Deja Vu Quebec Style

Watching the coverage of the summer election campaign in Quebec has, of course, spawned nightmares.  Of more corruption or of more separatism.  It reminds me of two recent elections: the 2007 provincial one and the more recent Montreal municipal election:

In 2007, three parties ran for election for the Quebec National Assembly (the state legislature to my American audience): the federalist Liberals who were the incumbents; the Parti Quebecois who were trying to run a less ethnic campaign, trying to get votes from recent immigrants; and the Action Democratique du Quebec, which was a center-right party that had formed to offer an economic alternative but focused in this election on xenophobia---anti-immigration. The party came in second, stealing more votes from the PQ than from the Liberals, but both more established parties realized that being pro-immigration was a vote loser but being xenophobic was cool.  And what is the best evidence of this?  The head of the PQ, Pauline Marois said this when taking over:
“Let’s stop being afraid. … Afraid to seem intolerant. … Afraid to speak of memory, of history, of people, of identity, of culture.”

In other words, xenophobia is hip.  Indeed, their platform reads as a "hey, if you were not alienated before by our insistence on French, you will be now" manifesto.  It would impose the language rules that currently exist for K-11 (no 12th grade) onto provincially subsidized day care and the CEGEPs (the free colleges that combine junior college with vocational stuff and serve to replace 12th grade and the first year of university).  They might even insist on Quebec citizenship with language fluency in order to do basic civil stuff.  Just awful, awful, awful.

So, I see visions of 2007 dancing in my head.  But I also see the 2009 Montreal municipal election as a good harbinger.  Or bad harbinger.  Why?  Three parties, none directly affiliated with the provincial ones (sort of).  One was led by the mayor, Gerald Tremblay, who had presided over a heap of corruption scandals.  Another was led by Louise Harel, whose number two had to drop out due to ties to corruption.  Harel had previously been a big cheese in the PQ and had launched the merger policy that had upset much of Montreal.  The PQ tends to run against Montreal since the voters are elsewhere, so having someone with a basically anti-Montreal record run for Mayor was kind of entertaining.  Anyhow, the third party was led by someone who was seen as a bit unstable.  So, a three-sided race, which led to the Mayor slipping back into power by getting 1/3 of the votes--such an overwhelming mandate, eh? 

So, the current election is really a four party race: the Liberals, who chose this time frame to avoid the corruption investigation in the fall; the PQ, who are returning to their bread and butter of xenophobia and separatism but also trying to capitalize on the student protests (even though the students are not too popular); the CAQ, a new party that replaced the ADQ as the standard bearer for arguing ambiguously about pushing the separatism can down the road while focusing on improving the economy; and Quebec Solidaire, a party that claims to be more faithfully left wing and separatist than the PQ.  Which could make it quite likely that either the PQ or the Liberals form a minority government.  Which might not be a bad outcome since the PQ could not really push forward a referendum with the CAQ and Liberals having enough votes to resist that.  And the Liberals, if they are returned to power with just a plurality of seats, well, then they can stumble along for a while.

H/T to https://twitter.com/pebayf

Anyhow, 2012 will probably be a mix of 2007 and 2009.  Except for one thing--I am no longer in Quebec.  So, I can be more entertained than upset, although I realize that Quebec has a great ability to export its dysfunctionality.  If the PQ win, they plan to demand a series of things that they cannot get, hoping to mobilize the Quebec population.  This may work even though everyone knows that this is a deliberate strategy, but it may not work because people are sick of the separatism.  

Good times.  Well, good times for my friends at McGill who can analyze this stuff.  And good times for my family, now happily ensconsced in Ottawa where the tunnels do not collapse and where the frisbee fields are not far, far away across fragile bridges.

Billy!

I had to drive to Quebec to pick my daughter up from summer camp as it is in between sessions (one more to go!), and listened to Alec Baldwin's podcast.  He is actually quite a good host, and he had Billy Joel on.  It was a very interesting hour, as Alec asked Billy about various points in his career and the evolution of his music.  They both are very gifted mimics so they went on interesting tangents.

I have long been a fan of Billy Joel, and did find his later albums to seem to be well timed to match the points in my life--like when I married a super-model.  Seriously, it was funny how several of his albums did catch my moods at the time well. 

Anyhow, check out the podcast--it is a breezy, interesting hour.

When Technology Pre-empts Thinking

My memory is shot. Instead of trying to figure out something, I just google or wiki it.  The 21st century breeds a bit of laziness with our dependence on the internet.  I often see folks asking questions on message boards that should be easy to figure out or perhaps they can talk to someone.  Sure, I have crowd-sourced a few times lately when I might have gotten some answers if I did the work myself. 

Why is this a problem?  It is a problem if that breeds habits when one enters the policy world.  In a very interesting post on civil-military relations, Rosa Brooks conveys a story about folks in the White House responding to a crisis and asking to move a drone to cover the event.  Josh Foust points out that there are other assets in play that might work better.  Also, drones have complications attached to them, like who says they can fly over? 

This is more than just the "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem that armed drones made endemic lately.  This is a problem with policy folks who see only one means by which to gain info, when there are many, each with pro's and cons.  But as Josh points out in a subsequent tweet, getting agencies to share information is hard even though that was lesson #1 after 9/11 (and, of course, lesson #1 before 9/11).

I am not anti-drone.  I just think that any technology can be used well or poorly.  Drones, since they don't risk American lives, have been to the go-to tool for all problems, even when there are other means available.  It is not just risk-averse but lazy. 

But I can say that because I am comfy at my desk.  I am not about to drive to a library and look through stacks.  So, I guess it takes a lazy, unimaginative person to know one?

Surprising Cultural Variation

A month into my new life in Ottawa/Ontario, and one key difference stands out (actually many, but this one is where QC seems better): beer is sold mostly in cans in the places that sell beer. Of course, that is the other difference--you can get beer in the grocery stores in Quebec but not Ontario.  Anyway, the beer distributors in Ontario (having flashbacks to growing up in Pennsylvania) sell mostly canned beer, not bottled.  There are even a few microbrews that sell in cans.

This brings back bad memories, growing up with swill in cans.  As it turns out, it may not be that cans are inherently inferior as this article discusses (H/T to Pete Trumbore).  But a key point would be this: if no glasses are available to distance the beer from the icky smell of aluminum (and I like to pronounce aluminum in my head the way the British do), then a bottle > can.  Still, at home, I guess cans would be better, but on the frisbee field, I would stick with bottles if I can (oops).

Breaking Bad Frustration

To be clear, my frustration with Breaking Bad is not with the show but with the podcasts about it.  First, the folks (Sepinwall, the people at Grantland) seem entirely too obsessed with the pacing of this season.  They argue that the format of eight episodes now and eight later raise challenges about how we are going to get to the end of the first set of eight with episodes that do not advance the plot or raise the tension.

Give me a freaking break.  The folks behind the show have long ago earned our trust.  Pretty sure they have a plan for the season, as evidenced by the teaser before the first episode a few weeks ago.  This is just like Mad Men where folks wonder about where things are going too early and then marvel at the season.  Just breathe.

Second is below the break since we now get spoiler-y:

Secession or Corruption? No Thanks

My former colleague Jacob Levy is speaking words of wisdom about the next Quebec provincial election.  See the story below for coverage including two hits by Jake the Snake:

When All the World is a Stage

And we are just players.  I am mostly inspired by the on-going photoshoot of me.  The Faculty of Public Affairs at Carleton has a magazine, and there are folks writing an article on bloggers in the Faculty.*  So, as one of the few bloggers in the FPA (second FPA in which I am a member--Foreign Policy Analysis section of the ISA, but never mind that), they interviewed me yesterday and are shooting me right now.

*  When you see Faculty at Canadian universities, think College or School as in College/School of Arts and Sciences.

So, I thought I would blog about it so that they would have "action" shots.**  Reminds me of the TV folks in Lubbock filming at my office and needing me to type or read or do something so that they could ahve some action while the interview audio is played.

** As it turned out, they were more interested in the crap I keep around my desk than any action shot, except for one where I am holding a wand.... yes, the Death Stick!

Anyhow, the questions yesterday focused on why I blog.  Which actually caused me to ponder why others do not.  Yes, it takes some time, but it is quickly becoming the easiest way to get our ideas as knowledge creators/generators/disseminators/brokers (yes, all of those seem mighty high falutin' and I attach) out to the world.  Of course, the problem is that one can say something that might be regretted later on (see my more recent post about a certain scholar who is attacking the profession).  Still, with so many folks being upset about our publications being gated by academic publishers and that our work is impenetrable due to jargon, etc., it seems to me that we need to blog.  No longer a matter of luxury or hobby, but approaching a requirement for doing academic work if you want to be relevant.

But, of course, it is not for everyone, and the big problem ahead is getting through the clutter of millions of blogs.  Blogging is probably hitting the same process as other internet and non-internet production processes--proliferation, consolidation, merger, division, and so on.  Joining blogging collectives seems to be the thing to do these days. 

Just some ruminations while my paparazzi prepare to make me look good (and, yes, they are taking a heap of time ....).

What is your take on the present and future of blogging by academics?

What Is In A Name?

I revised slightly my piece on the Opening Ceremonies and Macedonia vs. FYROM for the Canadian International Council.  Check it out.

Viral Marketing I Can Believe In

AMC is engaging in some interesting bargaining tactics with the satellite folks:


Oh my.

Politicology? Um, No Thanks

Last month, I blasted a Political Scientist, or perhaps a Politicologist, Jacqueline Stevens, for her piece in the New York Times.  This past week, she took issue with her critics, including me.  So, the conversation continues.  I don't want to address everything in her latest post or in the entire debate, but I would like to clarify a few things and respond to a few things.

First, she takes a bit of umbrage at the title of my post: Self-Hating Political Scientist.  She points out that this is a phrase often used to Zionists against less passionate defenders of the Israel, and that was not my intent.*  However, I used the phrase not with Israel in mind but because I was already frustrated with the folks attacking political science from the Right with Representative Flake at the front of the battle, seeking to de-fund political science and only political science.  Why?  Because he had problems with our epistemology?  With our definition of our discipline is?  No, because political scientists are asking questions that make him and other reality-averse folks uncomfortable, like the quality of representation and the politics of climate change (these are the examples Flake raised: "So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysis; $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do.").

* Zionist ideologues are probably not huge fans of my posts (here or here), either, given that I consider Israel not to be the center of anyone's foreign policy universe except for Israel.  Oh, and conservatives are not so thrilled with me either.

Stevens wrote her piece criticizing the discipline in a particular time and place--this June in the NYT--essentially giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The enemy?  That would be forces of ignorance--as the Flake Amendment, singling out political science, was aimed at reducing the funds available to do political inquiry.  By taking our intra-discipline squabble about what our discipline is to the editorial section of the NYT, Stevens was giving these folks more ammunition.  Hence my ire.  Hence my labeling her as a Self-Hating Political Scientist when I could have used other labels with right-wing associations as well--such as fellow traveler. In her most recent post, she quite clearly hates the label of political science, as I discuss below, so I don't think the title to my previous post was all that off the mark.  To be clear, I am not invoking the whole "I am sorry if you offended" non-apology because I am not apologizing, just clarifying.

Second, Stevens repeats the idea that some of our arguments and findings are not worth the investment of public dollars because they are "re-representing journalistic observations through equations and not producing new knowledge."  Journalists often get it right, but they often ascribe to events dynamics that are perhaps less than crucial.  For instance, heaps of coverage of political debates but most social science find these to be of marginal influence.  Newspapers report all kinds of stuff and some of our findings concur with the banal, everyday understandings.  But our work also (a) disagrees with much that is asserted in newspapers (see the hardly conservative views of media coverage by Chis & Will Call 'em Out); (b) covers stuff that media does not assert; and (c) adjudicates between the conflicting conventional wisdoms in the news media.  Since when have we seen security dilemmas raised in newspapers as the causes of arms races?  Speaking more closely to Stevens' area of interest: conventional newspaper accounts usually use ancient hatreds--that ethnic groups hate each other--as a central explanation of any civil war.  Does that mean we should ignore studies that show identity to be more complex than that?  I get back to identity further below.

Moving, Electronically

I have a new profile page on the web.  My next step is building my own webpage with docs, links, etc.  If only I had a graphics designer gene buried somewhere.

Best Names for Voter Restriction Efforts

The New York Times has an editorial today entitled "Killing a Fly with a Bazooka" about the efforts by Republicans to "tilt the playing field."  I am now having a contest here at the Spew for the best names for this effort.  I don't think Voter Suppression is good enough.  Here are my suggestions:

• Voter Fraud Fraud
• The Disenfranchise Movement
• Repealing the Voting Rights Act One State at a Time
• Election Wars Six: Revenge of the GOP
• White Man Can't Jump 2: Tilting the Basketball Court

I prefer the first two (easiest acronyms) but the third does have some charm.

What do you suggestion?  Or Prefer?

Cupcakes Uber Alles

If having a cupcake as part of my breakfast is wrong, I don't want to be right:

And, yes, I got the snitch!  Thanks to all of my well-wishers!

When UnOriginal Movies Are Really Unoriginal

My wife and I watched Real Steel the other night (it is on the Canadian movie channel his week), and it was striking how some of the fight sequences seemed to be shot for shot like those in Rocky, especially Rocky 3.  The big bad at the end was clearly Mr T's Clubber Lang.  Anyhow, I thought of that when I saw this (spoiler below the break):

Olympic Inspiration or Why Some Greeks Think I Am a Wanker

I was not watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, but was watching the twitter snarkery when the topic of FYROM came up.  I guess Macedonia marched along with Fiji and France rather than with Manitoba (kidding).  Why?  Because Greece has obsessively blocked Macedonia's entrance into international organizations under its preferred name.  So FYROM--Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the default until this is resolved. 

What did I tweet that angered the Greeks (well, the ones I angered anyway) on twitter:

Screw that, make the Greeks give up their name as part of debt deal MT @jilliancyork: Poor Macedonia (I mean FYROM).Just change your name
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) July 27, 2012

The Greeks will say that the name Macedonia poses an irredentist threat to Greece--that Macedonia would claim northern parts of Greece.  Who am I to question that?

Well, I wrote the book on irredentism.  Okay, I co-wrote the book on irredentism.  Ok, ok, I co-wrote a book on irredentism.  Anyhow, yes, there are folks in Macedonia who have irredentist ambitions, but these folks are not a powerful force.  More importantly, Greece is a much more powerful country--militarily, economically, politically--so there is really no threat at all of Macedonia taking over hunks of Greece to create a Greater Macedonia.  No, Macedonia is actually threatened by irredentism--the brief skirmish that NATO ended in 2001 was part of a Greater Albania project.  Actually, aside from Turkey (which is a big aside), the biggest irredentist threat in the neighborhood is ... Greece.  Greece's involvement in Cyprus has often been a bit questionable, and Greece has played politics with the Albanian Orthodox Church to get folks in there that support giving up hunks of Albania to Greece.

To be clear, I am not saying that I am in love with the government of Macedonia, which has often been flawed.  What I am saying is that Macedonia does not present a real security threat to Greece.  Instead, it provides an opportunity for politicians to take nationalist stances--that the politician who lets Macedonia enter an international organization as Macedonia will be accused of betrayal.  I compared this outbidding dynamic of a largely substance-less issue to be akin to the silliness of American politicians comparing flag pins that they now must wear or else be accused of being not sufficiently American or patriotic of whatever.  The difference is that the flag pin competition has not had any real impact, whereas keeping Macedonia out of organizations has hurt its economy and perhaps been damaging politically.  Rather than focusing on the substantial issues of the day, Macedonian politicians can focus on the name game, too. 

Indeed, as I have mentioned before, these nationalist games are handy distractions from good governance.  How has Greece's government performed during the era of FYROM/the "threat" of Macedonian irredentism?  Not so good.

As a result, I got called a name that apparently means wanker in Greek.  It does not bother me at all--I might even be a bit proud today.  Antagonizing nationalists around the world? Not a bad slogan.  Not quite as good as "danger is my middle name." 

Anyhow, what an appropriate way to kick off the Olympics, which is one of the many great presents Greece has given the planet (democracy, philosophy, Oedipus jokes, and tzatziki are a few others).   Enjoy the games!

Friday Nerd Blogging: Check It Ooot!

My latest contribution to Friday Nerd Blogging at Duck of Minerva is more than just the standard youtube video or three.  It reviews an excellent book, Redshirts, that has changed my perspective as I partake of fiction now.   Check it out.

Romney Doesn't Know!

Hearing today about Romney's poor start to his Eurotrip reminded me of another poor start to a Eurotrip (NSFW for language):


To be clear, this was supposed to be the easiest part of the trip: they speak the same language (more or less), the Conservative Party is in power.  Just don't kiss the Queen, slap her back or mention that you have met with the head of MI-6.  Ooops! I just wonder how Romney will mess up in subsequent stops, like will over-pandering to Israel and by proxy to evangelical Christians make him seem just a bit whacko?  Or just out of touch? 

Of course, the question really is this: will Romney play the criticisms here to his base like he did for his NAACP trip?  That is, unpopularity in Europe is a sign of righteousness, just as not pandering to African-Americans at the NAACP meeting is a way to play to the whites in the GOP base--that is the entire base.

I don't know.  But I am pretty sure that Romney doesn't know, Romney doesn't know, and so on.

Accountability, Eh?

For the past couple of years, I have had much fun going back and forth with Phil Lagassé, an expert on Canadian defence institutions, about how accountability works up here.  I have been asserting that there is no parliamentary oversight over the Canadian Forces, and his rejoinder is that oversight is a ministerial responsibility, and it is the job of parliament to oversee the Minister of National Defence.  

Which means I am right--no parliamentary oversight over the military.  But when the Minister, um, underperforms, and parliament does not do much about it, it raises questions about this whole process (process, by the way, is the dead giveaway when you are talking to someone--Americans say pra-sess, Canadians say pro-sess).   

Just in the past couple of days, we have had a series of stories about Canadian civil-military relations that remind us that this stuff is really hard.  One story focuses on Libya: that the Minister, Peter MacKay, either didn't know what he was talking about or lied when the question of costs came up.  In the new story, one of the papers got the emails where the military folks were pondering how to react to MacKay's announcement that the mission cost half as much as it really did and that he didn't get any different info from the Canadian Forces even though the Canadian Forces, via General Jon Vance said it indeed did tell the Minister about the costs.  So, was the General wrong, that they told the Minister the wrong info?  Not clear but the exchange is:

Cyr said finance officials were working to confirm what MacKay knew, but "bottom line is that if MND says he did not know, then he did not know."
"If I was wrong I'll certainly own up to it," Vance replied.
"Not suggesting you are or were wrong," Cyr answered in the last email of the chain. "A political truth can sometimes be different."

 Ah, truthiness with a hint of maple flavor.

The second recent story is that DND is cutting the program whereby the CF takes members of parliament on rides--airborne or otherwise--to demonstrate their programs.  This is in reaction to another MacKay mistake--using CF helo on a vacation trip.  Folks in DND got the CF to find information about opposition critics using CF for transport in order to silence the criticism, but these other trips were well within the parameters of educating members of parliament about weapons systems and not about convenient vacation rides.  I engaged with Phil at the time about how questionable it was for the CF to either be compelled to or be enthusiastic about digging through the records to make the opposition look bad.  So, to protect itself, the CF is now out of this business.  Which means that members of parliament can be comfortable in their ignorance about how the military works.

Crisis or not, the system here seems broken.  Not to say that the American system where Congress actually does have a significant role is better or unbroken.  Just that the Canadian system seems broken.  The Minister of National Defence has been overseeing a series of train wrecks--the F35 purchase, truck bids that have to be cancelled, mistakes about the costs of Libya (still darned cheap for what they were trying to do), and so on.  MacKay, because he was leader of one of the major Conservative fractions in Canada before they united, is, dare I say it, bullet-proof.  Harper cannot get rid of him, and so he cannot really be held to account for whatever is going on at DND.  So, accountability at the ministry?  Not so much.  Parliamentary oversight over someone at DND?  Not so much.

The good news is that this will raise heaps of good questions for my first class at Carleton--Civil-Military Relations. 

Update:  See the comment thread as Phil was strawman-ed while out of town.  He responds in the comments and then I respond to him.  The important thing is this: I distracted him from his lovely vacation in France.  So, I win.

Science Fiction and Ethnic Identity

My latest post at Political Violence @ a Glance.  I compare an episode of Star Trek to one of Babylon 5 to show the evolution in how we think about ethnic identity.

Voter Fraud Fraud Illustrated

Check out this piece at Mother Jones.  It does a wonderful job of depressing me early in the morning--demonstrated that voter fraud legislation is awful, awful, awful.  I wrote about this only two weeks ago, but the stats at MJ pushed me to write again.  I cannot think of a more destructive, anti-American movement than this.  What about the presumption of innocence?  What about overcoming a past where Blacks were systematically denied the ability to vote? 

I am glad to see Doonsebury calling, pardon the phrase, a spade a spade:

The bird, of course, is Jim Crow.