Death and Corruption

Apparently, in Canada, you cannot avoid death and taxes corruption.  It turns out that some officers of Canada Revenue Agency have been in bed with the corrupt folks in Montreal's construction industry.  So, the good news is that the rest of Canada can be less smug about Montreal corruption since it is, well, corrupting the federal government.  Swell. 

I don't have much to say about this (not wanting to offend the tax people, the mob, or the mob's tax people or the tax people's mob).  Just noticing the problem. 

There Are Trends and Then There Are Trends

Lots of discussions these days about LtG Andrew Leslie, his report and "transformation" of the Canadian military.  The big issue is that headquarters staff have been growing this past decade, which means that there are fewer folks to sail ships, fly planes and go to places like Afghanistan.   My temptation is to snark and say that if there are only 79 fighter planes in the Canadian Forces, is the real shortage of pilots that are not at desks or of planes?  Same with ships.  Obviously, a bit less likely with the Land Staff (the Army). 

There has been a significant increase in staff over the past ten years, and this is not unique to Canada.  As operations in dangerous places like Afghanistan have become an on-going reality for many advanced democracies, more and more folks have been required at various headquarters to report to the folks at the top what is going on.  Indeed, one of the complaints I have heard around NATO countries and NATO itself is that there are so many demands for reports that staffs that are supposed to be doing planning cannot do so. 

General Rick Hillier re-organized the Canadian Forces with the creation of four distinct commands: Canada Command (CANCOM covers North America), Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command (CEFCOM is for all forces deployed elsewhere), Special Operations Command (duh), and Support Command (logistics).  This is really what increased the staff dedicated to HQs.  Was Hillier wrong?  He certainly does not think so, voicing his opposition to Leslie's suggestion that these four commands become re-centralized more or less.

Where is my ill-informed position? 

It's Not Me, It's You

In his waning days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen is certainly speaking freely, blaming the recent attacks in Kabul on Pakistan directly via its support of the Haqqani network.

"The Haqqani network... acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency," Adm Mike Mullen told a Senate panel.

Admiral, tell us how you really feel!  Oh my.  So much for mil to mil relations.  When the arm of the US govt that has had the most interactions with another government becomes this blunt, it is hard to imagine things getting better.  The intel must be pretty good/bad for the Chairman to be saying such unpolitic things.  It is one thing for an out-going SecDef to spew a bit about burden-sharing in NATO.  It is another thing entirely for the head of the American military to say such stuff about a supposed ally.  But given the events of the past year--Bin Laden being found so close to various military HQs, the increased sense that Pakistan is not merely tolerating the Haqqani folks but working with them, and all the rest, the gloves are coming off.

Not that the US can really get what it wants out of Pakistan* through threats and bluster.  Kindness failed, and it is hard to see how being brusque will work better.  Still, the farce is apparently over--that the idea that Pakistan is helping out rather than hurting the US.  So much for that.  There is something to be said for being clear about what is going on.  It may not change anything, but at least people cannot hide or be offended by others hiding or being hypocritical.  US relations with Pakistan are a mess--the Emperor has no clothes.

* As a student of caveats, let me issue one: I am not an expert on Pakistan or India, but am wildly speculating.

The timing is interesting to me, as I was lecturing my intro course the other day about how political scientists define power: to get others to do what they would otherwise not do.  How does the US get Pakistan to change its behavior?  It seems clear that the US either lacks the levers to push Pakistan or the willingness to accept other costs to get Pakistan to do what the US wants. Part of the problem is that Pakistani leaders doubt American will to support it in a time of crisis.  Which is legitimate given how the last three wars or so played out (with Pakistan getting its butt kicked and the US tilting a bit towards India).  But part of the Pakistani problem is that they have views that are almost Foxs-news-esque in terms of their divorce from reality.  Enough actually believe that Afghanistan provides them with strategic depth--that Pakistan could have forces retreat to Afghanistan in the face of an Indian invasion.  They also fear that India can use Afghanistan as a way to encircle Pakistan.  Of course, Pakistan's own policies do a good job of creating encirclement.  The laughable part is that Afghanistan is a crappy place for any outside to use for any particular purpose.  Yes, it can serve as a base for terrorism, but Pakistan has proved that its own territory works just fine for that (as does India's).

So, the US ability to change things is limited.  It is unlikely that shaming will work better than the other efforts made by the US, but it might have been one of the few tools left in the box.  Now what?  How about a great tilt towards India?  As the US leaves Afghanistan over the next few years, dependence on Pakistan will wane.  Then the incentives and options will be much, much clearer.  Pakistan can embrace China, and is already doing so, of course.  But it is used to having both China and the US on its side.  Having the US really jump onto India's side is very much a worse case scenario.  Well, for Pakistan.  For the US, India and many others, it may very well be inevitable.  If I were a Pakistani leader today, I would be trying to figure out whether China can fill the holes left by the breaking American relationship.  

Update: More details from NYT story.  Mullen is very, very sharp, as he points out that Pakistan is not only messing with everyone else but is watering the seeds of its own destruction.  They will not see it that way, but sometimes you have to tell an alcoholic that they are an alcoholic.  My words, not Mullen's.

The Future of Defence Research in Canada

The story of the day is that we now have more information about the demise of the Security and Defence Forum [SDF].  It is a part of Canada's Department of National Defence responsible for reaching out to the academic community and beyond.  It had a budget of $2.5 million, but that is going down to $.5million.  The main expense of SDF had been funding research centres throughout Canada--about thirteen of them.  Most of these centres are highly dependent on SDF money for their existence with a few notable exceptions.  Most will have to fold or reduce their activities significantly.  I don't know what the shared one between the University of Montreal and McGill will do since I left the organization last year (more on that below).

It does seem strange that such a small expense (given the size of defence spending) would be seen as a key cut to be made, especially when the spokesperson for the Minister of Defence says how valuable the Ministry sees its interactions with academics (even if DND ignores most studies).

However, I understand why DND administrators would not want to pay for administrators at universities, which is where a fair amount of money goes in the research centres.  There is something to be said for providing the basics so that the centres can then raise money through other sources, but I don't think SDF planned to have its money spent on secretaries and graduate student assistants focused on admin work.

The true losses of SDF's demise will be:

• Funding graduate students.  The Canadian model of graduate funding is somewhat different than the American one, as the primary funding agency for the social sciences--SSHRC--gives most of its graduate student funding to students in their first few years.  Dissertation funding--getting money to go to places to get the data, do the interviews, and so on--is not as readily available.  DND via SDF provided pre- and post-docs which were quite valuable in helping graduate students complete their research projects. 
• Facilitating outreach.  While DND's public affairs section will still exist, SDF was incredibly helpful in arranging my first sets of interviews with Canadian officers.  The public affairs events tend to be very much pro-Canadian Forces publicity events, which makes heaps of sense.  SDF was more focused on helping researchers do their jobs, rather than just selling the Forces.  Which, in my experience, actually did a better job of selling the forces.

I do think it is understandable that DND would question whether they were getting what they were paying for.  The idea was to support research related to Canadian defence, which is perhaps parochial but entirely sensible for a government agency.  Some research centres focused more broadly on a wide array of security issues that may or may not be related to Canadian defence.  One of the ironies of my local situation is that I was doing the most stuff related to Canadian defence and much of the outreach/dissemination via media appearances, but did not find much support from my campus's research centre.  Most of my SDF money was from applications to the Special Projects grant, not from the local centre since it had other priorities (which is why I left the centre).

The new plan is unclear, but it may be the case that SDF only funds the Special Projects.  That would be ok but not great.  Tis better than issuing calls for specific projects to be funded, as leaving the agenda setting in the hands of the scholars is probably the best to maximize creativity.  The big question is whether SDF will still fund pre- and post-docs.  I sure hope so, as profs can find other ways to fund their research, centres can find other ways to have conferences, but graduate students need some help to complete their work.

Strike That

I have mentioned before that living in Quebec has changed my attitudes towards unions.  Unions are much more powerful and inconvenient up here, so they annoy me more than they ever did in the US.  I do get that they are a key player in keeping the economy from being too inhumane, so I am ambivalent about them when I think hard enough.

The big problem I tend to have is that the coercive diplomacy/bargaining between union and employer often is played out with innocent bystanders as key pieces in the game.  The TA strike a few years ago hurt profs and students even though the bargaining was between teaching assistants and McGill's administrators.

Today, as in right now, there are folks on strike at my university--the staff.  They want more money and to protect their benefits.  McGill would prefer not to pay them much more and would like to alter their benefits.  Given the economic context where McGill is in a deep, deep hole thanks in large part to Quebec's financial mismanagement and due to student unions keeping tuition unnaturally low, I see McGill's point while I appreciate the staff's concerns.  For me, the problem is that their fight is costly to me and my students.  The most important thing is that it upend plans to facilitate the flow of letters of recommendation for my graduate students on the academic job market.  Now, my grad students must rely on me to be timely, organized, and responsible.  This is really a recipe for disaster, as I have a heap of students on the market applying to many, many jobs.  I hope I don't screw up (like sending emails to places and forgetting the attachments) too much.

The good news is that I did duck one strike.  The flight attendants of Air Canada were about to go on strike right before my next trip, but they settled, apparently partly due to the threat of government intervention.  The interesting thing is this intervention is being criticized from both sides of the spectrum--for forcing businesses to compromise with unions and for forcing unions to compromise with business.  With such an array of critics, I have more confidence that the outcome is a pretty good one.  That and I get to go to London (UK, not Ontario) without having to worry about a strike.

Again, I get that both sides need to have threats, especially the unions, in order to bargain (I am teaching coercive diplomacy today in Intro to IR).  I just also understand that corporations and unions often end up being more focused on the interests of the organizations than the members, and that can be problematic as well. 

At least, we have football (but not basketball) to keep us distracted.

Social Science Proving the Obvious

I had a fun discussion with Mrs Spew today about a potential science fair project that the little Spew was pondering, but then rejected because the initial experiment suggests that the findings would be dull.  In the publishing social science business, we always want our findings to be counter-intuitive and even mind-blowing.  If they aren't, we try desperately to frame them that way.  "You see, the conventional wisdom is x, and we found y!"  Even if the conventional wisdom is pretty darned silly (hint, see my first book about this strategy).*

* The good news for my earliest academic enterprise is that people still buy into the old conventional wisdom, which means that my book is still counter-intuitive even if I should be disappointed that people have not been persuaded by it.

Why do I bring this up today?  Because a new study has come out that shows that Canadian Defence bureaucrats do NOT pay attention to studies taken by academics and other outsiders.   Just shocking.  Really.  It seems to be the case that the bureaucrats just file the studies and go ahead with whatever they were doing.  Now, this is actually an important study because it seems to prove that the folks at the Department of National Defence (yes, DND, which means decisions really depend on a twenty-sided die being rolled) are inattentive to outsiders.**  Perhaps we expected it, but knowing this means we can try to assert (at least in grant applications) that we need to do more to disseminate our findings.

** And it makes sense that they don't pay attention to outsiders, as they must respond to the incentives of their organization.  Doing otherwise can mean being frozen in position, if not losing one's position.  Political science can explain pretty easily why folks in chains of command look up and down and not outside.

But, of course, what it really means is that we need to find other folks to influence since these folks are not persuade-able.  Like politicians, maybe.  Perhaps military folks who take lesson-learning very, very seriously.  But not the media since this has been an incredibly crappy weak for the Canadian media.

Why?

1. One TV station and then the rest of the media engage in mob coverage (not research, just coverage) of the Chief of Defence Staff flying government jets.
2. The study mentioned above actually includes a big mistake--putting the Leslie transformation study into the same category as outside experts.  Why?  Because the Leslie transformation project was sponsored by the government, so it has more legs.  The bureaucrats may fight it, they may resist it, they may win, but they certainly cannot ignore it.
3. Columns that make huge mistakes about higher education, creating ignorance rather than illumination.

These have not been the best of times in American media, but the Canadian media has its own challenges.  I guess I wish Gus from the Wire had his hands on the controls. (NSFW language)

DADT

Not much blogging today.  With DADT now becoming history, it is hard for me to whine about stuff.  Just a great day for some increased consistency between the policies governing the military and what our military is supposed to be fighting for. 

If you have a great video celebrating the day, shoot me the link.

The True Dark Side

Nice video against cancer making heaps of fun of Star Wars.  How could you not like it?  The video, not the cancer.

Squirrel! Federal Style

Last week, I blogged about how language politics and such were useful distractions for Quebec parties and media, when much more important stuff is at play.  Namely, the political system and the construction industry are utterly corrupt, but not even in a semi-efficient way.  So, bridges are falling apart, tunnels collapse, and we are worried more about how best to deal with immigrants and Anglophones. 

Well, the media and politicians in Ottawa can play this game, too.  So, the tempest these days is over the head of the Canadian military, Chief of Defence Staff Walt Natyncyzk, flying in a government plane rather than commercial flights to a variety of destinations, including a family vacation.  If this is what parliamentary oversight over the military is here, then I do believe my existing assertion that there is no parliamentary oversight of the Canadian military remains quite valid.

First, the issue itself: I wonder if anyone is bothering to see how the heads of other militaries travel, given that they need to be in constant communication with political and military types, that their schedules change very quickly, and so on.  Anyone see the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff flying around the US on commercial planes?  The British head?  Aussie?  Hmmmm. 

Second, is this really the important issue facing the Canadian military?  Um, no.  Let's count how many other issues might just be more relevant for Canadian national security, budget politics, and everything else:

1. What are Canada's plans for the next days/weeks/months in Libya?  Qaddafi is still out there, and Canadian assets are still in theatre being used on behalf of the new government.  
2. Canadian submarines are still not operational.  How about we consider the security implications of having no underwater capability at the present time?
3. Other NATO countries and partners are re-considering the F35 INCLUDING the US.  So, perhaps Canada might consider whether the plane (all 65 of them) might crowd out other spending priorities.
4. What criteria will Canada have for where to build the next generation of ships, given that this is a highly political issue (jobs where?)?
5. General Leslie's report on transformation--how is that going to be implemented or not?  Perhaps parliament might consider whether un-doing the Hillier command structure makes sense or not.  Anyone studying whether CEFCOM and CANCOM made a difference than the old DCDS model?
6. How about this: can Canada actually afford three modern branches or perhaps just choose one or two?  

The point is that the media feeding frenzy is just silly but so very easy as it does not require any facts, study, comparisons, understanding.  What we need is a healthy dose of perspective sauce.  If the government jumps on this and on the CDS for these flights, I think I am going to have to hit an entirely different kind of sauce.

Profs Atwitter

I have deleted this post as it will essentially be published in the Globe and Mail as an op-ed next week apparently.  Since the G&M wants exclusivity, I felt having this post here at this moment in time would not be appropriate.  I will post the link to the piece when it is published.

Thanks for your interest.

A Zombie Ate My Homework?

Thanks to the SF Signal Z songlist, I found this.  Which is just an uber-geeky fun song and video.  Happy Saturday!

Concept Definition and Confusion Illustrated

H/T to Outside the Beltway for this wonderful video that illustrates nicely the problem of defining concepts.

I stick with seven continents because that is what I was taught.  I think the large land mass part is more important than the separated by water.  But that is just me.  How many continents do you think there are?

Mais Non! Gambling at Rick's

The study has finally come out: there is significant corruption in the construction industry in Quebec.  Shocking, yes?  Non.  Given that it apparently costs 30% more to build stuff in Quebec, and that stuff tends to fall apart, we are not surprised. 

source: http://bullandbear.musonline.com/

I think we would not mind the corruption if the stuff was built to last.  But with heaps of infrastructure falling apart, including bridges, tunnels, overpasses, and water mains (this pic is of a mini-flood at McGill a couple of days ago), the corruption is not so amusing or tolerable.

Yes, corruption exists everywhere to varying degrees, but the level seems to be higher in Quebec.  Why?  Because (squirrel!) the political system is distracted from public service and towards nationalist issues.

Will the system be cleansed or at least taken down a few notches?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  The folks in power in Quebec have been there a long time, so they are quite implicated.  Same for the folks running Montreal.  Especially since the last policy statements from the opposition parties have been about language and not corruption.

Language Politics Writ Small

For months, I have been mildly amused about a poster in the men's room near my McGill office.  The poster, put up in response to the flu threat a year or two ago, instructs people how to wash their hands.  The funny thing is that it is in French, as McGill's language of instruction is almost entirely English.  While many McGill students and faculty are bilingual, some are not so much.  Anyhow, I felt it was strange that the sign had no English on it, although the pictures made it clear what was being instructed.

Still, it bothered someone enough to write on the sign, demanding that it should be in English.  This graffiti has been up there for a few weeks, when someone else continued the conversation, demanding:

"Apprennez français calis!"   

Which means: Learn French, Chalice!  I think.  That is, it means Learn French and then I think uses the Quebec word for Chalice, as Quebeckers have taken words from the Catholic Church and turned them into curse words.  I would be surer if the person was using another Quebec-ism such as Tabernac, which I have heard far more often on frisbee fields.

This graffiti conversation is interesting to me, both because it shows the linguistic politics in Montreal, and because it illustrates the on-going Quebec conflict over religion, given the calis interpretation that I think is correct.

Of course, given that the poster shows how to wash hands (and that there is now a second poster in the same bathroom, but in English [with "francais svp" written all over it]), and given these kinds of posters are always ignored anyway since we wash our hands like we always have, this is really the epitome of a tempest in a teapot.

What is a Club?

A Club, as opposed to an association or mob, is supposed to be selective in membership.  The  joy of being in a club is to exclude some folks from joining it.  Some people get this better than others.  Full professors in certain places in Canada seem to understand this far better than the European Union.  Sure, this piece refers to just the start of a membership process for Moldova, but this process seems to be an unstoppable machine where the logic of previous promises leads to new ones, ultimately leading to membership to a country that fails to meet key conditions for membership to the organization (Cyprus anyone?). 

This is not even about map-obsession where membership is aimed at keeping the map of Europe hole-free.  Keeping out Croatia or Bosnia or Serbia would mean ugly holes in the map of the EU.  But Moldova is on the edge, so its absence should be seen as a problem.  Unless Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are down the road? 

Isn't this where the EU got into trouble?  By forgetting about standards and letting in countries in to the Euro zone even though they fell far short of admission standards (that would be Greece)?

Anyway, as a published skeptic about the EU and the power of its conditionality processes, all I can think is: hee, hee, there they go again.

Circle of Crap continued

The other day I discussed the circle of crap in honor of my family's garage sale.  I have also blogged about the Canadian submarine problem.  I cannot believe I did not put them together: that the Canadian sub procurement process was part of a high tech circle of defense crap.  The Canadians bought a set of used British subs that have remained broken ever since.  The only question about whether there are more operational subs in the West Edmonton Mall than in the Royal Canadian Navy is whether there are any operational subs at the Mall. 

Of course, even four subs is way too few for a country with three large coasts, given that even in good times, one usually has a sub undergoing training/refit/etc for each that is deployed.  Two subs at sea for three coasts?  Hmmm.  Anyhow, Canada may still pay less for these four subs and their repairs than for four new subs, but the "savings" seems to be evaporating mighty quickly.

And for those in the market for any kind of military hardware, think twice before buying from the snake oil salesman with the lovely British accents.

écureuil!

Don Macpherson has a good column in today's Gazette, discussing how the PQ is playing up the latest numbers about language and Montreal to distract from, well, that it is falling apart.  The new stats show that the number of "true Francophones" is declining in Montreal because they are moving to less expensive (and perhaps more infrastructurally sound) suburbs.  This is hardly a crisis as they are not being replaced by those nasty Anglophones (that would be me) but Allophones (immigrants) who speak multiple languages and increasingly use French at home.

So, what is going on?

Blanchet's proposal ... Its real purpose is political.  It's to prevent François Legault's new nationalist party from outflanking the PQ in the defence of the French-speaking majority against the minorities.*  The PQ learned its lesson in 2007, when it conceded that defence to Mario Dumont's Action démocratique du Québec and temporarily fell to third-party status as a result.  Two weeks ago, Legault presented a discussion paper on identity in which most of the proposals were considerably weaker than what the PQ had already proposed in its new program.
But what caught attention was a possibly coded appeal to xenophobia that the PQ hadn't thought of: a temporary, symbolic reduction in annual immigration targets.  Now the PQ has quickly matched Legault's proposal with a similar one of its own. The proposal is also intended to distract attention toward the identity question and away from the PQ's current problems.

*  I discussed this recently.

Yep, we have some ethnic outbidding going on here, with the old, fractious nationalists competing with the new kids on the block to be the best nationalists after the new kids had initially appeared to be putting this stuff behind them.  Of course they did not--playing with identity, in this case it is language, is too damned convenient.

Can I be disappointed without being surprised?

Group Identity: In School and in Life

I had a nice life imitating art (or science) today.  I was lecturing about identity and the stuff we political scientists have borrowed from social psychology to explain ethnic conflict today.  The idea is to get my IR of Ethnic Conflict class exposed to the basics before we move on to the international relations issues that are the heart of this course.

So, today, I am quite aware of my identity and how my self-esteem depends on how I see my group and how others see my group.  Then I notice a blog about Teaching Political Science which links to an article that focuses almost entirely on American Politics and a smidge on Comparative Politics.  I would not mind it if the article was not entitled "Ten Things Political Scientists Know ..."  But since it entirely ignores International Relations, I have a pretty gut level emotional response of the marginalization of the group with which I identify (even if some narrow-minded colleagues think that civil war is just for Compartivists).

One of the upsides of residing in Canada has been that the border pretty much does away with imperialist Americanists trying to define the field only in terms of their narrow subfield (one that would be considered a sub-subfield of Comparative Politics in other countries).*  Sure, I have long since realized that Americanists are pretty handy since they tend to insist that the grad students have strong quant skills which make them useful to those of us who are falling further behind on high tech skills.

* Canadian Politics is the parallel subfield up here (with Americanists considered to be Comparativists, which is really quite amusing), but Canadianists tend not to be so forceful and tend not to seek dominance (we are what we study?).

 But moments like this make me realize:

1. Americanists might still be pretty damned narrow-minded about what Political Science is, more so than the other subfields.
2. My lecture today about the logic of invidious comparisons (explicating Horowitz 1985) is not just for my class but also for understanding why I am so provoked right now.

Ups and Downs of Drone Warfare

I hesitate before trying to argue with Roland Paris about his op-ed on Drone Warfare for two reasons: a) I have not done much research on drones; and b) Roland is about the scariest sharpest person in Canada.  He argued that the US is setting bad precedents by using remote-controlled aircraft in non-wars such as Yemen and Somalia, that the US is engaged in assassinations.  Roland points out that the real escalation in Pakistan has been under Obama from 33 strikes in 2008 to 118 last year.*  He is right to point out that drones are handy precisely because there are few domestic costs (no body bags). 

*  Which might have much to do with the disillusionment with the government of Pakistan as with anything else.

Roland goes on to criticize the secrecy of the target selection, that there is no accountability involved. And I cannot say I disagree too much.  But I guess I wonder how realistic (small r) it is to expect the US or any country to provide information about targeting decisions?  Much exposure of that would reveal the means by which folks are identified--the sources of the intelligence that lead to certain folks getting attention and targeting.

I also wonder what should countries do when potential "evil-doers" hang out in failed states?  Obviously, adversaries will go where they don't have to worry about hostile governments.  Yes, they can reside in territories controlled by friendly governments, but such governments may have to bear costs for their support and betray them occasionally.  Somalia is an obviously friendly environment for those who seek to avoid potentially ambivalent host governments.  Given that the US tried it the other way before (1992-93), what could the US do now? 

The other problem I have is with the focus on targeted killings--that while they are problematic, they are better than the alternative of untargeted killings.  Drones may not be quite as accurate as the Pentagon might portray, but they are still far better at discriminating between target and others.  If the choice is bombing cities to coerce and striking individuals (and yes, this is a semi-false choice, but not an an entirely false one), I would choose the latter.  The discussion of drones reminds me of qualms that some countries have had in operations in Afghanistan when a plan is to pick up or capture a senior Taliban leader.  But the alternatives would be not fighting at all or being less discriminate in the use of force.

Still, Roland's overriding point is well-taken--that the US needs to consider all of the consequences of their actions, assess the tradeoffs, be more honest about the processes, and perhaps even make it clear who are the folks making the decisions, even if we are not privvy to the actual bits and pieces of information that lead to the selection of some targets rather than others.

Pop Phobia: Who Are the Phobes?

This post by Spencer Ackerman asserts that you will not find too many Islamophobes in the American military among combat vets.  He essentially makes the fairly standard argument that the more contact you have, the more sympathy you have, the less hate you have.  The more you interact, the less you buy into the hype:

And many, if not most, came home understanding that Muslims aren't so different. Muslims don't have heat vision. They're not implacably opposed to freedom and all that shit. They're not looking to join a terrorist group, and "proto-terrorism" doesn't lurk in their hearts.

But Ackerman does note that he "can't prove any of this.  It's all anecdotal."

Ah, but we do have some social science on your side.  And we have patterns that we see again and again that suggest that contact does not breed conflict as much as ignorance.  How so?

First, one of the consistent findings in the scholarship is that ethnic conflict is most severe when ethnic groups are concentrated.  That is, when they largely live apart, not when they are integrated.  There are all kinds of reasons this may be true, including concentration means easier to defend (which makes attacking less risky) and so on.  But one of the logics is that if groups are concentrated, members will not interact that often with outsiders, and that will help to reinforce suspicion, fear, and otherwise reinforce in-group, out-group dynamics.  And to be clear, it is not just ethnic differences or diversity but how they are situated.  Studies that focus ethnic fractionalization--how likely you are to meet someone of another ethnic group NEVER find that more diversity (which implies more contact) is a bad thing in terms of ethnic violence. 

Second, we tend to find those folks who join nativist, xenophobic movements are often those who hardly ever encounter the others that they fear.  These movements are not in urban areas but elsewhere, but the feared immigrants are in the cities.  This is not just a Tea Party kind of thing.  Here in Quebec, lots of the folks opposed to reasonable accommodation and raising fears of the various religious menaces (Muslims, devout Jews, etc) never see them, as they live in the hinterlands.  Famously, a few years ago, one town issued a declaration about what their values were, so that no immigrants with conflicting values should move there without adopting the new beliefs, but this town was not facing a wave of immigration. 

So, who are the phobic folks?  Those who hate and fear the "others"?  Those that have little experience in general. Sure, some folks who meet do continue to hate, but the recurring pattern seems to be that those with the least exposure tend to be the most xenophobic.  Folks in NY, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, London, and elsewhere are far less likely to jump on the xenophobic bandwagon.  If I had more time (if I were not so lazy), I am pretty sure I can find voting patterns for the National Front, the Party for Freedom, the True Finn Party, the Danish People's Party and the like and see that these parties do better in the most homogeneous communities.

Anybody got some social science to suggest I am off on this?

Kabul? The New Tet

It is too soon to tell what is going on in Kabul right now, but folks are raising the Tet parallel all over the place, including on unrelated blog posts of mine. 

My first take: the Taliban aspire to Tet but are too late.  That is, Tet was a key turning point because it changed expectations about what was happening in Vietnam, forcing a series of political decisions and changes, including LBJ not running for re-election and the end of escalation.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban may be attempting to score a similar blow, but it will not affect US domestic politics in the same.  Why?  Because the US and its NATO partners have already begun the process of getting out.  In 1968, there was no end in sight, with the US commitment seemingly forever enduring.  In 2011, the clock has been ticking for a while, with 2014 very much on the horizon. 

My second take: the Tet parallel is apt in one way.  All that stuff we have been hearing about decapitation of the Taliban must be, ahem, exaggerated if the insurgents can coordinate this well.  To be clear, I am not saying that the US/NATO forces have been lying about how many middle-level managers have been getting captured or killed, just that the effects may have been overplayed.

My third take: war is bargaining by other means.  Lots of stuff lately about the Taliban meeting with the US and such.  The surge was aimed not so much at victory perhaps but stopping the insurgency's momentum--so that bargaining could proceed. This attack might be a way to re-shift the bargaining space as it shows that the Taliban's powers are not all gone. 

So, this might be Tet-esque but no more than that.  Still not good news for anyone, but we need to be careful about which parts of the analogy seem to apply.

Where is Buffy?

Stakeholders?  Why does this phrase annoy me so?  In this piece, there is a report of a general meeting with stakeholders?  Is it shorthand for people who care?  Or for people we are about who might care?  I guess it sounds better than relevant elites, but it just does not sing to me.  All I can think of when I hear this phrase are either vampires who need some staking or putting up some tents.

Any business-speak of the late 20th century annoy you as much as stakeholders annoys me?

Pie Crust Promises continued

I really do not want to appear to be taking any enjoyment out of the current Euro crisis, but I have to ask: what the hell were they thinking when Greece was let into the Euro zone?  I have said this before but let me rant a bit to compensate for some under-blogging of late: the initial intent of the Euro zone was, as I remember it, to be open to only a subset of the European Union.  That the key was a credible ability to manage one's economy via sound fiscal policy. 

So, did anyone do any research to figure out Greece's fiscal standing?  Or did the conditions not matter since the EU has been all about clean maps?  As it turns out, the promises made by the EU itself turned out to be a pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken.  And yes, this provides yet more proof that having a child has influenced how I think since I saw Mary Poppins dozens of times in the weeks my dy daughter was sick when she was 2 years old (more than 13 years ago). 

As a tribute to the European Union, I thought I would illustrate the problems with conditionality with this google search, which has a Carla Bruni song among the top links found!

All Is Well, Remain Calm

Sure, McGill has to say that the strike of the support staff is not affecting things.  That is part of the bargaining effort.  In any bargaining situation, using coercion (such as a strike) to inflict pain is a likely strategy.  Just as likely is an effort by the coerced to deny being hurt so weakness is not perceived.  But we who are affected bystanders do not have to buy it.  It is simply incredible as in not believable to say that losing the work of hundreds (thousands?) of staff folk would not have a negative impact.  Otherwise, why have them work for you in the first place?

To be clear, I really like our department's staff, but I am not entirely sure I am in love with the union or its demands.  Lots of stuff involved, but it is abundantly clear to me that we miss them, that their absence is affecting the faculty and the students.  How does it matter? 

• Well, registration for classes is always a tough issue since we have lots of students interested in our classes.  While the waiting list system is automated, the students trying to enroll are not so much.  Managing their mistakes (like dropping the main part of the class as they sign up for discussion sections) requires humans. 
• I am trying to create a team of coders from undergrads who are interested in doing research for credit.  Not easy to figure out how this works with a bunch of folks on the picket line who might be able to answer my questions.
• Work-study is at a standstill-I employ some students via workstudy.  But that seems kaput for now.
• I have several grad students (both those for whom I am the main supervisor and those where I sit on their committees) on the job market, but now the secretary who sends out the letters of recommendation is on strike.  So, the students have to depend on profs to be detail-oriented and get out tens and tens of letters on time.  The good news is that more hiring departments use online processes but certainly not half.  So, we shall see how this goes.  

Again, I get both sides: McGill does not want to suggest that the strike is costly or else it might have to make some concessions.  The strikers want the strike to hurt or else they will not get what they want.  But it is not fun to be one of the two or three groups (students, profs, neighbors, etc) who are in the middle of this.

What Did We Learn On the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

• Try other days when you want to join the "mile high" club.  At least, that was the twitter rumor for the various alerts.

• That when football's opening day coincides with 9/11, the US Air Force sends A-10s for the flyovers since the F-15's and F-16's might have other things to do.  Maybe I am wrong to infer this, but the A-10's over the game in Baltimore were an unusual sight.  Maybe they just wanted a slower flyover?

• Football is once again very much like war.  We like to think we can predict outcomes (and some folks do pretty well at that), but we play the games rather than just simulate since the underdog often wins.  In war as well, the favorite often loses.

• More people complained about 9/11 coverage this year.  And that is what makes democracy great--the ability to complain without consequences.  Sure, we can be spoiled--other folks have much worse problems, even in this nasty economic period.  But the ability to complain without much repression is really the American way and that of the other democracies.  I certainly hope that democracy sprouts in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and elsewhere, even if it has short term costs for the foreign policies of other places.  But I am also realistic that not all regime change really  change the nature of the political system.  Sometimes, it is just about replacing one dude with another.  Time will tell if the changes of 2011 will significantly improve the lives of the folks who fought for them. 

9/11 A Decade Later

Yes, lots of folks are posting lots about the last ten years.  Why should I be any different?  See my Current Intelligence column and ponder whether my post is either current or intelligent.

The Circle of Crap

I have used this phrase "the circle of crap" for quite some time to describe the cycle of buying used stuff, passing it on via the garage sale and so on.  Apparently, it has other meanings as well--see here, here and here. 

When I was a grad student in San Diego, most of our furniture, especially a very large couch and a huge coffee table (also known as Steve's folly), were found via garage sales and listings in newspapers.  We held onto some of this stuff even beyond San Diego.  We eventually got rid of much of it with our own garage sales, so that the pieces went from one to another to another in an endless sharing of used stuff--hence, the circle of crap.   

This phrase has been most useful when with my wife and daughter as they eye something--a used hunk of furniture or whatever.  I remind them that this thing is part of the circle of crap, but that we do not need to participate.  Sure, I feel guilty when it comes to toys (thanks a lot, Pixar!), but I tend to have an anti-hoarding compulsion* thanks to my father's notable anal retentiveness.  He refused to participate in the circle of crap--he held onto every hunk of crap that came his way.  Until I put much but nowhere near all of it in a dumpster when they were moving from the suburbs to the city. 

*  My wife would note that I have kept t-shirts from high school, but I do that mostly to irritate both Mrs. Spew and the Spew kid as the shirts still fit me.

I mention this phrase now because we are holding a garage sale this weekend with heaps of crap begging to re-enter the circle and move on to someone else.  Most of it is stuff that my daughter has not used in years (anyone want some Barbies?).  And no, I don't want to put it up on e-bay since that would require us to hold onto to the stuff.  It is hard enough getting my wife to agree to get rid of stuff (she wants to make it perfect before it enters the crap-stream) without the excuse of "it will sell eventually."  If the stuff does not sell, we will give it to charity** or chuck it, depending on how crappy the crap is. 

** We have already donated all our dog stuff, including meds, food, beds, etc. to an animal shelter now that our dogs have moved on to join Dumbledore and Dobby.

We just need to do this two or three more times, and the house will start to be less cluttered.  Indeed, I think I can see the floor.

Telling 9/11 Stories

Lots of people are tired of the tenth anniversary stories about September 11th, 2001.  So, skip this entry, but this post is a tale of two interviews.  I met separately with two students today representing different McGill newspapers: the McGill Tribune and Le Délit. The former is an independent (not supported by the student association) student newspaper, and the latter is the francophone student newspaper.  The two students had different agendas: one wanted my tale of the big day since I was in the Pentagon at the start of that day; the other wanted my take on how 9/11 facilitated American imperialism more or less.  [Updated: Here is the link to the Le Delit story.   Here is the Tribune story.]**

*  The piece is a polemic or an editorial.  It does a nice job of trivializing my point about imperialism, but the context is mostly clear if translate.google did its job well enoughf or me. 

**  The second piece gets a few things wrong:  The Metro stop was never closed, but the escalator that went directly into the building was.  Near the end of my year, they finished building an above ground entrance so that you can take the escalator up and then walk into the building.

The latter was significantly influenced by a conference held in Montreal yesterday, which apparently included conspiracy theorists, Al Qaeda deniers (folks who either deny AQ exists or consider it an arm of the US), and critics of American imperialism.  As folks who read this blog could guess, I was a bit more engaged in the second interview than the first, as I:

• am always suspect when I hear the word imperialism since it is the perfect embodiment of the idea of conceptual stretching--a term used to mean so many different things that it has lost all meaning.
• am quick to call anything approaching conspiracy theory about 9/11 as utter b.s.  Yes, the US had supported Afghans and others who fought the Soviet Union in the mid 1980's, but I do believe AQ declared war on the US before 9/11.  
• am quite fine with people being critical of the US and its foreign policy.  I have made it abundantly clear that I was not a big fan of the Bush administration or its invasion of Iraq.  I just do not find it credible on any level that those guys would kill three thousand Americans (and risk many more lives) just to get some justification for the war they wanted.  Did they use 9/11 to their advantage?  Absolutely.  But did they create it?  No.
• am willing to accept that "we brought it on ourselves" with our foreign policy.  I don't find it offensive to suggest that American foreign policy made the US a target for transnational terrorism.  That does not mean that I think it was ok and fine for civilians to be targeted, but I understand the processes that led to the choices made by the adversary. Being a superpower involved the Middle East made the US a target, especially by supporting despotic regimes (that would be Saudi Arabia and Egypt).  I am not saying we should not have supported them (that is a complex issue for another post), but that the policies had foreseeable consequences and tradeoffs.
• I am pretty sure that AQ and its ilk would have targeted the US even if Israel was making deals with the Palestinians.  I do think the Palestinian cause does matter to folks in the Arab world, but I also think that AQ and others have used the cause rather than sincerely have the condition of the Palestinians as their main objective.
• am frustrated that we have to hear this crap again.  But then, those who do not engage in reality-based thinking tend not to have a learning curve.  Harsh, but there it is. 

And, yes, one might guess correctly which student journalist was asking the questions about my experience and which one was asking about the conspiracy stuff.  Francophones may have a higher percentage of skepticism about American intentions (I believe the polls bear this out), but, to be clear, I have had plenty of anglophone Quebeckers report beliefs that buy into the conspiracy theorists.  It is not strictly along linguistic divides.  But it does reflect a national divide.  That is, I doubt that I would get quite as much conspiracy theorizing about 9/11 in the US from college students, although I am know some of it does exist wherever the reality-averse dwell.

Will this post attract comments from the reality-averse community?  Perhaps, but it is my blog, and I can use this occasion to repeat my usual statements about September 11th, such as:

• We saw it with our own eyes.
• AQ claimed credit for it.
• The conspiracy theorists require us to believe that the Bush Administration was super-competent and the FBI and the CIA could get along.
• Occam's Razor, baby.
• Thinking that a small group of Arabs could not possibly do this might just be a bit racist.

Serving Parasites

McGill is chock full of strange traditions.  When a student defends his dissertation, the university assigns a professor far outside of the student's discipline to serve as pro-dean.  The job here is to keep the train moving along, as I discussed the last time I did it.  This time, the student was seeking a PhD in Parasitology.  Yep, parasites.  While the entire discussion flew over my head, I did find a few pieces of this experience interesting.  First, the phrase "parasitic lifestyle."  That could describe graduate students or more likely full professors, but actually described the parasite's feeding/living tendencies as far as I could tell.  Still, I love that phrase.  Reminds me of Newt Gingrich for some reason. 

Anyhow, I do find these experiences interesting precisely because there is so little I understand.  It turns out this education process does mean that people develop a tremendous amount of expertise in their field, which means that outsiders have a hard time understanding them.  That's ok as long as the experts can talk amongst each other and that other folks exist that can translate for them. 

I have been more conscious the last few years (well, since my year in the Pentagon) about the need to translate results into language people outside the discipline can understand.   Of course, I have spent most of the past few years talking to folks in uniform, so that is just a different hunk of jargon.  OMLT's arcs of fire, AOR, SOF and all the rest.

So, there are two lessons du jour: a reminder to figure out how to communicate to non-specialists and not all nematodes are beneficial.

No Need for a Flux Capacitor

2015 is just around the corner:


There has been  a heap of stories about how how we are catching up to our sci-fi movies.  I cannot wait for hoverboards.  Oh wait, there are already here.

More American than Most?

I wonder sometimes about whether the folks who served in the US armed forces during the era of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and before that might just be among the best Americans.  They sacrificed even more than the average grunt/marine/squid/AF person (what is the equivalent of grunt for the USAF?), having hide basic parts of their identity while risking their lives for their country. 

This piece in GQ does a nice job of showing what these men experienced.  Yes, it focuses on the males because, hey, it is GQ (G standing for Guy, right?).  Still quite moving.

A key quote: "if you want to hide, the Marine Corps is one of the best places to do that, because nobody wants to admit they are standing next to a gay guy. Nobody wants to admit that they have gone to war with gay people."

Another one:  "But I loved what I did, I loved my job, and I didn't want to tell anyone. I said, 'It's going to be my secret.' I knew I was not going to be happy in a way, but I knew this was what I wanted."

Ok, a couple more: "One of the boyfriends tells me how difficult it was when his partner was recently in Afghanistan. "If something happened," he points out, "I wouldn't have got a phone call. I would have known nothing about it at all. If he didn't call for two days, I was freaking out."

"Nobody joined up to be 'the unit gay guy,' but that's who you're going to be, and I think it's incumbent on us who are senior to basically identify ourselves so that younger kids can look and say, 'Hey, it is okay.' Because we didn't have that."

 Just some very, very moving passages.  Read the whole thing.

First Day of Classes

While classes started at McGill last week, today was my first day of teaching due to APSA and Labor Day.  I am teaching two courses--an upper level class on the International Relations of Ethnic Conflict and the big Introduction to International Relations class.  The big course is at 4:30, which is much later than I have taught it in the past.  Worse, the class before mine is the big Intro to Comparative Politics class, so many of the students will be sitting in their second monster lecture class in a row.  The good news?  IR is inherently more interesting.  Sorry but them's the facts.  Plus I have much more experience than the other guy in the art of teaching huge classes plus I am willing to stunt-ucate. 

The challenge is to bring enough energy at the end of the day, while the students are dragging (and so am I).  The key I have found before and continues to work: to play some energetic music before the class starts.  Turning it off signals the start of class as well.  Today, I played "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel to suggest that the dynamics of today did not just spring out of nothingness but are part of larger processes that might just be recurring.  I also played Angels and Airwaves' "The Adventure" to suggest that the class is, indeed, an exciting journal.  

For Friday's lecture on Theory, I will replace the opening song with a video.


Shows nicely that this is not really a theory but an ideal type.

I really do enjoy this class--heaps of fun stuff to play with, including lots of minds that are new to poli sci.  Alas, it is likely to be the last time I teach it for the foreseeable future, but more on that later.

What Does One Do With a Political Science Degree?

There is a song for English majors, thanks to Avenue Q, but not for Poli Sci types.

This figure is suggestive:

Popular Jobs for Political Science Majors

Methodology Jobs ranked by popularity among graduates. Annual pay for Bachelors graduates without higher degrees from all colleges.  See full methodology for more.

See here for the longer list.

What this really shows is that the major does not create a set path (interesting to note that lawyer is not listed here).  Lots of sales type positions listed as well.  No mention of being a multimedia star for ESPN. 

The basic implication is that Political Science provides a set of skills that are handy for a variety of jobs: to think analytically, to argue, to write, etc.  The other implication is that Political Science is a good default major--it is for those who do not have a clear idea of what they want to do but is relatively easy: read a lot, but not much math.  Usually Political Science has the least prerequisites and requirements.  So, it can be a path for the confused or the lazy.  No, I am not insulting my students, just identifying my own basic traits.  Actually, it is also a good major for people who want to understand the world around them.  Not the biological world or chemical world but the world of politics, which matters in the workplace, at home, and everywhere else.  Does not hurt that the usual one stats course requirement does not require calculus.

A Day Versus A Year

I was interviewed by a couple of newspapers last week about 9/11 because I am a rare commodity: someone in Montreal/Canada who was in the Pentagon that day.  The hardest question I got was how that day changed me.  Why?  Because I spent an entire year in DC, doing something very, very different and living among very different sorts of folks, and those experiences tend to resonate with me more than the one day.   

I left the Pentagon for a meeting across the river at the State Department after the first two planes had hit in NY (and having seen the second one do it while watching CNN from within the Pentagon).*  I was on the bridge in between when the plane hit the Pentagon.  The next hour or two focused on watching the shuttle try to get to its destinations (State, Old Executive Office Building, Pentagon) amid the chaos.    What stands out the most was the guy setting up a camera pointed at the White House, preparing for a plane to hit it perhaps.  So, at that point, I was just an observer-passenger, not really making any decisions.

* For an audio tale of my day, go here for an interview with the CBC.

Then we, the two Army officers and I, got back to the Pentagon.  We walked around two sides of it to get into it since we had classified documents that none of us wanted to take home.  After we did that, the Colonel (who is now a Major General) drove me to the Metro and I got home via metro and then my car.  I proceeded to say hi to my wife, and then watched the coverage for hours.  So, again, observer, not actor.

End of Summer

How can you tell it is the end of summer in Montreal?

• The students are back, many asking questions that, well, can be answered if they read the syllabus.  Of course, with cutbacks and environmental changes, we now only post the syllabi online.  Ooops.
• Someone is on strike.  This time, the staff at McGill.  I guess getting reimbursed for various trips will have to wait.  More importantly, I have a ready excuse when students ask me to bump them up the waitlist (because their needs are more important than those in front of them [where is the Crimson Bolt when you need him].  
• It has gotten cool quickly.  Seasons just jump on you in Montreal, especially as things head towards winter (yes, token Winter is Coming mention here). 
• Deadlines are upon us.  
• More silly rankings are out.  
• Concussion football season is here.
• Requests for recommendations are catching up to the requests for referee reports for journals.

I actually do like fall a great deal--I start teaching tomorrow (missed first class due to APSA), and I like interacting with the new crop of folks.  Sure, I whine about the end of summer, but one of the best parts about this business (other than not having bosses, the joy of tenure, and now elite frequent flier status) are the changes of pace.  Nothing stays the same for too long.  Students come and go (even graduate students, although it can take them six or seven years), any course only lasts fourteen weeks or so, and then onto a new group and a new set of topics.  

I never forget that I have a cool job that has been well-worth the sacrifices: having to leave San Diego in the quest for employment, residing in West Texas for six years, and so on.  On to the show.

What I Learned at APSA 2011

Seattle rocks.  Indeed, it does.  A great place to have a conference.  The city is beautiful, the beer is abundant, the panhandlers are aplenty (one had a very honest sign of $$ for weed), the convention center is very nice, lots of great food.  And great weather.  Next year at New Orleans is not so attractive.

I hope this conference convinces APSA to try some other cities: Denver, Pittsburgh, maybe St. Louis or Kansas City, and perhaps others.  Suggestions?

I learned that there is a building momentum for ultimate at the ISA.  If you are interested, let me know.

I learned that word does get around quickly.  More on that later.

I learned that John Yoo is not popular but neither are those who would interrupt him.  Lots of gnashing about this on the various blogs.  I personally do not go out of my way to hear a torture-justifier speak, would not mind a protest of same, but also would not want to have his free speech denied (as I would not deny free speech to a white supremacist, holocaust denier, or 9/11 truther).  Again, I would not listen, and, indeed, I successfully did not.

I was reminded that baseball is a great game for a group of friends to enjoy, and that football is actually the perfect spectator sport, as in watching the spectators.  We had plenty of Raiders fans near us, and they were entertaining, if universally, well not that bright.  Especially since some continued to wear jerseys from really awful players (JaMarcus Russell anyone?!).  One Raiders fan seemed to have a maximum of five teeth left.  Glad that we had several fans between us until late in the fourth quarter.

I learned that NFL cheerleaders have really great hair.

I knew that Boeing was based in Seattle, of course, but was amused to see that their factory/airstrip was incredibly long and right next to the highway.  I was thrilled to see AWACs planes being born as they play key roles in my book with Dave.  You can see them with the blue round dishes in this pic.  In fact, almost all you can see are the dishes.  Better view on the drive from the airport to the city but I was not expecting the sight, so I didn't have my camera ready.

I learned that I have great friends, old and new, although I missed many of the old ones who didn't come to Seattle.  They missed out, not on me, but on a great city.

Oh, and I learned I hate my data plan.  I had to turn my android off and be twitter-less for most of my time there.  My addiction got me jones-ing for some tweets.  Very sad.

APSA 2011 Day 3

Seattle remained beautiful.  No rain, just sunny and no need for these "umbrella condoms" [phrase used by a Seattle-based friend].

This conference proved one thing above all others--APSA needs to go outside the rotation of SF-Boston-Chicago-DC.  How about Denver?  Next year in New Orleans seems like a bad idea--hot, humid and deep in hurricane season.  I am seriously thinking of not coming to next year's conference.  However, given that I am a conference addict, I probably will sweat and dodge hurricanes.

Yes, conferences are worth the trip.  Today, I chaired a roundtable of political scientists who spent some time doing policy, getting nostalgic for my joint staff days.  I chatted with a Canadian publisher about a potential spinoff of the NATO and Afghanistan book--using the Afghanistan experience to figure out Canadian politics and such.  I met with one of my grad students to talk job market stuff.  Lots of jobs this year, so I am optimistic.  Easier for me than for the students.  And I bumped into a bunch of folks. 

Now I just have to catch up on a heap of tweets and newspapers and other stuff.

APSA 2011 Day 2

Again, not much blogging since I cannot use my smartphone in the US without paying $$.

My first panel on ethnic stuff went well.  A nice range of papers: our paper on a very preliminary set of data on diasporas, a paper on Kosovar diaspora, one on de facto states (Abhkazia), impact of ethnicity on mediation of conflicts (apparently ethnic fractionalization makes mediation easier), and a paper on how states react to secession with a focus on Pakistan.

Otherwise, heaps of meetings with former grad students, colleagues in the field and friends from grad school.  Plus a book room tour.  I really need to read faster. 

Seattle remains beautiful and sunny. 

I have no reactions to whatever is going on in the world since I have no clue.  Talk amongst yourselves while I am out of touch.

APSA log, Day -1

First day in Seattle was great.  The city is beautiful, the weather was great, and I went to a very good ballgame with some friends.

First observations:

• Lots of panhandlers and young folks wearing official looking vests and then also asking for money or time or something.  But best one was the guy whose sign read "$$ for weed."  I appreciate that kind of honest.
• Indeed, I think I finally know where the word grunge came from.  Lots of young folks who obviously are just scraping by while trying to make it or not.
• Saw something I have never seen before--a stand at the convention center that held bags one would grab for a wet umbrella.  I will have to take a picture.
• Using the standard--uphill is direction x and downhill is the opposite direction does not work so much since the downtown seems perched on a series of hills so that one can go downhill in a couple of different direction.