Collapsed Credibility

The reports on the tunnel collapse in Montreal have been released.  The Ministry of Transport is blaming the engineers and contractors they hired but disavowing any responsibility itself.  Good times.

There is so much wrong with these reports, let me count the ways:

1. The initial design: why was there a need for very heavy concrete and metal screens above the tunnel to filter the sunlight as folks enter/leave the tunnel?  Would not something lighter been fine?  Oh, and having these heavy "paralumes" rest on four inch ledges?
2. The Minister denied any responsibility for the collapse--it is the fault of the contractors.  The Ministry should not be expected to review all of the plans, as that would mean they are re-doing all of the work of the contractors.  Um, ok.  Bad analogies were deployed--house owners do not get blamed if their house collapses.  No, but the Ministry is more than just a buyer of infrastructure.  
3. It is always the same set of contractors--SNC-Lavalin is also building the new McGill hospital and has been tied to building stuff for Qaddafi. CIMA + and Dessau are also involed
4. The firms say: it is just an accident.  Sure, bad things happen, not our fault.  Unless the accident is produced by bad design, bad planning, bad oversight....   Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers famously said that "Luck is the residue of design."  So, bad luck or accidents are the residue of bad design, n'est-ce pas?

Looks like the Ministry of Transport continues to lack a learning curve and seeks to cover everything in denial sauce.  

Turkey Out-Rummy's Rumsfeld

France passed a law focused on the Armenian genocide, deliberately antagonizing Turkey.  Among Turkey's responses: denying France overflight rights for planes serving the Afghan mission as well as access to its waters.  This reminds me of Rumsfeld since he sought to block all cooperation with the French military after Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  He sought to turn off all military to military interchanges/exchanges, but the US uniformed folks pushed back a bit, making Rummy realize that the French actually were very helpful in Africa.  That the US is using a base in the former French colony of Djibouti (the recent SEAL rescue) is just a bit of evidence of the reliance the US has on France in building bridges in places the US has had little experience.

Anyhow, I was just struck by the Turkeys rummy-ing France.  Does xenophobia explain France's positions on Turkey or is there something else going on?

Eggtra-Ordinary!

How are pieces of research like eggs?  Well, I was having a fun conversation with a grad student of mine while we were dining in the aftermath of a workshop on failed states, and I was suggesting a potential research strategy.  The point I was trying to make is that you don't want to waste your research.  At first, I was using bullets--but given our topics, violence, and given that bullets do not degrade over time, eggs made more sense.


The basic idea is that when you do research, you don't always use everything you learn for a particular piece.  Indeed, one of Saideman's rules of dissertations is that just because you learned something does not mean it fits in the dissertation.  Focus is important.  But if you learn stuff along the way that does not go into article x, you should use it for another publication.  Each article or book idea is an egg.  You can do different things with any egg--poach, scramble, omelet, quiche, frittata, use for cookies, french toast, etc.  So, an idea can be prepared in a variety of ways, and you don't want to waste an idea by just leaving it alone and undeveloped.  An egg that just sits around on a shelf is not doing you any good.  Same with a research idea.  You want to get it out.  And, eggs, unlike bullets, will eventually become useless (rotten, smelly, etc.).  So, you can let an idea sit around for a while, but it may eventually become unusable. 


So, you can do a lot of different things with any hunk of knowledge--write a book, write a policy-oriented article, write an academic piece for a journal, blog about it, use it for teaching, whatever.  Just as an egg can be used in a variety of ways.  It depends on what appeals to one's audience.  Making breakfast for oneself is different than making a breakfast for a family and different from making lunch for some friends, and so on.


As I have mentioned before, I am a big believer in portfolio approaches--publishing in a variety of outlets to get ideas across to a variety of audiences, maximizing visibility, impact, ego and also chances for employment, tenure, raises and the rest.  So, it may take some creativity and planning to figure out how to use each idea for optimal impact but it also depends on preferences.  I prefer French Toast to pancakes and waffles, but all are perfectly good uses for eggs.  Just try not to waste any eggs... or ideas.

Told You So!

Jeff Simpson is complaining about the challenges of innovation when it comes to pharmaceuticals.  If only there were folks out there doing research on behalf of the public rather than just for private interest.  Oh, that's right: university professors do more than teach--they do research, often providing heaps of knowledge that might actually be called, dare I say it, innovation.

I cannot help but notice when a columnist condemns profs for being too much into their research then gripes about innovation and why the private actors, just as drug companies, fall short.  It is almost as if he does not read his own stuff and think through the contradictions.  Profs should just teach, not research.  Oh damn, private companies do research but not for the public good.  Who could possibly do that? Oh, that's right, professors.  Ooops.

So, I am enjoying a small victory lap in my office, as Simpson may or may not realize what a fool he can be about innovation.  Yep, a fool. I don't think he is a hypocrite.  I just don't think he has done any ..... RESEARCH on the topic. 

Of course, I also find it easier to write rather than research.  That is what blogs are for, right?

Worrying About Post-2014 Afghanistan

Lots of folks are worried about who will pay for the Afghan security forces after NATO transitions and largely (although probably not entirely) departs in 2014 and also who will pay for the rest of the Afghan government, given the limited income it will be receiving.  Well, the government, that is. Individuals working for the govt may have heaps of income from extra-legal sources. 

But I am not really worried about who will pay for the Afghan government and its military after the transition is "complete" in 2014.  Or 2013 as SecDef Panetta suggested this week, causing heaps of panic.  The answer is: the US will.  While there are huge deficit challenges ahead, dramatically reducing the forces in Afghanistan will provide ample savings so that a few billion dollars spent every year on the Afghan military will not be a problem in the short term. 

No, there are much more important post-2014 concerns:

• How about a coup?  The traditional excuse of a coup is an ineffective, corrupt government that is failing to support the military, especially if it is combating an internal threat.  So, one could imagine the ANA launching a coup.  What does NATO/US do about this, especially since there will be significant residual international forces still wandering around Afghanistan.  Yes, that is right, no quick and easy exit like Iraq (as if that was quick and easy), as Afghanistan will negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that will allow the US and perhaps NATO to continue to station troops to assist the Afghans with logistics, intel, air support, transport, and just perhaps some special operations types.
• Oh yeah, what will these international forces be doing and how will they act when they are around ANA folks who either fight too weakly (running away from Taliban) or fight too hard (abusing people's rights)?
• Will the ANA hold itself together or fall apart, split and fight amongst themselves?
• Who will be the President of Afghanistan and what will they be trying to accomplish?

The future of Afghanistan has not yet been written (thanks, Doc Brown), and there is plenty to worry about.  Who will pick up the bill is hardly the biggest mystery.

Spew Travel Rules

• Stuff relevant to my research almost always happens when I am out of town.  NATO changing date for transition in Afghanistan essentially to 2013 while I am traveling far across Canada (yes, it is a big country) and then while I am in a workshop all day.  Cuts down on the media whore-dom.   Shucks.
• By the way, this is messing with my publication schedules--wanted to get next books out in 2013/14 while Afghanistan is still quite relevant rather than distant memory (and yes, once troops are out of harm's way, folks in West [media] will forget about Afghanistan).
• Oh, and my quick take--2014 was a fairly arbitrary date so 2013 is not so radical.
• Always get the slowest cabbie.  Oh, not a rule, just tendency when one is already behind.
• Always check in online, even if Air Canada kicks you off the second plane because your first is delayed even though the second is delayed. 
• Workshops always start late but too late, so this post will be short.

Hate the Game, not the Player

So, a school was caught gaming the rankings.  Should we be shocked?  Nay.  I have often spewed about rankings of all kinds.  Law schools regularly game the rankings by employing alums for key time periods.

Congrats to Claremont McKenna:

according to Robert Morse, the director of data research at U.S. News, is “the highest-ranking school to have to go through this publicly and have to admit to misreporting.”

I guess they must have been really good at gaming the system to be so highly ranked so that their gaming can be so very visible.

Why does this happen?

But repeated revelations of manipulation show the importance of the rankings in the minds of prospective students, their guidance counselors, parents, the alumni considering donations, the professors weighing job offers — and, of course, the colleges themselves.

We have only ourselves to blame.  It is about self-esteem for folks at the schools, and it is for getting status for those who are applying.  The big questions are the real admit rates for medical schools, law schools, grad schools and .... jobs.  I would love to see a regression or three on the factors driving admission with school rank being one factor but GPA, test scores, etc being factored in as well.

I am fundamentally of the belief that for undergrad, it almost does not matter where you go with one caveat in a second---that one should go to a place that has programs in the fields you desire with enough competence in other areas in case you change your mind.  But one should not flip out about going to school number 27 rather than school number 17 or 7.  The next generation of Saidemans are approaching college (with one already in) and my key bit of advice is to largely ignore the adults and the rankings.  Go to whichever school feels right for you.  I would recommend a smaller school than a bigger one, having taught at the bigs and gone to a small, but even that is not hard and fast.

What is the one caveat I have? That the quality of one's peers matters as much or more than the pedigrees and productivity of the profs.  So, go to places where one's fellow students are interesting and engaged--which is why McGill is a great place for students (not just a cheap place to be outsourced).  And if happens to be a place that is sunny or has great skiing, well, more power to ya.

The game will always be the game, but you don't have to play.  That is what I learned at Oberlin and by watching The Wire and the Game of Thrones.

Canadian Tourism Question

Due to the vagaries of conference and research schedules, my tour of Canadian cities over the past ten years has hit the following hotspots:

• Edmonton. Inspiration for this post, as tonight will be my second trip.
• Vancouver.  Once for the Canadian Political Science Association.  And, yes, I only went to the CPSA that year because it was in Vancouver.
• Toronto.  Multiple times for ISA's, one APSA (Americans got all fussy about going abroad for the American Political Science Assn meeting), a smaller conference, and that's it.
• Ottawa.  Many times for research, job talk, moving prep, etc.
• Kingston. Multiple conferences.
• Halifax. Once for my first CPSA.  Enjoyed the city so much, had so little to do at the conference.
• Chicoutimi.  Airshow last summer.
• Quebec City.  One presentation.
• Hamilton/London.  Presentations.

So, the question is: which should be my next Canadian destination?   If I could convince someone to invite me to speak or participate in a workshop, which city should I target?  As I am traveling this evening, I thought I would ponder future travel possibilities.  What say you, oh Canadian readers?


And, yes, what I would really, really like to do is go to Banff or Whistler NOW as I have not yet skied this winter at all.  Crappy conditions in the otherwise fun ski areas near Montreal.

Life Imitates Viral Video

As I am currently enjoying the longest possible transition from accepting a job to starting it, I will have many occasions to ponder the move.

So, yesterday, I drove to and from Ottawa to hand off some stuff at a school that will be considering my daughter for admission. I then got to get a key to my new office.  And I had this kind of experience:

I love my new office.  The chair is super-comfortable. I get to control the room's temperature, the window opens, the view is interesting, the furniture is designed for the 21st century.  The staff are super-friendly and helpful. I enjoyed lunch with a couple of colleagues to be.  I enjoyed driving in Ottawa with the ability to turn right on red and smooth roads and no netting under the overpasses.  I experimented by driving south to see how quickly one can get out of town and into the hinterlands.  Even in slow roads due to snow, the answer: not very long.  So, that will shape our house-shopping. 

So, the move does not take place until summer (depending on house selling/buying), but weeee!