), and one of the examples thrown out was receivership in the academic world. I was thrilled, as I experienced several years of receivership at Texas Tech. Good times.
Anyhow, not much blogging today or tomorrow.
Where You Sit ...
The old saw in bureaucratic politics is "where you stand depends on where you sit." That is, your positions you take on various issues depends on your interests as defined by where you sit in the bureaucracy. Well, this piece at foreignpolicy.com gives this an entirely different meaning. It is a pretty sharp attack on Petraeus and Broadwell for what their relationship did to those outside of their friends and families.
It may or may not be fair to say that Broadwell got far higher than her qualities should have allowed--what expertise did she really have? I don't know since I don't know her. But there is a very revealing bit in the piece: that Broadwell did not seem to care about the effects of her presence on Petraeus's helicopter rides around Afghanistan. If one studies the NATO mission to Afghanistan, one thing becomes quite clear--that countries did not deploy enough helicopters to Afghanistan The seats on each helicopter are quite finite, so if you are taking a seat on one, you are very much preventing someone else from occupying that seat. But Broadwell did not seem to be aware:
It was a finite opportunity for me--I felt bad but went ahead. Broadwell seems not to have cared at all. Maybe that is being unfair, but Petraeus seemed not to care as he knew damn well how limited the helo seats were, and that the more his officers saw of the country, the better the advice he would receive. But somehow having one's hagiographer on board was of greater priority. Lovely.
Plus this all makes any assertion that the affair only happened after he returned stateside to be an utter croc of poo pond.
It may or may not be fair to say that Broadwell got far higher than her qualities should have allowed--what expertise did she really have? I don't know since I don't know her. But there is a very revealing bit in the piece: that Broadwell did not seem to care about the effects of her presence on Petraeus's helicopter rides around Afghanistan. If one studies the NATO mission to Afghanistan, one thing becomes quite clear--that countries did not deploy enough helicopters to Afghanistan The seats on each helicopter are quite finite, so if you are taking a seat on one, you are very much preventing someone else from occupying that seat. But Broadwell did not seem to be aware:
In Kabul, for example, Broadwell went along on so many "battlefield circulations" -- Petraeus's trips to visit subordinate commands aboard helicopters where seats were scarce -- that one staff member asked her if she could stay behind just occasionally, to leave room for officers who were actually working the issues to be discussed. "The general wants me along," the officer told me she replied.In December 2007, I was part of a group of academics (opinion-leaders we were called--oh my) that went to Kabul and Kandahar. We flew into Kandahar from Dubai (we can say it now that Dubai kicked out the Canadians from their supposedly secret Camp Mirage) and then were going to fly to Kabul for the first part of the trip. Our plane was full (including a bunch of NATO folks out of uniform unless uniform meant beards--special ops folks), and an American office was telling the Afghan general or colonel he was mentoring he would have to leave behind some of his staff. Yes, we were squeezing out some of the Afghans NATO was working with. I felt bad about this, that it said something about the mission, but then I got on the plane for Kabul.
It was a finite opportunity for me--I felt bad but went ahead. Broadwell seems not to have cared at all. Maybe that is being unfair, but Petraeus seemed not to care as he knew damn well how limited the helo seats were, and that the more his officers saw of the country, the better the advice he would receive. But somehow having one's hagiographer on board was of greater priority. Lovely.
Plus this all makes any assertion that the affair only happened after he returned stateside to be an utter croc of poo pond.
Arizona Questions
Anyhow, which is more Arizona-y: orange trees in the middle of a hotel's courtyard?
Of course, I am just glad to see palm trees (reminds me of visiting SD as a prospective grad student).
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Bring the Ethnic Stuff Back In
The over-used, super-cliched phrase in poli sci titles--Bring Back something that never left. Well, I have been focused almost entirely on NATO and civil-military relations since I published my second book (For Kin or Country with the non-terrorist Bill Ayres). The past four years or so have been a bit of a change of direction from my work on the IR of ethnic conflict.
Butt I did have a project (with Erin Jenne and Kathleen Cunningham) going on for much of this period--collecting data on diasporas to figure out why some diasporas mobilize and lobby and/or support extremism and others do not. The dataset on just the US case is still incomplete, but we are getting there. This workshop involves a bunch of papers on different ethnic politics topics, so it is immersion back in that stuff that was so much the focus of my first fifteen years or so of my career. Should be interesting.
And what better place to do that than Arizona? No ethnic politics here? Hmmm. My first time in the Phoenix/Tempe area, as my previous trips were mostly through Arizona to graduate school (stopping by the Grand Canyon) and from grad school to my first job. Arrived at night so I will have to wait to see what this place looks like.
Anyhow, more ethnic politics ahead.
Butt I did have a project (with Erin Jenne and Kathleen Cunningham) going on for much of this period--collecting data on diasporas to figure out why some diasporas mobilize and lobby and/or support extremism and others do not. The dataset on just the US case is still incomplete, but we are getting there. This workshop involves a bunch of papers on different ethnic politics topics, so it is immersion back in that stuff that was so much the focus of my first fifteen years or so of my career. Should be interesting.
And what better place to do that than Arizona? No ethnic politics here? Hmmm. My first time in the Phoenix/Tempe area, as my previous trips were mostly through Arizona to graduate school (stopping by the Grand Canyon) and from grad school to my first job. Arrived at night so I will have to wait to see what this place looks like.
Anyhow, more ethnic politics ahead.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Best TV of 2012
AFI had their list of movies and tv shows of 2012. As I will be traveling much in the next two weeks, let me get to the TV list now. Yesterday, I just listed the movies I liked the most and the least. Today, maybe I can actually put the TV shows in order? Hmmm, that is a challenge. Oh, and a key caveat--I have not gotten FX up here in Canada so I cannot list this season of Homeland or the third season of Justified. I just the DVDs of the first season of Homeland and will soon get the third season of Justified. And, yes, that means leaving Louie off of my lists. Sorry. Yes, I am very sorry I have not seen any Louie. To be rectified. Oh, yes, spoilers:
Why I Live on the Edge of Ottawa
I hate scraping my car's windows clear of ice and snow. Ten years of this in Montreal was more than enough. So, I am loving my two car garage (and also parking garage at work).
West Point Sucks, Too?
I have long hammered away at the problems of the US Air Force Academy as it apparently has become more of an outpost of evangelicization than a training center for the best and brightest in the US Air Force. It is only fair then that I blast West Point, the US Army's academy for similar sins. This piece indicates that it is not just the aspiring pilots and missleers who forget what this nation and its constitution stands for, but also the folks on the ground.
While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation. These transgressions are nearly always committed in the name of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. The sparse leaders who object to these egregious violations are relegated to the position of silent bystanders, because they understand all too well the potential ramifications of publically expressing their loyalty to the laws of our country.Pretty brave to give up one's future and potentially be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is appalling that the educational branches of the US military have been taken over by those who have a perverted understanding of religion and of the US Constitution. Maybe this guy will make a difference, leading to a change of the culture of the institution. Maybe not. The more stories I hear like this, the more I begin to think that folks like Tom Ricks are right for perhaps the wrong reasons--perhaps it is time to end the academies. It certainly seems to be the case that these places are fostering ignorance rather than educating the next generations of military officers.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Breaking Up is Hard to .....Show on Sesame Street
Here is a video (thanks, Jezebel) which has Sesame Street talking about divorce:
Wow! Funny that this happens after the ones on HIV/AIDS, death and other stuff.
Anyhow, how about a little divorce to go with the pre-holiday stress? And, no, this post has nothing to with my earlier post today.
Wow! Funny that this happens after the ones on HIV/AIDS, death and other stuff.
Anyhow, how about a little divorce to go with the pre-holiday stress? And, no, this post has nothing to with my earlier post today.
Movies of the Year?
AFI put out there list of top movies and TV shows. I have not seen most of them (partly because I cannot see movies that are not released), but not a huge fan of the list. We did not see as many movies as usual because of the demise of Blockbuster (zip.ca works ok but hard to see recent stuff), netflix Canada's selection sucks); great TV so going out is less attractive (AMC/HBO lead to year around Sunday nights at home); and watching old series and movies on DVD (my daughter keeps insisting I watch Buffy rather than catch up on the stuff we have DVR'ed).
So, anyway, the list AFI has is:
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
The Dark Knight Rises
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
I have seen Argo and Dark Knight Rises. Argo was a very, very good film. DKR? Not so much. The plot was stupid, chock full of holes. The characters had very little depth or coherence. The only positive part of the movie (other than being able to make fun of Bane's voice) was Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle/Catlady. Otherwise, bleh.
What would be my top ten movies--ones that I have seen?
Avengers--one of the best comic book movies. Nice blend of humor and action. Best Hulk yet, good Captain America stuff, heaps of material for blogging (here and here)
Ted--Perhaps uneven but caused some of the most intense intenstinal pain for making me laugh really hard.
Wreck It Ralph--Pixar-esque. Fun, nostalgic, but not as good as the best Pixar stuff.
Argo--Interesting combo of politics, bad clothing and less than optimal haircuts.
21 Jump Street--surprisingly funny.
Looper--a time travel movie that takes serious time travel. Plus a great Bruce Willis imitation.
The Campaign--fun satire of our political system.
Cabin in the Woods--Not a perfect movie, but a wonderful take on the old cabin in the woods horror movie.
Goon--in a winter without hockey, this is a very entertaining hockey movie.
Movies that were good but not great:
Hunger Games--entertaining but the book was better.
Brave--not up to Pixar standards but still good.
Chronicle--best of the found footage movies. Hey, what if we had superpowers and we were teenagers? We would do stupid things....
Biggest disappointments:
Prometheus--ug.
Dark Knight Rises
Skyfall--not bad, just not good.
Movies I wish I had seen:
Red Tails--might not be great but I wish I had seen it.
Moonrise Kingdom--people say nice things.
Movies that were just as mediocre as I was expecting:
Acts of Valor--awful acting, but interesting action.
American Reunion--the fourth movie of silly series. For the completion fixation.
Bourne Legacy--Renner was good, but movie was unnecessary.
Rock of Ages (truly an airplane movie)--for those who remember the songs.
Movies that were better than expected but not terrific:
Snow White and the Huntsman (of course, whole new meaning once you realize that Kristen Stewart slept with the director despite his wife playing her mother [I think])
Five Year Engagement--best ice-scraping scene.
Spider-man--heaps of fun with great chemistry between the leads, but entirely unnecessary.
So, anyway, the list AFI has is:
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
The Dark Knight Rises
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
I have seen Argo and Dark Knight Rises. Argo was a very, very good film. DKR? Not so much. The plot was stupid, chock full of holes. The characters had very little depth or coherence. The only positive part of the movie (other than being able to make fun of Bane's voice) was Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle/Catlady. Otherwise, bleh.
What would be my top ten movies--ones that I have seen?
Avengers--one of the best comic book movies. Nice blend of humor and action. Best Hulk yet, good Captain America stuff, heaps of material for blogging (here and here)
Ted--Perhaps uneven but caused some of the most intense intenstinal pain for making me laugh really hard.
Wreck It Ralph--Pixar-esque. Fun, nostalgic, but not as good as the best Pixar stuff.
Argo--Interesting combo of politics, bad clothing and less than optimal haircuts.
21 Jump Street--surprisingly funny.
Looper--a time travel movie that takes serious time travel. Plus a great Bruce Willis imitation.
The Campaign--fun satire of our political system.
Cabin in the Woods--Not a perfect movie, but a wonderful take on the old cabin in the woods horror movie.
Goon--in a winter without hockey, this is a very entertaining hockey movie.
Movies that were good but not great:
Hunger Games--entertaining but the book was better.
Brave--not up to Pixar standards but still good.
Chronicle--best of the found footage movies. Hey, what if we had superpowers and we were teenagers? We would do stupid things....
Biggest disappointments:
Prometheus--ug.
Dark Knight Rises
Skyfall--not bad, just not good.
Movies I wish I had seen:
Red Tails--might not be great but I wish I had seen it.
Moonrise Kingdom--people say nice things.
Movies that were just as mediocre as I was expecting:
Acts of Valor--awful acting, but interesting action.
American Reunion--the fourth movie of silly series. For the completion fixation.
Bourne Legacy--Renner was good, but movie was unnecessary.
Rock of Ages (truly an airplane movie)--for those who remember the songs.
Movies that were better than expected but not terrific:
Snow White and the Huntsman (of course, whole new meaning once you realize that Kristen Stewart slept with the director despite his wife playing her mother [I think])
Five Year Engagement--best ice-scraping scene.
Spider-man--heaps of fun with great chemistry between the leads, but entirely unnecessary.
What is a Man To Do?
I usually pooh pooh the complaints of men who are "oppressed" but I am wary of this whole "Mansplaining" thing. Yes, men can be pompous and condescending, but we need to be clear that not all explanations are pompous and condescending just because they are uttered by a male. And women can be pompous and condescending as well.
In the Spew household, we take turns--I am pompous about International Relations, Mrs. Spew tends to condescend about all things literary (jeez, I hope she does not read this post), and Teen Spew is pompous whenever her parents comment on pop culture aimed at those under40 30 20.
Seriously though, yes, unrequested explanations can be annoying, but as we converse with each other about whatever, must we always be as or more focused on the filter than on the conversation? Of course, I have said stupid things or presumed about stuff. But if mansplaining is a sin, I wonder who can cast the first stone? Certainly not I, but also certainly not most of the women I know either. I want my friends who are wise and knowledgeable to explain stuff. I raise lots of questions (deliberately or otherwise) when I chat with folks, and I want them to point out stuff that they know better than I.
Sure, it can be a bit much when one person dominates the conversation (unless that person is me), so as in everything else, moderate is the key. Everyone will "mansplain"--they key is not to be rude. But didn't we already know that?
And if you consider this post to be a heap of mansplaining, um, oops?
In the Spew household, we take turns--I am pompous about International Relations, Mrs. Spew tends to condescend about all things literary (jeez, I hope she does not read this post), and Teen Spew is pompous whenever her parents comment on pop culture aimed at those under
Seriously though, yes, unrequested explanations can be annoying, but as we converse with each other about whatever, must we always be as or more focused on the filter than on the conversation? Of course, I have said stupid things or presumed about stuff. But if mansplaining is a sin, I wonder who can cast the first stone? Certainly not I, but also certainly not most of the women I know either. I want my friends who are wise and knowledgeable to explain stuff. I raise lots of questions (deliberately or otherwise) when I chat with folks, and I want them to point out stuff that they know better than I.
Sure, it can be a bit much when one person dominates the conversation (unless that person is me), so as in everything else, moderate is the key. Everyone will "mansplain"--they key is not to be rude. But didn't we already know that?
And if you consider this post to be a heap of mansplaining, um, oops?
Fun in Weapons Procurement
The British are spending more money on new attack subs, but what I find notable are the names. See if you can pick out the false ones: Ambush, Audacious, Articulate, Astute, Aardvark, Artful, Absinthe, Absent.
Friday, December 7, 2012
To Buy or not to Fly
The F-35 indecision in Canada is getting heaps of press. See http://milnewsca.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/news-071245utc-dec-12/ for a nice survey of some of the pieces. I have written a piece for a new outlet (well, new to me), but my basic take on this is:
About time! Not only have the costs become unsustainable but so have the contradictions in the policy. Saying the short-ranged, single engine plane is for Arctic Sovereignty when it was designed with multilateral military operations mind has always been a problem for the Harper government. Why need a stealth aircraft which is designed to penetrate airspace to defend the homeland? Sure, it might be handy but hardly necessary. And the reality of stealth is $$$. I remember all the stories in the 1980's and 1990's about special hangars to protect the skins of the US stealth fighters and bombers. Note that whenever the US uses the stealth bomber, they fly out of the US and never base abroad. This has everything to do with the difficult maintenance that these kinds of planes require.*
Of course, if the reports are true and Canada turns away from the F-35, this will have a big impact on the rest of the consortium of F-35 buyers: the costs of buying the plane will go up due to economics of scale in reverse AND the costs of defecting from the program go down as fave US ally Canada opened the door by doing first.
I will have more to say about this in various places over the next few days, so let me know what I am getting wrong.
UPDATE: Check out my post at Atlantic Council
About time! Not only have the costs become unsustainable but so have the contradictions in the policy. Saying the short-ranged, single engine plane is for Arctic Sovereignty when it was designed with multilateral military operations mind has always been a problem for the Harper government. Why need a stealth aircraft which is designed to penetrate airspace to defend the homeland? Sure, it might be handy but hardly necessary. And the reality of stealth is $$$. I remember all the stories in the 1980's and 1990's about special hangars to protect the skins of the US stealth fighters and bombers. Note that whenever the US uses the stealth bomber, they fly out of the US and never base abroad. This has everything to do with the difficult maintenance that these kinds of planes require.*
* No, I am not an expert on military aircraft, so take what I say with a grain of invisible salt.The Harper government should not be criticized for changing its mind, if it indeed does so. Learning should not be punished. However, having a messed up procurement process can and should be criticized. The problems with the F-35 are not just Canadian ones, of course, as the spiral has been driven by American designs, but how the Canadians have dealt with the F-35 seems not to be that different from other flawed processes.
Of course, if the reports are true and Canada turns away from the F-35, this will have a big impact on the rest of the consortium of F-35 buyers: the costs of buying the plane will go up due to economics of scale in reverse AND the costs of defecting from the program go down as fave US ally Canada opened the door by doing first.
I will have more to say about this in various places over the next few days, so let me know what I am getting wrong.
UPDATE: Check out my post at Atlantic Council
Thursday, December 6, 2012
NATO, Patriots, Missiles, Oh My
I have been engaged in a twitter conversation with Roland Paris about the quick German decision to send Patriot missiles to Turkey to protect from Syrian planes/missiles. I registered a bit of surprise in all of this and noted that maybe this was Merkl compensating for her overreaction in the other direction over Libya. Roland indicated that since these missiles are for defensive purposes, it was not so problematic.
But I have a few thoughts that I could not squeeze into tweets:
But I have a few thoughts that I could not squeeze into tweets:
- I am curious about the text of the NATO agreement since NATO agreements tend to be fairly loose and let the participant countries impose restraints (such as caveats).
- In 2009, when NATO was considering deployments of AWACS planes to Afghanistan to help control the airspace, much of the German debate considered these planes to be defensive, that they would not be assisting Operation Enduring Freedom (the counter-terrorist part of the mission), and so on, but most of these views about what the AWACS would be doing were largely, well, imaginary. The planes would be coordinating other planes in the airspace including those engaged in more aggressive missions or else the airspace would be uncoordinated and the planes would be relatively irrelevant.
- Once the Dutch (more in a second), Germans, and Americans send their Patriot systems to Turkey, one or more of these countries can choose at any time to "re-flag" their contingent so that they operate under national control. So, if the US decides that it wants its Patriots to engage Syrian planes and missiles that are aimed at Syrian targets, it can choose to do so even if NATO has a restrictive OPLAN (operations plan). I have had interesting conversations with sailors about ships being under NATO command until it becomes inconvenient, the ships become re-flagged as not under NATO command, do what they have to do, and then re-flag. Again, I am curious about the OPLAN that NATO has or will be writing, as the devil is a bit more in the details despite what SACEUR may be saying about "defensive" orientations.
- For me, the interesting thing will be to watch the Dutch, as their past decisions about NATO deployments tend to be entertaining in a car-crash kind of way--that the parties do not necessarily know how they will vote until the day of the vote. I would guess that they will need an Article 100 letter that specifies how the Dutch contingent will act and so on.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Texas Secede? We Wish?
I love a good short video laying out the truths, convenient or otherwise:
The Texans would always tell me they could because they were extra-special. But no. Plus the Texas secessionist movement that existed when I lived there had its embassy in a trailer in Texas. The big mistake is not the trailer but the location--you put the embassy in another country. Jeez.
Anyhow, this whole Texas secession thing now is just a small minority of sore losers. Anyone can vote on silly petitions on the White House website. For a while, there was one insisting that we build a death star... Really. Now that is a healthy dose of perspective sauce.
The Texans would always tell me they could because they were extra-special. But no. Plus the Texas secessionist movement that existed when I lived there had its embassy in a trailer in Texas. The big mistake is not the trailer but the location--you put the embassy in another country. Jeez.
Anyhow, this whole Texas secession thing now is just a small minority of sore losers. Anyone can vote on silly petitions on the White House website. For a while, there was one insisting that we build a death star... Really. Now that is a healthy dose of perspective sauce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)