Xenophobia Trumps Euro-Elites

I have long been puzzled by how the European Union could make decisions that might face strong opposition within the various members.  Specifically, I did not speculate in my book with Bill Ayres about the domestic politics of the enlargement process, just that the conditionality was less than credible (countries were going to get in even if they fell short of the stated criteria).  But I did wonder: given that the new members would be contributing markets but sucking away resources, wouldn’t groups that benefited from the status quo oppose the new members?  And wouldn’t they be more passionate than those that might dream of benefiting from the new members?   Particularly those countries that were poorer off and benefiting from the Regional Funds that subsidized them, if they were no longer as poor (Ireland)?

So, I am not surprised that the European Union has hit the wall—almost literally.  The organization is backtracking on one of its fundamental aspects: borderless within.  It looks like border controls for migrants will be reinstated. 

• Driven by what?  The threat of small numbers of refugees flowing from the Arab Spring. 
• Driven by whom?  Italy and France seem to be in the lead, but also xenophobic parties in Denmark, the Netherlands and wherever else they serve as critical supporting parties for minority governments.

“Italy's anti-immigrant campaign is headed by the interior minister Robert Maroni, of the xenophobic Northern League in the Berlusconi coalition. The campaign in France is seen as an attempt by President Nicolas Sarkozy to dilute the growing appeal of Marine Le Pen, the new leader of the extreme Front National.”

Most EU members are in support of this effort.  Germany is resisting (so, for one of the few times this spring, Germany is on the right side of an issue—but then again, they have no xenophobic party of any size).  Of course, things are complicated because there are multiple decision-making authorities within the EU: a court, a legislature, a council of ministers and a commission.   So, this is not over. 

No, I do not take that much pleasure in either EU-setbacks or in xenophobia trumping other interests.  Ok, maybe a little bit of Schadenfreude, but not much, as I think Europe’s reactions to immigrants are a far greater threat to Europe’s values and stature than the immigrants themselves.  Just as North Americans fail to look to European models of health care to improve their own policies, Europe fails to consider how countries with a history of immigration have managed it.  Yes, it can be bumpy, but immigration will help their coming demographic crisis of aging populations.  Figuring it out may be hard, but I am not sure they have an alternative.

PS  Blogger was down for most of the day (and night?). Looks like they ate yesterday's posts....

Friday Night Lights Progress Report

I don't know if I am ahead or behind: FNL airs two days earlier in Canada than on NBC in the US BUT it aired last fall on Direct TV.  As I mentioned before, I am a big fan of the show.  And I am so thrilled by the most recent episode.  Why?

Warrior Dogs: Woof?

The mission to raid the Bin Laden compound has focused a lot of attention on the one dog apparently involved.  The use of dogs in Afghanistan and Iraq is not so much news, thanks in part to Rebecca Frankel's posts in Tom Rick's column.  Now the NYT has the warrior dogs featured on its website.

On the one hand, it is pretty cool that dogs and their noses bring heaps of talent to the fight, helping to deal with the various improvised explosive devices that riddle Afghanistan.  The idea of dropping a dog with its Special Operator into the compound is just inherently interesting.  And not just because following SealDog6 on twitter is nearly as amusing as following Drunken Predator.  But that does not hurt either.

The problem, of course, is that the dogs can and do get hurt and killed.  They may enjoy their training, but they have no free will in terms of choosing combat.  Perhaps this is no different than the good old days of using horses as part of the cavalry, but attitudes about animals have changed over the decades.  We mind that children are used as soldiers (a relatively new cottage industry has developed to study this phenomenon), and I am guessing that we will see a smaller but still passionate literature develop to address the dogs in combat. 

It is not that I am a card-carrying member of PETA.  I like to eat dead cows, pigs, and chickens; I wear leather shoes; and I have gone to circuses and zoos and seaworlds with only the occasional twinge of guilt.  I would love to swim with a dolphin (the Spew kid got to do that while I was busy conferencing in Hawaii a few years ago).  So, I am not automatically opposed to using dogs as assets in war, but I am squeamish.  Indeed, I am far more squeamish about using dogs in combat than about killing Bin Laden.  The latter chose his occupation--as leader of non-state violent actor in war against the U.S.  One of the risks of making that choice is a bullet in the head.  But dogs do not elect to join the all-volunteer professional army of the present day.  They are drafted. 

I do not know what to think.  Your thoughts?

More Internet Brilliance

After spending the day transcribing interviews, the internet is providing the comic relief:

This is in reaction to the orthodox Jewish newspaper that airbrushed Secretary of State Clinton out of the picture.  Instead:  sexually suggestive males are dropped.

Why A Slow Day at the Spew

Just go here:  http://bit.ly/l1y0uP.  Just brilliant.  And then read the comments.

Another Barrier Falls: Female Squids

Until very recently, the last big barrier* for women in the US Navy has been submarines.  Close quarters and all that.  Well, not any longer.  Officers first since that requires no modifications to the arrangements.  Still waiting for women to make into the formally ground combat jobs (they have already been serving in positions that put them in harm's way, just not the three main branches of the army).  But we have seen huge changes over the past ten years or so.  So, despite all of the frustration with the 21st century, it does not entirely suck.

* Unless one counts female Marines who cannot serve in infantry, armor or artillery.

Harry Potter Pic of the DaySimp

Simon Pegg re-tweeted this pic of a book supposedly found in a bookstore:

I wonder if there is anything scribbled inside.

Exceptionally What?

I admit that I have not been paying much attention to the whole "Obama denies American exceptionalism" stuff that has become the meat of GOP messaging.  I discounted it because I think it was utter crap, but that does not stop it from becoming covered and repeated and rinsed.  Richard Cohen has a pretty good take on it at the Washington Post. He notes the origins that focused on the opposition to socialism among the working class in the US, distinguishing the US from Europe.  He goes on to argue that there is lot that is exceptional about the US (meaning different, not better) such as a high murder rate, and then argues that the right wing is infusing the term with religious overtones:

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.

 Obama upsets these guys for so many reasons, including his recognition that the US is flawed--that we must strive to perfect the Union even if the goal of a perfect Union is never reached. 

What drives me crazy is a different element of the narcissism--that we cannot and should not learn from the experiences of others  One of the things that drives me the craziest about the Canadians is that they only compare their health care system to that of the US, which means that they completely ignore better models elsewhere.  Well, the idea of American exceptionalism implies that the US is so different that we can learn little from elsewhere.  But the US is not the only Presidential system, it is not the only Federal system, it is not the only Great Power to have overextended itself, it is not the only country where immigration is at the center of its history, the US is not the only country to have a winning record when it comes to war (although the post WWII record has put a dent into that), the US is not the only country with a death penalty that is combined with an uneven justice system, and so on.

Yes, there are key differences, such as the US spending way more on defense spending than the remaining major powers combine, that the US military has far more reach than any other, that US consumers (even through this recession) are far more willing to buy foreign goods (which gives the US power), and so on.

But we can and should learn from other countries as the US does not have a monopoly on good ideas about governance, about accountability, about democracy, about regulating markets, etc.  The cry of American exceptionalism is an effort to do two things--return the US to an idealized past that never existed (yes, minorities must have loved the 1950's so much, before the Civil Rights movement, just to name one element) and that we cannot import ideas from elsewhere. 

This is really quite funny since I believe that Locke and the other philosophers who influenced the founders of the US were not from America.  Ooops, the founders were largely not from the US either.  Perhaps that is what American exceptionalism is all about--the acceptance of immigrants not just into the society but into the power structures of the country.*

* But, of course, other countries have immigrants rising high as well, but perhaps not as quickly or as frequently.

Superteam Activate

The internet is a wonderful thing. Latest proof:

From Josh Rogin (http://yfrog.com/gzlctaoj) via Abu Muqawama retweet.  I just have three corrections to make:

• that Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Spidey here) be portrayed as Superman or Mr. Fantastic--more of a leader rather than loner/teenager.
• that the guy in the Superman suit (Brigadier General Marshall B. “Brad” Webb, Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command) should be Wolverine or somebody else sneaky since he is commanding the SOF guys--Nick Fury?
• Robert Gates, the SecDef, should be somebody else besides a Green Guy with whom we are unfamiliar.  Perhaps Iron Man due to the defense contracting ties or perhaps he should be Green Lantern.

I do like that both DC and Marvel are represented here, just as Obama has Republicans (Gates, mostl likely the military guys) along with Democrats on his team.

Is this too much analysis of a funny take on the instant-classic photo?  Absolutely. 

Amusing But Increasingly UnTrue Graphic of the Day

From DoghouseDiaries (HT to RC), which I am now going to have to check in on as it is a nice addition to the http://www.xkcd.com/ kind of cartoon universe.

Old Montreal, 2009 Champion of Montreal Grandmaster Tourney

But I must say that this is no longer an accurate depiction of ultimate as I am far from the only graybeard playing these days.  Sure, I am usually the oldest on my team, but lots of folks on my teams are beyond college now.  Plus the number of masters (32 and up or so) and grandmasters (40 and up) tournaments has been steadily increasing. 

I did not necessarily expect to be playing deep into my forties, but now that I have played with folks who are deep into their fifties, I hope to do the same.  If my body holds up, or at least enough of it does.  More ultimate is, indeed, more ultimate.

Jesus Made Me Fumble follow up

I blogged earlier about the invoking of deities to explain sports outcomes.  In today's Monday Morning QB column, Peter King mentions some things said by a sportswriter/pastor: David White in the same vein. 

White wrote a poignant final column for the paper Sunday that I wanted to take note of, because it has so many good points for those he leaves behind, both on the field and in the press box. Whether you're an atheist or a believer in a higher being, take a minute to read his column, particularly these bullet points about religion and sports, starting with the coach he formerly covered for the 49ers, Mike Singletary:
• "Thou shalt not wear a cross around your neck if you're going to verbally wring the neck of third-string quarterbacks and local sports anchors in full public view. The Scripture says to take up your cross, not nail everyone else to one. Represent or tuck it in.
• "When thou tear an ACL, don't say it's because God lets everything happen for a reason. There is a reason. A 320-pound defensive tackle landed on the back of your knee.
• "Thou shalt not thank God when only you win, and never when you lose. What, is it his fault that fourth-and-inches call was a few yards off? Did he fumble away the game-winning interception? The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.
• "Thou shalt absolutely not say your team won because it was God's plan. What does the Lord have against the other team? And why should God even care in a world of suffering how our games play out? Maybe you think He doubled down on your end of the Vegas line? He didn't.''

 Well said.

Vetting Works?

Obama also said “the fact that there were some who voiced doubts about this approach was invaluable, because it meant the plan was sharper, it meant that we had thought through all of our options.” NYT

 I really, really have to get back to work on a piece I have been thinking about since my time in the Pentagon, and President Obama has reminded me to get my act in gear--that a competitive marketplace of ideas within the government is a good thing, that bureaucratic politics is not always a bad thing.

Anyhow, that is for later this summer, two papers to go before I get to that one.  Oy.

They Call Me The Xenophile

Check out my new column at Current Intelligence.  Why is it called Xenophile? It is the opposite of xenophobe--I do not hate that which is foreign to me.  Instead, I am most curious about those things beyond my experience.  Such as writing a web-based column.  How is that different from this blog?  Much less frequent and perhaps no references to pop culture or ultimate.

Take a look and you can comment there or here to let me know if I am making sense.

A Marvel-ous Summer

I took the family to see Thor today.  This is part of my grand plan to see heaps of movies this summer yet avoid 3D as much as I can.  Of the three Marvel superhero movies this summer (Captain America and the new X-movie are the others), I was least excited about Thor.  I don't think I bought more than a handful of Thor comics in my youth, and I only sporadically followed the Avengers.  I did read some about Norse mythology way back when, so I am familiar with Odin, Thor, Loki, the rainbow bridge, Asgard and all the rest.  I knew that the movie would face a greater challenge than the other ones, since Thor is, after all, a god.

So, how did they do?  Spoilers beyond the bridge break:

An Academic Problem

The Chronicle of Higher Education has some great columns week by the collective known as ProfHacker.  I already posted about the review of one book, and this post has a list of books new profs should read.  What I find ironic is that while these books might be really, really useful, such a list ignores the reality that new profs have very little time to read books that are not related to their research agenda or that one is using to teach a course.  New profs, that is former grad students, have no clue about how to handle the chore of multi-tasking.  Sure, the books might help in teaching someone how to multi-task, but it is very hard to focus on the long-term benefits of reading such books when one is focused on the short-term effort not to drown.  Anyhow, I thought I wold note this irony while still promoting this list of books of that I have not read.

Will the Dark Side Rule Your Desinty?

Here is a short review of a general book that is supposed to be of much assistance to academics--how to deal with @ssholes in the workplace and not become one.  It has led me to ponder whether I have already crossed over to the dark side or not.  The good news is that the book provides an online quiz to help determine whether one is or is not an @sshole. 

The problem with the quiz is that most of the questions are true/false:

• You secretly enjoy seeing people suffer and squirm?  Not all people, but some? Um, yes.
  
• How about this one: "You are constantly “buttering-up” your boss and other powerful people, and expect the same treatment from your underlings."  I think my current and past chairs would comfortably say nope.
  
• Guilty:  "Your jokes and teasing can get a bit nasty at times, but you have to admit, they are pretty funny."  Not intended to be nasty and certainly not always funny.
  
• "People seem to stop having fun when you show up."  Mais non. [Although there was an @sshole at my first job that would flee during my second year there whenever I turned up, but that was more about him than me]

My score: 3: 0 to 5 “True”: "You don’t sound like a certified asshole, unless you are fooling yourself."  As I often write of misperception, I realize that I might, indeed, be fooling myself.

While some of the questions are focused on how others react to you, the quiz itself is kind of flawed because it requires one to address one's own perceptions, and isn't "@asshole-ness" a socially constructed identity?  That is, it depends on how others see you and react to you, not just your behavior, although behavior does influence the perception.  

I was very tempted in this quiz to answer "sometimes" or "to some people" as my behavior varies over time and depending on the person.  I turn the other cheek badly (I wanted Bin Laden dead).  While I do think some people fit into the category of always and some in the category of never, I think most folks are in the category of "it depends."  The real question is how to handle the folks who are always or nearly always, as I have mentioned before, the trick is how the community handles the bad folks.


I probably need to read this book, as my reactions to @ssholes almost certainly does not make things better.

World's Apart: Reactions to the Killing of Bin Laden

I am not a legal or moral scholar so I am ill-equipped to get into a sophisticated argument about the legalities of Bin Laden's demise.  Yet, I have to note that the sentiments in Europe (or at least Germany) are a stark contrast to those in the US.*  See here for a short review of the criticisms thus far. 

* Yes, there are Americans are who most critical of this, but not the mainstream.  Michael Moore proved himself out of the mainstream and out of touch by claiming that this is where the US lost its soul.  If the US had a soul to lose, it would have been lost after Dresden, after My Lai, after Iran-Contra, after the invasion of Iraq or the revelations of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, etc.  Moore is in desperate need of some perspective sauce.

My reactions to particular takes on this:

Der Spiegel, under the headline “Justice, American Style,” reports an expert’s view that it’s “questionable whether the USA can still claim to be engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaida.”

• The intel collected thus far suggests very much otherwise.  AQ never declared a cease-fire or surrendered.  Instead, it was still planning further attacks with Osama involved, at least at the conceptual level.

But Hamburg judge Heinz Uthmann went even further. He alleges that the chancellor’s statement was nothing short of illegal, and filed a criminal complaint against Merkel midweek, the daily Hamburger Morgenpost reported Friday.
“I am a law-abiding citizen and as a judge, sworn to justice and law,” the 54-year-old told the paper, adding that Merkel’s words were “tacky and undignified.”
In his two-page document, Uthmann, a judge for 21 years, cites section 140 of the German Criminal Code, which forbids the “rewarding and approving” of crimes. In this case, Merkel endorsed a “homicide,” Uthmann claimed.

• Huh. Merkel can be tacky, no doubt.  But going so far as to prosecute her for saying she is glad Bin Laden is dead?  Oh my.  How would this guy feel about Valkyrie?  The effort by German officers to kill Hitler?  Were they homicidal maniacs?  Yes, comparing Bin Laden to Hitler is a bit much, but they both committed mass murder and neither one declared any intent to cease and desist before they died. 

I would really like to see a poll taken of Europeans (I am sure this is already in the works): are you glad Bin Laden is dead? Do you approve of the US effort to kill Bin Laden?  I think the elites might just be out of touch with their populace.  I cannot help but note the contradictions--that Europeans Germans seem to be more upset that there are more Muslims in their society (almost entirely peaceful) and upset that the US killed the one Muslim (technically and avowedly but a bad one, given how many Muslims he helped to kill) who actually was responsible for killing significant numbers of Europeans (and Africans, Arabs, Americans, Australians, Indians, etc).

On the other hand, this is actually somewhat consistent.  After all, the Germans opposed the effort to take down Qaddafi (ok, Merkel did, the parties disagreed).  So, the basic approach is to let Muslim leaders kill Muslims, but that it is wrong for Americans to kill Bin Laden. 

I have not read the European press.  The piece linked above focuses solely on the Germans.  What are the Dutch, the Danes, the Poles, the Italians, the French, the Brits, the Spaniards, and all saying about this?  Will public opinion vary by which countries got hit by AQ terrorism?  After all, with regard to AQ, Germany has only hosted terrorists and have prevented all (or nearly all) attacks.  I doubt the Brits or the Spaniards feel quite the same way.

All I can say is that it is easy to be smug when one's hands are not near the wheel.  But when one has choices, very difficult ones, then you must make the best call possible.  Afghanistan and Pakistan always, always present us with a set of bad alternatives and the hard part is figuring out which is least bad.  The Obama administration faced a very difficult set of choices.  Better lucky than good, although on that night, the troops (and dog) were both. 

Another Conspiracy Theory Bites the Dust?

Al Qaeda has acknowledged on its websites that Bin Laden is dead.  So, will that deal a, ahem, deathblow to the Deathers who deny that the US killed Bin Laden?  Probably not so much as Truthers never took Bin Laden and folks at their word.  Conspiracy theories do not die, because the zealots who buy into them are very good at ignoring reality.  Always easier to hold onto a belief than try to fit uncomfortable bits of reality into one's world view. 

So, just as Obama's long-form birth certificate only convinced some folks, AQ statements about the death of Bin Laden may not be bought by the Deathers.  Still, for those who can be persuaded, this acknowledgment is significant.  Confirmation is not a bad thing at all.  I just wanted to point out that it will not convince everyone. 

Dive! Dive! Dive!

I find this video to be wonderfully strange:


Why?  Because laying out for the frisbee, on offense or defense, has been a part of my game for as long as I have played.  You see, I have no ups but plenty of downs.  That is, I cannot jump very high, but have long been willing and eager to throw myself horizontally at a flying disk.  Not something that everyone is willing to do.  I never trained to do it.  It just happened---I was reaching for a disk and focusing so much that I extended myself as far as I could go.  As a result, I find it funny that step three here is focus on the disk.  That is step one.

The video also raises a long-debated issue--front first or side first?  I have almost always dived with my body turning over, so that I hit on a shoulder blade (nearly always the right one, and then slide across a diagonal from top right shoulder blade across my back to my left hip. My favorite grass strains come from such a pattern of impact.  People argue that you are most likely to blow out a shoulder that way, but the folks I know who have broken a collarbone or popped out their shoulder were those who dive more like Superman--chest first.  I also think that if it is about extending reach, then it leads one to reach more with one hand than the other, naturally causing the body to go on its side. 

Injuries from diving? Well, besides getting kicked in the face once or twice, the most frequent injury would be scrapes--on my forearms so that they now have scars where I repeatedly land, on my hips (though UnderArmor prevents those mostly), knees, and such.  I did get a hand stepped on last year, which did more damage to my wedding ring (now it is more oblong) than to my finger.  Perhaps I should not jinx it by saying that I have never hurt my shoulders by laying out.

Yes, I take pride in it.  Nothing feels better than laying out to block a pass.  Not even laying out to catch a scoring pass.  Most of my laying out these days is catching errant dump passes, but I occasionally will layout on defense and stop a pass.  My favorite layout of my ultimate career came early--my third year at Oberlin, I believe, maybe fourth, at a big game in a tournament at Ohio State, playing the big school that we had either never or rarely beat.  Twas late in the game, Gabe Brownstein attempted a Hammer throw (which was just making its way into Ohio in the late 1980's) towards me while I was in the endzone.  I had to stop suddenly and dive backwards to catch it since it was behind me by a good bit.  I caught for the penultimate score of the game, if I remember correctly. The team was most impressed.

I am not sure I would teach someone how to dive.  I would just encourage folks to play on wet fields since impacting on a soft, sliding surface (a la the slip and slide in the video) is far easier than on a hard-packed surface.  Field turf is actually ok, if you have Underarmor type gear covering elbows and hips. 

My only regret--a narcissistic one: while there have been pictures and videos of games in which I have played, I have never seen tape of any of my dives.  Mostly, I just see myself throwing (which is about 95% of my game).

Bin Laden's Last Bequest

I probably should not overestimate Bin Laden's cleverness, but might it be possible that he located himself near Pakistani military institutions deliberately so that if he were found and killed that it would upset US-Pakistani relations and destabilize Pakistan?  Is that giving OBL too much credit? 

The larger point is that it cannot be unintentional to put his hidey-hole McMansion/compound next to the Pakistan military academy.  There was some intention--we just don't know what it was.  Perhaps the food is especially good here?  The sunsets?  The hiking trails?  I have no clue, but there will be heaps of speculation about this.

For a sharper take than anything I can provide, see Chris Fair's piece* at, yes, you guessed it, foreignpolicy.com.  Also, see Vali Nasr's* op-ed: "If history is any guide, Pakistan cannot be relied upon to make the right decision. In the coming weeks, Islamabad is likely to hunker down in reaction to bin Laden’s death and then go after the CIA’s eyes and ears around Pakistan."

* This raises a completely different question--do I like certain stuff because I have met the people, or do I meet the people because I like their stuff?  Well, the cases of these two people, I met them more or less accidentally, so no intentionality there.  Moreover, I really do not know squat about Pakistan (despite appearing on local radio yesterday to talk about it) so it cannot say that I like their takes because they confirm my beliefs--my beliefs are embryonic.