London Regains The Lead: Fave Capital Again

 I have spent the last week in London, the first time in 14 years and only the second time since my seven week experience after my junior year in college.  I was here for the very first Civil-Military Relations Network workshop (or any other endeavor of our new network/grant), as Phil Lagassé is leading our Command research agenda.  The workshop featured historians and political scientists, so we can check our inter-disciplinary convo item on our goals/aspirations immediately.  The first day featured the historians, and so I learned much about the Romans and medieval military stuff. The second day mostly featured the political scientists. It was a great start for our seven year tour exploring strange old worlds and boldly going where we have sometimes gone before.

And, yes, it was also an excuse for me to enjoy London.  Much has changed since I last was here and much has not.  I had previously ranked London behind DC for my fave capital since everything on and near the Mall is quite spectacular, including the Smithsonian, the various war memorials, and such. But London's Whitehall area is pretty spectacular and hasn't been ruined by the awful pols who have led this place since Brexit.  

One key element was the timing--not so much the fourth of July of it--always interesting to be outside of the US on that date, including #250--but that the big huge Pride day was Saturday.  So, the city had pride flags all over the place, and, yes, many of them included stripes and such for Trans People despite the increased (since 2012) of Harry Potter merch and such.  JK Rowling may have greatly influenced the horrific transphobia of the UK, but she didn't make a dent on Saturday or in the week leading up to it.  I was staying near Trafalgar Square, which was the focal point of the celebration although there were parks all over the place with events.  It was maybe harder to find a shop or pub without a pride decoration than with one... but maybe that is my confirmation bias speaking.

The city was packed before the event and then more so on the day.  Luckily, I was here in between heat waves. I visited some places I had been before and some that were new to me.  I mostly walked since I was so close to many things, and I had an old Oyster card that I could use for a few tube rides.  I also took a boat ride for my very first time (I had a very strict budget way back in 1987).  

So, some highlights and then some observations:

• I spent a lot of time near Covent Garden.  I had some excellent tapas in the garden itself and shopped some of the markets. I didn't stay long to watch the buskers, but they were busy and entertaining.
• I walked through Westminster Abbey, which I hadn't done since 1987 (long lines, I think in my two previous 2000s visits).  Always impressive, so much history there, including some recent--markers if not graves?  for Sir Laurence Olivier and  John Gielguld, for example.
• On Saturday, I escaped the crowds by going to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, my first time that far east of London.  Some amazing history and science of which I knew not previously.  The National Maritime Museum is next door, and that, too, was fascinating.  
• I then took a boat to go back, stopping off at the Globe Theatre stop.  I walked from there to the Borough Yards/Market to check that out.  The going was challenging as the walk to and the area itself were crowded.  I passed by at least four groups of folks wearing silly stuff and dancing and singing (see below).  I then checked out the Tate Modern, as I prefer modern art. Some installations were simply breathtaking.
• On Sunday, I went to the Imperial War Museum, which I must have done before but don't remember so clearly.  The WWI stuff was fantastic--very informative and very engaging.  There was an entire floor dedicated to the Holocaust, with an emphasis on the micro and the macro.  They did an excellent job of connecting individuals to the horror but also depicting the scale of the horror.  Going through that at a time of rising anti-semitism around the world (thanks, Bibi) and Nazis marching on the fourth of July, everything here resonated even more than usual.   
• I then grabbed lunch and went to The Truth, a comedy about ... infidelity.  It was hilarious as the writing was terrific and so were the performances.  In my first trip to London, long ago, I went to farces as the Brits do them so well.  Last time, I saw Avenue Q, which was wonderfully profane and uproarious.  They didn't have the usual farces, and there were no Hamilton tickets available around the 4th, but I am more than happy with what I chose.  Simply an incredibly funny show, with four actors doing amazing work.  I highly recommend.

Now onto some observations:

• I don't think I have seen more student groups on weekends going to museums.  And these students came from near and far.  
• The food scene is amazing. I ate Indonesian, Malaysian, India, Burmese, and pub.  One of my iron rules of travel is if there is decently rated Indonesian food, I get it since I can't get it at home.  Indeed, the "can't get it at home" explains my restaurant choices and my choices of which dishes most of the time.  The pub food was pretty terrific, so even English food was quite good.  I specialized in meat pies, and that worked out well for me.
• The ice cream scene is even more amazing.  I simply don't remember there being so much excellent ice cream here.  Maybe it was the heat or maybe an invasion of gelato stores?
• I really don't remember the pub scene being this well attended in previous visits. Each evening, the streets were packed with people outside of pubs. My previous visits were roughly the same time of year, so I can't explain it via weather.
•  Speaking of booze, the garden pub/bar scene rivaled Berlin's.  The walk along the southern side of the Thames had heaps of both permanent and temporary booze gardens, with numerous screens set up so folks could watch Wilmbedon and the World Cup.  
• I had a chance to have a cup of coffee with a friend from summer camp.  My camp imported British and Israeli folks to be counselors, so I have a few folks I know in the UK.  It was great to Joe and learn what he was upto over the past, gulp, 40 years.  This reminds me that this summer is the 40th anniversary of my last summer at camp and, yes, the 50th anniversary of my first as I went from 1976 (shortly after the bicentennial celebrations) to 1986.  As longtime readings of this blog may remember, that place left a huge dent on me.  I tried to go back this summer, but that didn't work out. Anyhow, great to see Joe and hear about the other British folks and how they experienced that place.

I kept marveling at how lucky I am.  My career has given me so many opportunities to travel, to learn so much about the history and food of all these places, to meet great people, and just see stuff.  As I head into the final stretch of my career--six years left--I will make sure I appreciate it all.  There were plenty of bumps along the way, and except for the first post-grad school stop, none of the places I worked were in my imagination long ago.  Each step did lead to the next, but not in any way I could have predicted.  I started out with an interest in international conflict, which led me away and then to civil-military relations.  And that move has been so very fruitful for me--leading to yet more travel.  The current project may produce one or two more bursts of fieldwork, but is nearly complete.  So, I am spending the summer writing a grant for the next project while trying to complete the current one. Yes, the next one involves much travel again.  As I always say, better to be lucky than good :)   That the divvying up of the fieldwork with an expert on Westminster countries has meant fewer trips to London than I would like is, well, the right thing to do. Glad I could sneak in this trip as part of a different project---again, I am very lucky.

Aforementioned dancer

=2=

I got the hat as United 
didn't get my my bag until
middle of my second day
and I needed to protect my head

Battle of Britain monument

Covent Garden

Standing astride the Prime Meridian

The Royal Astronomer used to live in 
the Observatory, including the guy 
whose name got attached to Halley's comet.
Apparently, he was not as precise as the
others so much of his work was tossed out. 

    

Good News About Brexit!

Brexit is a mitigated disaster.  What mitigates it? It makes me feel good about my stances on secession in advanced democracies.  Huh?  Basically, all the reasons I have opposed secessionism in otherwise functional countries have played out here.  And, yes, Brexit is secession.

• 50%+1 is a crappy rule to make decisions about massive social/political change.  It is too thin--there is not enough consensus, which means not just parties fighting but parties divided on this.  You can't tell your Leavers/Remainers without a program.  I was reminded by the ever-wise Peter Trumbore that Theresa May was a Remainder until she became Prime Minister.
• Proponents of secession will play down all of the likely costs, making it seem as if nothing will change except for the few things that annoy people the most (paying into the system, mobility of undesired folks).  Yet as things progress, we find out all kinds of costs and complications including Northern Ireland!
• Defenders of the status quo will be slow to mobilize as they will take for granted that secession would be a dumb thing to do.
• Outbidding and fears of it cause leaders to do dumb things: David Cameron feared his right flank and promised to hold a referendum that would surely not go anywhere.  
• Most importantly, unless one is facing serious repression, secession is just not worth it.  I might end up supporting renewed Scottish separatism simply because I could sympathize with them that they don't want to go down with the ship of fools that is being led by May and Corbyn.  

There are lots of ways to address grievances in a political system--divorce is only better than coups and civil war.  Think of the kids!  Seriously, that the old folks are driving this train off a cliff suggests something is very, very wrong.  Poor kids.

Russian Poison, Britain and NATO

Now that Theresa May has said that it is "highly likely" that the Russians used a nerve agent fairly recklessly as they sought to kill a double agent, lots of questions arise.  One could easily code this as an attack, not the first one since other Russians have been killed in the UK, but a more severe one given the number of bystanders and first responders who may have been exposed.  And once you use the word "attack," one of the first things that comes to mind is: an attack upon one equals an attack upon all--NATO's Article V.  It has only been invoked once, after 9/11, despite other attacks against NATO allies--Russian cyber attack against Estonia, Syrian shells and bombs hitting Turkey, etc.

Consulting NATO via Article IV is a natural way to proceed.  It would allow the UK to establish the seriousness of what has happened, that this is a very warlike thing to have happened.  However, bringing in NATO involves larger risks.  Specifically, the US, which has not acknowledged that Russia is "highly likely" to be guilty here, and with Trump never saying an unkind word about Putin, the danger is that the UK tries to get NATO to take a stand and fails.  That would cast doubt about the alliance itself.  It is like the US non-response to North Korean missile tests: sure, you can try to shoot them down, but, if you fail, you might reveal that the system does not work so well.  Well, with Trump being so hostile to NATO and pretty unfriendly to May, one can easily imagine the US blocking consensus at NATO probably with help from Hungary and Greece.  And then what?

With the economic fiasco that is Brexit going on, the UK has not many choices, especially with an unreliable US (today's alliance dilemma horn is abandonment), May is stuck.  What can she do?  I will agree with those who suggest new economic sanctions, the end of Russian oligarchs moving to London, and kissing RT goodbye.  Oh, and, this might sound awful, but the old spy game had some rules, and if one breaks the rules, one should pay.  So, yeah, the British should find the most guilty Russian spy, and remove him from the game.  Teach the Russians to be more careful.

So far, the Russians have not paid much of a price for their reckless moves across the globe--meddling in elections, using poisons in ways that harm bystanders, and on and on.  The US under Trump is not going to act as strongly as it should--the allies will need to do so.

Oh, and when folks say that Trump hasn't made that much of a difference in foreign policy yet, the refusal to respond to the election mess and now this are big pieces of evidence that, yes, Trump is making a difference and not in a good way.

How to Become a Fringe Party in North America and Europe

One of the dynamics I learned in the process of researching the Dave and Steve book on NATO is that left-wing parties aspiring to broaden their appeal felt compelled to support NATO operations.  Huh? 

In Canada, the New Democratic Party supported the Libyan operation.  In the Netherlands, it was the Groenlinks party that supported the new policy mission in 2011.*  Both parties had traditionally been anti-NATO, but both chose to support new (and less risky) NATO operations because they saw that being anti-NATO had marginalized them. If they wanted to be mainstream, they would have be seen as not hostile to NATO.  They realized that voters beyond their narrow core saw NATO as a legitimate alliance that their country should support much of the time, if not always.  These parties realized that their anti-NATO ideology caused voters to think of them as fringe parties, as ones that were not serious enough to be considered fit to govern even as part of a coalition.  Taking stances on less risky missions, especially ones that seemed vaguely humanitarian, allowed these parties to shift and be more supportive of NATO. 

Why think about this now?  Because it seems that some actors in Western politics are taking the opposite strategy--how to alienate voters and become a fringe party by being hostile to NATO.  In the US, Donald Trump has been alienating not just Democrats but increasingly Republicans due to his anti-NATO (and pro-Putin) stances.  As Dan Drezner has repeatedly pointed out, no GOP experts have jumped up alongside Donald to suggest that NATO might need to be cut adrift.  The NeverTrump crowd, however, does cite Trump's anti-NATO stances as one of the reasons why they have to oppose Trump, even if they are not fans of Clinton. 

Trump is not alone.  UK Labour "leader" Jeremy Corbyn refused to say that the UK would come to the defence of allies if they were attacked, which seems pretty anti-NATO.  Then, of course, folks found some of his previous NATO statements.  Being anti-NATO is great for pandering to the far left, but that will alienate less extreme Labour voters and tell the rest of the UK that the Labour party is not serious about governing and just wants to be a fringe party.  Of course, Corbyn is doing other stuff that has this effect, but the focus here is on NATO. 

I just want to congratulate both Trump and Corbyn on figuring out how best to turn mainstream parties, ones that has governed on their own, into fringe parties that most citizens will find to be unacceptable.  Well done.













*  I wrote a bit about it in this paper that I never submitted anywhere.  I forget why I didn't--it might been trying to publish too much off of the same book project--that I wanted to avoid self-plagiarism.  Or that this was going to be in an edited volume that never took place. 

Brexit and NATO

I am not an expert on the European Union, and my mid-career move to thinking about multilateral military operations did not spawn a new interest in the EU.  I am too much of a skeptic about the EU's ability to do common defence policy.  But I have been studying NATO for nearly a decade now, so what are the implications of Brexit for NATO?  Um, damned if I know.  Ok, perhaps I have a few clues.

First, there are no direct implications since NATO and the EU are entirely separate entities despite efforts by some (France) to have the latter supplant the former.  The UK was a major member of NATO before it joined the EU and remained such after joining.  I don't think there are much in the way of discernable behaviors that changed due to that move to inside the EU, although the EU may have lost one major obstacle to defence cooperation (the UK was always worried about expanding the EU's defence stuff at the expense of NATO).  However, as one expert noted:

sure, but the brits are not the only problem to def coop. 27 other problems remain. https://t.co/CkEZuZQX6A

— Christian Mölling (@Ce_Moll) June 27, 2016

Second, the indirect implications could be many, but until we see how Brexit actually is implemented, we really cannot speculate too much.  So, of course, here are some speculations:

• The most immediate impact of Brexit is on the UK economy--the pound lost a heap of value, companies may flee, and growth outlooks are now poor.  This means that the UK, which already cut defence deeply and almost randomly in response to the 2008 crisis, will have less money to spend on alliance efforts.  This will not stop the UK from being a framework nation (leader of one of the four 1k units of troops) in the persistent basing in the Baltics to be announced at the Warsaw Summit (who will be UK rep in less than two weeks?).  This is no wartime deployment of brigades to countries with little infrastructure, so it will cost but not so much that the UK will back out.  Indeed, this will be an opportunity to show the world that the UK is still a significant player with a stiff upper lip and all that.
• The most significant impact down the road is also more uncertain: that if Scotland were to secede from the UK due to Brexit, then the UK and NATO would lose the bases in Scotland.  The Scottish National Party dropped much of its hostility to NATO as it sought to make independence more attractive two years ago, but what happens before and after a referendum are, as we are learning anew this week, two different things.  That the Scots have indicated that they don't want nuclear weapons in "their" bases is problematic, as this means the English (or UK minus Scotland) subs would have to find a new home, not to mention the US ships that often call Scotland home.  

There is probably more, but that is all I have for now.  What am I missing?

More Reactions to Brexit

I wrote some quick thoughts about Brexit on Friday, and then spent yesterday mostly offline as I drove to and from the US to pick up both my repaired car and my exhausted daughter (film making is hard work!).  So, of course, I have more reactions:

• I have always thought that 50% plus one is a lousy decision-making rule for big decisions.  For many reasons:
• The drunk frat boy vote.  Ok, not this time, but instead we have some folks, don't know how many, who may have not been voting sincerely.
• Turnout, turnout, turnout. More on this below, but having major historical events potentially being affected rain is not great.
• More importantly: tyranny of the temporary majority.*  The UK has already borne tremendous costs and is likely to incur much more despite the fact that the country is essentially ambivalent about leaving.  For major decisions, I have always believed that qualified majorities are necessary.  Sure, that gums up the works, and paralysis can be problematic.  But paralysis looks mighty good today compared to Brexit.
• Referenda suck.
• The founders of the US opposed direct democracy for a reason: "unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".
• We are only now learning about the details of the process, the complications and all that.  Only after the event?
• Reminds me of my time in California where much policy was decided by propositions.  And those were mostly shitshows.  Yes, that is the technical political science term.  How do we decide the best car insurance scheme?   Vote against the propositions endorsed by the car insurance industry and the trial lawyers.  California tied itself up in knots due to popular votes on tax policy.  At least in California, the government gave out booklets explaining each proposition, its estimated costs, and who was on which side and their arguments.  Brexit? Not so much.
• The age splits on the vote and on turnout are appalling but not surprising.  Those under 50 voted against Brexit, those over voted for it.  Any student of democracy knows that the young don't turn out, but the older folks do. Which is why government spending, such as health care dollars, often is focused on the last few years of life.  Politicians respond to those who show up.  In a referendum, the outcome is determined by turnout (again, that stupid 50%+1), and this is the turnout for Brexit by age: 

•  Yeah.  Not great, Bob.  We can and should blame the young for poorly asserting their interests. We can and should blame the old for screwing over the young.  Heaps of blame to be shared although, sorry but you cannot really blame Obama for this one.
• The leadership on all sides in the UK is, um, wow, um, a train wreck.  Who comes out of this looking like they knew what they were doing, were representing their constituents and their country well?  Lots of craven behavior with folks running away from their stances (did we say that 350 million pounds were going to the EU?  Oops, our bad!).  
• Yes, the EU has a democratic deficit--hard to do any research related to the EU without running into heaps of articles on this.  But one of the most likely outcomes for the UK (or UK minus Scotland) is to have to live with/by the EU's dictates but with no power to influence them--the Norway model as it is called.  Having some kind of association with the EU that reduces the costs of the transition and provides access to markets means accepting regulations written in Brussels but with no members in the EU parliament, no Brits serving as commissioners, and no UK folks on the Council of Ministers.  So, whatever "taxation/regulation without representation" folks might have thought been problematic before is going to be far worse now. Well done.

*  This is probably the attitude that makes me most American despite 14 years in Canada--concern about tyranny of the majority.

Instant Hottakes on Brexit

We will have much, much time to ponder and study what happened yesterday... whether it was the weather that made the difference in London, why Cameron was such an idiot, and on and on.  I have a few quick reactions guided by and due to my faith in confirmation bias!

1. While I am kind of surprised by the results, I should not be as I co-authored a book that argued that individuals and leaders will often embrace xenophobia for its short term allure despite the  great costs to the country. That is why we named the book: For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War (now available in an updated 2015 paperback version!).  That Brexit did well in England but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland (Wales confuses me as it always does--not enough vowels) is not surprising, AND neither does the fact that most of the polls indicated that the relationship between fear of immigrants and support of Brexit.  The strange thing, of course, is that the UK was not part of the Schengen system so it still had much more control of its borders and of immigration than the rest of the EU.  So, leaving the EU does not really "fix" the "problem" of too much immigration.
2. Events like these have huge ramifications for those inside that country, including potentially more separatism, but not so much elsewhere.  In short, direct effects matter a lot [update: see statement by Scottish National Party leader], but indirect lesson learning does not.  Why?  For the former, the exit will directly affect the interests (incomes!) and power of those inside the UK, leading to stronger interests on the part of the Scots to leave (although it may not be as instant as some might have thought).  For the latter, the problem is that there are multiple lessons to learn.  For those who want to leave the EU or separate from their current country, they can look at Brexit and say: they did it, we can do it too, taking away the positive lessons.  For those who don't want to leave the EU or secede from wherever, they can observe the economic shocks and other painful consequences and learn that this would be awful for them.  Let confirmation bias be your guide, I always say.  Again, multiple lessons to learn, so which lessons will people take away?  The only common lesson will be that David Cameron will go down in history as one of the worst Prime Ministers of all time.
3. Already folks are worrying what this says about Trump--that if the wave of populist nationalism can break the UK, then shouldn't we worry about Trump getting more votes than we expect?  Um, no.  Why not?  First, the electoral college means that the US election is not a pure referendum where mobilizing the cranky can lead to a win.  Trump would have to do very well across a number of states, including some very diverse ones.  Second, while whites are a majority in the US, white men are not. I don't know what the gender breakdown of Brexit was, but in the US, Trump has been quite successful at alienating not just non-whites but women.  Third, there is a huge imbalance in the American election in terms of organization, skill, discipline, resources and resources and resources--Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have a huge lead here that Trump will not be able to surmount, especially as potential donors ponder whether Trump is using the campaign contributions to win the election or to save his failing businesses.  I have no idea what the balance was in the UK.  Fourth, the GOP is divided, with vulnerable Senators running away from Trump as fast as they can.  Yes, the Dems are currently divided with Sanders still not dropping out (oy!), but eventually he will.  That HRC is ahead despite Sanders sticking around is a testament either to her strength, revulsion for Trump or both.
4. Most importantly, Lindsay Lohan is relevant again!

As if we weren't already headed towards a freaky Friday https://t.co/Epkvv3Khny

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 24, 2016

Alas, she seems to have deleted all of her anti-Brexit tweets.

Anyhow, for those outside of the UK, we don't need to panic much.  For those inside, I am so sorry for your loss.

Brexit Epiphany: Secession of a Kind

As I was chatting with my dissertation adviser yesterday while in DC (yes, my dissertation was completed in 1993 but the relationship goes on), I had an epiphany that had been on the edges of my thinking but finally popped: the Brexit folks are secessionists.

Sure, the European Union is not a country (nor does it have an army), but the effort to pull the UK out of the EU is very much like the effort to secede from an advanced democracy.  How so?  While the EU's democratic credentials have long been criticized (so many articles about its democratic deficit), the key here is that it is not oppressive or repressive.  Which makes it hard for those to make the case that their hunk of territory should exit.  This is very similar to the problem facing the Scots and the Quebecois--that secession would not solve the problem of political repression, which distinguishes the cases and outcomes of these places with the South Sudans and Kosovos of the world.

When the Scottish separatists sought to win their referendum, they seemed to borrow from the Quebec playbook: minimize the costs of departure (hey, we can get right back into the EU and even NATO, no economic harm will happen, yada, yada) and maximize the expected gains.  Indeed, this is rule #1 of secessionists.

While I have not followed Brexit as closely as I probably should, I do see lots of the same kinds of claims being made--that there will be no harm to the economy from departure, that any economic instability/uncertainty would be short-lived, that it will be easy to develop new trade agreements (despite the fact that bilateral deals favor the stronger player, which would not be the UK vis-a-vis the US, China, the rest of the EU, etc), and on and on.

The arguments that this secession would free the UK from its obligations to the EU army is just the silliest bunch of crap.  As long as Greece remains in the EU and Turkey remains in NATO, there will be little progress on a common security policy of any kind (I am very much a Common Security and Defence Policy skeptic).  Oh, and by the way, any/all coalition/alliance commitments made are, um, purely voluntary.  You don't have to read the Dave and Steve book to understand that [though it helps :)  ]  The EU could not drag the UK into any commitment that would get in the way of the UK's NATO commitments. The UK remains very sovereign in that regard. 

Indeed, the one very predictable consequence of a Brexit would be bad for NATO--that if the UK leaves the EU, the next Scottish referendum would produce a very different result.  And that independent Scotland would be problematic for NATO given British basing of its nuclear subs way up north.

The big question I have for the Brexiters is this: what will British politics look like without Scotland?  Is that something you desire?  Because the Brexiters on the right find that future appealing, but the Brexiters on the left?  Hmmmm.

Civ-Mil Crisis Du Jour: British Style

Folks tend to throw about the phrase "crisis in civilian-military relations" easily.  The UK may have one:

Also, one for @smsaideman https://t.co/hp6AcPo2b7

— Naadir Jeewa (@randomvariable) September 20, 2015

Will Cameron sack the serving British Army general who threatens a coup d'état if #Corbyn becomes PM? #JeremyCorbyn pic.twitter.com/h9FaSNYMdL

— Martin O'Neill (@martin_oneill) September 20, 2015

What to do about it?  The current government needs to take action, even if it is hostile to Labour and to Corbyn.  It is simply unacceptable for generals to be uttering threats in a democracy about intervening if politician x wins.  Simply unacceptable.

I am not saying that the Conservatives need to do a witch hunt to find this guy, but they need to send the message that any officer who feels this way is unwelcome and should leave the armed forces.  The message must be sent and sent quickly and clearly.  No hemming and hawing, no "I am sorry if folks were offended." 

Again, no witch hunt but if this particular general is identified, end his/her career now.  If McChrystal stepped over the line, this guy jumped over with both feet.

Fun with Maps

Check out this page of maps.  Fun stuff.  My favorite:


No wonder the sun never set on the British Empire.  Jeez.  Sweden, Belarus, Mongolia, a stan or two, Mail, Chad, Ivory Coast, CAR, Burundi, Rep of Congo, Bolivia, Paraguay, Guatemala, and some micro-European countries did not get invaded by the UK at some point.  They didn't like landlocked countries (also on the page of maps), apparently, as that is one of the unifying features of most of these places.  Once you rule the waves, I guess you end up trying to rule all the stuff that touches the waves. 

Anyhow, check out the various maps and highlight any that you think need some over-thinking.

Fun in Weapons Procurement

The British are spending more money on new attack subs, but what I find notable are the names.  See if you can pick out the false ones: Ambush, Audacious, Articulate, Astute, Aardvark, Artful, Absinthe, Absent.

R.O.C.K in the UK

I am always surprised that I have only been to London three times: one long trip more than twenty years ago as part of a summer educational experience, one long weekend last year as part of a workshop, and now another four days for a workshop on military adaptation in Afghanistan.

So, what I have seen and learned?  First, I was surprised to see a separate line for students at Customs at Heathrow.  Students?  I almost whipped out my McGill ID to get in the shorter line.  Second, I cannot remember another airport where the TV screens at customs were telling people that they must declare asylum at the airport or else they cannot do it at all.  Hmmm.  Asylum.   Nope, not this time.

I spent the afternoon walking in the general direction of Regent's Park.  I found a store dedicated to the Beatles and then a museum at 221 Baker Street dedicated to Sherlock Holmes.  I walked to Lord's Cricket field because I thought it would be cool to see a major home to that strange sport.  Was not so much because it had big walls blocking the pitch.  Alas.  Even worse, I didn't realize how close I was to Abbey Road.  Instead, I went to Regent's Park, which was lovely although way too much "football" and no ultimate.  Perhaps this is what happens to declining empires--they don't adopt the newer and better sports.

After Regent's Park, including a very  nice "Honest Sausage," I walked down a series of streets (actually the same street with the name changing occasionally), and discovered that there are far more organic, gluten-free, and such places in London than I remember from previous visits.  Healthy Brits?  Perish the thought.

Finished with beer/dinner with the delightful Stephanie Carvin. 

Tomorrow, I take a train to the Cotswolds to the site of the workshop.  Yep, tis a tough job, but someone has to do it.

British, English, King-ish

For those confused about what to call the dandies on the other side of the pond, this should help:

Indeed, this is quite a lesson not just in what to call the folks who eat bangers and mash, but of the various ways in which countries/entities relate to their former empire.  Good times.