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. 

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.   

Yet More Social Media? I Am Reeling at the Thought

 Friends have been suggesting that I combine by two obsessions of baking and international relations by recording short videos, where I talk about international security/defence/etc while baking.  The challenge is that baking takes a fair amount of time, so I will have to be succinct and only narrate a part of the baking process.  And, I also will have to get my ideas together ahead of time as I don't want to do much/any video-editing.

 So, here's my second attempt and the first one that I put out into the world: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQAOI1wju1-/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D.

The next question is what to call it.  One person on threads suggested Guns And Butter, and I really like that is no tradeoff in this Reel--we get both baking and international relations stuff.  Half-Baked was also suggested and that goes nicely with the Semi-Spew and the reality that I will not be crafting perfect videos.  Any suggestions for names?

 Right now, I think the topics will be, well, topical--whatever is on my mind as I bake.  

The timing is both good and bad.  Good in that this is prime baking season as I plan to bake pretty much every weekend to create the many, many cookies I will be delivering at the start of Winterfest.  On the other hand, not great timing as I will not be baking next weekend as I will be in the DC area for a civ-mil conference.

And, yes, I am now eyeing the ads I have been fed that feature phone holders so that I can better tape myself mid-bake.  

Anyhow, let me know if you have a suggestion for a name for this thing.  And, yes, I need to go to Social Media Anonymous as I am aware I have a problem.  Since that is next door to Bakers Anonymous, I should be able to squeeze it in. 

Look for more reels of me baking and pontificating at my instragram account or on bluesky account or maybe here as well.  Ciao. 

 

 

The Twitterapocalypse: Whuck?

 I am so very frustrated and angry that Elon Musk is musking twitter.  I don't care about losing a hundred followers (even though I was just on a nice round number until this happened), but I do care about the loss of community, the loss of key vectors for getting information, the loss of important ways to, yes, market, the stuff that I do, and especially, the loss of a key way that the CDSN communicates.

It ain't gone yet, but twitter's future ain't bright.  I will stick around and hope that this is a phase or that the community of people can resist the bad stuff.  The thing about twitter and all social media is that the stuff that is most important are the users--they set the tone, they create the value, they make it worthwhile or not.  I stopped being a twitterevangelist years ago when I started to get that my experience was not the experience that women, LGBTQ+, African-Americans, and others from historically excluded communities were having.  I never got much grief on twitter--some, but not much.  One rape threat, I don't recall any death threats, and more than a few insults, but nothing that really affected my day to day experience.  So, I stopped pushing it quite so energetically.

But I still recommended that people join even if they don't post.  Twitter was and maybe still is a good way to find interesting research before it gets published and find out when such stuff is published and to get good takes on events as they occur.  The folks who are really sharp on Ukraine, for instance, have provided tons of insights on the war since it started.  As a curious person and as a scholar of International Relations, I have found twitter to be super useful for good (and bad) info.

As hinted above, it is terrific for networking.  I know far more people in the DC national security community, in the Canadian journalism scene, and more.  After I realized how mighty white my feed was, I made an effort to follow people of color in and beyond North America, in and outside of poli sci and IR.  It is just so cheap (free except for the selling of my information by twitter) to meet and learn from all kinds of folks.  It can be a time suck, but I found it incredibly rewarding.  

What now?  Well, my first step was to find out that I already had a long comatose Mastodon account: @smaideman@mastodon.social or https://mastodon.social/@smaideman.  I haven't figured out Mastodon yet... and you can tell as I currently have more followers than posts.  That probably won't last.  It seems decent, but the federated nature--that there are different "instances" of Mastodon on different servers, which makes connecting a bit tricky--is a challenge.  The servers can be slow, but posting pics is getting faster all the time, and I needs to meme.  Oh, and I realized that I mispelled my preferred name for social media (smsaideman) and am now stuck with smaideman, which is growing on me.

I may try other alternatives, but, of course, this will mean yet more time sucks as I monitor and participate in twitter, mastodon, and whatever else.  Hmmm.  Can there be too many social media outlets?  Well, yeah.  Because if the communities that I have enjoyed get fragmented, I really don't want to do the work to make sure I get what I used to get on twitter.  But my biggest neurosis is FOMO, so I expect to be trying more than a few alternatives.

Anyhow, just posting here as this will always be where I post my half-baked thoughts that are more than 140 or 280 or 500 characters.  

Good luck in the confusing days ahead! 

and yes, I will continue to rely on the same
set of memes while generating new ones from
time to time.

Mastodon

Thin Skinned Supporters and The Ex-Pat

One of the continuities from 2016 to the current election cycle (geez, American presidential cycles are so long) is that I can use my particular vantage point to discriminate between the politicians who have super-sensitive (maybe even super-insecure?) followers and those that do not.  How so?  Well, I tend to be critical of most folks, but not all supporters respond with some criticism of my speaking about American politics from Canada.  Those that do tend to be Trump supporters, Bernie supporters, and, today, Beto supporters.

Hmmm, what do all these folks share in common?  I am not exactly sure.  I do tend to think of Beto as an empty suit, putting forth a charismatic pose rather than significant policy stances, which makes him a bit like Trump.  What did Beto do while in Congress?  What were his major initiatives?

What they do seem to have is a certain percentage of followers who are overly defensive.  I have said negative things about Pete Buttagieg and have not received the same kind of defensive response.  Same for many of the other candidates.

Maybe they are right, maybe I should not be commenting on or even voting in American elections.  After all, I don't live in the US anymore.  Maybe ten years ago, I was expecting to return, but not anymore.  No, that is not about Trump but due to getting a really cool job in Ottawa at Carleton that has stopped me from seeking greener (or warmer) pastures.  So, given my future, why should I have a role to play in US politics, either as voter or commenter?  I will deal with the first and then the second.

The easiest answer I can give is that while I left the US, the US will never let me go ... unless I go through an incredibly difficult and expensive procedure as I will be doing US tax returns until I die (and then my estate will be doing them for another year or two).  I am affected by American tax policies--that I may not pay every year due to various deductions and credits--but it affects my behavior--I can't invest in a variety of accounts in Canada without having to do yet more forms and perhaps pay taxes.  Should that entitle me to vote, other than that whole citizenship thing?  Um, yeah, since the US exists because of that whole "taxation without representation" thing.  [Yes, pedants can argue that the revolution was about other stuff but don't deny the relevance of taxation + representation].  If the Congress passed legislation that treated US expats like the way most countries threat their expats (not required to pay taxes on income made outside of where they reside), then maybe I wouldn't have as much at stake.

The second answer, and it is the more powerful one these days, is that I have family and friends who are put at risk by the policies of the Trump Administration (and, well, by most GOP politicians these days).  I have LGBTQ relatives and friends who are finding that they may be losing their rights.  I have friends and family who depend on ACA for their health care.  So, I still have deep connections to my homeland even if I don't live there.  Does that give me a right to vote in American elections?  No, citizenship does.  But it does give me an obligation to play a role, given that I can have one.

Ok, that deals with voting.  How about opining?   That because I don't live in the US that I shouldn't give my thoughts about it or that my views should just be dismissed because I don't live there.  Well, my views are worth exactly what folks pay for them.  On twitter, they are free.  It is so easy not to listen to me.  Don't follow me (yes, it was a follower today who raised the "you live in Ottawa" thing).  Or if you don't follow me, ignore my stuff when someone else retweets me.  Or mute or block me.

I think one of the big problems Americans have (and, yes, Canadians have it, too) is that they don't think comparatively and often do not listen to the feedback received by those who are outside the country.  I think more information and more perspectives are better than less.  That outsiders may have experienced different institutions and different policies, which might actually make sense.  The Canadians tend to smugly compare themselves to the US and say, well, our health care system is better than the Americans.  Maybe, but how about learning from Europe?

As a political scientist and as a deeply curious (and opinionated) person, I will have lots of thoughts, some informed, some not so much, and I will keep offering them up, whether super-sensitive supporters of very flawed candidates get upset.  If their best response to me is that I don't have a role, it reveals something--that their candidate is entitled to support, that they can't defend their candidate's superiority on the issues, that they might just be semi-cultists?  Such a response is simply weak.  I don't mind at all a good argument--I often get bested and learn from the experience.  Telling me that I should shut up pretty much has the opposite effect.

Improving Twitter

Twitter is about to roll out some changes, and it is kind of amazing how the company is so consistent in missing the mark.  So, the big news is removing likes/RTs from the bottom of tweets (maybe the originators will still be able to see if their stuff got action or not?).

How about this:
a) Nuke all of the bots.  The idea of twitter was to have individuals and individual companies engage, not to have swarms of fake stuff hitting people one way or another.  It should be possible to reduce or eliminate this nuisance.  At least try. 
b) Enforce the standards that you supposedly set.  I can't tell you how many times I have had friends/twitter acquaintances as well as a few cases I have also experienced where people report abusive behavior and twitter does nothing.  They say they police it and all that, but the evidence suggests it happens rarely.
c) Maybe allow country filters.  As in, I don't want tweets from Russia.  Just a hypothetical. 

Any other ideas?

Social Media: Why Do It?

I teach a 3rd year PhD workshop that is mostly focused on getting students through their dissertation proposals (a roadmap for their dissertation research).  Along the way, we cover other topics, like how to get on conference programs, what kind of non-academic employment there is, and, yes, social media.  Last night, we covered the latter category, and I was surprised at the response: why don't I make money off of it?

I answered thusly:

1. As a professor, I feel an obligation to share what I know beyond the classroom.  We have had endless talks/posts/publications/tweets about reaching beyond the academy--beyond the ivory tower.  This is an easy (cheap!) way to do it.
2. As an endowed chair which has the name of the school on it (now I am really seeking a physical chair that actually has the name on it), I feel obligated to help make the school more visible.
3. As a recipient of grant money, where the application asks for a knowledge dissemination strategy, I feel obligated to disseminate knowledge in any way I can.
4. Doing something where others profit is nothing new--the rents twitter gets from me are far less rapacious than what journal publishers get, and twitter (and google) don't charge people to see my stuff, unlike Elsevier and their ilk.
5. Um, who would pay for it?  Someone mentioned Jordan Petersen raking it in, and I don't think I want to be the leader of a cult.  Reasonable people will not pay money to see me youtube-lecture.
6. Not everything is about money.  I do ask for money if the engagement requires significant time or effort, like if a newspaper asks me to write an op-ed that I had not planned to write or if CBC radio wants me to spend three hours talking to radio stations across the country.

I get heaps of benefits from doing social media--more friends around the world, contacts in interesting places/professions, quicker access to the latest research, simply more info about more things.  I got into this business because I am a deeply curious person, and social media helps me satisfy that urge to know more.  Oh, and I have long had a deep-seated Fear of Missing Out Syndrome, so social media eases that quite a bit.

Oh, and it is fun.  I enjoy it.

Social Media Etiquette from ... Me?

Today reminded me that there is much unstated expectations about how to behave online, and, yes, it may be strange coming from me that there are indeed norms or etiquette.

I once long ago suggested that my behavior is different on twitter vs. facebook, but that more or less converged.  Still, I treat that stuff differenly than I how I do Slack and differently from how I do email.  So, here's a semi-random list of things I have been reminded of the past couple of days and other stuff that comes to mind:

• When someone asks to connect via email to someone else, ask that someone else first rather than just email the two (or more parties).  I learned this particular rule this week after I violated it--I hadn't realized it was a thing.
• Don't tag 30 people every time you post on twitter or facebook.  If people follow you, they follow you, and if they don't they don't.  Only tag a bunch of people if you are promoting them.  Yes, I do link to my blog on facebook, but I don't tag anyone unless they inspired the post or I am building on something they said.
• Don't live tweet an event unless you either ask permission or it is something that is clearly being publicized.  If the organizers promote an event-specific hashtag or if the press are present or it is being televized, I count that as consent.  A job talk?  Nope.
• Don't DM people on twitter your tweets. Again, if they follow you, they will probably see it.  People tend to consider their DM space like their email space--something for those who are invited. Pretend you are a vampire and only enter if they invite you in and only come bearing that which they expect--not unsolicited tweets.  Which kills this vampire analogy.
• Don't complain if other people curse.  Indeed, if you don't like someone's twitter style, don't follow them. 
• And if you want to debate academics, see this guide by Phil Lagassé
• Update: I forgot a related rule--it is perfectly reasonable to use twitter's virtual connections to introduce yourself to someone you have not met before.   

I will probably come up with more as other suggest stuff that I missed.  But most of this is just stuff that came up in the past few days.

Social Media is Bad for Your Academic Career?

Today, there was a twitter conversation about whether doing public engagement, especially blogging and twitter, are penalized or not.  The timing is good since my Ignite talk at the Duckies was very much on this stuff.  So, I thought I would share what I presented at the Online Media Caucus reception at the annual meeting of the ISA in San Francisco.

The basic theme was: there are things people tell you not to do, so let me know show how I did them.  I did start by acknowledging my privilege--that a white male straight tenured prof can get away with more stuff than other folks (thanks, Will).

I started with my theory about department politics--that every department has somewhere between 10-25% dysfunctional people, and the question is whether/how the community handles the insane, evil, criminally stupid and/or tragically lazy.  I did note that I managed to get another job after posting this one.  I forgot to mention that this did not produce even a ripple in my old place.  That I was already on the outs with the chair and most of the Fulls, well, that probably did not get in the way of posting this.

Should one avoid attacking the big names?  Well, the surest way to get lots of hits (figuring out what is viral [viral for me, not viral compared to the average meme] is pretty hard) is to go after the big names.  However, that is not why I wrote this post--I wrote it because I was triggered by a deeply flawed piece by two scholars that, well, tend to jerk my chain.  Lots of irony abound in this as I wrote an article that went through many spin cycles (two desk rejects and then R&R&R&R&R) that argued that the fears of the big names were misplaced--that grand theory is not dying out as it has always been a niche enterprise and that professionalization actually rewards grand theory via citation counts corrected with such stuff. That article is finally out via early view at ISR.  So, yelling at the gods can be good for one's publication record if such stuff inspires academic work.

Out a serial sexual harasser?  Indeed.  This post is almost certainly my most important one, as it has given a number of people some relief that they are not alone, and it serves as a signpost that will hopefully warn future generations of students away from this guy.



Should folks hide their political opinions?  My students used to ask me about my political views as they could not tell from my lectures--I would be critical of  Democratic presidents and Republican ones.  Not so much anymore.

Should one make bold predictions outside one's lane?  Um, given how it went, probably not....

Should one curse?  FFS, yes, in this age of Trump.

 

Should one criticize one's professional organization?  Well, when they screw up royally, hells yeah!  This made sense as a segue to the end of the presentation since the ISA blog mess led rather directly to the creation of the Online Media Caucus.



My big point at the end is that we notice those who get punished for their social media efforts, but the reality is that there are many, many folks out there doing stuff that is probably more controversial than what I do, and they don't get penalized.  Our confirmation bias focuses our attention on the few that are punished rather than the many who are not.  I posted a bunch of headlines and then a picture of my getting an award from Carleton for public engagement--that the place that hired me wants me to do stuff like this.  Maybe not exactly this stuff, but they seem to understand that having some personality and a particular perspective facilitates outreach.

With the recommendation that we develop herd immunity--the more, the merrier:

So, perhaps the best advice I could give is probably not do as I do, or do as I say, but do what you feel comfortable doing.  The world of social media has been very, very good to me, with some handy networking that has spilled over to help Aspiring Filmmaker Spew (aka College Senior Spew).  I know I am not alone in benefiting from social media, and, as I argued, there are more of us than there are those who have paid a price.  Join us.

Defeatism, Separatism, and Misunderstanding Canada: Steve's Annoyed

I have been seeing this floating around on the internet


and it combines several triggers: a depressing view of democracy, a willingness to sell out or betray those on the wrong side of a line, and, yes, cluelessness about Canada.  Sure, I get it--Canada is wonderful, and Trump's America sucks, but, damn, what a dumb meme that is actually several dumb ideas combined into one.

First, democracy means accepting defeat.  It does not mean submission, but accepting defeat and the moving on to come back.  Yes, Trump is thoroughly awful, and is doing much damage.  But before people even joke about giving up, which is what secession would be, let's give 2018 a try, shall we?  That is, until Trump and the GOP change the rules (which they are trying to do via #voterfraudfraud), how about focusing one's humor and efforts on defeating their legislation (the tax bill ain't law yet) and defeating the GOP candidates in the various elections between now and 2021? 

Second, despite all the blue and red maps out there, there are many, many people in the yellow states in that map who do not support Trump nor the Republicans.  I am not just talking about Colorado and Virginia and Maryland but Democrats and independents in Texas and Florida and Arizona and even Montana and Utah.  This map reeks of white liberal arrogance (and I am a white semi-liberal).  What happens to all the brown people left behind in Trump's lesser America?  Right now, the GOP can't revise the Constitution at will, but could if you take out the Democratic bastions of New York, Massachusetts, New England (well, sort of with NH and Maine being shaky at best) and the West Coast?  It also gives up on the dream of the future--the Democrats competing in Texas, winning Arizona and so forth.  Sure, #voterfraudfraud makes that harder, but the future of the GOP is dim unless they learn how to keep their white voters while appealing to non-whites.  Let's not give up too soon, shall we?

Third, Canadians had fun this morning posting a series of things about Canada that would flip out Americans, even liberal ones.  I will not list all of that, but this kind of meme is just wonderfully ignorant about Canada. For one thing, Canada might not want all of these states, as it would upset a variety of power structures--Quebec would fear being inundated by Anglophones, Alberta would fear being marginalized by left/centrist voters and dwarfed by California.  Indeed, a key brake on irredentism are those who would lose by being part of a greater entity.  For another, Canadians define themselves in large part by not being Americans.  So, what would Canada be if one adds in so many people that Canadians are a minority (remember, California is about equal to Canada in population so the math here is quite easy)?  So, there's that. 
And then there is the stuff my Canadian friends mentioned--stronger unions than American are used to, far more tolerance of cartels, some limitations on free speech, that whole constitutional monarchy thing, bags of milk (ok, that is an Ontario/Quebec thing), too much damn hockey on SportsCentre, the metric system and on and on.

It is easy is to idealize Canada from afar, but, despite what liberal Americans might think, it is not just a colder version of Washington (the state) and Vermont. 

Sure, I am crapping on a silly meme.  But it helps to breed yet more ignorance about both American democracy and about Canada.  So, don't mind me when I put a 😠 on your facebook feed when you post it. There are far funnier, more apt memes that one can circulate in one's annoyance that the awfulness that is Trump and the Republican Party.  For instance:

Pod Saves STEM America

I am a big fan of Pod Saves America--the Obama Bros podcast.  Yet they annoyed me greatly today.  Yes, they are rightly upset that the GOP tax "reform" is going to raise heaps of taxes on graduate students.  But, no, it is not just about physicists and engineers.  Tommy Vietor must be too sleep deprived due to his new puppy (understanble) when he said that this is not about Philosophy doctorates.  Dude, the social sciences and humanities are important too.

Yeah, I rail against having too many PhDs produced and I love picking on philosophers, but changing the tax code to screw over grad students hurts not just the STEM folks who get all of the love, but everyone one.  As Neil Degrasse Tyson reminds us with some of his incredibly dumb tweets, to do hard science right, we need the social sciences and humanities.

The GOP tax "reform" plan is short-sighted in a number of ways--gutting the hard sciences may be more obvious and more politically marketable, but the rest of the disciplines matter.  So, yeah, not good, Tommy and pals, not good.

Engaging the Public via Social Media Panel

I am not blogging much this week as I am at the American Political Science Association meeting in San Francisco.  I did attend a panel on using social media to engage the public, and found it most interesting.  Some good advice and some good warnings.  Here's the storify of my liveweeting.

So far, a very good conference as I keep meeting virtual friends--twitter friends who I have never met until now in real life.

Favorite National Security Podcast: Bombshell

I only listen to one* national security/IR podcast on a regular basis: Bombshell.  Why? Well, Erin Simpson might hurt me if I didn't.  Ok, maybe not but you can never be sure.  Seriously, these three woman provide sharp perspectives on US foreign policy/national security issues based on real experience in the policy world and with no b.s.  The three women are:

• Erin Simpson, who used to run Caerus, a DC consulting firm and previously served as a consultant to ISAF, and now runs Archer Avenue Consulting.  I met her long ago when I was a Council on Foreign Relations International Fellow and she was a Term member.  We re-met via twitterfight club and having lots of common friends in the twitter universe.  She is very critical of my clothing choices, and we used to compete about who is more narcissistic before Trump came along.
• Loren DeJonge Schulman  is Deputy Director of Studies and the Leon E. Panetta Fellow at the Center for a New American Security.  She served as Senior Advisor to National Security Adviser Susan Rice.  Before that she was Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) for International Security Affairs. I have only met her on twitter, but really appreciate the insights she has had about how the NSC works.  I might have ended up on the NSC in 2001 if Condoleezza Rice was more cooperative with CFR, so Loren's insights on NSC are glimpses into what might have been.
• Radha Iyengar works at RAND as a senior economist and previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff to the DepSec of Energy.  She previously worked on the NSC on Defense, Personnel, Readiness and Partnerships and as policy adviser to ASD of Special Ops and Low Intensity Conflict.  She also prof-ed at LSE.

Each week, the women go through a series of segments and have one guest.  The guests thus far have always been women, and, I assume, always will be (the title of the podcast is Bombshells, duh).  Which is great since despite general underrepresentation in government, there are plenty of super-sharp women who have significant experience, expertise and insights, and these women tend not to get as much media attention as the men.

The podcast is quite clever in moving along the segments quickly without any one of them being rushed but with me wanting more of each. They discuss:

• the booze they are drinking (here I am just a padawan, and they are masters).  
• things that are still things. Latest issue was the unmasking stuff.  They provide much clarity quickly on this stuff, clearing away the b.s. 
• the guest with a heap of intro icebreaking questions (best meal while traveling, book they re-read the most, what fan club have you belonged to, twitter crush, favorite museum, favorite statistical distribution) and then talk about the current issue that this woman has much insight on.
• fashion advice for Jared Kushner (ok, not a regular segment).
• a pop culture segment, so this week they talked about favorite spy novels.

 The Syria discussion emphasized something that Americans take for granted--the US has limited skin in the game and thus limited leverage.  This is a common problem that American foreign policy just has not grokked.  

Erin, Loren and Radha are just very smart, funny, and insightful.  They use their experiences to get folks inside the policy process. Even though I had a year in DC and spent plenty of time at the meetings that are several layers below the PC's and the DC's, there is much I didn't see or experience.  These podcasts get you inside those rooms and also provide perspectives we don't hear enough because journalists and other media types tend to go the top of the rolodex where the boys are. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is biweekly so far, so it will not fill up your ipod unlike some other podcasts that proliferate so much that I have given up on following the subsequent franchisees (that would be Crooked Media's spinoffs).


*  Why don't I listen to more than this one national security podcast?  Because I don't want to be thinking about my business whenever I am listening to a podcast--which is when I am driving, cooking, doing the dishes, errands around the house, etc.  I listen to sports and entertainment stuff most of the time with Doug Loves Movies, The Moth, some Ringer and some ESPN, and Sepinwall's new one--TV Avalanche. 

Why Twitter?

Twitter gets lots of criticism, and rightly so, for not handling abuse well and for helping to circulate fake news.  It is easy for me to dismiss the dark side since I get far less abuse than women, LGBT folks, and people of color.  But I have have received some abuse, so why do it?  A key tweeter asked this, in response to his mom's question.

@raulpacheco I get to interact with sharp, interesting people in my areas of interest. Plus I like to talk ... a lot #overlyhonestacademic

— Steve bin Said (@smsaideman) December 28, 2016

So, I have both silly and serious reasons:

Silly:

@smsaideman happy new year to you !

— Henry Winkler (@hwinkler4real) December 29, 2016

Yes, I get to engage with famous folks like Henry Winkler and Morgan Fairchild.  Which is pretty cool.  Also, heaps of fun and silly pictures, videos, stories and tweets themselves get shared across the planet.  So, as entertainment, twitter is mighty entertaining.

Serious:
Besides from relentless self-promotion (pretty sure twitter has helped me sell my books), twitter is very important for me professionally:

• I learn more about more places, people, and events more quickly via twitter than any other way.  I don't like TV news, and newspapers always have limited international coverage.  As a professor of international affairs and one without a real regional focus, following a variety of people gets me links and views about all kinds of places.  Sure, it then becomes hard to consume all of it, but I get more glimpses of more stuff via twitter, and they almost always provide me with pathways to learning more if I so choose, than any other way.  While I was wrong in college to believe that being a prof would mean that I would have endless time to read fun books, the idea of endless learning is still key to my idea of my job and my identity.  Twitter helps with that.
• I have connected with people in government that have facilitated my research projects.  These people have busted the myths I have bought into, have shared insights that have led to new research directions, and have referred me to interesting people to interview.
• I have connected with scholars around the world--leading to exchanges of information, insights, contacts, and more.  Indeed, twitter has helped to create a community of scholars in my field (and others) so that we have better support networks, clear ideas of what is going on in our disciplines, and more.
• I know journalists via twitter and can both ask them questions and provide them with my take on stuff.  Without twitter, I would not have this ability to engage with reporters, columnists, anchors, and editors in Canada, the US and elsewhere. 
• Fundamentally, twitter has helped to bridge various gaps, but especially the one between academia and policy communities.  Thanks to twitter, and especially twitter fight club, I now have friends, some of whom I have met in real life, in think tanks, corporations, lobbyist groups, non-governmental organizations, and the like in DC, Ottawa and other national capitals.  The recurrent question is whether we academics are relevant?  The answer, in part, for me is twitter--that I get to share my views and the views of other academics, the stuff we have learned through research, reading, publication and the rest, with those in government and near government. 

And, oh yeah, I like to talk a lot.

Twitter in the Age of Trump

Lots of folks are very critical of twitter these days, and rightfully so as they have not banned those who use threats and who are abusive.  Despite receiving some abuse, I still find twitter to be more boon than bane for me.  Sure, it is easier for me as a white guy.  Of course, my heritage gives anti-semitic trolls something to focus on.

Will I leave twitter?  No, it is a great way to engage in Voice. Plus I have that FOMO--fear of missing out syndrome.

So, how do I proceed?

• I block
• People who are abusive
• People who are entirely reality averse
• People who have Deplorable in their name, references to white supremacy/misogyny/Islamphobia in their profiles

• I mute
• People who are annoying but not utterly offensive
• People who fill up my feed with lots of mentions when I have asked not to be included in a particular conversation
•  Trolls

• I engage
• People who treat me with respect
• People who treat others with respect
• People who argue with me even if they differ with me on most stuff

• I ignore
• No one really.  I wish I could not rise to the bait, but unlike Trump, I know I have this problem, so I mute or block people that try to get a rise out of me.
• I don't hit links in tweets if there is no other text in the tweet.  

• I tweet about stuff inside and outside my area of expertise. I will defend stuff that I know very well, but I will move on if it is area that is not a strength. 
• I will not be someone's research assistant if they ask me for examples of stuff they can easily find.  Indeed, demanding me to do stuff I don't want to do is a good way to get muted or blocked. 

Again, twitter has been mighty good to me.  I have learned how to minimize the negative stuff, although it can still be annoying/aggravating and more.  And I can keep with it because I have tenure, because I am white and male.  I recognize my privilege.  I believe my status imposes a responsibility to engage as much as I can within some limits.  And I shall continue to do so even as I hope that twitter develops some tools to reduce the abuse.

Having It Both Ways Unapologetically So

A friend of mine got some crap apparently for taking political stances online while being a political scientist.  Uh oh.  I have not received such criticism, but perhaps because I haven't been to any conferences lately.

When lecturing my classes, I try to be relatively neutral--criticizing all parties/politicians although some might get more attention than others (that would be Rummy).  In seminars, my political views don't come up as our discussion is mostly focused on the materials and not on contemporary politics.  Of course, I may have strayed from time to time.  But I think I did a good enough job as students would ask me after the semester was over about where I really stand.

Blogging and twitter have, of course, destroyed any such mystery. Any student can now easily figure out where I stand.  My blogging and my tweeting are almost entirely unfiltered (not quite) Steve.  Hence, the Semi-Spew.  Why?  Partly because I lack impulse control, but mostly because I believe

• that providing a clear perspective is better than aiming for neutrality
• that social media works best when people let their personalities shine through
• and that I am a person and not just a professor.  That my social media efforts are not always with my prof hat/identity.

Yep, I want to have it both ways: to use my expertise to provide insights about contemporary international politics (and domestic politics from time to time--this election year is a wee bit exceptional) AND say how I feel about stuff as an individual.  If one were to look at my twitter profile, they would find that I don't identify myself as a Carleton professor.  The about me here at my blog also does not identify myself as a Carleton prof.  Instead, both identify myself as someone who has certain interests and expertise. 

Not all of my blogging/tweeting is super-serious either. Again, I named this blog Saideman's Semi-Spew pretty deliberately--that not everything here is fully baked.  Indeed, the joy of blogging is no editors, no lit reviews, and nothing standing between me and posting but whether my trackball works well enough to push the Publish button.

And twitter requires even less rumination/consideration.  I get involved in conversations where I just respond without doing research, without thinking about how it reflects on anyone else except me.  Of course, I can do this because I have tenure, because I have a wee bit of privilege, and because I am less restrained than many folks.

It comes down to this: I am who I am, as Popeye would say.  I am not going to filter what I say on social media to omit what I prefer, what I care about, what I like and dislike.  If someone does not like it, they don't have to read me or follow me.  And thus far, no employer has asked me to change what I do online.  Of course, that might be because I do have some filters--those completely without self-control remind me that I have a smidge of restraint. 

I do recognize that there are risks to all of this, which is why I tend to advise graduate students and junior faculty and folks new to social media to start out by focusing more on their expertise--their lanes.  But I don't think anyone should be punished by their academic institutions for expressing their own views--as long as they don't incite violence. 

Anyhow, the point here is that I want to have it both ways--that I want to be a professor and a person online ... as long as I don't tell people to believe what I say simply because I am a full professor (such a bs move).  And I think that others should do the same. 

I Have Been Social Media-ed

Wow, yesterday was a pretty strange day for me on social media.  I have been engaged in blogging and on twitter since 2009 and am a self-appointed leader of a group that advocates Online Media yet I was surprised by yesterday's events.

What happened?  A friend and colleague, Stephanie Carvin, criticized the government's new stance on the anti-ISIS campaign, and Gerry Butts, one of two principal advisers to Prime Minister Trudeau responded to her.  Since Gerry and I have been chatting on twitter off and on since last summer, I jumped in and this happened.


Gerry and I exchanged tweets as I sought more clarification about why the CF-18s are being withdrawn and he kept saying that this was well explained.  The conversation was respectful and interesting.  And it was not a skirmish nor was it heated (geez, CBC, chillax, it is not your first day on twitter).

Folks were amazed that a member of this government was willing to engage a couple of scholars on twitter for a while.  I am too, as the old government would never do such a thing.  And perhaps reasonably so given what happened next.  For the rest of the day, I accumulated not just new twitter followers (yeah!) but many tweets sent to both me and to Gerry that were either nasty towards him or to me or to both of us.  Our respectful conversation led to a lot of disrespectful partisans attacking one of us.

This is not my first day on twitter so it was not that surprising, but Ron Burgundy said it best:

Indeed, it did.  Good thing Gerry has a thick skin and that I mostly do so as well (years on political science rumor sites as the only non-anonymous moderator has trained me well for taking fire from random internet people).

I hope yesterday's experience does not deter the government from engaging folks via social media.  This government is far more engaging and accessible than the previous one (I was invited to a roundtable at Global Affairs Canada on Monday to discuss Canadian aid policies for Afghanistan so it is not just social media engagement that is going on), and it is a good thing.

Of course, my favorite tweet exchange in all of this was:

@gmbutts @DougSaunders gosh, you are making me blush. now if you required everyone in govt to buy my new book ... pic.twitter.com/CHjFNrxAGx

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) February 9, 2016

You may have us confused with the last PMO. We'd never require it, but we can certainly recommend it. ;) https://t.co/k5avOgV0gW

— Gerald Butts (@gmbutts) February 9, 2016

Pondering Podcasting or Ponderous Podcasting

After taping a segment for a CBC radio program (to be broadcast sometime on December 6th with to be posted eventually) to discuss the use of sci-fi for the teaching of IR, Stephanie Carvin (who was anti- and thus wrong) and I (pro) started talking about doing a podcast to talk about international relations, Canadian foreign policy and whatever. 

It got some immediate interest from our friends and a couple of potential outlets.  So, I asked the following:

what would you call a podcast with myself and @StephanieCarvin? 2/2

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) November 24, 2015

Only 20% thought it was a really bad idea or thought that "A Really Bad Idea" might be the right name for the podcast.

We are still thinking about it, so any ideas for titles, for stuff to cover, for ideas about organizing or any insights into what should or should not go into this adventure, let us know.  

Citing Social Media

Handy chart:

Well this is damn useful. https://t.co/L5CmDByZuf

— Ellie Bartels (@elliebartels) November 14, 2015

Semi-Victory for Academic Freedom and Online Media

Today, the Hon. Lynn Smith issued her report on the UBC academic freedom controversy that I discussed here.  Jennifer Berdahl issued her response at her blog.

The key pieces of the report are:

• "UBC failed in its obligation to protect and support Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom. The Collective Agreement Preamble creates a positive obligation to support and protect academic freedom. Through the combined acts and omissions of Mr. Montalbano, the named individuals in the Sauder School, and others, UBC as an institution failed to meet that obligation with respect to Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom."
• Nobody infringed .... 

Which, together, is pretty damned confusing.

The next key piece is this:

The Collective Agreement identifies two “essential functions” of the University to which academic freedom is essential: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and the dissemination of knowledge and understanding. The means by which scholarly understanding is disseminated have evolved, and electronic publication is now common, including through vehicles such as blogs. The protections of academic freedom extend to the dissemination of scholarly research and opinion through these new electronic media.

Woot!  Despite the muddling of responsibility for who caused this ruckus (not Berdahl!)

Finally:

Although the UBC Collective Agreement definition of academic freedom does not refer to commentary on university governance, in my opinion such commentary falls within its ambit.

Thus, online media, such as blogging and twitter are within the realm of academic freedom and thus to be protected AND discussing/criticizing one's institution's governance is fair game--tis part of the stuff covered by academic freedom.

So, a major decision in clarifying what academic freedom means in the 21st century.  This is very important, given recent controversies.  Will it serve as a precedent? Not really since it is not a court decision.  But it might serve notice to administrators that they have to get used to the new reality and realize, as always, the attempt to cover up ends up producing far more damage than that which they are seeking to cover up.  In other words, let the profs rant--they are often ignored ... unless someone tries to silence them.