Yet More Guns, More Butter

 Heaps of baking today as I spent yesterday at the Diefenbunker, learning more about the Cold War and Canada's role in it.  So, two more episodes of Guns and Butter:

Cream cheese as a central ingredient was a focus today for these recipes, while I talked about the spat between the Democratic officeholders who had served in the military or CIA and Trump over illegal orders. 

• 

  Cinnamon roll 
  blondies

  Cookies and cream cookies 
• Cinnamon roll blondies 
  
• Sparkle sugar cookies.  I just dropped the almond extract since I don't want to trigger any allergies. 
• Maple cinnamon star cookies.  These are not quite done since Sally says they should be frozen before the last step of dipping into melted white chocolate.  So, that will have to wait until just before the delivery date. 

I did a second Guns and Butter reel to talk about the aforementioned dipping challenge, the difficulty of rollout cookies requiring a consistent thickness of dough, and, yes, stupid ways to think about burden-sharing. 

A Hidden Part of Professing: Assessing

 I was talking to someone recently, and I said something about the quality of someone else's argument, I guess, and this person joked that I was being snobby, that I was judging someone else's ideas.  And it made me realize, as much as our job of professing is to generate ideas and share them far and wide, a huge hunk of what we do is judging the ideas and arguments of others.  

It starts with, alas, yes, the literature review.  In damn near every academic publication, after we get through the intro, we start by evaluating the state of the field--what the relevant ideas and arguments are, where they fall short, so that we can show where our contribution is supposed to fit in.  Indeed, I used to joke that grad students are first trained in how to destroy and that the hard part of creating awaits them after comprehensive exams where again much of the effort is in criticizing.

Once we finish our phd and get a job, we are asked to assess and assess and assess:

• Grading: in ye olde days, I don't think we called the assignments assessments or assessment opportunities, but we evaluate whether the students understand the material, can apply it, have applied it, have done the research, and put together cogent, well-evidenced arguments.  Or whatever the assignment is, we assess it.
• Teaching: not only are we grading, but we are assessing the field's arguments so that we can present the material to the students.  We don't assign them craptastic reading unless we do so to make a point (Clash of Civilizations? Yuck but yeah).   When we present the stuff in our classes, we often assess it along the way or we encourage the students to assess it or both. 
• Reviewing: so much of what we do is reviewing.  
• We review manuscripts submitted to journals and presses--are the arguments original, is the research design appropriate and well executed, are the findings interpreted well, are the implications reasonable. 
• We review job candidate files--is the work interesting and well executed, does the person have potential for more good work, will they be a decent colleague, can they teach,etc.
• We review promotion/tenure files: has this person done enough research to make a contribution?  Do they have a good trajectory? 
• Discussant/Moderator/Commentator:  when we are on panels at conferences, our job is to assess the paper and the presentation, giving our take on the ideas and how they are executed.  
• Media: For those of us who engage traditional media, we are often asked to provide factual answers but much of the time we are asked to weigh in on competing claims, evaluating the competing ideas and those advocating them.

People often talk about the marketplace of ideas.  That analogy has all kinds of problems, but in any market, you have experts evaluating products (markets of stuff create markets of assessors?) which then may affect the demand for and consumption of some ideas.  In the marketplace of ideas, there are those who have much invested in the ideas they are espousing, including jobs, power, income, etc, and those who have much less at stake. We call the latter academics.  Sure, academics can get money through their advocacy of ideas and even power, but most are just doing their usual assessing and not getting much in the way of money or pay for it.  Over my career, I have made very little money doing media stuff--some here and there but not enough to buy me or even rent me--and no, it has not led to power, at least, again, not that much.  I absolutely believe it is important to have disinterested or less biased folks in any marketplace of ideas assessing what is bs, what is based on good science, and so forth.  We may not be listened to as bad ideas often have a greater elective affinity than good ideas.  But we try.  

In all of this, yes, professors are constantly assessing and judging.  It may appear that we are arrogant--that we think we are better than other people.  And certainly that applies, but it is not that we all think we are smarter than other people.  It is that we think we have been trained to make assessments, that we are professional assessors.  We should stick to our lanes of expertise, but, well, some of us (me) tend to drive outside our lanes quite a bit.   

This post is just a rumination of a different way of looking at my job and what I do.  That it is not just about creating knowledge (which always sounded a bit high falutin' to me) but judging ideas and arguments.   

When Episode Themes Get Stretched

 I posted this yesterday--the latest Guns and Butter. The inspiration was that two of the recipes/batches had hidden ingredient--caramel in one, marshmallows in the other.  But the peppermint brownie ones.... didn't really apply.

 

So, I guess I have throw a flag at myself:

 

 And, yes, my blog is one place for me to store the Guns and Butter Reels in case instagram gets funky (which has been lately).  

More Guns and More Butter But Less Threat Inflation

 Today's Guns and Butter Reel features Mexican Hot Chocolate Cookies and my discussing threat inflation.  First, yes, I did invest in a phone mount that I can put on my wall so I can have a better angle on my baking.  Second, no, I am not hiring an editor or using any CDSN/CSIDS/NPSIA/SSHRC/MINDS/whatever resources for this.  This is too silly for any government-funded help, even if this does count as "knowledge mobilization" even if the knowledge is often a bit thin.  I am trying to make these shorter since instagram videos and baking videos and their ilk are not long.  So, I realized today that when I am recording a video, there is a small timer on the screen.  And the key is to focus on one topic, one quote, one thing, rather than trying to attack or address something from multiple angles (such as in yesterday's discussion of Jessica Green's book where I invoked both Machiavelli and the classic concentrated pain, diffuse benefits tale).  

I am trying to tie the IR discussion to the thing I am baking.  So, as I stuffed mostly chocolate dough with frozen mini-marshmallows and not overstuffing them while talking about threat inflation.  Why threat inflation?  Because I guest lectured about Arctic security this week.  I am not an Arctic Security expert, but I do call myself an Arctic Security Skeptic™.  So, I discussed how the government of Canada pretty deliberately raised concerns about the Chinese and Russian threats to the Arctic to get the public to support defence spending.  

My take:

•  Russia's Arctic investments are almost entirely due to their feelings of insecurity over their vast Arctic--that there will be far more traffic on their side, that this used to be the one direction that a frequently invaded country didn't have to worry about.  And, as Napoleon said, don't interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake.  Putting a lot of weapons/bases/etc in the north is mostly a waste of money.
• China's Arctic threat is not military but economic and political--offering to provide internet for Inuit peoples, buying up mining firms, etc.  Not a random balloon or surveillance ship. What the hell is up there to surveil?  
• The US?  Actually, the US is on the right side of the Law of the Sea and Canada is on the wrong side.  The big thing with the US right now is NORAD modernization so I talked a bit about that.
• That threat inflation scares the folks up there, which ain't good.
• What is needed is more infrastructure/support for the peoples of the north so that our sovereignty claims are, ironically, maintained through them, not despite them or around them. 
• Climate change, disinformation, and cyber stuff are the key threats to Canadians in the north and everywhere else, and that stuff is mostly not military (and the military really wants not to do.emergency ops).   

I do think Canada needs to spend more $ on defence because of the threats elsewhere and because of the use of the military as an instrument of, yes, policy.  But not because of little green men invading the high north.

 

Anyhow, more cookie making and more of these reels over the next month as I prepare for the big cookie delivery of winterfest.  As always, baking is joy, cookies are joy, giving cookies is joy, and making videos about IR and baking is also joy, at least for me. 

We Have Liftoff! A Great Overseen or Overlooked Book Launch

 Last night, Carleton's Faculty of Public and Global Affairs held an Authors Meet Readers event at Irene's Pub for the Steve/Phil/Dave book: Overseen or Overlooked--Legislators, Armed Forces and Democratic Accountability.  I gave our origin story--how the book started from a surprising conversation with a Canadian member of parliament who sat on the defence committee.  His lack of information, lack of influence surprised me (not so much Phil) and got us started on this project.  Phil summarized our argument, dodging the invitation to discuss how hard it is to co-author with me.  Justin Massie, from UQAM, served as our discussant/commentator.  He asked great questions as did the audience, which was a good, engaged crowd.

 Our basic message--in most democracies, legislators and legislatures are not doing enough, and Canada's parliament is among the most blissfully ignorant.  Woot! 

Phil presented the argument of the book

Justin asked some very thoughtful questions
that produced an excellent conversation

Required post-event pic

 

You Can Meet Your Heroes: Inclusion Edition

 Last night, I had the privilege of attending the Vimy Gala to watch a truly outstanding person be recognized for a lifetime of making a difference.  Michelle Douglas has spent her life fighting for the inclusion and dignity of LGBTQ2S+ people after being kicked out of the Canadian Armed Forces for being a lesbian back when such folks were purged.  Her lawsuit ended the purge.  I want to share how this all happened and how Michelle did a great job of using her platform as Vimy Award winner to continue her fight.

The Conference on Defence Associations Institute is an interesting organization as the CDA part of it is essentially a combination of all of the veterans associations of Canada, with each one tied to a specifc speciality.  The Institute does some research, much engagement, and public education (and perhaps a smidge of lobbying?) on defence issues.  The CDAI is a partner of the CDSN, and I have been meeting up with its leaders long before the CDSN got going.  The gala is timed to coincide with the days leading up to Remembrance Day, and Vimy is a big hunk of Canadian history/nationalism/identity that someone else can explain better than I.  At each Vimy Gala they give a lifetime achievement award to someone who made a difference in Canadian defence.  Awardees have mostly been generals and admirals with some senior public servants and politicians.  Michelle very much is exceptional in every way including not being any of those folks.  

Gaëlle Rivard Piché is
in her first year as Executive
Director of CDAI and 
a NPSIA PhD!

I was asked to nominate someone as they were looking to get as broad a pool of candidates as possible.  I nominated Michelle with the help of several people: Artur Wilczynski (who did most of the writing of the nomination letter), Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, Luke Schleusener, Stéfanie von Hlatkly, and Jean-Christophe Boucher.  I was asked last night why I nominated her, and the answer was simply: I know of no one else who made such a big difference on the Canadian Armed Forces and beyond.  Her lawsuit and subsequent activism reshaped one's imagination of who can serve in the CAF: anyone, no matter their background, their sexuality, whatever.  As a civ-mil scholar, I can't help but note that militaries are more effective if they reflect the country they seek to defend and if those soldiers/sailors/aviators are included and treated well.  Michelle played a major role in making that happen in Canada.  

 

 

The biggest benefit for me in this process was getting to know Michelle better.  We had several conversations since she learned of the award, so I learned more about her, her history, and, most impressively, her positive attitude towards Canada and the CAF.  You will see below, where I transcribe some of her speech, that she has not turned to hate or resentment for her poor treatment, the upending of her career and her life.  Instead, she has dedicated her life to making things better, and she's still hard at work doing so.  So, yes, you can meet your heroes.

Hanging out with terrific people 
is a key part of the Gala

Michelle's award comes at a key moment in time. The backlash against culture change (efforts to make the CAF more inclusive, especially for women) is on, and, indeed, a previous gala was used by a Vimy Award winner as the platform for an attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Candidates for office in the US and Canada (and elsewhere) have attacked the military as being too woke and have sought to exclude trans people from not just bathrooms but also from the military, from other careers, and, yes, from existence.  So, Michelle's fight is not over, and this speech gave her the chance to not just tell her story but to remind us of the cruelty of the past and the need to fight to keep those policies in the past.

Enough of me, what did Michelle say?  I will just list some of the highlights with some of my reactions:

•  She graduated at the top of her military courses, "my merit was obvious."  Note that those who argue against diversity, equity, and inclusion always falsely suggest there is a tradeoff between merit and efforts to improve diversity and inclusion.  By excluding her and others like her, the CAF was actually not promoting people by merit but discriminating against many qualified people for something that had nothing to do with their ability to shoot a gun, to fly a plane, to steer a ship, or to be an effective leader.
• Her discussion of her time in the Special Investigations Military Police unit which sought to root out espionage, sabotage, and ... homosexuals.  And, yes, this did remind me of Jack Reacher--Michelle is much smaller but also much mightier.
• The purge was not just about the CAF but also the RCMP and the federal public service: "the purge was cruel and traumatizing, was designed to harass us, sometimes criminalize us, institutionalize us, and always diminish us."
• The Canadian Museum for Human Rights: "the LGBT purge was Canada's longest running, largest scale violation of human rights of any workforce in Canadian history."  
• "The losses of the victims and survivors are tragic, the losses to Canada incalculable."
• "These were people who put up their hands to serve."
• "Never was one LGBT spy found. Not one.  The purge must surely be the most costly, least effective police investigation in Canadian history."
• She invoked Frederick Hardy, a gay soldier who died in World War I.  There have always been gays and lesbians and bisexuals and trans people in the armed forces (and in the world)--we just didn't know how many because these people were forced to hide their identities.  It is not that there are more LGBTQ people these days, just that they are freer to be their true selves ... for now.
• Re formal apology by PM Justin Trudeau: "Some say that Canada gives too many apologies, that they are empty gestures, signs of frailty.*  I can say that for those who experienced egregious injustice, having their pain acknowledged and hearing the commitment to change is deeply meaningful and is essential to reconciliation and healing. That formal apology helped many of us move on."
• "For thousands of survivors, justice delayed is still meaningful justice."
• "Ending discrimination by policy does not mean the end of discrimination in practice...."
• "Currently, in Canada and around the world, we see attempts to weaponize and politicize gender not unlike we saw in the past.  The purge should be seen as a cautionary tale."  She cited an international LGBT association: "that the purge should serve as a universal warning ... fear disguised as national security can become a tool to persecute minorities."
• "Supporting diversity isn't about wokeness or weakness, it is about dignity, fairness, respect, and strength."
• "As someone who worked for Canada, served Canada, sometimes criticized Canada, sometimes sued Canada, I have always loved Canada.  Canada is worth fighting for, our values, our democracy are treasured, special. ... So many have sacrificed everything in protection of these values and our democracy."
• "Quitting was not something I learned in the CAF."
• "We are better when we place respect, dignity, justice, and equality at the heart of all we do."
• "As I look around, I know I am not alone.  You think I am dreamer, I am not on the only one."

 Her conclusion with Imagine really hit home.  Michelle is more than a dreamer, she is a doer.  She made a huge difference.  I knew her speech would be terrific (she did talk to me about it ahead of time), and she delivered it so very well. I am guessing the tape will go online at the CDAI website.  It is worth a watch and a listen, as my list here does not do her speech justice.

I didn't do much besides organize a group of people to put her name forward, but still this is and will be one of things I have done that I am proudest of.  Her recognition, like the justice she poke of, is delayed, but very, very much earned.  And the timing is great given the forces at work to unravel what she and others have done.  

 

*  I had to explain to Michelle what subtweeting is.   

 

Still Reeling: Guns And Butter

 Last weekend, I was conferencing, so I am catching up this weekend on the baking.  So, I posted two reels of my baking and IR experiment.  This first focuses on humility and King Arthur apple cider snickerdoodles.  The second one focuses on Venezuela and gingerbread crinkle cookies.

 

Let me know what you think in the comments below or on the reels themselves.