Should I Join the Evil League of Evil?

Interesting post of the 101 Signs You Might Be Evil (HT to Peter Trumbore).

Let's see which ones apply to yours truly:

• You feel Miley Cyrus is a suitable role model for children

• I am not saying she is suitable, I just am not sure that she is unsuitable.  One pole dance and one or two questionable photoshoots do not make one forever not a  role model.

• Jeff Foxworthy still makes you laugh.

•  Not always, but sure why not.
  

• The idea of voting for Sarah Palin as president appeals to you
• Only as a joke. And only in the Republican primary
  

• You deliberately say inflammatory bullshit on your news show just because you know it will be picked up by the rest of the media and gain you more exposure
• Does a blog count?
  

• You’ve purchased a drum kit for someone else’s child
• No, but does a firetruck with all kinds of noises count?
  

• You hang toilet paper the wrong way
• Guilty of related sin.  Just grabbing the TP and bringing to the bathroom but not actually putting on the holder.
  

• You bought a Big Mouth Billy Bass
• I may have been drunk.
  

• You’ve ever brought your kids to a bar
• Well, a comedy show that was in a nightclub.
  

• You like Prog Rock
• Yes.
  

•  You’ve overthrown a democratically elected government and slaughtered any dissidents
• Does it have to be both?
  

• You maintain a website that discusses your political/religious/sexual opinions
• Does a blog count?
  

• You’ve attempted to stage a coup
• Depends.  Does it have to be control over a government?
  

•  You go to the movies alone
• It has been known to happen.  Like seeing a highly anticipated movie so that watching again with the kid asking heaps of questions is less problematic.  Plus patience is not my strength.
  

• You try to feed animals at the zoo
• Only the stuff you buy there.  Except for the strange safari they have in Quebec just north of the border.  You drive through and hand out carrots and such to very large animals--losing a finger is just part of the fun!
  

•  You continue to pay to see Nicolas Cage films
• National Treasure is the best way to educate my kid about American history since we live in Canada.  Ok, that it is not evil, just pretty sad.
  

• You made up a name for yourself
• But not Lorenzo Von Matterhorn.
  

• You do impressions
• Only occasionally and not because I think I am any good.  But a bad Kissinger in an IR class is always entertaining.
  

• You devour souls
• Depends on what one means by devour. I teach. 
  

So, does that mean I am evil?  Learn how to do an evil laugh here.



For an exploration of evil:

Short Thoughts Inspired by Canadian Classic Rock Radio

During the drive to and from my daughter's school, we usually listen to a classic rock station.  Aside from reading the Montreal Gazette, this is one of our best exposures to Canadian popular culture (since we watch largely American TV shows).  I am not complaining this morning about the content of the programming.  Instead, just a few stray thoughts:

• The sports report noted that one of the Canadiens key players was out with a lower body injury with speculation that it might be the guy's groin.  And this is a typical report--that a hockey injury is either upper or lower body.  This is pretty strange as injury reports for the other major North American sports are far more specific.  But then, I remembered that the reporting of injuries, especially for US football, is actually motivated by ... gambling.  The gamblers want to have accurate information about who is hurt as that affects the point spread and upon whom to wager.  Does the absence of good information about hockey injuries mean that folks do not gamble much on it?  
• The segment after the news is often a call-in poll (which is increasingly problematic now that cell phones usage while driving are illegal unless a headset is used).  Today's: is Sarah Palin hot or not?  This contrasts with the coverage I have seen in the US--which is mostly about whether the book tour is about a 2012 Presidential campaign or just about raising money for Palin Inc.  
• One last note--the station seems to have changed its format to be more about ROCK!  So, what has this meant?  Seems to me just more Green Day.  Which is more than ok with me.
  

Best Early Review

See this for a quick take on a Palin-ism.

Contagious Contagion

Make of this what you will. Louisiana was the first state to get seriously hit and spread most slowly to New England.  Utah and Florida share the title for not yet hitting the threshold number of cases.  Hmmn.  What do these two states share in common?

What is important to note is that this figure does not at all reflect linkages to the outside world.  That is, we could have expected states with the greatest amount of overseas traffic to get hit first and worst, but that is obviously not how this pandemic is spreading.  Hard to see how Montana or Wyoming get hit sooner than New York.  Just goes to show how little I know about pandemics, other than the Z-flu.

Going West to the East

I always find it strange that one flies west from North America and arrives in the Far East.  Anyhow, Obama is making the Asian rounds. 

In China, Obama said:

"Our relationship has not been without disagreement and difficulty, but the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined,"

The notion is certainly predestined, but the question is whether the reality is going to be so. Well, that depends on which theory of international relations to which one subscribes. [And as someone who knows very little about China, the following is mostly wild speculation]

• Various variants of Realism would certainly predict exactly that--that a bipolar system--one in which two countries are much more powerful than the rest--would be characterized by tensions between the two.  Ideology, good will and the rest matter not.  War may not happen, but rivalry is certain.
  
• Power transition theory, which as one of my undergrads reminded me, still exists and is often ignored.  The basic idea is that as the dominant player declines and a new country rises to take its place, conflict is inevitable.  First, the old hegemon may launch a preventative war to forestall its decline.  And second, the old king created rules of the game that tend to favor itself, so that the new king will seek to revise the rules.  Gilpin's War and Change was one of the most fun books to read in grad school as it provided an interesting blend of Realism and Marxism to predict that the inevitable contradictions of the system will provoke war.
• Democratic peace theory predicts peace among democracies but not necessarily war amongst mixed dyads (pairs of countries not sharing the same political system).  But the logic is still there--if countries of the same regime type are less likely to fight with each other, then we should not be surprised by tensions, crisis and even war amongst mixed pairs.  Of course, since they are multiple causal logics to the DemPeace, this can play out in different ways.
• If it is about democratic norms--that within and between democracies disputes are resolved through negotiation, litigation and persuasion, then we might expect China/US to have a hard time since only one side of this dyad has such norms at home.
• If it is about structural constraints, including elections, then again, it is likely that only one side of this pairing will be constrained by public opinion.  I wonder if it is better to have two unconstrained leaders or two constrained ones, rather than one of each.
• If it is about transparency, then only one side is transparent, and thus confusion and misperception is likely.
•  Liberalism focuses on the convergence of interests.  The good news is that the mutual dependence of the two should provide plenty of incentives to both sides to keep their cool.
• Constructivism is a broader category with no real predictions, but one could ask what could it say here.
• We may see tension as inevitable because they disagree on what is appropriate and legitimate--that they have different values.  Even when cost-benefit calculations might suggest that cooperation is the correct course, we may find that one side views certain paths are seen as being wrong and invalid.

 "Still, Obama said, there are certain core principles that all people must share. According to the president, those principles include equal rights for everyone, a government that reflects the will of the people, open commerce and free access to information, and the rule of law. We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation, but we also don't believe that the principles that we stand for are unique to our nation," he told the gathering."

• If we take identity seriously and the process of identification, one of the challenges here is that the natural them for China is the US.  The US has its own identity but can focus on other "thems" so that China is not necessarily the principal antagonist--the US has a full menu of potential antagonists!  However, China may also focus on some other Them--Russia perhaps.

 On the bright side, both sides have heaps of nuclear weapons so mutual assured destruction should continue to play the role it has in the past--deterring both sides. However, the downside is that deterrence at the strategic level might facilitate assertiveness at lower levels (the stability-instability paradox), and that is where Taiwan fits in. 

One last note of pessimism--one can easily imagine politicians on either side seeking to rise to power by promoting themselves as the best defenders of their country's interests.

Hubris or Self-Knowledge [update]

The Patriots go for it on fourth down and two yards to go--on their own thirty yard line.  And Fail.  Colts get the ball back and easily score.  So, is this example of arrogance--that Coach Belichick just expected that his offense could pick up two yards? Or is it that he knew how tired his under-manned defense was?  His defense stopped Manning for most of the game, while losing players to various injuries.  But not during the fourth quarter.

I guess I have to go with the guy who brought us here.  That is, I have enjoyed watching the Patriots over the past ten years or so because I admire the high level of strategic thinking.  Belichick has out-thought his opponents most of the time, and even last night.  While he is capable of making mistakes (not just the ethical ones of taping his opponents or not taking injuries seriously), he clearly thought about it and weighed the difference of the gamble of going for it versus giving Manning sixty yards or so with one timeout.  And Belichick was going to going to get the blame for  the decision if it failed.  That takes a bit more guts than following convention. 

I will be interested to see what Gregg Easterbrook (ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback) says since he has long advocated going for it on fourth down, even in one's own end of the field.  But he also has problems with Belicheck's arrogance.  My bet is that the former sentiment will prevail, but, unlike Belichick, I have nothing at stake.

What would be the political equivalent?  Obama announcing either zero or forty thousand new troops for Afghanistan?  Taking a hard line either way will be a widely criticized gamble.

Update: The math suggests that Belichick made the right decision.  See here (basically what the TMQ has been saying for a few years) and here.

New Details on 9/11

A new book, reviewed here, presents more information about the happenings on that fateful day.  Much less control at the top and much less obedience to procedure at the bottom.  The Air Force pilots had no clue even as they flied over the Pentagon after the attack.

Perhaps nothing perturbs Farmer more than the contention that high-ranking officials responded quickly and effectively to the revelation that Qaeda attacks were taking place. Nothing, Farmer indicates, could be further from the truth: President George W. Bush and other officials were mostly irrelevant during the hijackings; instead, it was the ground-level commanders who made operational decisions in an ad hoc fashion.

 Indeed, the hawks in the Pentagon apparently had to change the official history to prove that they were manly men:

Yet both Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney, Farmer says, provided palpably false versions that touted the military’s readiness to shoot down United 93 before it could hit Washington. Planes were never in place to intercept it. By the time the Northeast Air Defense Sector had been informed of the hijacking, United 93 had already crashed. Farmer scrutinizes F.A.A. and Norad rec­ords to provide irrefragable evidence that a day after a Sept. 17 White House briefing, both agencies suddenly altered their chronologies to produce a coherent timeline and story that “fit together nicely with the account provided publicly by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney.”

 It is a pretty striking book and a review that is very critical of the Bush Administration.  Which is kind of funny to me, since the author of the review, Jacob Heilbrunn, was President of Oberlin's College Republicans back when I was a student [if this is the same guy, and his pictures suggest that it is].  But Jacob was a Con perhaps, not a Neo-Con.  Perhaps one of these days, I will plumb the depths of his blog to figure him out.  Unless my readers can educate us all.

Anyhow, the punchline:

Farmer’s verdict: “History should record that whether through unprecedented administrative incompetence or orchestrated mendacity, the American people were misled about the nation’s response to the 9/11 attacks.”

Death Panels

Very interesting op-ed in today's NYT by Representative Blumenauer who put the piece of language in the reform bill that became known as death panels--that doctors should be reimbursed for conversations they have with their patients about how to handle the end.

Irony or Hypocrisy?

In the NYT piece on the Fort Hood killer:

In that presentation, Major Hasan argued that the Koran forbids Muslims to kill other Muslims, placing Muslim American troops in an impossible position. Such soldiers should be allowed to receive conscientious objector status, he concluded.

Is it ironic or hypocritical that this individual was so disturbed by the possibility of killing Muslims that he chose to randomly kill people, including a decent possibility of killing another Muslim?  And, of course, given his job as psychologist, there was going to be very little chance of him firing up on a fellow Muslim in Afghanistan.  Indeed, he could have joined the tradition of firing in the sky or dirt as many soldiers have long been found to do in combat.

This article tries to tease out whether this was an act of terrorism or produced by psychological disorder.  The good thing about this piece is that it does admit for the possibility of both.  And that is almost certainly the right answer--the guy was disturbed and acted out--in a way to create terror.  It is unlikely that he is part of a larger group, but the problem these days, according the Bruce Hoffman interview in this piece, is not organizations but the actualization of individuals.

And towards the end of the article:

By September, Major Hasan had purchased a handgun and had begun to visit the strip club next to the gun shop. The club’s general manager, Matthew Jones, said he stayed for six or seven hours the handful of times he visited, paying for lap dances in a private room.

Um, one vote for hypocrisy, then.  Killing Muslims bad, buying lap dances good. Not that Muslims are alone in being hypocritical--picking and choosing amongst their beliefs and finding certain ones binding and others disposable.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Frank Rich has a good point or two about how the hawks in the US do not see the contradictions between what they say about Muslims and what should be done in Afghanistan.

Costs of Afghanistan continued

Funny how we were not terribly concerned about deficits until a Democrat became President.  Anyway, the costs of an additional soldier sent by the US to Afghanistan amounts to $1 million per.  Any "surge" is going to add billions a year, so that the savings from departing Iraq will be wiped out by the increased costs of operating in Afghanistan.  So, Obama may need Republicans to vote for his defense programs to cover the gap caused by Democrats voting against more $$ being spent on foreign missions. 

So, the mission going forward is incredibly costly (see here for previous post on this topic).  Still, this math ignores the cumulative cost over the next fifty to seventy years--the health care costs and disability payments to the soldiers who survive their wounds. 

Pondering the Depths and Darkness of the Human Soul

Isn't that what Pixar is all about?  Since Wall-E came out last year, I have been pondering how deeply depressing Pixar movies have become.  Wall-E has a happy ending--the robots are in love!!! And, yes, life can now develop again on earth.  But this is after generations of humans have grown obese and incompetent after destroying the planet (and my guess is that most humans did not make it on the spaceships).  So, wooohooo?!

And I was reminded of this tonight, while watching Up with my family (spoilers lurk after the break).

Spurious Correlation of the Week

The lesson here is not that Pitchfork's editors should get behind "Drill, baby, drill." The lesson is that US oil production has fallen steadily for 40 years, and Rolling Stone's editors are absurdly biased toward songs written between 1965 and 1980.

 This is from a blog at the The Atlantic that is borrowed from the The Gawker.  And I got it from a facebook link by Peter Trumbore (hat tips to all).

I enjoy such spurious correlations so I ask my readers to send me links to graphs or graphs themselves of such things.

You Can't Get Everything You Want

You cannot make everyone happy.  The decision to try those behind 9/11 has provoked the usual controversy with the NYT focused on how the families of the victims feel.  Some families are pleased and some are upset.  Of course, when making decisions about who to try and how, prosecutors should not care that much about the opinions of the families of the victims if one has a Justice system in place.  What is justice?  This is a difficult question that political theorists ponder all the time in their best efforts to confuse everyone else.  I am pretty sure that revenge is not the defining component, so the families' feelings are not so integral to the process.


While this is a predictable angle the NYT can choose to take, it really does not illuminate much at all.  The other articles about this decision are better at revealing the legal complexities and political tradeoffs.  Once again, thanks to the issues in play and the decisions made by his predecessor, Obama faces few good alternatives and mostly picking the best of a bad set of alternatives.

The Next Big Tragedy: Eggo Shortage

Flooding at one factory and repairs to another have endangered the world's supply of Eggos (hat tip to Dan Drezner and his tweet on this). Who now will leggo their eggo during an eggo famine?

This, of course, raises the question of what other kinds of calamities might cause panic in the streets?

• A tragic popper explosion at the Corn Pops plant leads to a gap in the supply of Corn Pops.
• Mudslides destroy the tart crop, leading to a shortage of Poptarts  [note: the poptarts website has two choices--kids or parents.  The kids' site is broken, and the one for parents has the following web address: http://www.poptarts.com/moms/#/section.  That's correct.  Sexism in the morning food business!!]
• The news gets out that the Frosting on the Frosted Flakes is actually from the bone shavings from endangered tigers. 
• The news gets out that Twinkies are actually made from tofu, organic honey, and love. 
  

As always, stock up on these key necessities and put into your shelter along with the usual Zombie survival supplies--for more info, check out: http://www.zombiesurvivalwiki.com/

Live, but Not Now

I have been doing a fair amount of TV over the past few years as Canada's effort in Afghanistan gains and loses attention.  I just found a clip of my most recent appearance.  It is not the worst job I have done (although I need to start using something to get my hair in order and perhaps look more at the top of the camera). 

In this appearance, just before the second election in Afghanistan was scrapped, I actually had a consistent message--building institutions requires following the rules even when they lead to predictable and/or undesired outcomes, rather than betting on personalities.  I also predicted that Obama would send more troops to Afghanistan--near if not at McChrystal's total, but the wait for that decision goes on. 

Anyhow, any suggestions on improving my media effort, let me know (including if you think I should drop it entirely).

Some Perspective on Afghanistan

Check out the trends at icasualties.org.

Such as this one:

 
This goes a long way towards explaining Obama's need to take time to make the decision.  It also suggests a change in strategy is due.  However, body counts are not necessarily good guides to anything other than the human and political costs, because one may be facing a tougher situation precisely because the troops are more engaged and there are more of them. 

This is from Der Spiegel, and shows that ISAF is significantly larger than it was before.  We should expect to see more casualties as the number of encounters with the enemy increase, as driven by the number of troops on the ground.  One could also read this correlation as increased intolerance of foreigners, but I do not think the public opinion surveys really demonstrate this.  This outcome is almost certainly driven by the logic of numbers in a counter-insurgency campaign--a more serious and active campaign will face more risks. 

The question at the end of the day is whether these efforts are leading towards anything. 

Change in Local Plans: Saideman Spews Live

The speaker for the Research Group on International Security [REGIS/GERSI] Workshop in International Security had to drop out due to flu, so I am going to pinch-hit:

"Fighting Together, Fighting Alone: NATO in Afghanistan"

Steve Saideman

15h30-17h30

Leacock Building LEA 429

I will be presenting our (David Auerwald and I) findings from the research we conducted last summer in Europe and prior to that in Canada and the US.  I think this project is interesting and worth your time ;)

Annoying TV Trend

TV shows have become incredibly lazy lately as they increasingly depend on music and montages at the beginning or end of the show to convey lots of messages without dialogue.  It has become quite annoying.  Done once in a while is ok, but all the time it is a crutch for limited writers.  Mad men has done it a few times, but Flashforward seems to end with such music/montages.  The only good news is that it reminds me of a South Park scene:

Timing is What? Everything?

There is an old saying about comedy--that it is about .... timing.  And the same is clearly true about poker, given the results of this past weekend's World Series of Poker final table, where the timing of events (and position around the table, which affects when one makes decisions) greatly shaped the outcomes. 

Joe Cada, the youngest to ever win the main event, was only around to catch a third two to beat two jacks and a third three to beat two queens, because of the following hand:

• He pushed all in with j-4 because he was down to 2 million chips (less than 1% at the total at the table).
• Another player called with 5-4 since he already had some chips in the middle (antes and blinds) so it was not costing him much to call and it was unlikely that he was dominated (that Cada had either a four or a five and a higher card).
• A third player could have gone in with a6 but the second player served to deter him since he had already lost a fair amount of chips to the second player.
• If the third player had called, he would have won and Cada would have been out.  But he didn't, so Cada doubled up on that hand and then several others, mostly going all in with weaker hands and catching cards.

So, it is about timing.  Gladwell (whose latest book I will review once I finish) points out in Outliers that luck has a great deal to do with success--that being born at the right time matters a great deal.  One still has to put in the reps (repetitions--work) to get excellent at one's profession, but having good timing as well. 

Well, in the academic world, timing matters a great deal.  Being a great Sovietologist was a great thing until 1989.  Studying corruption or counter-insurgency was a wise investment but only in the 2000's.   Likewise, job success depends on timing.  I graduated during the previous recession, and that led to many years at a less than preferred destination.  These days, there are lots of great, accomplished, skilled, creative folks on the academic job market but few jobs.   

The problem of merit pay is similar.   At most institutions, academics are evaluated by their yearly production and then given whatever share they deserve of that year's merit pool.  But one's work does not flow in a relatively fluid, evenly distributed manner.  So, one can have a great year or two of publishing and other output (service, teaching awards, whatever) but have that happen in years with little or any merit increases.  One can have poor years during years of abundant merit pay.  You can guess how I feel about timing right now.

Google This, Dude! Follow-Up

Last week, I discussed a slate article on google's filling in the search tendencies.  Well, Slate had a contest and here are the top five searches.

My reactions:

1. Borax is quite useful but not so easy to find, so I am not surprised it appears on #5.  And obsession with Erin Andrews is a well-known internet syndrome.
2. Watching free movies and especially True Blood seem to be popular.  I have not yet succumbed to the temptation to engage in piracy despite my frustrations with Canadian broadcasting or non-broadcasting of American stuff (ESPN's 30 for 30 comes to mind).
3. Mis-spelling Def Leopard is not a problem.
4. "How Can I Destroy ..." the World, my jeans, a website???  Oh my!
5. The 2nd place finisher illustrated the difference between "how can a person" vs "how can a human" with the latter more focused on .... inter-species reproduction???
6. First place juxtaposes: "is it wrong to" with "is it unethical to."  "Is it wrong to" is completed mostly by questions about "relations" with kinfolk. Oh my.  

Interesting stuff.  I wonder if the answers change over time as this kind of survey changes what people search for, leading to new answers?

Bulgaria: Poster Child for Empty Promises?

“Everything in Bulgaria looks fine formally: the free market, human rights, free speech, the multiparty political system, membership in E.U. and NATO,” Mr. Sugarev said. “But that’s only a facade. Behind it there is nothing.”  NYT

In Kin or Country (see pic on right-hand side of this blog), Bill Ayres and I argue that the membership processes of NATO and the EU were not as influential as often averred.  So, I have mixed feelings to see Bulgaria lagging behind: I am not surprised that we were right, but it is because Bulgarians are doing poorly.  On the other hand, whether we are right or wrong is immaterial to the lives of Bulgarians, so I guess I should not feel much guilt about being happy we have been correct.

Ah, the world is a complex place.  But it is generally safer to underestimate the transformative power of international organizations than to overestimate. 

On another European story, I am not going to link my blog to an article by Robert Kaplan that says that Europe is, in many ways, worse off after the Cold War because it is not united in some grand mission.  I may not be entirely right about Kaplan's assertions, but the general thrust makes reading the argument more closely a waste of time.

Decision Point Arriving

The latest news is that Obama is looking at four options (although one is a mystery) for the big decision in Afghanistan.  His greatest concern is about the partner on the ground.

Officials said that although the president had no doubt about what large numbers of United States troops could achieve on their own in Afghanistan, he repeatedly asked questions during recent meetings on Afghanistan about whether a sizable American force might undercut the urgency of the preparations of the Afghan forces who are learning to stand up on their own.“He’s simply not convinced yet that you can do a lasting counterinsurgency strategy if there is no one to hand it off to,” one participant said.

What kind of President is this?  Asking about the long term?  Thinking about the consequences?  I have not begrudged him the time it has taken for Obama to reach the decision.  Indeed, it provided some leverage over Karzai, although perhaps not enough, over the election wrangling.  I do think that coming close to McChrystal's recommendations is inevitable--both because the situation on the ground requires a better effort and to deflect domestic criticism.  If Afghanistan does not stop sliding in a year or two, then Obama will be in a better position to say that he supported the US military and its advice but the situation is untenable.

Of course, today, on Rememberance Day (as it is known in Canada) or Veterans' Day  (US), we ask is it worth one more American life?  One more Canadian?  Canadians are loathe to admit that they are valuing the lives of their citizens over Afghans.  Americans are more comfortable with that.  If it is all about lives, then sticking around and reinforcing makes sense, as a population centric strategy should both reduce the threat posed by the Taliban to the people of Afghanistan and reduce the likelihood of collateral damage in the long run as the outsiders develop better intel, can react more flexibly, and are better trained to fight tomorrow rather than today if there is a big risk of hurting civilians.

Rememberance Day/Veterans Day Thoughts

In light of recent and on-going events, a few things struck me as we remember the sacrifices made by previous and current generations of military folks:

• The improved technology of medicine means that many soldiers are surviving incredibly debilitating wounds.  There is much good news in this, but we tend to forget how many lives are irrevocably harmed by war because we focus on deaths and not other casualties.
• For instance, the largest cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (to outsiders, that is) will be the next fifty years of disability payments and medical care.
• Also, the media only counts deaths, which both under-counts the sacrifices being made and perhaps distorts the operations on the ground, as contingents may operate only close to base to minimize deaths but not casualties.  
• There will be talk of "war no more" but we can use a variety of IR theories to argue that war will be with us for quite some time to come.
• Structural Realism focuses on the absence of hierarchy in international relations--that anarchy (absence of government) serves as a permissive condition that allows war to take place, and that causes competition and insecurity that make war more likely.
• Liberalism focuses on the patterns of interest.  While one can hope for a harmony of interests among everyone, the reality is that there will always be conflicts of interest, including some worth fighting for.
• Constructivism has many different approaches, but will war be seen as unthinkable and entirely inappropriate down the road, like piracy or slavery?  Ooops, both of those still exist.  Plus there is always competition among different values and norms, so that we face important value conflicts between peace and justice.
• Then we can move to those arguments focused on individual cognition--that we always make mistakes about others' intentions and capabilities and even more perhaps about our own intentions and capabilities (and yet more about what everyone's allies are going to do).
• And onto domestic politics, where politicians usually have incentives that point them towards the short-term, which can often lead to destructive behavior.

While we will mourn the costs of war today as it marks the end of "The War to End War," one of things we need to mourn are the casualties to come.

Teaching the Comparative Method to Kids

In honor of the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, I embed below the bit I remember the most and perhaps shaped me into the political scientist I am today:

Just Like Zombies

The Nazis are Back.  This should not be terribly surprising.  With a bad economy, a Black President, and the Democrats in power, this was inevitable.  The truly disturbing part is that the differences between these guys and the stuff coming out of the right-wing of the Republicans are fewer and fewer.

The Blues Brothers, of course, had the best take on this:



Plus a link to a non-embeddable clip.

Nothing for Something (cont)

I posted a day or two ago about the real money for virtual money industry.  I was puzzled.  Not by the sellers but by the consumers.  Well, now the sellers look far worse.  The CEO Zynga, one of the big ones on facebook, readily admits that they built the business in the early days with some very nasty tactics:

I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away. I mean we gave our users poker chips if they downloaded this zwinky toolbar which was like, I dont know, I downloaded it once and couldn't get rid of it.

So, I just un-installed Mafia Wars even though I didn't buy any of their points.  And I will be dumping a few of the other similar types of games as a result over the next few weeks.  Too bad, as the games did create a few friendships and did help me connect with old friends. 

Mad? No, I am Delighted! [updated]

I have been a day behind in my watching of Mad Men, thanks to my residence in Canada (we get most American TV but with a few annoying anomalies).  So,  I finished watching the season finale, and was most pleased.

For more, see below the break (thankfully blogger now makes that easier for me) since I will spoil like mad:

Movember: Mustaches Uber Cancer

One of my teaching assistants, F.X., has asked for my help, as he is participating in an effort to raise money to fight prostate cancer.  The idea is to get people to pay him and his teammates to grow mustaches in November.  I, of course, agreed to help as any effort that draws attention to facial hair is worthwhile.

So, I have challenged my students in my big class--if they give $600 (an average of a dollar a student) to F.X., then I will shave my beard into the shape of their favorite mustache (with a caveat or two). 

If you are interested in joining the cause, you can email me (steve dot saideman at mcgill dot ca), and I can put you in touch with F.X. 

H1N1 Vaccinations--Barometers of Status?

In the US, Goldman-Sachs gets more bad press (I guess they believe that even bad publicity is better than no publicity?!) for getting vaccinations against h1n1 before their time.  In Canada, the Calgary Flames (a hockey team for the ignorant Americans) got their shots ahead of schedule.

Does this reflect a deep cultural divide?  Sort of.  In Montreal, those donating to Montreal Jewish General got shots ahead of schedule as well, so in either country, money talks. 

I do thing that times of crisis can be quite revealing.  I guess the pandemic of h1n1 counts (at least if one counts how many extensions I gave on a paper this week for my large Intro to IR class).  And we are seeing some great behavior and some awful behavior. 

For a mix of the two: in Montreal, the latest news is that there is effort to deploy retired nurses to help out with shots and care, I think on a volunteer basis.  Very clever idea.  However, these nurses may have to pay $300 per nurse to pay the fee of the nurses' association (union).  Also very clever, but not very productive from the standpoint of what is good for society. 

Poppies Continued

The wearing of poppies by Canadians has become so de rigeur that this weekend's paper had a picture of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, wearing one.  This is striking as there were riots in Quebec during the World War I over conscription, which led to a very different kind of personnel policy for Quebec in World War II.  Yes, indeed, Quebecers did lose their lives in those wars and the on-going campaign in Afghanistan, but the BQ is a separatist party seeking independence for Quebec, and the casualties are suffered by the CANADIAN Forces.  When the 22nd (Van Doos) regiment from Quebec first went to Afghanistan, there was some discussion about whether Quebec should have a say in this by the less well-informed.  I was tempted to remind folks that these soldiers joined the CANADIAN Forces, not the Quebec Forces. 

I guess I have been here too long.  I have the same kind of reaction when anyone talks about the Confederate Army in proud terms.  I see the South in the US Civil War as, well, traitors, deserving very little in the way of praise, and the symbols about them to be offensive. 

I guess I should just see the BQ poppy-wearers as being good human beings, who remember those who have lost lives in past wars.  But I think I am too cynical.

Berlin and All That

After visiting Berlin for the first time this summer (you can see a number of my posts from that trip), I read the NY Times coverage of the anniversary of the wall falling with great interest.  A number of articles around the web have noted that the actual day's events that led to the fall of the wall were a series of accidents, misunderstandings and poor communication.

There is, of course, a deep divide between folks who argue that deeper structural dynamics drive events or the quirks of personalities and accidents of history make the difference. While it is clearer now that poor communication and such produced the focal point in time and space, the fact that large numbers of people rallied to the wall and the gates suggests something more than an accident.  But I am not an expert on intra-German politics.  A year in the Pentagon did teach me that personalities and arcane procedures do matter, more than I wanted to believe.

Either way, these stories are quite intriguing.  And the NY Times story linked above largely asserts reunification worked pretty well, especially given how different the two parts of Germany were economically.  So, perhaps we ought not jump all over Germany for the restrictions on their forces in Afghanistan.

And it is fun to remember people's fears in 1989:

The reality of Germany today makes it difficult to remember the immediate concerns in Europe after the wall fell. Leaders like President François Mitterrand of France and, in particular, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain, worried aloud that a reunified Germany was likely to drift away from the NATO alliance and the structures of the European Union and at worst might return to the path of extreme nationalism.

See Fred Kaplan on why Berlin mattered.

Political Scientists Go Wild!

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita has written a book for the masses, taking what he has been arguing in Poli Sci journals and using as a consultant and putting it out there.  His book is reviewed in today's NY Times.

“Game theory,” Bueno de Mesquita writes, “urges us to take a cold, hard look at what it means to be a calculating, rational decision maker.”And he lives up to his word. Mother Teresa did nice things, sure. But she was awfully public about those good deeds, and she appears to have been seeking fame and reward, either in this life or the next. “Could it be that Mother Teresa’s ambition for herself was tied to her faith in an eternal reward?” Bueno de Mesquita writes. “It makes sense to pay the price of sacrifice for the short, finite time of a life span if the consequence is a reward that goes on for infinity in heaven. In fact, isn’t that exactly the explanation many of us give for the actions of suicide bombers, dying in their own prideful eyes as martyrs who will be rewarded for all eternity in heaven?”  Yes, you read that correctly. On Page 15 of “The Predictioneer’s Game,” Bueno de Mesquita equates Mother Teresa with the likes of Mohamed Atta.

How do his simulations work?

His simulations rely on four factors: who has a stake; what each of these people wants; how much they care; and how much influence they have on others. He surveys experts on the topic, assigns numerical values to the four factors, plugs the data into a computer and waits for his software to spit out the future

So, I am always confused--is this really very impressive? Or is all the real work done by the experts--figuring out who matters, how much they care, how powerful they are?  This is the hard stuff of political science.  So, I guess the big magic is in getting the experts to code these things reliably so that the magic formula of combining the four factors works. 

All of these stories are fascinating. Every chapter in Bueno de Mesquita’s book contains something insightful about human behavior. But a question hovers over the text as he celebrates the brilliance of past predictions: Is this a bunch of baloney? Sure, he’s gotten stuff right. But should we really kick traditional experts outside and rely on the machines?

The reviewer misses the point as I suggested above--the machine relies on experts for the input.  Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.  Definitely a worthwhile read, but I have a few books in line ahead of this one. Let me know what you think.

Health Care Reform Passes House

It looks pretty ugly--the bill includes restrictions on federal funding for abortion and it passed narrowly--with two more votes than necessary.

We should not be surprised by either outcome.  Abortion is still a highly divisive issue, and there are enough house seats where an incumbent cannot appear to be supporting the funding of abortion.  In surveys, majorities are against banning abortion but they are also against federal $$ for abortion. 

I avoided American politics classes throughout my life, but I did pick up one or two nuggets along the way.  One of them is consider a vote total as an artifice of party organization, even or especially a narrow one.  So, once the Dems knew that it would pass, they let those in more vulnerable positions to vote against.  At least, that is the theory, and I have no reason to doubt it here.  I am sure that some political scientist will look at the vote on this bill and determine that Dems in red or purple districts, Dems in first or second terms, Dems with stronger competition (I don't know how that would be operationalized) voted against the bill.  Just a guess. [NYT has a good start on this]

Oh, and this was the easy part.  We knew that a Health Care Reform bill would get through the House of Representatives.  Getting through the Senate will be quite difficult, but the chances are pretty good for that now.  On the other hand, as both my past week of cards and last night's (and this morning's) final table of the World Series of Poker demonstrate, low probability events just mean that something is unlikely, not impossible.

Theory Meets Reality

When I try to explain in my Intro to IR class that how we interact affects our choices--that the processes through which we interact influence the frequency, the costs/benefits, of the interactions.  I try to illustrate this with barter vs. credit cards.  But this story does a nice job of illustrating how a cash economy vs. credit card economy makes a big difference.  In short, the city of NY forced the cab companies to take credit cards, which they resisted for a variety of reasons, but it has meant that more people are taking cabs, increasing their business, because the transaction is fast, easy, track-able, and delays the actual bill ;).

Wanna Bet?

ESPN will be broadcasting the final table of the World Series of Poker's Main Event on Tuesday, November 9th.  You can follow the table right now on various twitter sites, as they play today from 9 down to two players.  And the heads up match will be Monday, I guess.  But I would bet right now what TSN (the Canadian brother of ESPN) will probably not televise the event at the same time as ESPN. 

And yes, this is just me whining again about watching sports and other programs in Canada.

Talking the Talk: Teaching the Teach... Oops

Interesting piece using Fight Club to talk about Teaching--Faculty Club.

Includes this handy tip for Adviser Management:

If your adviser tries to change the subject from a discussion of your dissertation, shove one of the books, preferably one that is so new that you are confident your adviser hasn't read it, into his hands: "Um, have you seen this yet?" No doubt his frantic attempt to scan the bibliography and see if his work is cited will sufficiently distract him.

No doubt.  I am not the only narcissist in the academy.

This take on teaching is also largely correct:

you must not expect to be given any actual guidance from your department on how to be a teacher. You will only be able to obtain those skills through your own efforts.

Teaching, like writing, takes a lot of practice.  When I first started out, I just wanted to be clear and organized.  I did not try to be interesting or engaging.  I didn't even try to be funny, as hard as that might be to believe.  My lecture notes from my first years of teaching were quite organized, developed, even occasionally researched.  And they have served me well since.  I think, in some ways, it was quite lucky that I was a visitor for two years at U of Vermont, teaching only a few courses, mostly intro to IR, to relatively small classes.  I learned how to teach, more or less, in a low risk environment, playing to my strengths. 

Then I went to Texas Tech and had to teach beyond my area of expertise to very large classes, but the foundation of my teaching style (or philosophy as the piece cited above puts it) was built mostly in Vermont.  The only real teaching lessons I learned at UCSD was to watch the same course (Intro to IR) taught by a fantastic teacher, by a strong teacher who was revising his course in light of the end of the cold war, and by a less than stellar teacher.  I could compare and contrast and borrow/steal what worked. 

Upon arriving at McGill, I quickly learned I had to increase my expectations, as the students were going to do the work and think about it.  So tests became less about enforcement and more about pushing them and me to think more about the material.  And, I loosened up somewhere between Vermont and now.  I was never super-uptight, but now I am very relaxed, I play music before class starts to charge my batteries, and I have to balance how much youtube and other such stuff I use.  Teaching 600 students, as I have been doing since 2005, has lead to a delicate balancing act--adding demonstrations and experiments to make things interesting but not too distracting--how much education and entertainment complement vs. overwhelm.

But do I have a teaching philosophy? Will have to ponder that some.

Fort Hood--Too Soon To Comment [UPDATED]

It is too soon to develop any serious thoughts about the events at Fort Hood.  We really do not know much about the suspect.  There is probably still a lot of confusion about what really happened.  Did the guy really hit more than fifty people?  The press is already lionizing the female cop who may have been the one to take the guy down.  She definitely deserves much lauding, but we really do not know much yet.  If the first casualty of war is the truth, then the first casualty of this kind of event (other than obviously those who are harmed or killed by the attack itself) is what?  Clarity? Editorial discretion? Patience?

One Canadian side note on all of this: for quite sometime, the Canadian Force exchange officers with many of Canada's allies, including at relatively high levels.  Both the current and past Chiefs of Defense Staff, Natynczyk and Hillier respectively, served as Deputy Commander of III Corps, based at Fort Hood.  There may be a Canadian general serving in that post right now (not sure).  Just thought I would mention this relatively hidden Canadian connection.


UPDATED:  Good explainer at Slate on some questions about the event.

Getting Nothing for Something

Interesting piece at NYT on the sale of virtual goods.  That is, people are giving money to folks on the web for symbols/pictures/points that either have some value in a game or are just a gift of an icon to show that one cares.

Analysts estimate that virtual goods could bring in a billion dollars in the United States and around $5 billion worldwide this year — all for things that, aside from perhaps a few hours of work by an artist and a programmer, cost nothing to produce.

I play a bunch of facebook-related games--Mafia Wars (where individuals play the role of mobsters trying to move up the ranks); Superhero City (where individuals play the role of superhero trying to move up the ranks); and Knighthood (where individuals try to build empires including friends and those seized from others).  In each, one can spend money to gain points of some kind to develop new capabilities, re-energize the player and so forth. 

While doing so can occasionally provide a competitive advantage, I have been mystified most of the time--why spend money on a free game?  There has been only one game online that I have invested money in--poker.  And that investment has been paid back many times over, I shyly admit.  I have pondered paying a monthly fee for World of Warcraft since that does seem to be a heap of fun, but it has become harder to contemplate that step since I currently play a game that pays me money (not always, but over time, I am in the black). 

So, this story surprised me:

Zynga says direct purchases of virtual currency and goods will account for most of its more than $100 million in revenue this year, and that the company is profitable.

But it did provide some explanations--that it is easy to buy a fake toy for a kid than a real one.  Having a house full of long-ignored toys and games, I am sympathetic to the idea of just getting virtual ones that will not collect dust and will not take up space.  Virtual clutter is no clutter at all.

Unsurprising But Correct Political Outcome Of the Week

The Coburn Amendment to strip Political Science of National Science Foundation funding died a quick and well-deserved death.  One could argue that the government should not fund research or maybe social science, but to pick out Political Science was, as I argued earlier, ignorance personified. [For other Saideman spews against Coburn, put Coburn into the search box at the top of the screen--I have about 4 or 5 rants of varying size].

I am looking forward to seeing a Political Scientist publishing a paper on the determinants of this vote--36 Senators voted for this amendment, 62 against.

Here is the list of Senators and their votes:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---36
Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV)	Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO)	McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Webb (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---62

Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burr (R-NC) Burris (D-IL) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

A few surprises: Webb of Virginia?  Sure, he is a relatively conservative Democrat, but the NSF is in Arlington, and there are heaps of good universities in the state with strong political science departments.  Guess I have to vote against him in the next primary.  Despite frequent references to a possible national candidacy, Bayh of Indiana is now clearly a force for ignorance.  Interesting that the Republican for Nebraska was against the amendment but the Democrat was for.  Each playing to beyond their base?


[UPDATE]:  That didn't take long--quick analysis of the vote.

A Very Bad Week for the Allied Militaries

First, the Afghanistan runoff falls apart, left with Karzai in place and fewer incentives to govern better, despite the harsh words from the Brits.

some American and European officials are pressing for at least a few arrests of what one administration official called “the more blatantly corrupt” people in the Afghan government. Administration officials declined to provide the names of people they wanted to see arrested and acknowledged that such arrests were a long shot. The international community’s wish list of potential defendants includes Mr. Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade; Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is accused of involvement in the killings of thousands of Taliban prisoners of war early in the Afghan conflict; and one of Mr. Karzai’s running mates, Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a former defense minister who is also suspected of drug trafficking. 

Second, an Afghan police officer kills 5 British soldiers.

Third, an American officer kills more than a dozen other Americans at Fort Hood.  It is too early to know really well what happened, but the combined facts are just horrible: that the suspect is an officer, a psychologist whose main job was to deal with soldiers with post-traumatic stress syndrome, has a Muslim name and was wearing traditional garb earlier in the day, and was upset about being sent to Afghanistan (although he would have faced minimal danger there, probably spending all of his time on a base).  Just horrible for those who were hurt or killed and those related to them, but also a huge challenge to the Army as it has flashbacks to the fragging incidents during and after Vietnam, and to Obama and Gates as they try to figure out what to do next in Afghanistan. 

I keep on hearing that as Afghanistan goes, so goes Obama's election chances.  I still doubt that very much as the economy will still matter more, and I think people will generally assess Afghanistan in light of the difficulties and the fact that Obama inherited that war (and will have managed to extricate the US from Iraq, even if Iraq then falls apart).  Moreover, the competition does matter, and the Republicans seem content to feed on themselves.  Still, Afghanistan is going to be a burden for the entire term and beyond.  There are no easy solutions, and I have struggled to justify staying and reinforcing.  The lack of any good alternatives seems to be the best reason to stick around a while longer, but Karzai is making that exceedingly difficult.

Perhaps the best option is to try to focus as much effort at the local levels, and mitigate what Kabul is doing.

But definitely a depression week.

Google This, Dude!

Interesting story about googling--basically revealing that the first few words entered and google's guess about your question produce some very interesting divisions:  you is vs you are; what is up with vs how is it that, etc.  Take a look and then play.

I tried "why does":

What a strange set of responses: eye twitch, gray hair, even poop floating make sense.   But perhapsthe strangest one is why does love always feel like a battlefield?  Does this reflect the enduring relevance of Pat Benatar?  And, of course, I am thrilled that one of the responses is about Harry Potter--Snape's killing of Dumbledore.

I could do this all day.  But how about one more?

 I find a recurring theme--poop and dogs eating poop.  "Why did I get married?"  If you are asking google this, then perhaps one needs a bit more help than the internet.

"Why is there a dead pakistani on my couch?"  Oh my.

Actually, that is due to Lost, perhaps:


And try "who says"

Best Quote Thus Far on Tuesday's Elections

The bad news is that they’re still Republicans — with all the baggage that entails.

From a NY Times Op-ed that makes claims similar to those I made yesterday--not to read much into the outcomes.

Disaster Du Jour: Afghan Police Kills Brits

It is bad enough that the locals don't trust the police, but we now have multiple incidents where the Afghan police--the key to counterinsurgency--firing on the ISAF forces. 

Slate's explainer does the 'splainin'

Again, I think we ought to try to do counterinsurgency right before we pull up and get out, but days like this make it hard, very hard, to sustain that position.

Yet Further Evidence that Hollywood is Running Out of Ideas

Risk, the movie.  I don't think I have to say anything else.

Israel and the Syrian Reactor

Check out this story.  It is a fascinating tale of the discovery of Syria's nuclear weapons program, including intel efforts that were smart, some that was pure luck, and now the two sides agreeing to deny that anything happened.

Gratuitous Plug of the Fall

U of Michigan Press has put together a nice page on the new edited volume, Handbook of War Studies III, which includes a piece I wrote with Erin Jenne.  If you teach conflict stuff, this is an excellent reader for advanced undergrad and especially graduate seminars.  Even if I do say so myself.  And, yes, being on the same page as the other contributors, all influential scholars in the field, is very cool.

Reading Too Much Into Election Results?

With a handful of elections yesterday in the US, it is easy for much to be made about each one.  But as any decent social scientist will warn, with a small number of observations, generalization is risky and it is unclear that there are any trends.

Republicans won a couple of governor races and gay marriage got another defeat in Maine, but the Democrat won in the controversial election in upper New York.  What pattern can we discern?  Other than gay marriage still loses in referenda, there is not much of a trend at all.

So, instead some observations:

1) Gay marriage is still bringing out opponents to vote more than supporters.  I am confused by the following:

 Opponents repeatedly warned voters that if gays were allowed to marry, it would be taught in the public schools, a tactic that proved effective in California last year.

What does this mean?  Teaching kids to be gay?  Teaching kids that gay marriage is legal?  Teaching kids how to marry in a gay style?  I have not seen these ads, so if  any of my readers can make sense of this, I would appreciate it.

2) Sarah Palin might just be the equivalent of box office poison--she lost her election last year, and her candidate lost last night in New York.  No wonder the GOP candidates in NJ and VA ran towards Obama, rather than towards Palin.  Where the Republicans go now is a mystery, but I do not rule out further acts of self-destruction.

3)  Candidates matter.  Hoffman in New York just came off as a boob.  The NJ governor was apparently quite disliked even by those who like Obama.  There was no national momentum or flow, but, instead, personalities of each candidate mattered a great deal. 

4) The key next year for the midterm elections will be, as always, the economy.  If the job picture improves by then, then the Democrats should be more ok than not, although the President's party usually suffers in midterm elections (but not always as of late).  If health care passes, then the Dems can claim some successes.  However, I do think there are some risks to the Republicans of being the party of No.  More people want change and reform than those who do not.  Being opposed to change works to win party primaries, but obstinacy as a party platform is unlikely to gain pluralities/majorities of votes in most districts and states.


And as always (at least since last year), for expert analysis on US (and other) elections, see www.fivethirtyeight.com.

Ask the Readers: The Most Efficient Part of Any University Is ....?

The Parking Police.  This is a hard lesson I learned in graduate school, where fees and tickets went up even during/because of economic downturns.  This has continued to be the case wherever I have taught.  There are all kinds of rules one can overlook or bend at a college campus, but staying a few minutes too late in a metered spot or parking in the wrong zone are going to be punished. 

I was reminded of this by a tweet by the Reduced Shakespeare Company that apparently was ticketed at Duke.

Is there any other part of university administration is generally quite efficient?

When I talk about bureaucratic politics in my classes, I always ask them which part of the school's bureaucracy drove them the most crazy.  No consensus at McGill, but that shows what a low tuition rate will do.  At all the places I taught in the US, the answer was always the financial aid office. 

Again, readers?

Premature Anniversary Fest

Heaps of articles and posts these days marking the anniversary of Obama's election, but he has only been in office for about ten months, so it seems premature to consider his performance thus far.  Of course, we can rate him every week or month, but he really was not President in November and December of 2008, even if we wished it to be the case or if it felt like it as Bush was marginalized.

Therefore, I should wait until January 20th or so before rating Obama's first year in office.   Indeed, we should know by then his decision on Afghanistan--the most widely watched and anticipated call Obama will be making in his first year in office.

Finally, a legitimate reason to procrastinate.

Where To Go From Here?

John Burns has a nice response to all of the questions he has received about the future of Afghanistan now that the runoff has collapsed.  It addressed the difficulties and tradeoffs quite well, as Karzai is being asked to change his stripes and act more decisively against the forces that undermine the legitimacy of his government--including corruption at the highest levels.

It is kind of funny that Montreal has been going through a similar process--its municipal election,a  three-cornered race between an incumbent who presided over much corruption, a nationalist politician seen as anathema to much of Montreal, and a third candidate that is widely viewed as, ahem, wacky.  The incumbent won, promising to end the corruption that flourished in his previous term. 

Who do I have more confidence in to turn things around?  Karzai or Tremblay?  Um.  Can I get back to you guys on that?  If I had to bet, I would bet on Tremblay since his family is not as directly implicated and because there are other institutions that might play a significant role, such as the Provincial level here.

Updates:
I am quoted for my pessismism in today's Globe and Mail.

 “It doesn't seem to me that now the pressure of the election is off that he will become more transparent. Is he going to fight corruption now? What is his incentive?” asked Stephen Saideman, a professor of political science at McGill University.

NY Times keeps up its run of apt but understated headlines:

Karzai Vows Corruption Fight, but Avoids Details

A Boondoggle Too Far?

I could be way far up north right now.  The Security and Defence Forum, a branch of the Canada's Department of National Defence responsible for outreach to the academic community, has arranged a trip to Iqaluit, capital of Nunavut (this is the same organization that sent me to Afghanistan a couple of years ago).  The purpose, I think, is to show to scholars what Canada is doing as part of its Arctic Sovereignty program--defending the arctic from the new threats in a global warming world. 

I could have gone, but I would have missed a couple of classes and some research time.  And since I am an arctic sovereignty skeptic, I am not a terribly receptive audience.  My research in the Canadian military begins and ends with the missions in Afghanistan.  Once Canada leaves Afghanistan in 2011, as it has promised, my interest in its military will drop, and its interest in me and my work will also decline. 

Instead, Canada will focus on protecting its northern regions from various threats--the Danes (an island or two in dispute), the Russians (who claim much of the territory under the formerly ice covered ocean), and the Americans (who will insist on free and unregulated passage through the various newly ice-less straits).  But therein lies the problem.  While Canada already has the capability to limit Danish poaching, it will never have the capability to deter or thwart Russian or American transgressions.  The real answer, as always, is for Canada to align with one side who can deter and/or thwart the other.  And you can guess which is which.

So, instead, our local post-doc who does all of the administrative work of our research group (soon to be a research centre) has gone north, and appropriately so since she has a sincere interest in both the Canadian Forces and Arctic Sovereignty. 

Anyhow, so we have proof that I can say no to a freebie.

Poppy Time in Canada Again

Every November in Canada, aging veterans occupy strategic positions in Metro stations, suburban train stations and elsewhere to pin fake Poppies onto the coats of the citizens, in the lead up to November 11th--Rememberance Day in Canada, Veterans Day in the US, the anniversary of the end of World War I.  One exchanges a loonie or toonie ($1 or $2 coin) for being pinned, and the city of Montreal, hardly a hotbed of patriotism, quickly becomes filled with poppy-pinned coats. 



The poppies are symbolic here because of their role in one of the most famous poems to emerge from the First World War, In Flanders Field. 

And the poppies are doubly ironic these days, as the Canadians have lost 133 soldiers over the past eight years in Afghanistan, often in or near fields of poppies.  The generation of Veterans from World War II is disappearing into time with those from the Korean War just behind them.  With few battles in between, the war in Afghanistan, albeit involving a smaller group of soldiers here, will provide the next generation of poppy-pinners. 

Understatement of the Year of the Week

Today's NYT headline on Afghanistan:

With Karzai, U.S. Faces Weak Partner in Time of War

We knew that before the election, and we knew that before Abdullah decided to drop out.  What does Abdullah's withdrawal, if it sticks, means for the legitimacy of the Afghan government and the future of the country?  It is certainly meaningful--institutions only develop heft and meaning through repeated respect for the rules.  If the rules are ignored, then the institutions never develop to the point that people follow the rules because that is what is expected.

 On the other hand, what really matters in the months ahead is how Karzai governs.  Does the election and the decline in US enthusiasm for his government serve as a wake-up call?  Does he start seriously addressing the corruption problem?  Does he support those who do governance better?  If so, then the legitimacy of the government will increase.

But I would be reluctant to bet on it, and that is what NATO is doing every day--putting the lives of its soldiers and placing its money that the counterinsurgency effort can be attached to a barely adequate government.  My position on the potential surge being considered by Obama now is that failure is an option but we should give our best shot before we start to minimize the damage of defeat.  I do think the population centric approach with more American troops to do the job is the right idea, very late in the game.  Too late?  That depends on whether the Afghan government, at least at the local levels, can get its act together.

 

An Ultimate Epiphany

When I started playing ultimate more than twenty years ago, the folks I played with tended to be athletic but not athletic specimens.  These days, increasingly, I play against people who are amazing athletes, which means, even if one discounts the disadvantages that come with age, I am often significantly mis-matched.  I was never very good at out-jumping other guys, so people are always surprised when I manage to catch a disk that is above the scrum.  I used to think of myself as an average or (when significantly deluded) above average defender.  I have not been able to fool myself about that for quite a while.  I can still get open most of the time, but if a dedicated athlete really tries to shut me down, he can.

So, I often wonder what life would be like if I was born later, but it is clear that I would not have developed my comparative advantage--my wide array of throws and pretty decent reading of the fields--if I started now.  I would have far less playing time, getting fewer reps, so I would have developed my skills less.  This is what Malcolm Gladwell tells us in Outliers.

And that would be unfortunate for me as ultimate is the best match of people, spirit, silliness, and competition that I have encountered.  Just last night, I had one of the best catches of my career--running into the endzone and catching the disk after it had already passed me, as I dove.  Oh, and I was wearing a cowsuit at the time and yelling "moooooo!"  Probably focused too much on the moo, as I landed badly on my shoulder--not a permanent injury, but not a great idea. Still, even after all of these years, I can still lay out, even if it means landing on my udders.

Getting History Wrong

I have just read the strangest book review--of John Keegan's book on the US Civil War.  James M. McPherson desperately tries to write a positive review, but Keegan apparently gets many facts absolutely and objectively wrong.  It is one thing to disagree about an interpretation, but for a work of history to get more than a few pivotal facts wrong is, well, inexcusable.  Political scientists can deal with "stylized facts" where they assert things may have happened in a certain way to convince the reader of the more general dynamics at work, but historians are supposed to get the story right. 

So, this will not be a book I read myself.

Party Fratricide

I have not been following the various ups and downs of NY's 23rd district by-election (thanks to Obama's appointment of the incumbent to be Secretary of the Army), but Frank Rich has a delightful column charting the pathologies in play.  When Newt Gingrich supports his party's candidate and is pilloried for it, well, these are good times.  I have posted before that healthy democracy requires at least two competitive parties, but given the GOP's current stance as the Party of No, I think we could use a little Democratic dominance for a while.

 The right’s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P. On Saturday, the battered Scozzafava suspended her campaign, further scrambling the race. It’s still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it’s even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure. That’s bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor’s race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday.

We drive through this area about half the time we visit the US as this part of  northern NY is between Canada and Syracuse.  The big supplier of jobs is Fort Drum, home to the 10th Mountain Division, which has been spending much of its time in Afghanistan. 




Anyhow, time to cue up Avenue Q's Schadenfreude.

The Latest in Path Dependence

Path dependence refers to how past choices structure the present, making some decisions impossible, others more costly and some less costly.  The most obvious example these days is extinction--if an animal becomes extinct, then most options about that species become moot, unless the fantasies of Jurassic Park become reality.

My favorite example is in Back to the Future.  At a key point, Dr. Brown (Christopher Lloyd) informs Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) that they cannot change things at that moment, as the timeline has already split off.  The only way to change things would be to go back in time to change the initial event back to the original way it took place.  In reality, we don't have time machines, so we are always stuck with the effects of past decisions.

Today's example is the Presidential Salute.  As an op-ed in today's NYT documents, Presidents saluting violates the normal requirements--uniforms, wearing a hat, etc.  Reagan started this, and every subsequent President has been compelled to follow suit or be seen as a poor commander-in-chief or unpatriotic.  If Reagan had not saluted anyone, then Bush would not have felt compelled, then Clinton would not have had forced to display a poor command of military etiquette (and underlined his status as a draft dodger), then Bush jr. would not have been displaying the one thing he learned while in the Reserves during the Vietnam war, and then Obama would not have been compelled to display a pretty tidy salute this week when bodies were coming back from Afghanistan. 

Of course, the bigger and badder forms of path dependence are Obama starting his presidency with two wars to figure out, failing banks, failing car companies, a health insurance crisis and empowered health insurance companies.  He didn't choose the cards he was dealt, and he cannot play his hand anyway he wants.  Still, leadership means taking the given situation and pushing as much as you can to do the best with it, including challenging precedents and creating new patterns that become institutionalized.