I was listening to the Grantland NFL Podcast today and was surprised as to how the two speakers, Robert Mays and Bill Barnwell, lost sight of something. They were answering a question about the Carolina Panthers, who finished with a sub .500 record but made it into the playoffs and into the second round. The question centered on the reality that by getting to the playoffs and winning the first game (against the much depleted Cardinals), the Panthers moved from 11th in the draft to 25th or so. That is, this spring, they will be choosing their next batch of rookies further down and are, thus, less likely to get the best talent.
Mays basically said that losing that many places in the draft was costly, that the franchise would be better off missing the playoffs. Why? So, they might be better next year. Well, what might that mean? Getting into the playoffs and making it into the second round? Like they did this year? Or maybe a better shot at the Super Bowl? Maybe. But isn't the point of any season of competition is to win as much as possible in that season? Don't the fans get their utility--their happiness, their self-esteem--by their team's success now?
Yes, franchises always have to balance the present against the future, but only one team wins the Super Bowl and it is always unlikely to be your team. Getting into the playoffs means that the team has done well and that the team has entered a lottery with fewer participants. Isn't this the goal?
In basketball, we have epidemic tanking. The 76ers are engaged in a multiyear effort to stockpile talent so that they might be competitive some day. Fans have to tolerate years of not just losing but losing a lot. Sports pundits criticize teams that are on the bubble, trying to get into the playoffs, as they would be better off losing more games so that they can get a better pick. But isn't winning the goal? Isn't getting into the playoffs something a team should aspire to? Not every team can win the championship, and, in most years, only a handful of teams have an excellent chance.
Since sports are ... entertainment, shouldn't franchises aspire to do as well as possible? If they are close to the playoffs, shouldn't they try to get into the playoffs so that their fans have more games to watch, more opportunities to root for their team, and the team might get lucky and make it further than it is supposed to? In the NFL, wildcard teams have won the Super Bowl on a regular basis. In basketball? The lesser playoff teams don't make it as far (one game rounds vs best of seven...).
I get the larger, long-term strategies that these folks are espousing. And if a team truly sucks, then tanking a bit more makes sense. But if you are close to the playoffs, like the Panthers were, then go for it, try to win, and don't worry about losing one's place in the draft. Instead, just try to draft smarter. FFS.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Voterfraudfraud Is an Abomination
For much of the life of the Spew, a consistent topic has one that is largely out of my direct area of expertise: what I call voterfraudfraud. These are the efforts to create barriers to voting based largely on myths of voter fraud. I have been pretty passionate here and on twitter about #voterfraudfraud because voting as a right is so very basic to democracy.
I have always argued that the danger of suppressing the vote greatly outweighs the threat of voter fraud in the US. And then I saw Selma tonight. While its accuracy may not be perfect, it does a nice job of demonstrating the stakes and the risks and the costs of the effort to pass the Voting Rights Act. In the movie, Martin Luther King makes quite clear how basic voting rights are--that one needed to be registered voter in order to serve on juries and that once Blacks gained the real right to vote, they were able to get rid of at least one racist Sheriff.
This movie came out 50 years after the Voting Rights Act and just a short time after a hunk of it was gutted by a blind Supreme Court that had the ignorance to believe that race was not much of an issue anymore. So, its timing is quite apt indeed. 2014 was an awful year for race relations in the U.S. I am hoping that we make some progress in 2015. I would really like to see the last two years of the Obama Administration be spent using the Justice Department to fight against all efforts to suppress the votes of minorities, the poor and the young. These folks are under-represented enough as it is. Making some real progress here would be a fitting legacy for the first Black president.
Voterfraudfraud efforts are an abomination in 21st century democracy.
I have always argued that the danger of suppressing the vote greatly outweighs the threat of voter fraud in the US. And then I saw Selma tonight. While its accuracy may not be perfect, it does a nice job of demonstrating the stakes and the risks and the costs of the effort to pass the Voting Rights Act. In the movie, Martin Luther King makes quite clear how basic voting rights are--that one needed to be registered voter in order to serve on juries and that once Blacks gained the real right to vote, they were able to get rid of at least one racist Sheriff.
This movie came out 50 years after the Voting Rights Act and just a short time after a hunk of it was gutted by a blind Supreme Court that had the ignorance to believe that race was not much of an issue anymore. So, its timing is quite apt indeed. 2014 was an awful year for race relations in the U.S. I am hoping that we make some progress in 2015. I would really like to see the last two years of the Obama Administration be spent using the Justice Department to fight against all efforts to suppress the votes of minorities, the poor and the young. These folks are under-represented enough as it is. Making some real progress here would be a fitting legacy for the first Black president.
Voterfraudfraud efforts are an abomination in 21st century democracy.
Harry Potter and the Tainted Chocolate
It is the choices we make, says Dumbledore. Well, Warner Brothers, the company responsible for not just the movies by the merchandizing of the Harry Potter stuff, is apparently run by Potter-ites.
The Harry Potter Alliance noted that the chocolate used in the various HP products (chocolate frogs, etc) was from places where children were engaged in slave labor. Due to a lobbying effort by the HPA, Warner Brothers is changing its chocolate providers. This entire story is news to me, but it seems like WB moved pretty quickly once they were lobbied, compared to the average corporation.
Sure, they should have been avoiding such companies in their supply chain before now, but changing now is better than not.
The Harry Potter Alliance noted that the chocolate used in the various HP products (chocolate frogs, etc) was from places where children were engaged in slave labor. Due to a lobbying effort by the HPA, Warner Brothers is changing its chocolate providers. This entire story is news to me, but it seems like WB moved pretty quickly once they were lobbied, compared to the average corporation.
Sure, they should have been avoiding such companies in their supply chain before now, but changing now is better than not.
Very Professional!
Dan Drezner posted this interesting comparison today: both the US military and US universities are not so diverse politically. The US military is right of center, professors are left of center. As Dan correctly asserts, the key is not people's political orientations but their behavior (perhaps Dan is a Potter-ite).
Despite being mostly Conservative or Libertarian, the US military is obedient to its Commander-in-Chief. As long as academics teach the stuff that they discover through research and not their political opinions, all is good. Obviously, there are members of each profession that are unprofessional.
My blog here and my twitter account are not always "professional" as I offer opinions that are sometimes but not always based on my research. I have not researched Voter Fraud, for instance. And I do trash politicians in my classes as I provide examples. I try to be equal opportunity--criticizing Harper and Trudeau, Obama and Bush, etc--in my classes. I am admittedly less careful than I was when I started. Still, when a student asked me last week where I stood on the next election, I demurred. If he cannot figure it out from my out of the classroom stuff (my posts here and on twitter), then that is his problem. And if he cannot figure it out from what I say in the classroom, I am doing something right, I think.
I noted on twitter that during my year in the Pentagon, the phrase "Very professional" was viewed as a compliment, even if sometimes in a joking way. That the military takes itself very seriously as a profession. Academics don't use the same lingo, but mostly have the same outlet. "Hey, great research design" is essentially the same thing as "very professional." Of course, there is more open conflict in academia what counts as good research, but there is also some debate among uniformed folks about what is good leadership.
I would prefer for both worlds to be more politically diverse, as I think we do better when we have more ideas in play. But we need to look at the behavior of folks--the choices they make--rather than their political preferences to see if the lack of diversity in political outlooks is really problematic or just mildly so.
Despite being mostly Conservative or Libertarian, the US military is obedient to its Commander-in-Chief. As long as academics teach the stuff that they discover through research and not their political opinions, all is good. Obviously, there are members of each profession that are unprofessional.
My blog here and my twitter account are not always "professional" as I offer opinions that are sometimes but not always based on my research. I have not researched Voter Fraud, for instance. And I do trash politicians in my classes as I provide examples. I try to be equal opportunity--criticizing Harper and Trudeau, Obama and Bush, etc--in my classes. I am admittedly less careful than I was when I started. Still, when a student asked me last week where I stood on the next election, I demurred. If he cannot figure it out from my out of the classroom stuff (my posts here and on twitter), then that is his problem. And if he cannot figure it out from what I say in the classroom, I am doing something right, I think.
I noted on twitter that during my year in the Pentagon, the phrase "Very professional" was viewed as a compliment, even if sometimes in a joking way. That the military takes itself very seriously as a profession. Academics don't use the same lingo, but mostly have the same outlet. "Hey, great research design" is essentially the same thing as "very professional." Of course, there is more open conflict in academia what counts as good research, but there is also some debate among uniformed folks about what is good leadership.
I would prefer for both worlds to be more politically diverse, as I think we do better when we have more ideas in play. But we need to look at the behavior of folks--the choices they make--rather than their political preferences to see if the lack of diversity in political outlooks is really problematic or just mildly so.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Reading Assignment for Canadian Defence Fans
Today, those of us who follow Canadian defence issues have a new reading assignment. It is another batch of informed reason from Dave Perry, with a wonderful rollout by the CDAI folks and the McDonald-Laurier Institute with stories in the news.
I have not read it yet but will so soon. The highlights as presented in the media include:
Here is my research assignment for anyone/everyone:
I have not read it yet but will so soon. The highlights as presented in the media include:
- a series of governments has gutted procurement expertise,
- this has meant slower and dysfunctional procurement,
- asking people to do much more with less staff is broken, (see my post on dismissing what govt workers do)
- the Canada First Defence Strategy is dead (again).
Here is my research assignment for anyone/everyone:
All democracies seem to have trouble with defence procurement. Does Canada do it worse? Are there are common problems or is every democracy a snowflake with its own uniquely messed up procurement processes?
Monday, January 12, 2015
Best Reason to be on Twitter
Why should folks be in on twitter? So you can watch Fox get a heavy dose of well deserved snark.
My fave example today:
My fave example today:
Dancing is banned as Unislamic in the UK and the Queen personally beheads those guilty of promoting it #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/cbV6abUxtw
— Tapio (@LordShropshire) January 12, 2015
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Cartoonist Reacting to Cartoon Controversy
I am a big fan of the NYT's Brian McFadden and his Sunday comics. So, of course, I have to post his reaction to the events of the last week that are central to his enterprise--satire via comics:
Notable, of course, is what is excluded: violence.
Notable, of course, is what is excluded: violence.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Clash of Civ Re-Redux
The attacks in Paris yesterday and today have people citing Clash of Civilizations again. I have repeatedly posted here my take, so instead, I will just put up a few of my tweets from earlier today:
Anybody making a Clash of Civilizations argument has to reconcile with basic reality--far more conflict within civ than between 1/2
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) January 9, 2015
the greatest number of victims of Islamist extremism are Muslims. So, let's re-bury Huntington and not rely on simplistic/wrong Clash 2/2
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) January 9, 2015
one more thing about clash of civ--enduring evidence that bad ideas spread further, endure longer than good ones. #BuryClashofCivAnyhow, that is my rant du jour. I am sure I will rant again because, as the third tweet suggests, this crap-tastic idea is not going away anytime soon.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) January 9, 2015
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Over-Estimating Minorities and Xenophobia
I saw this on twitter this evening
The figure, using data from some article lost to the ages, demonstrates that pretty much every ethnic group over-estimates the "Other" except for the largest group. In the slide, everyone underestimated the population of whites in America in the late 90s. But everyone's perceptions of Blacks was double the actual number; perceptions of Hispanics varied widely but ranged from 50% to 100% more than the reality; and perceptions of Asians (with the exception of Whites) tended to triple the real number.
So, when I saw the graphic that Saunders tweeted, my focus was on the ratio between the real population of Muslims in European countries and the perception, with the ratios varying from 1:3 to 1:8 (Spain) to 1 to 70 (Hungary). Not surprising--people, via confirmation bias I suppose, tend to notice that which is different far more than that which is the same. So, minorities stand out and majorities get under-estimated.
And, yes, these kinds of perceptions both generate and are generated by xenophobia. It would be interesting to see if tolerance/acceptance of groups is correlated or not with how dramatically over-represented they are in the perceptions of the population. I am not surprised, for instance, that Hungary, one of the most homogeneous countries in Europe, has the most skewed ration between actual and perceived Muslim populations.
It is important to understand the real numbers, as fears of swamping generate or exacerbate xenophobia, and in pretty much every case, the populations of Muslims are so small that they are politically powerless. Instead, what we have are perceptions that will feed Islamophobia. And that is a far greater threat, as alienating Muslims is probably the worst way to avoid subsequent radicalization.
This is the best visualization I've yet seen of Europe's "Muslim tide" hysteria pic.twitter.com/a681LGp4yRAnd it reminded me of this slide I used to use for American Public Policy, a course I taught way back in the day at Texas Tech:
— Doug Saunders (@DougSaunders) January 9, 2015
The figure, using data from some article lost to the ages, demonstrates that pretty much every ethnic group over-estimates the "Other" except for the largest group. In the slide, everyone underestimated the population of whites in America in the late 90s. But everyone's perceptions of Blacks was double the actual number; perceptions of Hispanics varied widely but ranged from 50% to 100% more than the reality; and perceptions of Asians (with the exception of Whites) tended to triple the real number.
So, when I saw the graphic that Saunders tweeted, my focus was on the ratio between the real population of Muslims in European countries and the perception, with the ratios varying from 1:3 to 1:8 (Spain) to 1 to 70 (Hungary). Not surprising--people, via confirmation bias I suppose, tend to notice that which is different far more than that which is the same. So, minorities stand out and majorities get under-estimated.
And, yes, these kinds of perceptions both generate and are generated by xenophobia. It would be interesting to see if tolerance/acceptance of groups is correlated or not with how dramatically over-represented they are in the perceptions of the population. I am not surprised, for instance, that Hungary, one of the most homogeneous countries in Europe, has the most skewed ration between actual and perceived Muslim populations.
It is important to understand the real numbers, as fears of swamping generate or exacerbate xenophobia, and in pretty much every case, the populations of Muslims are so small that they are politically powerless. Instead, what we have are perceptions that will feed Islamophobia. And that is a far greater threat, as alienating Muslims is probably the worst way to avoid subsequent radicalization.
Sports Fans Can Be As Silly as Me
I would never do this for a sports team ... but I wish I had the mad skilz to do something like this: A-Team + San Antonio Spurs =
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8_4O_TUVb8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8_4O_TUVb8A
Twitter Danger Du Jour
What a wonderfully deceptive title! No, twitter is not dangerous, but it can be frustrating. How so?
Well, if one enters a conversation and then tries to leave, one may find one's notifications filled up for days with people responding to the earliest part of the conversation. I chimed in on a discussion about collective guilt yesterday in the aftermath of the attack in Paris, and then realized it was something I didn't want to talk about. But the folks who read the first few messages keep replying to them so they keep popping up in my notification feed.
This is not a huge problem as I can try to ignore these folks in my feed. But I am easily distracted. Will I learn from this not to chime in on a conversation unless I am in it for the long haul? Absolutely not. My tweeting is filtered but only slightly, so I don't think and re-think every twitter conversation as I am about to enter them.
For those with more restraint and patience, this may not be a problem. For me, today, I am annoyed at myself. Oh well. A minor 21st century problem at best.
Well, if one enters a conversation and then tries to leave, one may find one's notifications filled up for days with people responding to the earliest part of the conversation. I chimed in on a discussion about collective guilt yesterday in the aftermath of the attack in Paris, and then realized it was something I didn't want to talk about. But the folks who read the first few messages keep replying to them so they keep popping up in my notification feed.
This is not a huge problem as I can try to ignore these folks in my feed. But I am easily distracted. Will I learn from this not to chime in on a conversation unless I am in it for the long haul? Absolutely not. My tweeting is filtered but only slightly, so I don't think and re-think every twitter conversation as I am about to enter them.
For those with more restraint and patience, this may not be a problem. For me, today, I am annoyed at myself. Oh well. A minor 21st century problem at best.
Fighting After the Whistle Blows
I have always had a fondness for the Battle of New Orleans. Why? First, the idea that the biggest American victory took place long after the peace treaty had been negotiated amuses me. Second, I wrote a paper in either middle or high school on the battle.
So, I was most pleased to see this video posted on twitter by Kelsey Atherton (https://twitter.com/AthertonKD):
Lego plus music!
Happy 200th anniversary, Battle of New Orleans!
So, I was most pleased to see this video posted on twitter by Kelsey Atherton (https://twitter.com/AthertonKD):
Lego plus music!
Happy 200th anniversary, Battle of New Orleans!
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Bring Out the Dead!
I guess I am easily annoyed these days, but when I saw this tweet, I could only Spew:
To be fair and accurate, there are all kinds of undead, not just zombies. So, for guidance, perhaps we should consult the Liches, Wraiths, and Ghouls* from Republican Administrations past as we ponder the future of the United States.
There are two problems with this proposed hearing:
So, I ask my readers three questions today: which undead creature would you want to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Which Republican would you prefer to wake up or dig up? And what topic would you want the committee to examine?
Senate Foreign Relations Committee sets first hearing of Corker chairmanship. Subject: US world leadership. Witness: Henry Kissinger.My immediate reaction:
— Patricia Zengerle (@ReutersZengerle) January 7, 2015
How about we resurrect John Foster Dulles and ask him how to grapple with 21st century? #ZombieNationalSecurityExperts** Which produced a twitter follower recommending this Carol Burnett song.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) January 7, 2015
To be fair and accurate, there are all kinds of undead, not just zombies. So, for guidance, perhaps we should consult the Liches, Wraiths, and Ghouls* from Republican Administrations past as we ponder the future of the United States.
* It has been a long time so I barely remember the D&D categories of undead. Liches might make the most sense here: "Unlike most other forms of undead creatures, the Lich retains all of the memories, personality, and abilities that it possessed in life — but it has a virtual eternity to hone its skills and inevitably becomes very powerful." See here. Sounds like Kissinger to me.I am pretty sure that Oliver North is available, so why not dig him up and ask him questions? Where is Eliott Abrams? Hey, if we need to dig up old GOP foreign policy folks, how about Scowcroft (same cohort as Kissinger but without the arrogance and far fewer war crimes)?
There are two problems with this proposed hearing:
- US world leadership? This is likely to be bait for discussion about how the US is retrenching or pivoting or not leading enough. How many wars must the US be fighting at one time to qualify for being "sufficiently engaged" and not "isolationist"? Because I am pretty sure we are over whatever threshold that might be. If it is not just about war, then how about the US being engaged in hard bargaining with Iran, reinforcing the allies near Russia, leading the sanctions on Russia, bargaining with China, and on and on. One can take issue with Obama's foreign policies (and should), but any discussion of US leadership is likely to be asking for more... more.... um, more leadership. Whatever.
- Kissinger? Besides the fact that the man is OVER-RATED and always has been, what fresh perspective does he provide for 21st century international relations? That we should play Russia and China off of each other like he did so long ago? Got it. What else?
So, I ask my readers three questions today: which undead creature would you want to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Which Republican would you prefer to wake up or dig up? And what topic would you want the committee to examine?
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Shuffle Up and Deal: Canadian Mil/Vets Edition
In October, I argued that hawks in Canada have a problem--the party that would seem to be their friend has been cutting various programs, harming the readiness of the Canadian Forces and undermining the services for the veterans. Where could such folks go? Could they find a party that might support their interests more? My answer then: probably not. That the Liberals would more likely pander to NDP voters than to Tory voters, so that it was unlikely that they would advocate for more defence spending.
The good news for the Liberals is that the repeated coverage of poor stances on Veterans Affairs has provided an opening. Harper turfed his Minister of Veterans Affairs, Julian Fantino, sending him to be Associate Minister of Defence, responsible for Arctic Security, information technology secuirty and foreign intelligence. Am I reading too much into this to read it as Fantino being sent to equivalent of Nome, Alaska or Greenland? That is where the US military sends folks who are out of favor (the best equivalent to the Hogan's Heroes threat of the "Russian Front"). Arctic Security is not just a metaphor for a distant area of responsibility (feels mighty close with the super-cold temps this week), but a failed portfolio--that the government's commitment to the Canada First Defence
Strategy and a focus on Arctic Sovereignty has produced exactly nada, nil, zilch, zero, zip. Info tech security? Only will be in the news if there is some kind of cyber security failure. Foreign intel portfolio? Sshhh! Again, only in the news if something goes awry--a Canadian Snowden or Ames or something like that.
So, things are looking great for the Liberals, eh? Well, this piece in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen suggests that the Liberals are going to aim at dis-affected hawks via these candidates with military experience. The thing about this piece is it makes the Liberal attempt look kind of lame. I have heaps of respect for Lt. Gen. (ret.) Andrew Leslie, but there is really nothing in the piece about what the Liberals might to run the military or veterans affairs better. More money? Where would that come from? Cancel the F-35 and then do what? The Liberal history of cancelling programs is chock full of glory? Not so much. The Liberals can claim that this government is starving the military (which it kind of is, even as it limits the real choices the military could make to ease the pain of the cuts), but the Liberals starved the military pretty well in its not so distant past. And Trudeau's stances last fall on Iraq suggested that he needs to listen to Leslie and pals much more closely so that he does not step on himself.
Still, firing one's ministers and sending them to the Russian front are a signal that Harper is concerned about that portfolio and seeking to fix it before the election season really heats up. Will we see any better performance on Defence and Vets issues in the new year? I doubt it, as again it would require making choices. And there is no real need to do that since Harper knows that the hawks have limited choices indeed.
The good news for the Liberals is that the repeated coverage of poor stances on Veterans Affairs has provided an opening. Harper turfed his Minister of Veterans Affairs, Julian Fantino, sending him to be Associate Minister of Defence, responsible for Arctic Security, information technology secuirty and foreign intelligence. Am I reading too much into this to read it as Fantino being sent to equivalent of Nome, Alaska or Greenland? That is where the US military sends folks who are out of favor (the best equivalent to the Hogan's Heroes threat of the "Russian Front"). Arctic Security is not just a metaphor for a distant area of responsibility (feels mighty close with the super-cold temps this week), but a failed portfolio--that the government's commitment to the Canada First Defence
Strategy and a focus on Arctic Sovereignty has produced exactly nada, nil, zilch, zero, zip. Info tech security? Only will be in the news if there is some kind of cyber security failure. Foreign intel portfolio? Sshhh! Again, only in the news if something goes awry--a Canadian Snowden or Ames or something like that.
So, things are looking great for the Liberals, eh? Well, this piece in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen suggests that the Liberals are going to aim at dis-affected hawks via these candidates with military experience. The thing about this piece is it makes the Liberal attempt look kind of lame. I have heaps of respect for Lt. Gen. (ret.) Andrew Leslie, but there is really nothing in the piece about what the Liberals might to run the military or veterans affairs better. More money? Where would that come from? Cancel the F-35 and then do what? The Liberal history of cancelling programs is chock full of glory? Not so much. The Liberals can claim that this government is starving the military (which it kind of is, even as it limits the real choices the military could make to ease the pain of the cuts), but the Liberals starved the military pretty well in its not so distant past. And Trudeau's stances last fall on Iraq suggested that he needs to listen to Leslie and pals much more closely so that he does not step on himself.
Still, firing one's ministers and sending them to the Russian front are a signal that Harper is concerned about that portfolio and seeking to fix it before the election season really heats up. Will we see any better performance on Defence and Vets issues in the new year? I doubt it, as again it would require making choices. And there is no real need to do that since Harper knows that the hawks have limited choices indeed.
Monday, January 5, 2015
ISA Blogging Progress: Blogging is Not Special (Which is Good)
Last winter, the ISA executive committee proposed new rules for editors of ISA journals that would restrict their blogging. This led to a pretty hostile reaction. At the ISA meeting, the proposal was sent to committee. The committee has circulated its report and recommendations.
What do they recommend? Basically, the recommendations:
Overall, I am pleased with this outcome. I may have to re-read it a few times and talk to folks, but the basic idea--that we expect everyone to be professional and that blogging is essentially just another form of outreach--seems to be quite good indeed.
What do they recommend? Basically, the recommendations:
- suggest some language that would clarify that all ISA officers, including editors, would expected to be professional in their various endeavors.
- indicate that expectations for blogging would be the same as the expectations for everything else ISA officers do.
- that there would be no need for disclaimers on blogs since this would really mean that ISA officers would have to put disclaimers on everything they do.
Overall, I am pleased with this outcome. I may have to re-read it a few times and talk to folks, but the basic idea--that we expect everyone to be professional and that blogging is essentially just another form of outreach--seems to be quite good indeed.
Teaching Security and American Foreign Policy
Today is the start of a new semester. I, of course, screwed up my syllabi as an absent-minded professor is wont to do. On my very first day of teaching at my very first real teaching job (visiting professor at UVM), I forgot to bring the syllabi to class. Ok, I forgot to bring them to any of the classes on the first day. Three times I made that mistake on that first day.
This time? I just confused which class is on which day, so I had to rearrange everything.
Here they are: Contemporary International Security and American Foreign and Security Policy. The former serves as a survey of the big problems facing the world and especially Canada. It is for both the students at NPSIA studying international security and those who are doing a joint program, Infrastructure Protection and International Security, that brings together social scientists and engineers. The issues change over time, but this syllabus is mostly a slightly revised version of last year's since last year was the first time I taught it. It involves much stuff that is out of my area of expertise (such as cyber), which means I do not know that much but also means that I learn quite a bit.
The latter course is one that I used to teach as an undergraduate lecture, but is now a graduate seminar. I have only taught it once since moving to Carleton, so I am still trying to figure this one out as well. That's right, two courses that are probably still quite buggy. Good thing I didn't overcommit this winter to various research and service stuff. Oh, wait, I did.
This time? I just confused which class is on which day, so I had to rearrange everything.
Here they are: Contemporary International Security and American Foreign and Security Policy. The former serves as a survey of the big problems facing the world and especially Canada. It is for both the students at NPSIA studying international security and those who are doing a joint program, Infrastructure Protection and International Security, that brings together social scientists and engineers. The issues change over time, but this syllabus is mostly a slightly revised version of last year's since last year was the first time I taught it. It involves much stuff that is out of my area of expertise (such as cyber), which means I do not know that much but also means that I learn quite a bit.
The latter course is one that I used to teach as an undergraduate lecture, but is now a graduate seminar. I have only taught it once since moving to Carleton, so I am still trying to figure this one out as well. That's right, two courses that are probably still quite buggy. Good thing I didn't overcommit this winter to various research and service stuff. Oh, wait, I did.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Wifi Entitlement
Free wifi might not be an entitlement, but any hotel that decides to block alternative sources of wifi is going to lose my business. The good news is that the FCC might not let Marriott and its ilk do this. The bad news is that I have little faith in regulators these days.
While I would like to have free wifi at airports (some do, some don't), I merely expect that the hotels have decent wifi for a minimal cost (around $10 per day). It is pure profit, of course, not unlike the baggage fees that airlines charge these days. But charging a ransom for using wifi during a conference? No thanks.
Last year, I organized a panel on twitter for the ISA that took place in Toronto. The Sheraton wanted to charge $75 per person for wifi in the conference rooms. Because most of the participants were not Canadians and were roaming, they could not resort to using their cellphones to participate in the twitter conversation associated with the panel. I had much sympathy for the audience and panelists since I am usually the one looking for low/reasonable wifi since I roam while I am in the US.
Charging extravagant fees for wifi is a sure way to alienate a clientele. Providing free wifi is a great way to gain clientele. Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, McDonalds all have gained my loyalty since they are islands of free wifi while traveling in the US. Hotels? I may not go to hotels that offer free wifi, although I do seek higher status in my hotel loyalty program so that I can get free wifi. I certainly will avoid hotels that charge too much, and will definitely avoid Marriott as long as they seek to block wifi. We know they are not interested in consumer protection but in accumulating unearned profits.
I may not be entitled to free wifi, but hotels are not entitled to high fees for wifi either. I will vote with my feet and my grant budgets.
Update:
I got this response from Marriott:
While I would like to have free wifi at airports (some do, some don't), I merely expect that the hotels have decent wifi for a minimal cost (around $10 per day). It is pure profit, of course, not unlike the baggage fees that airlines charge these days. But charging a ransom for using wifi during a conference? No thanks.
Last year, I organized a panel on twitter for the ISA that took place in Toronto. The Sheraton wanted to charge $75 per person for wifi in the conference rooms. Because most of the participants were not Canadians and were roaming, they could not resort to using their cellphones to participate in the twitter conversation associated with the panel. I had much sympathy for the audience and panelists since I am usually the one looking for low/reasonable wifi since I roam while I am in the US.
Charging extravagant fees for wifi is a sure way to alienate a clientele. Providing free wifi is a great way to gain clientele. Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, McDonalds all have gained my loyalty since they are islands of free wifi while traveling in the US. Hotels? I may not go to hotels that offer free wifi, although I do seek higher status in my hotel loyalty program so that I can get free wifi. I certainly will avoid hotels that charge too much, and will definitely avoid Marriott as long as they seek to block wifi. We know they are not interested in consumer protection but in accumulating unearned profits.
I may not be entitled to free wifi, but hotels are not entitled to high fees for wifi either. I will vote with my feet and my grant budgets.
Update:
I got this response from Marriott:
@steven_metz @smsaideman You may have heard about the @FCC filing, take a moment to understand our point of view: http://t.co/vUCKD9tFMUMy response: I would believe them if they didn't charge exorbitant fees for wifi in their conference spaces. So, no, I don't believe them.
— Marriott Hotels (@Marriott) January 4, 2015
2015 Predictions: Silliness Edition
Brian McFadden of the NYT has a fun view of 2015:
Ok, make that a relentlessly negative few. I am not so sure about all of these predictions, especially at the bottom except I am very much not looking forward to the obsessive focus on Iowa and New Hampshire that comes with the approach of a Presidential election.
There are many broken things in the American election system, but the importance of these two states is among the most broken AND the most fixable. All it takes is gumption for either/both parties to revise their schedule so that these two marginal states go back to where they belong--on the margins. The role of money? The insistence by one party that mythical voter fraud should allow for disenfranchising the poor, the young and minorities (#voterfraudfraud)? The harshness of the process that may deter good candidates? These are all hard, but temporarily pissing off two entitled states? That is actually pretty easy. But politicians would need to cooperate and not be gutless. So, IA/NH will remain overly important. So messed up.
There are many broken things in the American election system, but the importance of these two states is among the most broken AND the most fixable. All it takes is gumption for either/both parties to revise their schedule so that these two marginal states go back to where they belong--on the margins. The role of money? The insistence by one party that mythical voter fraud should allow for disenfranchising the poor, the young and minorities (#voterfraudfraud)? The harshness of the process that may deter good candidates? These are all hard, but temporarily pissing off two entitled states? That is actually pretty easy. But politicians would need to cooperate and not be gutless. So, IA/NH will remain overly important. So messed up.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Justified Binge-ing
Every year around this time, I binge on Justified, a TV show based on Elmore Leonard characters. The acting, dialogue and all the rest is quite good. It is not quite Breaking Bad/Mad Men/The Wire great, but it is a heap of fun. I don't get FX on my Canadian satellite dish, so I have to wait until the previous season comes out on DVD, which, nicely enough, is right before Winterfest. So, I get the disks as a gift and spend part of the holiday binge-ing on the season.
I have just a few thoughts after the break:
I have just a few thoughts after the break:
Thursday, January 1, 2015
An Irresolute New Year
I have never been one for making heaps of resolutions. Given that I have spent the past week hacking, wheezing and oozing, I am hoping that I got my annual illness (I tend not to get sick much) out of the way. But hoping that I am health ain't much of a resolution.
I joked on twitter that I am resolved to self-promote less in 2015. But that is not really a resolution as much as a realistic expectation. I hit personal highs in self-promotion with the Dave and Steve book. I visited many lands near and far, tweeted early and often, to get the word out on the book. Since I don't have any books coming out in 2015 ... Oops, I may have two or three. The edited volume that is part of the Canada Among Nations series, which is the focus of my Dec/Jan; the new edition of For Kin or Country that is coming out in July; and perhaps the Canada and Afghanistan book that has been on hold while I have been working on other stuff. Ok, 2015 will be chock full of self-promotion--just with three different projects rather than just one.
I will be writing a bit less in 2015, at least as far as I can tell. I will be in between books, as I will be starting up the next big project in the spring--researching the role of legislatures in civil-military relations. That will require interviews, travel and interviews. I will be writing far less frequently for Opencanada.org, as they are changing their way of operating. I will have occasional posts but nothing like a weekly column. I hope to use that energy to write a bit more for Political Violence at a Glance and Duck of Minerva. I don't expect any of my posts to get as much attention as a certain few did in early 2014. I am Spewing at a slower rate here over the past year than in previous years. I expect that pattern to continue--not quite writer bloc-ed or exhausted--but not quite as energized as in previous years. Of course, most of my blogging is reactive--reacting to the news (thanks, Putin!), to what I see on twitter and in the blogs of others. So, if I get agitated enough, my output might increase.
I guess if I had to be resolved to do anything this year it would be to read more. I am far behind in my reading of academic stuff--what has been published in journals and books over the past few years. Once I clear my desk of the backlog of letters of recommendation, reviews, and that Canada/Afghanistan book, I hope to read more. I remember being admonished by my adviser at Oberlin when I thought that life as a prof would mean reading to my heart's content. He suggested that there would be other stuff that would crowd out the reading. He was most wise.
One thing I do not have to resolve--staying up to date with the latest in fun tv and movies. 2015 promises to be an amazing year, and I will be keeping on top of that. One of the handy things about having the kid away at college is that I no longer have to wait for a time that is convenient for her to see something. So, I expect to see every big superhero/space movie pretty close to the release date. And, of course, the countdown to Star Wars 7 is now under 365 days!
I had an excellent 2014 as there was much skiing that came along with book promotion. I hope your 2015 is just as much fun as I had in 2014.
Oh, I just need to get my 2014 holiday cards....
I joked on twitter that I am resolved to self-promote less in 2015. But that is not really a resolution as much as a realistic expectation. I hit personal highs in self-promotion with the Dave and Steve book. I visited many lands near and far, tweeted early and often, to get the word out on the book. Since I don't have any books coming out in 2015 ... Oops, I may have two or three. The edited volume that is part of the Canada Among Nations series, which is the focus of my Dec/Jan; the new edition of For Kin or Country that is coming out in July; and perhaps the Canada and Afghanistan book that has been on hold while I have been working on other stuff. Ok, 2015 will be chock full of self-promotion--just with three different projects rather than just one.
I will be writing a bit less in 2015, at least as far as I can tell. I will be in between books, as I will be starting up the next big project in the spring--researching the role of legislatures in civil-military relations. That will require interviews, travel and interviews. I will be writing far less frequently for Opencanada.org, as they are changing their way of operating. I will have occasional posts but nothing like a weekly column. I hope to use that energy to write a bit more for Political Violence at a Glance and Duck of Minerva. I don't expect any of my posts to get as much attention as a certain few did in early 2014. I am Spewing at a slower rate here over the past year than in previous years. I expect that pattern to continue--not quite writer bloc-ed or exhausted--but not quite as energized as in previous years. Of course, most of my blogging is reactive--reacting to the news (thanks, Putin!), to what I see on twitter and in the blogs of others. So, if I get agitated enough, my output might increase.
I guess if I had to be resolved to do anything this year it would be to read more. I am far behind in my reading of academic stuff--what has been published in journals and books over the past few years. Once I clear my desk of the backlog of letters of recommendation, reviews, and that Canada/Afghanistan book, I hope to read more. I remember being admonished by my adviser at Oberlin when I thought that life as a prof would mean reading to my heart's content. He suggested that there would be other stuff that would crowd out the reading. He was most wise.
One thing I do not have to resolve--staying up to date with the latest in fun tv and movies. 2015 promises to be an amazing year, and I will be keeping on top of that. One of the handy things about having the kid away at college is that I no longer have to wait for a time that is convenient for her to see something. So, I expect to see every big superhero/space movie pretty close to the release date. And, of course, the countdown to Star Wars 7 is now under 365 days!
I had an excellent 2014 as there was much skiing that came along with book promotion. I hope your 2015 is just as much fun as I had in 2014.
Oh, I just need to get my 2014 holiday cards....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)