The academic lifestyle is often portrayed as an easy, relaxed way of being. Yesterday's events at U of Alabama-Huntsville suggest otherwise. A woman was denied tenure, and she reacted with extreme violence, killing three and seriously wounding three others.
Tenure is often treated as a life or death decision because of the job security that is either gained or lost, but people can bounce back from being denied tenure to get good academic jobs elsewhere or good jobs beyond the academic world. I have several friends who went through incredibly stressful experiences but moved on and are happy and successful. I have had my own career hit a variety of stumbles along the way, provoking not just a little anger.
So, analysts may focus on the current academic job market and the stress it induces. They may consider whether tenure is an appropriate means to protect academic freedom, given its impact not just on individuals but also on the incentives of all involved. But what is relatively clear, even this early in course of events, is that individuals can go "postal" in any occupation. Most people do not react to job stresses and job losses by killing people, so the roots of yesterday's events lay in individual psychology much more so than in the system, even if the system is flawed. Lots of people get denied tenure. Lots of people have lost their jobs over the past year or two, but violence remains quite rare thankfully.
Perhaps we need to think about how to make the tenure process more humane and less stressful, but we should do that because it is the right thing to do, not because of this singular event.
So, those are my quick and dirty and ill-informed first thoughts to these events.
UPDATED: See here for six takes on this by a bunch of academics.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Good Panels Gone Bad
Every few years, pop culture meets political science. Scholars will take some hunk of pop culture and run with it. And this can be a great idea (I recently read Dan Drezner's Zombie and IR textbook manuscript, and it will be assigned reading and not just for my class). I heard of a legendary Elvis panel at a Southern Poli Sci Assn meeting (I think). There have apparently been panels in the past on Star Trek (I had a class on the Cultural Relevance of Star Trek back at Oberlin just as the second series was starting).
I attended a Harry Potter and IR panel at the ISA a while back after Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. And it was both entertaining and educational. It was interesting to consider some of international political elements of the books (rules against flying carpets as trade barriers). Some of the papers over-reached a bit, at least in my view because I am not a huge fan of literary criticism or postmodern approaches to IR. It did produce an edited volume that is worth checking out.
I raise this because I spotted a panel that could have been interesting: "'Galactica Actual'; How Battlestar Galactica Explains World Politics." Unfortunately for my tastes, it seems to be entirely personned by critical theorists. It would be unfair to say that critical theorists lack senses of humor, but perhaps not entirely inaccurate either. Plus their tendency to create new jargon or obscure words (aleatory?) tends cause my head to hurt, so I will not be attending. A pity, as it could be fun. BSG had heaps of angles that political scientists can play, including civil-military relations (the coup in the last season was the most obvious civ-mil crisis but far from the only one); diasporic politics; politics in new democracies; post-conflict reconciliation and justice; immigration politics; ethnic conflict; democratic peace; alliance politics; etc. Unfortunately, the papers on this panel touch on none of these.
If anyone wants to organize a panel on Zombies and IR (if only to pimp Drezner's text), Brisco County and IR, Indiana Jones and the Lost Theory of IR, or Lost and Anarchy, I would be willing to sign up as long as I am not the only un-critical theorist.
PS And sub movies, I can do a panel on that as well. Thanks to Dan's blog du jour for reminding me of that.
I attended a Harry Potter and IR panel at the ISA a while back after Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. And it was both entertaining and educational. It was interesting to consider some of international political elements of the books (rules against flying carpets as trade barriers). Some of the papers over-reached a bit, at least in my view because I am not a huge fan of literary criticism or postmodern approaches to IR. It did produce an edited volume that is worth checking out.
I raise this because I spotted a panel that could have been interesting: "'Galactica Actual'; How Battlestar Galactica Explains World Politics." Unfortunately for my tastes, it seems to be entirely personned by critical theorists. It would be unfair to say that critical theorists lack senses of humor, but perhaps not entirely inaccurate either. Plus their tendency to create new jargon or obscure words (aleatory?) tends cause my head to hurt, so I will not be attending. A pity, as it could be fun. BSG had heaps of angles that political scientists can play, including civil-military relations (the coup in the last season was the most obvious civ-mil crisis but far from the only one); diasporic politics; politics in new democracies; post-conflict reconciliation and justice; immigration politics; ethnic conflict; democratic peace; alliance politics; etc. Unfortunately, the papers on this panel touch on none of these.
If anyone wants to organize a panel on Zombies and IR (if only to pimp Drezner's text), Brisco County and IR, Indiana Jones and the Lost Theory of IR, or Lost and Anarchy, I would be willing to sign up as long as I am not the only un-critical theorist.
PS And sub movies, I can do a panel on that as well. Thanks to Dan's blog du jour for reminding me of that.
Olympian Statistics
Predicting the medal counts is now fair game for economists. And the prediction is that Canada edges the US in total number of medals. More likely with Lindsay Vonn injured, but I doubt it. Lots of pressure on Canadian athletes since they did not win any gold in Calgary or Montreal. But perhaps.
I have a friend who is volunteering at the Olympics so I have been getting FB updates about the preparation and the abundance of snow for the big events and the rain and warmth downtown that challenge the newer, less traditional snowboarding/jumping events. I might be into these games if I had not become so annoyed by the pre-games over-coverage/over-advertising. So, instead, I am glad that the International Studies Association meeting overlaps and will distract me. I can watch an event or two sans sound in the New Orleans Hilton bar. Which is where I will be most of the time ;)
I have a friend who is volunteering at the Olympics so I have been getting FB updates about the preparation and the abundance of snow for the big events and the rain and warmth downtown that challenge the newer, less traditional snowboarding/jumping events. I might be into these games if I had not become so annoyed by the pre-games over-coverage/over-advertising. So, instead, I am glad that the International Studies Association meeting overlaps and will distract me. I can watch an event or two sans sound in the New Orleans Hilton bar. Which is where I will be most of the time ;)
Palin is Over-rated? Really? Say It Ain't So.
Salon piece combines numbers and reviews various pieces to show that:
some poll results:[Perhaps Americans are not as stupid as commonly depicted in Super Bowl ads]
Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling. There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.
As Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, that means Palin's running worse numbers than that divisive, devilish Hillary Clinton ever did:
I am looking forward to the Republican primaries in 2012 (which, of course, started as soon as McCain bit the dust in 2008). Should be wildly entertaining. I know that some folks may be wondering if Obama is going to be a one-term President, but things are mighty early, and I expect the economy to be turned around by then. And with Palin in the mix, the Republicans are just going to alienate the median voter and then some. Just think about Clinton and his health care reform bill and his mid-term elections ....To put this bluntly--Sarah Palin is more hated than Hillary Clinton at any point in Clinton's political career, and yet engenders very little of the love that made Clinton a political force.
Snarky Movie Review of the Week
those things [Anne Hathaway's performance and Jessica Biel's legs] helped me sit through "Valentine's Day" rather than flee to some happier place, such as an Iranian prison.From Salon's review of Valentine's Day.
But perhaps more revealing about the reviewer:
Taken as a whole, though, "Valentine's Day" involves watching talented and attractive people squander their energies on a pointless and random exercise, which ... hey! Wait a second! That's an excellent description of what the real Valentine's Day does to the rest of us (less talented and attractive though we may be).Hostility to this flick is not terribly surprising given the current backlash against romantic comedies (when was the last really good one?) and the ritual Hating Valentine's Day. Of course, I cannot partake of either, as I am a sucker for silly romance AND my daughter was born on V-Day, so I cannot hate the holiday, no matter how socially constructed it is.
The bigger disappointment for me are the reviews of The Lightning Thief since I just picked up the book and am really enjoying it. Reviewers cannot help the Harry Potter comparisons especially with Christopher Columbus directing. But then again, my family is pretty reviewer-proof so the only question is which one we will see first?
Sad Day for Disk Fans Everywhere [Updated]
Frisbee inventor dies at 90
By DOUG ALDEN, AP Sports Writer
SALT LAKE CITY - Walter Fredrick Morrison, the man credited with inventing the Frisbee, has died. He was 90. Utah House Rep. Kay McIff, an attorney who represented Morrison in a royalties case, says Morrison died at his home in Monroe, Utah, on Tuesday. McIff is from Richfield, Morrison's original hometown.
That simple little toy has permeated every continent in every country, as many homes have Frisbees as any other device ever invented, McIff said. "How would you get through your youth without learning to throw a Frisbee?" Morrison's son, Walt, told The Associated Press Thursday that "old age caught up" with his father and that he also had cancer. He was a nice guy. He helped a lot of people, Walt Morrison said. "He was an entrepreneur. He was always looking for something to do."
Morrison sold the production and manufacturing rights to his "Pluto Platter" in 1957. The plastic flying disc was later renamed the "Frisbee," with sales surpassing 200 million discs. It is now a staple at beaches and college campuses across the country and spawned sports like Frisbee golf and the team sport Ultimate.
An official disc golf course at Creekside Park in the Salt Lake City suburb of Holladay is named for Morrison.
Morrison co-wrote a book with Frisbee enthusiast and historian Phil Kennedy in 2001. Kennedy released a brief biography about Morrison on Thursday, wishing his late friend "smoooooth flights."
According to Kennedy, Morrison and his future wife, Lu, used to toss a tin cake pan on the beach in California. The idea grew as Morrison considered ways to make the cake pans fly better and after serving as a pilot in World War II, Morrison began manufacturing his flying discs in 1948.
He would hawk the discs at local fairs and eventually attracted Wham-O Manufacturing, the company that bought the rights to Morrison's plastic discs.
Kennedy says Wham-O adopted the name "Frisbee" because that's what college students in New England were calling the Pluto Platters. The name came from the Frisbie Pie Co., a local bakery whose empty tins were tossed like the soon-to-be Frisbee.
Walt Morrison said his father is survived by three children. The family is planning a service for Morrison's friends and relatives Saturday at the Cowboy Corral in Elsinore.
[HT to Chris Ball, founding member of Oberlin Ultimate.]
and check out this page of pics (including a topless Bill Clinton throwing a disk on a beach--possibly safe at work) [HT to Sparta!]
By DOUG ALDEN, AP Sports Writer
SALT LAKE CITY - Walter Fredrick Morrison, the man credited with inventing the Frisbee, has died. He was 90. Utah House Rep. Kay McIff, an attorney who represented Morrison in a royalties case, says Morrison died at his home in Monroe, Utah, on Tuesday. McIff is from Richfield, Morrison's original hometown.
That simple little toy has permeated every continent in every country, as many homes have Frisbees as any other device ever invented, McIff said. "How would you get through your youth without learning to throw a Frisbee?" Morrison's son, Walt, told The Associated Press Thursday that "old age caught up" with his father and that he also had cancer. He was a nice guy. He helped a lot of people, Walt Morrison said. "He was an entrepreneur. He was always looking for something to do."
Morrison sold the production and manufacturing rights to his "Pluto Platter" in 1957. The plastic flying disc was later renamed the "Frisbee," with sales surpassing 200 million discs. It is now a staple at beaches and college campuses across the country and spawned sports like Frisbee golf and the team sport Ultimate.
An official disc golf course at Creekside Park in the Salt Lake City suburb of Holladay is named for Morrison.
Morrison co-wrote a book with Frisbee enthusiast and historian Phil Kennedy in 2001. Kennedy released a brief biography about Morrison on Thursday, wishing his late friend "smoooooth flights."
According to Kennedy, Morrison and his future wife, Lu, used to toss a tin cake pan on the beach in California. The idea grew as Morrison considered ways to make the cake pans fly better and after serving as a pilot in World War II, Morrison began manufacturing his flying discs in 1948.
He would hawk the discs at local fairs and eventually attracted Wham-O Manufacturing, the company that bought the rights to Morrison's plastic discs.
Kennedy says Wham-O adopted the name "Frisbee" because that's what college students in New England were calling the Pluto Platters. The name came from the Frisbie Pie Co., a local bakery whose empty tins were tossed like the soon-to-be Frisbee.
Walt Morrison said his father is survived by three children. The family is planning a service for Morrison's friends and relatives Saturday at the Cowboy Corral in Elsinore.
[HT to Chris Ball, founding member of Oberlin Ultimate.]
and check out this page of pics (including a topless Bill Clinton throwing a disk on a beach--possibly safe at work) [HT to Sparta!]
Thursday, February 11, 2010
It's the 1970's-80's All Over Again
When I was in grad school, I was introduced to the poli sci literature on strong and weak states--referring not to country's relative power, but to each government's ability to resist their publics as they make hard decisions to adjust to the economic shocks of the 1970's. So, Japan and France looked mighty good compared to the US, which could not/would not impose significant taxes on energy and stopped building nuclear power plants and all the rest. However, as the decade progressed and then into the 1990's, it seemed that the Japanese miracle was not so wonderful after all, leading to a dark decade of stagnation. The US, despite bumps and bruises and bubbles along the way, did pretty well.
Fast forward to the past two years: the US pops, government acts to bailout various sectors (finance, autos) while Europe and Japan get smug about the fallen giant. But that is short-lived, as the US is experiencing incredibly high growth (although it has not yet dented unemployment) now while the European Union is facing an existential threat in the form of Greece (and Italy, Spain, and Portugal) going pop. And the Japan auto industry is in a crisis as nearly every Toyota is facing a recall.
So, what does this tell us? Well, the strong/weak state distinction tended to conflate strong with smart and weak with dumb. To be clear, the French and the Japanese and other supposedly strong states did do some stuff that was smart and did work out. But these folks tended to face some accountability challenges--such as the faceless bureaucrats of Japan that largely ran the economy. The US often accidentally does the right thing because it is so penetrated by interest groups and where politicians do their best to prevent the others from enacting policies. President Clinton developed budget surpluses precisely because of the conflict with the Republicans. On the other hand, those parts of government most protected from public opinion failed us the most--that would be the Fed, which fed the real estate bubble AND did not regulate the banks. Good work, guys. How can Alan Greenspan criticize anyone at this point is beyond me. I guess he belongs to the Dick Cheney Club of Denial.
Anyhow, the point of this rant, I think, is that insulation from public opinion can be a good thing in moderation, as the public may be too focused on the short term. However, those who are insulated need to keep grounded, or else they can lose touch and do as much or more damage than interest groups, unions, and corporations. As always, difficult tradeoffs that must be faced rather than ignored.
Fast forward to the past two years: the US pops, government acts to bailout various sectors (finance, autos) while Europe and Japan get smug about the fallen giant. But that is short-lived, as the US is experiencing incredibly high growth (although it has not yet dented unemployment) now while the European Union is facing an existential threat in the form of Greece (and Italy, Spain, and Portugal) going pop. And the Japan auto industry is in a crisis as nearly every Toyota is facing a recall.
So, what does this tell us? Well, the strong/weak state distinction tended to conflate strong with smart and weak with dumb. To be clear, the French and the Japanese and other supposedly strong states did do some stuff that was smart and did work out. But these folks tended to face some accountability challenges--such as the faceless bureaucrats of Japan that largely ran the economy. The US often accidentally does the right thing because it is so penetrated by interest groups and where politicians do their best to prevent the others from enacting policies. President Clinton developed budget surpluses precisely because of the conflict with the Republicans. On the other hand, those parts of government most protected from public opinion failed us the most--that would be the Fed, which fed the real estate bubble AND did not regulate the banks. Good work, guys. How can Alan Greenspan criticize anyone at this point is beyond me. I guess he belongs to the Dick Cheney Club of Denial.
Anyhow, the point of this rant, I think, is that insulation from public opinion can be a good thing in moderation, as the public may be too focused on the short term. However, those who are insulated need to keep grounded, or else they can lose touch and do as much or more damage than interest groups, unions, and corporations. As always, difficult tradeoffs that must be faced rather than ignored.
More Advice for SNL
There is a facebook movement to get SNL to have Betty White host. Imagine having a talented comedian as host. Of course, the material might still suck, but she could sell it. It will be interesting to see if SNL decides to go with the obvious and correct move or not.
Valentine's Day Advice
Not from me. No siree. But from slate--which movies to avoid.
Of course, this article does suggest a basic challenge--is the early date supposed to be part of the vetting process? If so, then do take a person to a movie that might alienate someone who is not the perfect soulmate. If the aim is a bit more, ahem, short-term, then different criteria come to the fore.
Any readers have any suggestions? Obviously, this blog would recommend Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, or a Zombie movie, given past posts....
For romance, the HP to see is Half-Blood Prince, with the Ron-Lavender-Hermione triangle and the Harry-Ginny courtship, although Order of the Phoenix has the Harry-Cho romance. Both books end in death, but, in Phoenix, romance dies due to perceived betrayal. So, HBP > OP.
For Indiana Jones, Raiders uber alles. Karen Allen and Harrison Ford have the best chemistry, and no bouncing nuked frig in this one.
Star Wars: Empire. There is some relevant romance in Return, but Empire has the best response to "I love you" that I can remember. And, of course, "Who you calling scruffy-looking?" Of course, you have to ignore the brother-sister kiss, but that is early enough not to spoil things.
Zombies: Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland both have a nice combo of comedy and romance. And the scary stuff just might work to get a couple closer together.
Of course, there are other options. Say Anything is a classic, but only if neither viewer has either been stalked or been picked up for stalking.
Oh, and some more advice for dining out on V-Day.
Of course, this article does suggest a basic challenge--is the early date supposed to be part of the vetting process? If so, then do take a person to a movie that might alienate someone who is not the perfect soulmate. If the aim is a bit more, ahem, short-term, then different criteria come to the fore.
Any readers have any suggestions? Obviously, this blog would recommend Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, or a Zombie movie, given past posts....
For romance, the HP to see is Half-Blood Prince, with the Ron-Lavender-Hermione triangle and the Harry-Ginny courtship, although Order of the Phoenix has the Harry-Cho romance. Both books end in death, but, in Phoenix, romance dies due to perceived betrayal. So, HBP > OP.
For Indiana Jones, Raiders uber alles. Karen Allen and Harrison Ford have the best chemistry, and no bouncing nuked frig in this one.
Star Wars: Empire. There is some relevant romance in Return, but Empire has the best response to "I love you" that I can remember. And, of course, "Who you calling scruffy-looking?" Of course, you have to ignore the brother-sister kiss, but that is early enough not to spoil things.
Zombies: Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland both have a nice combo of comedy and romance. And the scary stuff just might work to get a couple closer together.
Of course, there are other options. Say Anything is a classic, but only if neither viewer has either been stalked or been picked up for stalking.
Any suggestions from spew-fandom?
Oh, and some more advice for dining out on V-Day.
Membership Card?
Who is a card-carrying member of Al-Qaeda? Where can one find applications? Is there a hazing ritual? What is rush like? This piece is quite sharp in considering the complexity of the present day--that AQ labels are applied in ways that may be deceptive. To call AQ a coherent organization is a big mistake. I used to think of it as the Ford Foundation of terrorism--providing grants for projects that match the mission of the funders. Another model is McDonalds-that each branch of terrorists out in the world can have the AQ label as a franchise operation--locally owned, locally run, but some level of coordination with home office, and that the brand means something.
But the reality is that there are folks who are labeled as tied to AQ that are simply not. Either outsiders (like Western governments or the media) have an interest or a simplistic model that leads to application of the AQ label. Or the folks themselves want to tie themselves into a larger movement, whether or not they have any connection with the home office. Or AQ identifies folks as members even though they have no connection just to promote itself.
The relevance of all of this is that it reminds us that fighting terrorism is fighting a tactic, not a movement, not an organization, not something that can be defeated. Terrorist strategies can be countered, their impacts can be minimized (or maximized by overreacting), and so forth. AQ as an organization/network can be and should be attacked, but this will not stop individuals with loose or non-existent ties from being inspired by AQ or just trying to make themselves more important.
Countering terrorism and fighting AQ require multidimensional efforts, heaps of intel to discriminate between bigger and less threats, and some awareness that there may be other things that may be more important, like remaining relatively true to one's values, preserving alliances against other threats, maintaining healthy economies and so forth. Overreacting is playing into the hands of the terrorists, even if it is also good politics in the short run.
But the reality is that there are folks who are labeled as tied to AQ that are simply not. Either outsiders (like Western governments or the media) have an interest or a simplistic model that leads to application of the AQ label. Or the folks themselves want to tie themselves into a larger movement, whether or not they have any connection with the home office. Or AQ identifies folks as members even though they have no connection just to promote itself.
The relevance of all of this is that it reminds us that fighting terrorism is fighting a tactic, not a movement, not an organization, not something that can be defeated. Terrorist strategies can be countered, their impacts can be minimized (or maximized by overreacting), and so forth. AQ as an organization/network can be and should be attacked, but this will not stop individuals with loose or non-existent ties from being inspired by AQ or just trying to make themselves more important.
Countering terrorism and fighting AQ require multidimensional efforts, heaps of intel to discriminate between bigger and less threats, and some awareness that there may be other things that may be more important, like remaining relatively true to one's values, preserving alliances against other threats, maintaining healthy economies and so forth. Overreacting is playing into the hands of the terrorists, even if it is also good politics in the short run.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Snarky Post of the Week
Slate had a contest--where to put the big terrorism trails now that NY is bailing. No surprise that the readers of Slate are pretty snarky, indeed.
Detroit won (see the post for explanations, but think--minimal collateral damage). But my favorite two are:
Detroit won (see the post for explanations, but think--minimal collateral damage). But my favorite two are:
Wasilla, Alaska. Steve (he (?) didn't give a last name) suggests that if the KSM trial were to be held in Wasilla, "The national press can cover this trial and the Bristol Palin child custody hearings at the same time."To be clear, the Steve mentioned above is not me. I would like to take credit, but cannot. And the Niagara Falls entry is just brilliant.
Niagara Falls, N.Y. Notes Lee Neville: "Escape by jumping over the falls and swimming to Canada is almost suicidal. Bonus: Even if KSM survived a jailbreak, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be waiting. Their unofficial motto: 'We always get our man.' " Neville also points out that "it would be counterproductive for terrorists to fly airplanes into the waterfalls because Osama bin Laden is an outspoken environmentalist" and that local "souvenir stands are not just shovel-ready but kitsch-ready. Sample: 'KSM got the death penalty but all I got was this mist-proof hoodie.'
The Longest Story Ever Told?
No, not Afghanistan again.
As I have indicated before, I am a big fan of How I Met Your Mother. It fills the niche that Seinfeld occupied--comparative social theory testing. But, of course, just as Seinfeld strained believability with much of its stuff, HIMYM has a basic problem with the premise--a father telling his kids about how he met their mother. The video below illustrates this quite well--that the story is taking a long, long time to get to the mystery that the kids already know the answer to (unlike the eminently re-watchable Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Isla Fisher movie--Definitely, Maybe) and includes a bunch of material that one would not tell one's kids.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
As I have indicated before, I am a big fan of How I Met Your Mother. It fills the niche that Seinfeld occupied--comparative social theory testing. But, of course, just as Seinfeld strained believability with much of its stuff, HIMYM has a basic problem with the premise--a father telling his kids about how he met their mother. The video below illustrates this quite well--that the story is taking a long, long time to get to the mystery that the kids already know the answer to (unlike the eminently re-watchable Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Isla Fisher movie--Definitely, Maybe) and includes a bunch of material that one would not tell one's kids.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Speculating About the Future of Afghanistan
I am participating this evening in a forum (already advertised on this blog earlier) on the Future of Afghanistan. It is entitled "A New Way Forward."
Being the contrarian that I am, in my remarks, I will suggest a few futures but will suggest that some pasts may be the future. As faithful readers of Spew might remember, I struggled last fall, as the Obama Administration considered what to do in Afghanistan, with Afghanistan's future--whether ISAF and the Afghan government could be successful and whether it was worthwhile. As my remarks tonight will indicate, I have not yet reached certainty on any of that.
So, what do I plan to say? I hope to address three sets of ideas: myths/beliefs about the past several years; what the international community is likely to do (with focus on the US as the biggest force provider and leader of the effort), and what that means for Afghanistan's future:
Myth-ing Afghanistan
So, is this going to be a popular pitch tonight?
Being the contrarian that I am, in my remarks, I will suggest a few futures but will suggest that some pasts may be the future. As faithful readers of Spew might remember, I struggled last fall, as the Obama Administration considered what to do in Afghanistan, with Afghanistan's future--whether ISAF and the Afghan government could be successful and whether it was worthwhile. As my remarks tonight will indicate, I have not yet reached certainty on any of that.
So, what do I plan to say? I hope to address three sets of ideas: myths/beliefs about the past several years; what the international community is likely to do (with focus on the US as the biggest force provider and leader of the effort), and what that means for Afghanistan's future:
Myth-ing Afghanistan
- We have been at this (whatever this is) for eight or nine years. Actually, if we mean a countrywide effort to engage in counter-insurgency/armed nation-building, one can either argue we have been doing it for three years, when NATO and ISAF spread throughout the country, or for about a year or two, as COIN doctrine began to be applied seriously.
- Canada's Alone in Kandahar. Nope, it is the lead nation of this part, just as the UK is the lead nation in Helmand, which has been somewhat more violent, and has the US has had the lead in nearly all provinces in the East. And being lead does not mean being alone, as the Canadians have fought alongside not just Afghans but various other folks who have been wandering through Southern Afghanistan, including the Brits, the Americans, the Danes, the Gurhkhas, the Aussies, and others. NATO does split up a territory and assign countries to particular hunks (as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo), but Canada is not alone.
- The missing part of the caveat story (apart from the Steve and Dave project, which will cover most of it) would be the civilian side. Restrictions on what civvies can and cannot do are almost certainly more onerous and make the governance/reconstruction stuff far harder.
- Status quo: The surge largely succeeds in breaking the momentum of the Taliban, so it becomes politically possible for the US to stick around in significant numbers (somewhere between the previous high and the surged level), that most of the rest of NATO sticks around (minus the Dutch and Canadians, who are committed to leave in 2010 and 2011 respectively). Still much friction between countries with less restrictions (US, UK, Danes, Aussies, Poles, French, etc) and those with more (Germany, Italy, Spain, etc). But the sustainability of this depends not just on violence but on US deficits!
- Doubling Down: Committing more troops than already committed. Never mind. Let's move on.
- US Only: Getting closer to this now, unilateralism here is not as destructive as it was in Iraq. Other countries may bail out as publics become more frustrated. If the UK leaves, it will be hard for many others to stick around.
- Obama Pulls the Plug: I can easily imagine Obama saying in 2011 that we tried our best, but we never got the Afghan elites to buy into it. Cannot build on sand. This would be controversial at home, but the war is quite unpopular now, especially with his base. International community could not complain too much since only a few have invested seriously, and those folks are looking to the exits. It would burn India and Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, Russia and China.
- Status Quo Plus: Surge does what it is supposed to do--restore the situation back to 2004 or so. Low levels of violence, Afghan government stumbles along. ISAF remains at similar levels. Costly in dollars but the cost in lives and in votes declines
- Constitutional Reform/Reconciliation: Significant decentralization, with many former foes brought in. ISAF becomes like KFOR (yes, there are still significant numbers of NATO forces in Kosovo), lower costs.
- Somalia of the past 20 years: ISAF departs, civil war erupts and then peaks and ebbs in violence over time. US intervenes selectively against targets of opportunity.
- Pakistan of the 2000s: ANA launches coup due to frustration with corruption, incompetence of government. Leaves international in awkward position. Violence may decline to 2004-06 levels.
So, is this going to be a popular pitch tonight?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Gaming Health Care
Nice application of some simple games to the health care mess. PD and Battle of the Sexes!! Woohoo!
And the conclusion is that these dynamics are built into the system--on purpose (even if the founders did not imagine filibuster abuse).
And the conclusion is that these dynamics are built into the system--on purpose (even if the founders did not imagine filibuster abuse).
That doesn't mean the Founders didn't want health care reform to pass.
It just means they intended it to be a pain in the ass.
More on Metrics
Ricks is continuing to cover Kilcullen on metrics. This is an interesting conversation that merits continued attention. I may have given up on figuring it out myself, but it is important stuff that should receive more attention.
Calling Gamblers Anonymous
I was just listening to the last football podcast of this season by Bill Simmons and his pals. Cousin Sal of the Jimmy Kimmel show revealed some of his prop bets from the Super Bowl, and I was stunned, absolutely stunned, that one could even bet on the color of the liquid dumped on the head coach at the end of the game. Sal bet on clear, and it ended up being orange gatorade!
Of course, they went hoped to find the betting lines on the new season of Survivor, so I really should not be surprised.
Of course, they went hoped to find the betting lines on the new season of Survivor, so I really should not be surprised.
Military-Funded Research: More Bucks for the Bang?
Guilty. I am guilty of taking defense dollars for my research. Today, there is a story in the Gazette about McGill's policies on using military money. A clause was put on the research ethics form awhile ago, asking whether one's funding comes from the military and whether it is harmful. This was apparently due to protests over McGill scientists research fuel-air bombs, which are very destructive.
A few stray thoughts (as I prepare multiple presentations for a conference next week, I am thinking in bullets, rather than in paragraphs--ironic given this topic):
A few stray thoughts (as I prepare multiple presentations for a conference next week, I am thinking in bullets, rather than in paragraphs--ironic given this topic):
- The current revisions seek to bring McGill into accordance with other major research universities--dropping the focus on the military.
- The form and the process are mostly aimed at protecting our subjects (animals, humans, environment) and not about the end goals of these projects--like killing people better. So, there may be a bit of disconnect between what the research ethics process is designed for and the desire to limit researchers as a "tool" of the military-industrial complex.
- Students get upset when research is funded by the private sector and when it is funded by the military. They also get upset when tuition rises or classes get bigger. I wonder how we are supposed to pay for all of this? [Though to be fair, the student newspapers are now continuing opinions in favor of tuition increases, having seen the writing on the wall]
- The military does not have a monopoly on destruction, although, of course, its willingness to kill and destroy is a bit more obvious. So, should all research be vetted by whether it facilitates harm? Of course, then that opens the door to considering what is harm.
- Then, of course, there is the substitution problem--if the academics do not study fuel-air bombs and this stuff is then done by the private sector, have we stopped the arms race? Or have we just made it look like we are more moral and upstanding without really changing the reality?
- Of course, I am biased. My dissertation was funded by the Institute on Global Cooperation and Conflict, which was a U of Cal system-wide body that funded research on security issues. It was, in part, funded by the US government as conscience money since UC runs the nuke labs at Los Alamos and Livermore (and another place).
- And I am biased again, as my trip to Australia and New Zealand next month is funded by an arm of the Canadiian Department of National Defence--the Security and Defence Forum, which aims to outreach/network between the military and academia. Of course, my research is actually aimed at oversight, rather than how to kill people more effectively. But I worry how idealistic thinking about military interactions with civilians may end such otherwise "non-kinetic" interactions.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Strategic Corporal? Forget that, how about the Strategic Colonel
This story is just breaking, but a Canadian Air Force colonel has just been arrested for murdering a couple of women! Sadly enough, my first thought was--glad they were Canadian and not Afghan women, as that would have ended the mission right there and then. Not a great thought or reaction, admittedly.
I guess this can happen anywhere, but this is going to be a big hit on the Canadian Forces, something that they did not need after recovering from the years of darkness after Somalia, as Hillier put it in his book.
But, of course, the priority should be prosecuting this guy and taking care of the women's families.
And speaking of misplaced priorities--today's Montreal Gazette's front page is entirely focused on a change in the general manage of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team. This story is buried several pages into the paper.
I guess this can happen anywhere, but this is going to be a big hit on the Canadian Forces, something that they did not need after recovering from the years of darkness after Somalia, as Hillier put it in his book.
But, of course, the priority should be prosecuting this guy and taking care of the women's families.
And speaking of misplaced priorities--today's Montreal Gazette's front page is entirely focused on a change in the general manage of the Montreal Canadiens hockey team. This story is buried several pages into the paper.
Where is Don Draper When You Need Him?
This ad may very well set back the environmental movement decades. But the important question is: will it help Audi? It seems to me that this ad will be most amusing to folks who are upset at green mania (fly over country, red states, whatever), but is the demographic niche that Audi is seeking? Probably not. I am now less annoyed that I didn't get the American commercials for the Super Bowl.
On the other hand, FloTV knows its market--guys who hate being married. So, they can buy a small tv which means that they never have to pay attention to the wife! Genius!
For a complete breakdown of the ads, see this Slate piece, which averred:
On the other hand, FloTV knows its market--guys who hate being married. So, they can buy a small tv which means that they never have to pay attention to the wife! Genius!
For a complete breakdown of the ads, see this Slate piece, which averred:
A man is so protective of his Doritos stash that he uses the savory snack chips as ninja throwing stars when someone tries to steal a bag from him. I admit I chuckled at the suit of Samurai armor made entirely from Doritos. I also liked the earlier ad in which a little boy admonishes his mother's suitor, "Keep your hands off my mama, keep your hands off my Doritos." In the battle of pure humor spots, I'd say Doritos bested Bud Light. Which is remarkable when you consider that all the Doritos ads were submitted as part of a contest, while the Bud Light ads were made by an expensive advertising agency. Chalk one up for the slightly superior mediocrity of crowds.All in all, lots of money spent to demonstrating that the advertising business may be doing as much damage to the advertising business as the internet is.
Regrets, I have a Few
A couple of years ago, I was approached by a graduate student with ambition and an interesting idea--the US Dept of Defense was giving out huge amounts of money for social science research (Minerva), and he thought I should grab some of it. My idea, spawned in part by my trip in Dec 07 to Afghanistan, was to figure out how to measure success in a counter-insurgency war. In the lingo: metrics.
Well, as this post by Ricks indicates, this is still a big problem. So, why didn't I go for it?
Well, as this post by Ricks indicates, this is still a big problem. So, why didn't I go for it?
- Time was short. I needed to assemble a team of scholars quickly.
- It would be a significant diversion from my current research agenda: understanding the domestic politics of countries operating in Afghanistan, the next book on the IR of ethnic conflict (diaspora), the old project on institutions and ethnic conflict that is long overdue.
- A realization that I was not really the right guy to be doing the project--I am no expert on counter-insurgency or in collecting data in war-torn societies. I had a really good question, but I don't know if I could have developed any answers to it. "A man has got to know his limitations." Indeed.
Blogging Overdose?
No blog posting until 6pm? Is it because I burned out after last night's running live blog during the Super Bowl?
Nope, went skiing with my daughter, who had the day off. And what did I learn from that experience?
Nope, went skiing with my daughter, who had the day off. And what did I learn from that experience?
- My daughter is now pretty darn fast--if I turn at all, she can pass me. But on the steeps, I still have her. Well, for perhaps this season.
- She is pretty darn fast, humor-wise as well. On the last gondola ride of the day, one of the other riders was giving candy-bars to his skiing partners, and then offered my daughter one. She hesitated, joking that she does not take candy from strangers. I spent the next 15 minutes laughing.
- I was initially reluctant to go since I had a miserable car experience last night before the big game--stuck in a ditch in the snow on an unpaved road. But my daughter cajoled me/guilted me into going, and it was quite worth it. The conditions were better than I expected, despite the fact that it has snowed far more in the the mid-Atlantic states than up here. So, I learned, dangerously, that my daughter can be right and I can be wrong. Not a good lesson as we enter her second year of teenager-ness this week.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Diner
For the record, here is the Diner trailer. A great movie and makes the Colts' flight from Baltimore even more tragic. Well, tragic as far as sports go.
Live Blogging the Super Bowl
Just so glad to be home in time for the game that I am going to live blog the game:
6:30: Just in time. Had to go to way outside of Montreal to pick up my daughter. She was at the house of one of her classmates to film a school project--French Revolution. They needed a house that was epic enough, and one of her classmates had one. Oh my.
Got stuck on the side of an unpaved road, and needed a tow truck to get me out. Ug.
6:40
Brees goes deep on the first drive on shird and short--questionable choice.
6:50
Colts end up with FG because they miss one 3rd down pass. Saints D looks mighty vulnerable.
6:55
Saints cannot drop passes. Colts score too much for Saints to get off the field due to stupid mistakes.
6:58
Running now. Saints are in deep doo-doo. The only way they can win is if they can keep Colts to FGs.
7:01
So much for holding them to FGs.....
7:02
First new commercial--Alice in Wonderland. The rest have been old Canadian crappy ones.
Reminds me how wonderful Helena Bonham-Carter is as Bellatrix LeStrange in the HP movies.
And then back to crappy CA commercials.
7:05
Returning from the endzone--getting to the 20 is a draw--but getting called for a penalty is a significant risk. BUT if Manning can go 96 years, cannot Brees go 90? Where are about to see.
Hyundai seems to have bought heaps of slots up here--and their ads are boring.
Americans, let me know which ads are worth seeking out and watching online tomorrow.
What I can learn from Canadian ads are that the Winter Olympics are starting soon. Good to know.
7:11
Colston makes a catch. That should not be news. Apparently, no easy throws, just hard ones.
7:13
I wonder what the odds were that the first penalty would be off-sides.
7:14
Pierre number 2 heard from.
7:15
Rushing outside is not going to work--Colts way too fast.
7:17
Freney is not that hurt. But FG is not going to do it.
7:22
Commercial blight continues. Good thing we have time for many more lousy ones.
And I prefer the Colts Cheerleaders without chaps, thank you.
7:25
I do want the Saints to win, but I admire the Colts for using the run to teach the Saints the costs of playing against the pass only.
And the chances of Garcon winning MVP dive with a drop.
7:27
First good commercial, teaching probabilities with an ostrich! "100% now!"
7:29
Saints just need to get some more of these shorter passes to get some rhythm.
7:32
Colts are too fast for reverses. But Colston makes up for his earlier drop.
7:36
They are smart to take time off the clock, but Manning may still have too much time.
7:39
Finally a clydesdale ad. But a pretty lousy one. Longhorn cattle are not attractive.
7:42
Gutsy call, but Colts are too fast. Not even close. With fast players, you need to fake, fake something.
7:46
Likely prop bests lost: Manning throwing TD in second quarter (never bet with Cousin Sal of BS Report), the over on the first half (10-3), etc.
7:48
Teams should be ready to fake the spike and try to sneak in a free play.
And the Colts are just doing a great job of tackling.
7:50
Saints gamble and make it work--the second field goal and getting all the time off the clock. A bit lucky but also well done.
8:05
The Who can still rock, but I do think some good music has happened since the 1970s. I wonder what hte demographic CBS is aiming for.....
I do prefer the light show and stage over the herds of youths running around with flags or whatever.
How many CSI theme songs did we cover? Two or three?
And I missed a Leno/Letterman/Oprah commercial?!
8:20
My guess is the Colts win--Saints need TDs and didn't get them.
8:24
Onside kick!!! Best scrum ever!!! And a very gutsy call. And Hank Basket drops it--just shows that marrying a p$rn star does not help the football concentration.
Saints are now in rhythm, so all bets are not off but in play!!
The game just got much more exciting with a great screen play!!! Great blocking and great run at the end by Thomas. Just a great series from surprising onside kick (hey have a good percentage when they come out of nowhere).--better now than later.
8:33
Saints need to miss fewer tackles.
8:35
Manning is just so accurate. Hard to defend against passes like that and some earlier darts.
Maybe the Saints can win by forcing the Colts to score FGs. Oh yeah, I said that in the first half and they hit a TD.
Oh, and missing tackles = TD.
8:45
I wonder if anyone bet that there would be more running TDs than passing.
Another drop, by Bush, after a nice run on the previous one.
Henderson, on the other hand, is really reliable.
Nice stats since first quarter for Brees.
Scoring FGs better than not, but still a victory for the Colts.
8:52
ten yard return? Not pretty at all. But Manning has already moved it further than 90 yards.
Got a chance to see the Leno/Letterman/Oprah ad. Given that it was for Letterman's show, which Leno will be competing against again, does this not make Leno Letterman's, ahem, bitch?
8:56
Fast game--4th quarter already. Or just seems fast since I am so distracted by facebook, twitter and my blog.
So, the game will almost certainly hit the under, not the over (57ish points, unless 27 points are scored in the next 15 football minutes). If I had to bet, I would bet on four scores but at least one of them being yet one more FG. Which would put us under. If the Saints can get just one stop (which I doubt), they would be in great shape.
9:00
No turnovers yet, although the onside kick could count.
Finally a nice stop of the Colts running game.
4th and 2 play, very Patriots. Just like the onside kick. And, of course, they make it.
Nice D by Saints-with the LB in better position than the receiver.
9:05
FG attempt here is making me look good. That is, the prediction of a FG attempt, but I guessed wrong about it working out. Where is Vinateri when you need him? Hurt. Big, big stop here. And good field position to start a very key drive--but they need a TD. A FG will just not do it this time.
9:10
Will they score fast enough so that they have time after Manning scores again?
Nicely done. Even if I don't like Shockey.
I think the two point play might be reviewable
9:18
Nice to know I saw it right!!
And this means what? That those who bet on the Colts covering have to hope for overtime! Otherwise, likely to be Saints to win, Colts by a point or three.
Will the Colts or the Saints be the last one's with the ball? That is the question!
9:24
Great effort--not really catchable but an interception would have been huge.
Twitter is having some problems with volume tonight.
Big down here 3rd and 5, but Colts should get the first and move on. Things will get tighter in the red zone.
9:28
If Colts score (or when), if Hartley gets another FG for the game, does that mean he is the MVP?
Never mind. Saints win with TD Interception. Well, not yet, but that is the game. One turnover does it.
Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said on the BS report (Bill Simmons podcast) said that Manning was good against the blitz but not the big blitz.
3 minutes for two touchdowns? Not likely, not even with Manning.
Simms is right--Saints did it right--gutsy calls: going for it, the onside kick, big blitz and trusting the cornerbacks. A couple of previous blitzes had lead to some shaky throws.
Playing conservative was not going to do it.
Saints need to make this drive last a bit longer. Otherwise, things get too interesting.
Now is not the time for a dumb penalty to stop the clock.
9:40
Nice pass interference penalty--saved an interception.
This is taking lots of time off the clock.... Excellent.
And that is the game--finally a big defense stop. They let them have the entire field, but then played great defense in the red zone.
The drop by Wayne does not matter. It would have been mighty hard to score in 30 seconds after an onside kick with poor odds.
A very good game by both teams, but the Saints got the one break they needed and had a better coached game--the onside kick was a huge turning point.
Fun game to watch. Glad I made it from the unpaved road with a deceptively nasty ditch on the side.
Hopefully, I did not clutter the followers of this blog with too many alerts.
One last thought--if it isn't Brees as MVP, it could be Porter with his pick-6.
6:30: Just in time. Had to go to way outside of Montreal to pick up my daughter. She was at the house of one of her classmates to film a school project--French Revolution. They needed a house that was epic enough, and one of her classmates had one. Oh my.
Got stuck on the side of an unpaved road, and needed a tow truck to get me out. Ug.
6:40
Brees goes deep on the first drive on shird and short--questionable choice.
6:50
Colts end up with FG because they miss one 3rd down pass. Saints D looks mighty vulnerable.
6:55
Saints cannot drop passes. Colts score too much for Saints to get off the field due to stupid mistakes.
6:58
Running now. Saints are in deep doo-doo. The only way they can win is if they can keep Colts to FGs.
7:01
So much for holding them to FGs.....
7:02
First new commercial--Alice in Wonderland. The rest have been old Canadian crappy ones.
Reminds me how wonderful Helena Bonham-Carter is as Bellatrix LeStrange in the HP movies.
And then back to crappy CA commercials.
7:05
Returning from the endzone--getting to the 20 is a draw--but getting called for a penalty is a significant risk. BUT if Manning can go 96 years, cannot Brees go 90? Where are about to see.
Hyundai seems to have bought heaps of slots up here--and their ads are boring.
Americans, let me know which ads are worth seeking out and watching online tomorrow.
What I can learn from Canadian ads are that the Winter Olympics are starting soon. Good to know.
7:11
Colston makes a catch. That should not be news. Apparently, no easy throws, just hard ones.
7:13
I wonder what the odds were that the first penalty would be off-sides.
7:14
Pierre number 2 heard from.
7:15
Rushing outside is not going to work--Colts way too fast.
7:17
Freney is not that hurt. But FG is not going to do it.
7:22
Commercial blight continues. Good thing we have time for many more lousy ones.
And I prefer the Colts Cheerleaders without chaps, thank you.
7:25
I do want the Saints to win, but I admire the Colts for using the run to teach the Saints the costs of playing against the pass only.
And the chances of Garcon winning MVP dive with a drop.
7:27
First good commercial, teaching probabilities with an ostrich! "100% now!"
7:29
Saints just need to get some more of these shorter passes to get some rhythm.
7:32
Colts are too fast for reverses. But Colston makes up for his earlier drop.
7:36
They are smart to take time off the clock, but Manning may still have too much time.
7:39
Finally a clydesdale ad. But a pretty lousy one. Longhorn cattle are not attractive.
7:42
Gutsy call, but Colts are too fast. Not even close. With fast players, you need to fake, fake something.
7:46
Likely prop bests lost: Manning throwing TD in second quarter (never bet with Cousin Sal of BS Report), the over on the first half (10-3), etc.
7:48
Teams should be ready to fake the spike and try to sneak in a free play.
And the Colts are just doing a great job of tackling.
7:50
Saints gamble and make it work--the second field goal and getting all the time off the clock. A bit lucky but also well done.
8:05
The Who can still rock, but I do think some good music has happened since the 1970s. I wonder what hte demographic CBS is aiming for.....
I do prefer the light show and stage over the herds of youths running around with flags or whatever.
How many CSI theme songs did we cover? Two or three?
And I missed a Leno/Letterman/Oprah commercial?!
8:20
My guess is the Colts win--Saints need TDs and didn't get them.
8:24
Onside kick!!! Best scrum ever!!! And a very gutsy call. And Hank Basket drops it--just shows that marrying a p$rn star does not help the football concentration.
Saints are now in rhythm, so all bets are not off but in play!!
The game just got much more exciting with a great screen play!!! Great blocking and great run at the end by Thomas. Just a great series from surprising onside kick (hey have a good percentage when they come out of nowhere).--better now than later.
8:33
Saints need to miss fewer tackles.
8:35
Manning is just so accurate. Hard to defend against passes like that and some earlier darts.
Maybe the Saints can win by forcing the Colts to score FGs. Oh yeah, I said that in the first half and they hit a TD.
Oh, and missing tackles = TD.
8:45
I wonder if anyone bet that there would be more running TDs than passing.
Another drop, by Bush, after a nice run on the previous one.
Henderson, on the other hand, is really reliable.
Nice stats since first quarter for Brees.
Scoring FGs better than not, but still a victory for the Colts.
8:52
ten yard return? Not pretty at all. But Manning has already moved it further than 90 yards.
Got a chance to see the Leno/Letterman/Oprah ad. Given that it was for Letterman's show, which Leno will be competing against again, does this not make Leno Letterman's, ahem, bitch?
8:56
Fast game--4th quarter already. Or just seems fast since I am so distracted by facebook, twitter and my blog.
So, the game will almost certainly hit the under, not the over (57ish points, unless 27 points are scored in the next 15 football minutes). If I had to bet, I would bet on four scores but at least one of them being yet one more FG. Which would put us under. If the Saints can get just one stop (which I doubt), they would be in great shape.
9:00
No turnovers yet, although the onside kick could count.
Finally a nice stop of the Colts running game.
4th and 2 play, very Patriots. Just like the onside kick. And, of course, they make it.
Nice D by Saints-with the LB in better position than the receiver.
9:05
FG attempt here is making me look good. That is, the prediction of a FG attempt, but I guessed wrong about it working out. Where is Vinateri when you need him? Hurt. Big, big stop here. And good field position to start a very key drive--but they need a TD. A FG will just not do it this time.
9:10
Will they score fast enough so that they have time after Manning scores again?
Nicely done. Even if I don't like Shockey.
I think the two point play might be reviewable
9:18
Nice to know I saw it right!!
And this means what? That those who bet on the Colts covering have to hope for overtime! Otherwise, likely to be Saints to win, Colts by a point or three.
Will the Colts or the Saints be the last one's with the ball? That is the question!
9:24
Great effort--not really catchable but an interception would have been huge.
Twitter is having some problems with volume tonight.
Big down here 3rd and 5, but Colts should get the first and move on. Things will get tighter in the red zone.
9:28
If Colts score (or when), if Hartley gets another FG for the game, does that mean he is the MVP?
Never mind. Saints win with TD Interception. Well, not yet, but that is the game. One turnover does it.
Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said on the BS report (Bill Simmons podcast) said that Manning was good against the blitz but not the big blitz.
3 minutes for two touchdowns? Not likely, not even with Manning.
Simms is right--Saints did it right--gutsy calls: going for it, the onside kick, big blitz and trusting the cornerbacks. A couple of previous blitzes had lead to some shaky throws.
Playing conservative was not going to do it.
Saints need to make this drive last a bit longer. Otherwise, things get too interesting.
Now is not the time for a dumb penalty to stop the clock.
9:40
Nice pass interference penalty--saved an interception.
This is taking lots of time off the clock.... Excellent.
And that is the game--finally a big defense stop. They let them have the entire field, but then played great defense in the red zone.
The drop by Wayne does not matter. It would have been mighty hard to score in 30 seconds after an onside kick with poor odds.
A very good game by both teams, but the Saints got the one break they needed and had a better coached game--the onside kick was a huge turning point.
Fun game to watch. Glad I made it from the unpaved road with a deceptively nasty ditch on the side.
Hopefully, I did not clutter the followers of this blog with too many alerts.
One last thought--if it isn't Brees as MVP, it could be Porter with his pick-6.
Insert Carefully Imagined Title Here
Perhaps the most amusing and even perhaps the most accurate analysis of Avatar yet. To say the least, the casting of Zoe Saldana was not accidental.
So, The Incredibles teaches us that capes are dangerous.
HT to Wayne Norman via FB.
"When we would draw Neytiri and she had fins on her back and gills and all kinds of weird protuberances and so on in odd places, the question was, well, would you want to do her? No? OK, let's back off from that." -- James Cameron
So, The Incredibles teaches us that capes are dangerous.
Avatar teaches us: "Face it: on the right kind of creature, tails are sexy as hell. Just ask a mermaid. Catwoman. The devil. I mean, come on."
A great explanation about blue is followed by:
And the Na'vi sparkle. Or rather, they have bioluminescent spots that light up and dance and look all magical and nightlighty and tasty. Do you know what else sparkles? Another creature we've excessively fetishized like drunk cheerleaders on meth lately? That's right: vapid teen vampires.
HT to Wayne Norman via FB.
More on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Frank Rich has a column today on the new movement on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, noticing that the right wing types have been surprisingly quiet.
Anyway, it was notable that Colin Powell changed his mind, despite being a major contributor to the regrettable status quo. He presented a major challenge to civil-military relations back in the Clinton Administration by being the face of opposition to gays in the military. Now, circumstances have apparently changed for him as well. [Ironically, the NYT has a piece on movies where the hero is a rebel (Avatar, District 9), turning his back on his friends--is this Powell's role now?]
And this is from a submariner--the case usually cite for close quarters making for gay un-friendly environments.
Back to Frank Rich:
To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. This equation was visibly eating at Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as he vamped nervously with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week, trying to duck any discernible stand on Mullen’s testimony. On only one point was he crystal clear: “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.”I sincerely hope this is the case. But it is hard to believe such an enlightened public exists, given the Tea Party fever of this weekend. Of course, the TP types are a minority, but as we have seen in the Senate, it is relatively easy for minorities to block progress.
Anyway, it was notable that Colin Powell changed his mind, despite being a major contributor to the regrettable status quo. He presented a major challenge to civil-military relations back in the Clinton Administration by being the face of opposition to gays in the military. Now, circumstances have apparently changed for him as well. [Ironically, the NYT has a piece on movies where the hero is a rebel (Avatar, District 9), turning his back on his friends--is this Powell's role now?]
McCain aside, the most common last-ditch argument for preserving “don’t ask” heard last week, largely from Southern senators, is to protect “troop morale and cohesion.” Every known study says this argument is a canard, as do the real-life examples of the many armies with openly gay troops, including those of Canada, Britain and Israel. But the argument does carry a telling historical pedigree. When Harry Truman ordered the racial integration of the American military in 1948, Congressional opponents (then mainly Southern Democrats) embraced an antediluvian Army prediction from 1940 stating that such a change would threaten national defense by producing “situations destructive to morale.” History will sweep this bogus argument away now as it did then.Despite the existence of homophobia in the ranks (not too mention the Christian fundamentalism that seems to predominate in the US Air Force), the kids of today in the military are pretty hip:
I can tell you with certainty that if the ban were lifted tomorrow -- no year of preparation -- life would go on exactly as it did before....Life would go on. Mostly what I heard after Admiral Mullen's declaration was, "it's about time." There is no question if the military is ready -- the military is waiting.
And this is from a submariner--the case usually cite for close quarters making for gay un-friendly environments.
Back to Frank Rich:
But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.Indeed.
Semi-Super Thoughts on Super Bowl Sunday
I have prepared for the big day by chilling some very good Quebec beer: Blanche de Chambly. It is kind of orange-y like Blue Moon but with none of the Coors-related guilt.
Anyhow, some thoughts on the day/game:
Anyhow, some thoughts on the day/game:
- Super Bowl Sunday gets more play up here in Canada than the Grey Cup--the finale of the Canadian Football League. Why is that? Is it the dominance of the American media? Is it my selective attention? Or is that the NFL has the best football players so attention naturally focuses on the best?
- The big downside of living up here during the game, as I have mentioned before, is that we get mostly Canadian commercials. Not only does this mean that we have to burn time watching the new, over-produced but slightly more imaginative ones on the net, but it means that the commercials during the game are super-boring. As in the same Canadian Tire (think Sears/Target/K-Mart) commercials that have already been over-played for months. Since Canada is a small media market and since Montreal's English community is extremely so, it seems that only a few companies buy commercial time slots. So, we often get exactly the same ad three or four times in a given half hour. Yuck.
- On the other hand, we are not digging out from a big snowstorm.
- I am avoiding all of the pre-game, as I do every year. I have watched enough games and read enough online that the stuff presented today would be mere over-dose.
- I am rooting for the Saints, as many are, because New Orleans could use any and all breaks it can get. Indianapolis has not faced a major disaster lately. Plus the Saints have never made it this far. The Colts have been here.
- Indeed, I am also rooting against the Colts. Why? Because of my old ties to Baltimore (many of my friends at summer camp hailed from Baltimore and I went to bed every night to the sounds of Orioles games). I remember when the team snuck out of town in the middle of the night (as depicted in the 30 for 30 documentary that I have yet to see). The Colts are not the only team to have moved, despite being popular, but it was one of the sleaziest moves in the history of American sports. Yes, it is a long time ago, but sports resentments are easy to hold on to. Plus I am an NFC guy.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Random Observation of Action Movies
Apparently, there is some sort of gene that is associated with both left-handedness and action movie (including Westerns) characters. Far more folks in action movies seem to shoot with their left hand than population averages would suggest. Either actors are more likely to be right-brain types (and thus are left-handed) OR the proclivity to use a gun or a sword is related to the tendency to be left-handed. OR there is a strategic advantage to use the left hand, allowing the lefties to survive gun battles and sword duels.
More study is required, of course. Starting with this egregious 1980s video directed by James Cameron and starring Bill Paxton (with Hurt Locker director Kate Bigelow making an appearance).
HT to retweet by Doc Jensen
More study is required, of course. Starting with this egregious 1980s video directed by James Cameron and starring Bill Paxton (with Hurt Locker director Kate Bigelow making an appearance).
HT to retweet by Doc Jensen
I Can't Quit You
When should one quit a TV show? I never regretted ditching Happy Days after Richie went on to direct movies. I have regretted moving on from West Wing when it apparently got good again. I stopped watching Heroes this year--and I probably should have stopped two or three seasons ago. Just downhill after the first season but I resisted mightily until I lost track of the number of sharks jumped. I stopped watching ER after a doctor got hit by a falling helicopter, if I remember correctly. Or it may have been the series of plots in Africa. I did watch the finale and enjoyed it. Same with Prison Break--stopped watching, but the finale was good enough
I ask myself this now, not just because I posted about shark-jumping indirectly yesterday, but because I watched a two-hour Smallville episode that focused on an old super-group--the Justice Society of America. It was clunky as the linked review suggests, but it also moved away from the main plot of the year--Zod. The show has been going downhill for the past few years--especially after losing Lex Luthor, his father, and Martha Kent. Makes the show cheaper, but lost some of the more interesting folks who could spin good or bad plotlines in interesting ways. Last year's Doomsday was actually an ok plotline for the season, but this year's Zod? Well, all I want to do is kneel before him instead of watching this plot. I am nearly out the door.
So, what constitutes either a show-breaking shark jump or the point at which the downhill slide is either too far or irreversible (despite Jack's assertion that nothing is irreversible)?
For more, see the wiki entry on Jumping the Shark, which includes this rule:
Unfortunately, the handy website that contained a bunch of info about shark-jumping was sold to TV Guide and lost all of its content--jumping its own shark.
I ask myself this now, not just because I posted about shark-jumping indirectly yesterday, but because I watched a two-hour Smallville episode that focused on an old super-group--the Justice Society of America. It was clunky as the linked review suggests, but it also moved away from the main plot of the year--Zod. The show has been going downhill for the past few years--especially after losing Lex Luthor, his father, and Martha Kent. Makes the show cheaper, but lost some of the more interesting folks who could spin good or bad plotlines in interesting ways. Last year's Doomsday was actually an ok plotline for the season, but this year's Zod? Well, all I want to do is kneel before him instead of watching this plot. I am nearly out the door.
So, what constitutes either a show-breaking shark jump or the point at which the downhill slide is either too far or irreversible (despite Jack's assertion that nothing is irreversible)?
- When characters do stuff that betrays the logic/past of their character. Like when truly bad guys start doing good deeds because of a convenient mind-swipe (Heroes).
- When the deus ex machina becomes so blunt that one can almost see the strings. Like a helicopter crashing on a guy who already lost his arm to a helicopter (ER)
- When a central character departs (Happy Days) or dies (John Ritter, Phil Hartman). Shows can survive secondary characters taking off or dying (Cheers, MASH), but the replacement has to be good and have good chemistry.
- When a younger child is added to the mix because the children in the cast have gotten older and less cute (Oliver in Brady Bunch). Indeed, if the obnoxiously new kid takes away from the formerly young but now quite attractive older kids (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia), this is doubly dangerous. The Cousin Oliver Syndrome even applies to animation--Scrappy Doo.
For more, see the wiki entry on Jumping the Shark, which includes this rule:
Another category, entitled simply Ted McGinley, usually includes any show that has featured McGinley in the cast. He has joined the casts of several popular shows after their zenith (The Love Boat, Happy Days, and Dynasty), earning him the titles of the "Patron Saint of Shark Jumping" and the "Grim Reaper of Television". Shows on which McGinley appeared from the start have, in most instances, been critically panned or canceled quickly. However, when he joined Married... with Children in 1991, the show stayed on for another six years.
Unfortunately, the handy website that contained a bunch of info about shark-jumping was sold to TV Guide and lost all of its content--jumping its own shark.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The New "Jumping the Shark"
Jump the Shark was a phrase developed to explain the demise of Happy Days--that when a show does something so out of character, such as have Fonzie waterski over a shark, the show loses a large hunk of legitimacy and seen as desperate and played out.
Well, the guys behind lost have come up with a similar phrase. To "midi-chlorian" something (reference to an egregious scene in the Star Wars prequel Phantom Menace) is to explain or overexplain something that sucks out the mystery and heft of a something. In this week's Lost podcast, the guys suggest that "to explain Walt's bird-attraction would be very midi-chlorian."
Well, the guys behind lost have come up with a similar phrase. To "midi-chlorian" something (reference to an egregious scene in the Star Wars prequel Phantom Menace) is to explain or overexplain something that sucks out the mystery and heft of a something. In this week's Lost podcast, the guys suggest that "to explain Walt's bird-attraction would be very midi-chlorian."
Precious? Perhaps Not
I have not seen Precious as our time for seeing movies in the winter is limited (less good TV in the summer, too much homework in the winter). Plus depressing movies are, well, depressing, so we tend to see them late in the game. This piece suggests that there are dimensions to the movie that the Oscar folks are ignoring--that whites like it because it helps reinforce existing stereotypes, that African-Americans do not because it makes it seem as if incest is a black problem--which it is clearly not, etc. If you like the movie, check out this op-ed.
More Omelets, Please!
This article focuses on the shortfall of training teams in Afghanistan. I am not 100% sure but I think they are referring to OMLTs (Observer, Mentor, Liaison Teams or ELMOs in French) and POMLT's [Police trainers].
And yes, numbers do matter, but there is the paragraph that reveals some knowledge gaps:
And yes, numbers do matter, but there is the paragraph that reveals some knowledge gaps:
An official said the 27 NATO nations not counting the United States had agreed to establish 197 police training teams and 104 army training teams. The United States already leads 278 police training teams; Germany has 8, with promises of 38 more.The problem is that the German police cannot leave base, and, as far as I can tell, it is damn hard to observe (not to mention mentor and liaise) when the folks you are observing are not in sight. So, increasing from 8 to 46 POMLTs may have more of an impact than adding 1000 Italians to RC-West (I just learned the Italian troops rotate every three months, which is a colossal joke), but whenever counting contributions to the various missions in Afghanistan, one must take a close look at who is being added to do what. And this does not even consider that the countries have very, very different beliefs about what we should teach the Afghan police.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Possible Afghanistan Futures
Over coffee this morning, I was asked by an Oxford graduate student and current Sauve Fellow at McGill about my guesses about the future of Afghanistan. Given that he has far more experience in Afghanistan and expertise about the place, I had no problem ruthlessly speculating. In the course of discussion, we came up with a few scenarios:
If I had to bet on one, my guess would probably be #2 as the military might not be strong enough to hold together to take power.
But your guess is as good as mine, so what do you think?
- Pakistan 2000-ish. My first guess is that the effort to build a competent national army leads to the development of only one national institution that finds itself hampered by corruption at the center. That is, the Afghan military launches a coup, takes over and reigns in a similar way as Pakistan's did for most of the Aughts. Its influence varies from light to heavy across the country, still focused largely on the Taliban but co-opts various elements across the country (some drug barons/warlords, but not others).
- Somalia of the past twenty years. The international community gives up, leaving behind a largely stalemated civil war that peaks and ebbs. US sends drones/special forces when terrorist targets appear.
- Status quo plus a.k.a. Afghanistan of 2003. The surge works to reverse the Taliban's momentum so that it becomes more of a nuisance than a threat. The government of Afghanistan stumbles along without really providing that much improved governance while some development takes place.
- Constitutional decentralization/accommodation. Elements of the Taliban would be brought back into government, and much of the government's authority would be pushed down to the provinces or even further below to districts.
If I had to bet on one, my guess would probably be #2 as the military might not be strong enough to hold together to take power.
But your guess is as good as mine, so what do you think?
Patton Would Have It No Other Way
A local Taliban commander in Marja reached by cellphone said they were aware that the town was the target, and he sought to signal that they would not be intimidated. “We will definitely defend Marja,” said the commander, who goes by the name Ishaq. “It’s the only place left for us. We have all of our fighters assembled here to fight against Afghan and foreign forces.”
“We know this operation will be much bigger than previous operations,” Mr. Ishaq said. “We are determined to fight until the last drop of our blood.” NYT
Patton said:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Anyhow, it is interesting how much advanced warning is being put out there for this new offensive by the US Marines (and perhaps the UK folks as well) and the ANA against Marja, where the Taliban have been concentrated. However, given other recent articles that demonstrate that strategic surprise and even tactical surprise is hard to come by, given the ability for these guys to communicate by smoke, pigeon, balloon, kite, and cell phone, it might make sense to look at the upsides of notification.
- We cannot kill our way to victory so getting some or many of the fighters to disperse and then have the ANA/US/UK force stick around and keep control would not be a bad thing.
- The warning may separate civilians from genuine Taliban, minimizing collateral damage.
- It might cause the Taliban to do things that ISAF can pick up so that it can improve targeting and the operation.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Integrity vs Politics
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made history Tuesday afternoon when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that not only does the president support the repeal of the policy but that Mullen himself supports it as well. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot help but be troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Mullen said. "For me, personally, it comes down to integrity—theirs as individuals and ours as an institution." Defense Secretary Robert Gates, testifying alongside Mullen, didn't get quite so personal, but agreed that the law should be repealed. (Slate)Pretty impressive. Not so impressive: John McCain, who is moving away from his promise to follow the military's lead. Not surprising, but annoying that the man who carried the mantle of honor and integrity is just a hypocrite. Of course, he makes up for that by being a lousy campaigner.
I question the timing because this is happening after Obama has blown most of his political capital, but it does play to his base quite well, even if late. Even though it will take a while, it is starting to look that the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is inevitable. Fighting two wars while tying one's hands makes little sense, but elevating an issue that will cause the Republicans to become even more narrow and driving away more independents is perhaps good strategy. Public opinion is trending towards reforming this dishonest and destructive policy. Already majorities seem opposed to the status quo. But getting anything through the Senate will be a challenge, given the rewards of obstinancy.
The slate piece cited above explains this all quite well. The good news is that there seems to be some movement and it looks Jack was right at least once: "Nothing's irreversible."
Man Crush, part IV
I have blogged before about my relatively indecent approval (love?) for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Here is more reason to do so: the new quadrennial defense review is pragmatic and moderate, rather than grand and arrogant.
The Cold War did lead to a lot of waste, fighting marginally important wars and supporting nasty folks because there was a whiff of communism in the air. Well, the Long War is pretty much the same thing, and it has disappeared as the reigning concept from defense planning. Instead, let's focus on the wars of the present! Not a bad idea.
The Cold War did lead to a lot of waste, fighting marginally important wars and supporting nasty folks because there was a whiff of communism in the air. Well, the Long War is pretty much the same thing, and it has disappeared as the reigning concept from defense planning. Instead, let's focus on the wars of the present! Not a bad idea.
Lost in Thought
Yow! What an amazing start for a final season. Again, the premieres, like the finales, do not disappoint.
Serious spoilage after the break.
Serious spoilage after the break.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Insights into Iraq's Upcoming Election
Certainly not from me, but from Marc Lynch who had a chance to speak to the Iraqi VP.
Lost Prop Bets [spoilers for folks who have not seen all of season 5]
I mentioned during my post on the mysteries of Lost that I might post some prop bets. Because the choice is to do this or read another dissertation chapter, I am posting the prop bet column.
First, what is a proposition or prop bet? For the Super Bowl, this pic is the best illustration:
Folks not only bet on the game itself, but on various possible outcomes within the game: who is the MVP? Who scores first? How many fumbles are there? In Monday's podcast by Bill Simmons (ESPN's Sports Guy), he and "Cousin Sal" agree that the best one is probably whether Peyton Manning with throw a touchdown in the second half of the game.
Ok, so what kind of prop bets (as opposed to drinking games) can we suggest?
Enjoy the show!
First, what is a proposition or prop bet? For the Super Bowl, this pic is the best illustration:
Folks not only bet on the game itself, but on various possible outcomes within the game: who is the MVP? Who scores first? How many fumbles are there? In Monday's podcast by Bill Simmons (ESPN's Sports Guy), he and "Cousin Sal" agree that the best one is probably whether Peyton Manning with throw a touchdown in the second half of the game.
Ok, so what kind of prop bets (as opposed to drinking games) can we suggest?
- What year will most of the action of this season take place?
- 3-2 that it is 2007, the year the Ajira flight crashed.
- 5-1 that it is 2004, the year Oceanic 815 crashed.
- 6-1 that it is 2010, the present day.
- 10-1 that it is some other time.
- Where will the action mostly take place?
- 3-5 that it will be on the Island.
- The over/under of the original castaways dying this year (and this bet is a push if the series ends with the lives and deaths of all over the course of time a la Six Feet Under)? Those who count are: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Locke, Sawyer, Jin, Sun.
- Two.
- That more than half of the aforementioned will have some kind of happy ending.
- 3-1
- Hurley will eat to excess.
- 5-3
- Juliet remains dead.
- 2-1
- The rebooting worked
- 3-2
- Some/most of the characters remember the alternative time line: 3-2.
- Who wins the ultimate battle:
- Jacob: 2-1
- Man in Black: 3-1
- Neither: 5-2
- We will find out why Aaron's predicted life scared the psychic?
- 10-1--my guess is that this gets entirely ignored.
- Number of tailies that appear in this season for more than just a flashback?
- Over/under is 3 (and that includes Bernard).
- Penny and Des live happily ever after
- 5-2
- Charles Widmore does not.
- 4-3
- Ben has a happy ending
- 25-1
- Will the Lost-viewing public be satisfied by this season?
- 5-2
- Will I be satisfied by the way the show finishes?
- 3-2 (I am relatively easy to please).
Enjoy the show!
Oscars: Surprises?
Not too much, but a pleasant distraction from the budget.
My reactions:
My reactions:
- Best Picture doubles its number of noms from 5 to 10 and still no comedy. Not terribly surprising, but still disappointing. I only saw Avatar, District 9, Hurt Locker, Basterds and Up, and cannot really say much about the others. I guess, given what I have heard, would have preferred Hangover to An Education, not knowing that much about the latter. I also think that Hangover was better than Up, given what I said before. 500 Days of Summer could have gone here as well.
- Best Actor: Very pleased to see Jeremy Renner for Hurt Locker. Perhaps Sharlto Copley of District 9.
- Best Actress: No surprises here. Will need reminders from EW and elsewhere for the snubs here.
- Best Supporting Actor: Tucci probably got it for the wrong role.
- Best Supporting Actress: I liked Mélanie Laurent very much in Basterds. Surprised to see Maggie G here, and surprised that anyone saw Nine to vote for Cruz. Missing Zooey Deschanel for 500 Days of Summer, as she clearly demonstrated how/why someone could be so loveable yet frustrating/neurotic at the same time.
- Best Director: No surprises, but again, D-9 is shortchanged here: Neill Blomkamp.
- I don't know enough about screen-writing to comment (although that has never stopped me before).
Most Depressing Fiscal News of the Decade
Check out this piece. It has some great interactive tools so that one can see where the money is going, what the trends have been and how have the predictions have played out. The really sad news is in the headline:
The deficits are so big that serious stuff is going to have to happen. Growth or policy changes. Both, actually. The US is big trouble, and it is going to have to find someplace to cut. And the best place to cut will be ..... the defense budget. As the interactive graphic shows quite clearly, that is where nearly all of the discretionary funding is. Hard to cut the defense budget during a time of two wars. The good news is that Iraq is going to become much cheaper as we pull out over the next two years. Afghanistan, unfortunately, is just going to be more expensive as we increase the number of troops and the pace of operations.
Yes, the US outspends its rivals by a large margin, even combined. But as the US has learned in Afghanistan, it really is the only player in town that can and will act military with both capability and resolve (few caveats). Relying on allies is a dicey way to go. But cuts will need to be made. Indeed, in budgetary terms alone, Afghanistan may be a very bad investment. We cannot just think in terms of dollars, but we cannot ignore them either. Big weapons programs will have to be cut, we may want to re-think what kind of air force is needed in these times of drones. The Navy will have to take some hits. The Army will have to figure out what it can afford. Yes, there is a need to balance the wars of tomorrow, so that the US is strong enough to deter conventional wars, but this also means fighting the unconventional wars that folks choose to fight instead.
Similarly, tough cases are facing us with the mandatory programs--social security and medicare (interest payments are also mandatory but not subject to reform). Changing the rules on social security taxes makes much sense but is hard to do. I have no clue about medicare.
But, of course, all of this requires tough decision-making at a time where one party desperately wants the other to fail, even if it means hurting the country. So, I doubt that we will see much progress made. Not a good way to start a new year or a new decade at all. Makes me want to go back to bed.
Huge Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power
The deficits are so big that serious stuff is going to have to happen. Growth or policy changes. Both, actually. The US is big trouble, and it is going to have to find someplace to cut. And the best place to cut will be ..... the defense budget. As the interactive graphic shows quite clearly, that is where nearly all of the discretionary funding is. Hard to cut the defense budget during a time of two wars. The good news is that Iraq is going to become much cheaper as we pull out over the next two years. Afghanistan, unfortunately, is just going to be more expensive as we increase the number of troops and the pace of operations.
Yes, the US outspends its rivals by a large margin, even combined. But as the US has learned in Afghanistan, it really is the only player in town that can and will act military with both capability and resolve (few caveats). Relying on allies is a dicey way to go. But cuts will need to be made. Indeed, in budgetary terms alone, Afghanistan may be a very bad investment. We cannot just think in terms of dollars, but we cannot ignore them either. Big weapons programs will have to be cut, we may want to re-think what kind of air force is needed in these times of drones. The Navy will have to take some hits. The Army will have to figure out what it can afford. Yes, there is a need to balance the wars of tomorrow, so that the US is strong enough to deter conventional wars, but this also means fighting the unconventional wars that folks choose to fight instead.
Similarly, tough cases are facing us with the mandatory programs--social security and medicare (interest payments are also mandatory but not subject to reform). Changing the rules on social security taxes makes much sense but is hard to do. I have no clue about medicare.
But, of course, all of this requires tough decision-making at a time where one party desperately wants the other to fail, even if it means hurting the country. So, I doubt that we will see much progress made. Not a good way to start a new year or a new decade at all. Makes me want to go back to bed.
Americans in Helmand
Very interesting piece in the NYT today about the Marines facing a tough, imaginative foe in the Taliban in Helmand.
The article goes on to indicate that the US Marines are still not plentiful enough to confront the Taliban--they could take key territories but be able to hold them, so it has to wait until later this year when there are thousands of Marines to add to those already there.
For those who have not been following the Afghanistan mission closely, a couple of facts stand out:
Still to be fair, despite having the second largest contingent in the country, the Brits probably still didn't have enough troops in the province to do clear AND hold. Still, it does seem as if the Brits were spinning their wheels for the past several years despite/due facing a high level of casualties.
Another example of the insurgents’ patience has been their selection of locations for hiding bombs, which the military calls I.E.D.’s, for improvised explosive devices. Many of these bombs are detonated by the weight of a person or vehicle that depresses a pressure plate.
The steppe is vast. The pressure plates are small — often covering not much more surface area than a man’s boot. To emplace the bombs where they are most likely to kill, the Taliban watch the Marines’ habits carefully, including how small units react in the first instants of a firefight
For those who have not been following the Afghanistan mission closely, a couple of facts stand out:
- As the map shows, a river runs through Helmand, making it the most agriculturally productive area of Afghanistan--so it is the heart of the poppy problem. Much of the world's supply of heroin starts here. Which leads to point #2:
- Helmand has been vying with Kandahar as the most violent province in Afghanistan.
- The British have had responsibility for Helmand since 2006, and the Americans only started to deploy there in the past year or so. Before that, the Canadians have backed up the British on more than a few occasions.
Still to be fair, despite having the second largest contingent in the country, the Brits probably still didn't have enough troops in the province to do clear AND hold. Still, it does seem as if the Brits were spinning their wheels for the past several years despite/due facing a high level of casualties.
Lost Approaching!
I may randomly post Lost-ness today as we await the first episode of the last season.
If you like Lost but do not follow Totally Lost, EW's Doc Jensen's series that is both funny and interesting, you have been missing out. The latest is quite delightful, including a Juliet cameo or two!
I am not going to come up with a list of favorite episodes because I just don't have the memory or a stash of DVDs. But I will say the pilot, the season premieres and the season finales have all been tremendous, so the buzz coming out about the first hour (shown in Hawaii already) is almost certainly on target.
And Alan Sepinwall has become a go-to guy on all things television (great discussions of Band of Brothers), so check out his latest, spoiler-free.
Enjoy!
If you like Lost but do not follow Totally Lost, EW's Doc Jensen's series that is both funny and interesting, you have been missing out. The latest is quite delightful, including a Juliet cameo or two!
I am not going to come up with a list of favorite episodes because I just don't have the memory or a stash of DVDs. But I will say the pilot, the season premieres and the season finales have all been tremendous, so the buzz coming out about the first hour (shown in Hawaii already) is almost certainly on target.
And Alan Sepinwall has become a go-to guy on all things television (great discussions of Band of Brothers), so check out his latest, spoiler-free.
Enjoy!
Monday, February 1, 2010
Anti-Oscars
Each year, there are the Razzies which give "awards" to the worst movies of the year. This year's nominees are:
Worst Picture
All About Steve
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Land of the Lost
Old Dogs
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I have only seen GI Joe, Land of the Lost and Transformers 2. Of those three, I would have to say that GI Joe was the worst. Indeed, I have already done so. But in a good way. I laughed quite a lot--at the wrong parts. Land of the Lost was a mish-mash, which means it had good parts, and it was incredibly mis-marketed. Definitely not a kid's movie. But also definitely a huge disappointment. That movie probably had the worst difference between potential and outcome. Heaps of room to play with a silly bad tv show and it whiffed mightily.
Of the other awards, I am most amused the Hugh Hefner earned a nomination for playing himself in Miss March. That is bad acting if one cannot even do a good job of being oneself!
Worst Picture
All About Steve
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Land of the Lost
Old Dogs
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I have only seen GI Joe, Land of the Lost and Transformers 2. Of those three, I would have to say that GI Joe was the worst. Indeed, I have already done so. But in a good way. I laughed quite a lot--at the wrong parts. Land of the Lost was a mish-mash, which means it had good parts, and it was incredibly mis-marketed. Definitely not a kid's movie. But also definitely a huge disappointment. That movie probably had the worst difference between potential and outcome. Heaps of room to play with a silly bad tv show and it whiffed mightily.
Of the other awards, I am most amused the Hugh Hefner earned a nomination for playing himself in Miss March. That is bad acting if one cannot even do a good job of being oneself!
Better Skynet than Kim Jong-il
At least Skynet might provide sex-bots to lure us in, whereas Kim Jong-il provides nothing but hate and fear. This piece illustrates and explains the North Korean situation, suggesting that the regime is not so much communist but a pathologically right-wing racist one a la Nazi Germany/1930's Japan. Ug. Which leaves the outside world with no leverage at all. The only hope is that the folks inside can get a clue as to how bad their suffering is. Given NK's defenses, the only way things will change will be via internal opposition--almost certainly in the form of a coup since the people have no capability to organize.
The article concludes with two facts: that North Koreans are six inches shorter than South Koreans, revealing the depth of abuse they have faced; and this picture which illustrates the lack of light emanating at night:
The article concludes with two facts: that North Koreans are six inches shorter than South Koreans, revealing the depth of abuse they have faced; and this picture which illustrates the lack of light emanating at night:
Skynet is Approaching
With devices like this, the day that the robots take over is approaching. "By your command" indeed.
Controversial Proposition of the Week
This article argues that more emigration would help Haiti. That is, if you want to help Haitians, let them leave as the only ones above a very low standard for poverty are those who have already left. Not only would this help the folks who leave, but it would help those that stay behind:
I am no immigration expert, but given that immigration is already pretty unpopular in a lot of places, how much support is there for bringing in people who are going to fill the bottom niches of the economy? Xenophobia has a lot to do with resentment about sharing the welfare state with others, and these poor Haitians would be seen as costing states and local governments. I am not opposed to an immigration policy that focuses on the poorest--I just don't think it is likely. It would have been nice if the proponent of this policy change would have suggested how to make this policy change attractive/politically viable rather than just ignoring the difficulties.
Still, we need to think a bit outside the box since the past efforts have utterly failed. Of course, they may have failed if the best and brightest have fled the country. The article completely ignores the opportunity costs to the Haitian economy when people flow out.
Dilip Ratha, a top expert on remittances, estimates that a full accounting would show that Haitians abroad send home $1.5 billion to 1.8 billion per year or higher. That is much more than all the foreign aid that Haiti receives. The middle of Ratha's range suggests that remittances account for more than one quarter of Haiti's GDP.The author proposes that countries change their policies--to focus their immigration on receiving people from the poorest countries. Very interesting proposition. Too bad the author doe snot consider why countries do not already do this and what the obstacles might be.
I am no immigration expert, but given that immigration is already pretty unpopular in a lot of places, how much support is there for bringing in people who are going to fill the bottom niches of the economy? Xenophobia has a lot to do with resentment about sharing the welfare state with others, and these poor Haitians would be seen as costing states and local governments. I am not opposed to an immigration policy that focuses on the poorest--I just don't think it is likely. It would have been nice if the proponent of this policy change would have suggested how to make this policy change attractive/politically viable rather than just ignoring the difficulties.
Still, we need to think a bit outside the box since the past efforts have utterly failed. Of course, they may have failed if the best and brightest have fled the country. The article completely ignores the opportunity costs to the Haitian economy when people flow out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)