Wednesday, February 8, 2012
They Got Me!
The Maoist parody folks have discovered my true intentions. Yes, it is no accident that I visited the Soviet Union just a couple of years before its collapse; that my trips to Europe and the South Pacific to do research on the Afghanistan effort really were parts of my effort to spread the revolution to the rest of the globe, and that I fostered a personality cult:|
Back to the Past
Some McGill students have occupied the administration building again. The administration is doing a far better job this time not confronting these folks (much easier when there are not thousands of students and other folks marching around). The issues this time are different. Instead of tuition, it is about various campus organizations and how they are funded. It seems that the administration is thwarting the will of the students who voted somehow. I have not been paying attention. But I just found out who is behind the occupation apparently:
MAOISTS. Really. No, I am serious. I just wonder if they are. If you check out their site "the only source for proleterian information," it reads as if it is a parody of a marxist student website. My department used to have a faculty member who was a big fan of North Korea, but I didn't realize that there was a Maoist organization around here.
Sure, I remember the good old days of the 1980's where there was a group at Oberlin, partially students and partially other folks, who were avowed Trotskyites. But stuff happened since then--the fall of the wall, the de-legitimation of Communism in Europe and the former Soviet space, the reforms in China that facilitate capitalism while still denying democracy, and so on. Yet there are Maoists on campus? I guess they didn't follow the usual cool trend of 21st century idealist rebelling students and fall for Chomsky.
I really have no position on the current set of grievances, but I will always be skeptical of "proletarians" who are college students and have probably not experienced the life of the working class all that much and are not destined to be working class after they graduate.
On the other hand, it can all be a joke. Maybe my readers can check out the site and tell me whether these modern day Maoists are the real thing.
Update: Ok, so this is a satirical blog (I don't follow their tweets but one of my commenters does). So, I was right to think it was a joke, yes?
MAOISTS. Really. No, I am serious. I just wonder if they are. If you check out their site "the only source for proleterian information," it reads as if it is a parody of a marxist student website. My department used to have a faculty member who was a big fan of North Korea, but I didn't realize that there was a Maoist organization around here.
Sure, I remember the good old days of the 1980's where there was a group at Oberlin, partially students and partially other folks, who were avowed Trotskyites. But stuff happened since then--the fall of the wall, the de-legitimation of Communism in Europe and the former Soviet space, the reforms in China that facilitate capitalism while still denying democracy, and so on. Yet there are Maoists on campus? I guess they didn't follow the usual cool trend of 21st century idealist rebelling students and fall for Chomsky.
I really have no position on the current set of grievances, but I will always be skeptical of "proletarians" who are college students and have probably not experienced the life of the working class all that much and are not destined to be working class after they graduate.
On the other hand, it can all be a joke. Maybe my readers can check out the site and tell me whether these modern day Maoists are the real thing.
Update: Ok, so this is a satirical blog (I don't follow their tweets but one of my commenters does). So, I was right to think it was a joke, yes?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Civ-Mil Spat Resolved
Peter Munson commented on my post, but folks do not always read the comments so I am pasting it here with a thought or two added below:
I do think the conversation was informative to me, to Munson, and hopefully to the various folks that follow our tweets and blogs. I appreciate that he took this random academic seriously, as I took him seriously even if I am often flippant.
Steve,My response to his response: we have less to disagree about than we did this weekend. I took his comment seriously because of the current context: that Republicans are saying that they would just listen to the Generals (a big mistake); and that there are folks in the military who would not consider the rhetorical point in the email and his blog post to be just rhetorical. I have had, for instance, people post comments on my occasional op-eds basically saying that I had no right to comment on Canadian or American defence/defense policy because I was not going to serve in the military. So, the belief is out there, and I mistakenly thought that Munson believed. Then, when he pointed out that it was a rhetorical move, I still remained seized as I understood his point but also believed and continue to believe that this is not an isolated, very fringe, irrelevant opinion. Instead, I think it happens to exist in the world and in the minds of people that might matter--candidates, voters, some folks in the media. Perhaps I was an opportunist to take this one tweet and scream and shout via my various online fora "civs belong in civ-mil" when Munson would not disagree.
I understand your concern about civ-mil affairs, but I think that your charge that I am dangerously suggesting that debate should be closed off to non-military types is an overreaction and a bit of a strawman. Part of this can be explained by my annoyance with the R2P crowd, the nature of Twitter, and the barb attached to my statement. I don't literally mean that academics should head down to the recruiters, nor do I mean that they don't rate an opinion. More than a rhetorical jab, it was a rhetorical question, to which the answer is "no." The advocates for intervention will not be materially invested in this course of action. This does not mean that they cannot advocate such a course. Many who aren't materially invested have done the same in the past, from all spectrums of the political and ideological rainbow.
The real barb in my jab/question, though, is at both the civilians and the military. I want the civilians to consider their calls for intervention much more seriously because I do not trust the generals to sufficiently and properly inform debate. Some of this is due to flaws in some generals' conception of the strategic environment in past conflicts. Some of this is due to generals' civ-mil duty to stand back from shaping debate. So when civilians say that they can advocate certain actions, then leave it to the experts to inform policy-makers before a final decision is made, this is disingenuous. The civilian policy elites will shape the debate and hand policy-makers a narrowed set of options. If policy elites have not properly laid out the costs and risks in their advocacy, then the politicians and generals are left with a skewed "decision environment," which institutional factors predispose them to further bollocks up.
So, my rhetorical question was more of a call to the civilian elites to step up to their responsibility of considering the real consequences and second/third order effects of their desires than to really ask them to head to the recruiters or shut up.
I do think the conversation was informative to me, to Munson, and hopefully to the various folks that follow our tweets and blogs. I appreciate that he took this random academic seriously, as I took him seriously even if I am often flippant.
Re-boot? Really?
I liked Sam Raimi's take on Spidey a lot. I didn't even mind the 3rd movie as much as everyone else. So, I, of course, was skeptical about the decision to re-boot. However, I am a sucker for a Spidey movie and this one does not look bad:
Will you see it in the theaters? I will. Make mine Marvel, as always.
Will you see it in the theaters? I will. Make mine Marvel, as always.
If Football is Like War
Lots of folks use war as analogy for football (US version) or football as analogy for war, such as the blitz starting with war going to football and going back to war, how about we take a key concept from football and from other sports and apply it to US (and perhaps NATO) defense policy: the salary cap.
In professional sports, leagues have had to impose restraints upon owners of teams since competition among them (combined with nepotism leading to lousy decision-making) cause salaries to escalate. As a result, bargaining with unions tends to be about the split of the income, with each team limited either strictly or not so strictly from spending over a certain level. This provides some competitive balance.
Well, how about we develop a "war cap" limiting either how many wars the US or anyone else fights over a short time frame. Perhaps countries, such as the US, might want to consider restraining themselves from repeatedly fighting in the same region to prevent exhaustion at home and alienating entire neighborhoods abroad. Given that folks seem to be advocating for war hither (Iran) and thither (Syria), perhaps we need to restrain ourselves, even if we allow folks without military experience or kids in harm's way to talk.
So, if we set a Middle East war cap at three for a rolling five year period, the US would be beyond the cap: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya with war-ish activities in Yemen and Somalia. As a result, any war-monger in the US would have to wait until 2015 to start a new war, as Iraq would then be rolling off the list and would no longer count against the cap.*
On the other hand, perhaps three wars in the same region is too low of a cap? What say you?
In professional sports, leagues have had to impose restraints upon owners of teams since competition among them (combined with nepotism leading to lousy decision-making) cause salaries to escalate. As a result, bargaining with unions tends to be about the split of the income, with each team limited either strictly or not so strictly from spending over a certain level. This provides some competitive balance.
Well, how about we develop a "war cap" limiting either how many wars the US or anyone else fights over a short time frame. Perhaps countries, such as the US, might want to consider restraining themselves from repeatedly fighting in the same region to prevent exhaustion at home and alienating entire neighborhoods abroad. Given that folks seem to be advocating for war hither (Iran) and thither (Syria), perhaps we need to restrain ourselves, even if we allow folks without military experience or kids in harm's way to talk.
So, if we set a Middle East war cap at three for a rolling five year period, the US would be beyond the cap: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya with war-ish activities in Yemen and Somalia. As a result, any war-monger in the US would have to wait until 2015 to start a new war, as Iraq would then be rolling off the list and would no longer count against the cap.*
* The funny thing about all these wars the US has fought, none, except for Afghanistan, have much to do with 9/11. Now, would I waive the cap if the US wanted to attack Saudi Arabia? Hmmm.
On the other hand, perhaps three wars in the same region is too low of a cap? What say you?
Who Are the Europeans in NATO?
I have been on twitter this morning chatting back and forth about Europeans and NATO, admonishing folks who generalize a bit too much about those lazy, pacifist Europeans. It is tempting to say that Americans fight and break things. ISAF stands for International Security Assistance Force, the NATO effort in A-stan, but also stands for I Saw Americans Fight. But the division of labor is not Americans fight and then leave while Europeans watch and then build. That would be NATO vs. EU, perhaps.
But Europeans did fight in Afghanistan--most of them. The only real exceptions were folks like hte Greeks who only sent 15 troops for quite a while and then a bit more than that, but I doubt any left their bases. The big distinctions are between the Danes, Brits, Poles, and Dutch on one side and Germans, Italians, Spaniards, and Hungarians on the other in terms of who engaged in significant combat. And to be fair, the Germans reduced their restrictions over time and engaged in more combat, including offensive operations. Mostly after 2009. The French? Their Special Operations types were busy from 2004-2007 in Spin Boldak (border region in Kandahar province), but their conventional forces were pretty much restricted to peaceful Kabul until 2007. Sarkozy changed all of that, deploying the French to Kapisa where they experienced as much "kinetic" stuff as the first category of Europeans.
Of course, comparing Europeans to Americans inevitably slights the country that is neither in Europe nor American: those pesky Canadians. As I have blogged and written, the Canadians started off restricted and doing mostly garrison duty in 2002 (although their snipers recorded the longest successful combat shot), but changed their stance in 2005 leading to a very forward leaning approach until they left Kandahar in 2011.
So, while I, like everyone else, like to generalize and use broad categories, let this be my monthly reminder that the relevant categories for deploying force in combat, in counter-insurgency, in stabilization ops is not Europeans vs. Americans. Instead, as our piece coming out in International Studies Quarterly next month asserts, it has far more to do with how many folks are in the decision-making loop at home--is it a presidential system, a Prime Minister only needing his or her party, or a coalition government.
But Europeans did fight in Afghanistan--most of them. The only real exceptions were folks like hte Greeks who only sent 15 troops for quite a while and then a bit more than that, but I doubt any left their bases. The big distinctions are between the Danes, Brits, Poles, and Dutch on one side and Germans, Italians, Spaniards, and Hungarians on the other in terms of who engaged in significant combat. And to be fair, the Germans reduced their restrictions over time and engaged in more combat, including offensive operations. Mostly after 2009. The French? Their Special Operations types were busy from 2004-2007 in Spin Boldak (border region in Kandahar province), but their conventional forces were pretty much restricted to peaceful Kabul until 2007. Sarkozy changed all of that, deploying the French to Kapisa where they experienced as much "kinetic" stuff as the first category of Europeans.
Of course, comparing Europeans to Americans inevitably slights the country that is neither in Europe nor American: those pesky Canadians. As I have blogged and written, the Canadians started off restricted and doing mostly garrison duty in 2002 (although their snipers recorded the longest successful combat shot), but changed their stance in 2005 leading to a very forward leaning approach until they left Kandahar in 2011.
So, while I, like everyone else, like to generalize and use broad categories, let this be my monthly reminder that the relevant categories for deploying force in combat, in counter-insurgency, in stabilization ops is not Europeans vs. Americans. Instead, as our piece coming out in International Studies Quarterly next month asserts, it has far more to do with how many folks are in the decision-making loop at home--is it a presidential system, a Prime Minister only needing his or her party, or a coalition government.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Net Compensates for CA Ads
Watching lousy old, overplayed Canadian ads during the Super Bowl is the price we pay for living la Vida Canada. The nice thing about the net (and the decline of quality Super Bowl ads) is that we can catch up quickly.
I gotta say: an American car ad that features the Apocalypse (or many versions of the end of the world) is mighty brave and amusing. Poor Dave.
I gotta say: an American car ad that features the Apocalypse (or many versions of the end of the world) is mighty brave and amusing. Poor Dave.
Stupid Spin of Important Political Dynamic of the Month
Oh, poor USA, its constitution is no longer the model for the world. Well, just mayhaps it could be that the heaps of scholarship about things like Proportional Representation and Asymmetrical Federalism and other alternative democratic institutions may have had an impact on what countries do.
Canadians will jump to take pride in the supposed popularity of their constitution, but most new democracies are not adopting British-style political systems. They are mostly developing rules that pick and choose from existing models. Lots of effort to avoid tyranny of the majority, which was a key part of the development of US institutions and a key aspect of British-style systems. Not going to see too much first-past-the-post stuff.
Oh, and even though the Canadians argue with me about it, the reality is that a province or the national parliament can decide to ignore rulings of the Supreme Court with a simple majority vote--due to the notwithstanding clause. Sure, it only applies to fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights (not democratic rights, language rights or minority language education of citizens (sort of). That is, provinces and the national parliament can abridge fundamental freedoms but not language rights (well,e except for immigrants in Quebec, I guess). And only for five years (but renewable every five years).
Anyhow, the larger point remains--countries with relatively new sets of rules are learning from the past experiences of other countries but also building rules that benefit those already in power. Because, hey, making the rules is POLITICAL. In any case, the US system has pro's and con's, as do British-style parliaments as do the European institutions. Smart folks will try to figure out which circumstances outside their country match their situation and then choose those institutions that have the desired effects (stability vs. adaptability; minority protection vs. efficiency, whatever). And learning from the social science of this is not a bad way to go. This is one of the areas that has received much attention and will continue to do so. Just saying that the American rules are always best is just as silly as saying the Canadian rules rock! They may rock! But they may not work elsewhere. Unless you like a constitutional crisis every fifteen years.
Canadians will jump to take pride in the supposed popularity of their constitution, but most new democracies are not adopting British-style political systems. They are mostly developing rules that pick and choose from existing models. Lots of effort to avoid tyranny of the majority, which was a key part of the development of US institutions and a key aspect of British-style systems. Not going to see too much first-past-the-post stuff.
Oh, and even though the Canadians argue with me about it, the reality is that a province or the national parliament can decide to ignore rulings of the Supreme Court with a simple majority vote--due to the notwithstanding clause. Sure, it only applies to fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights (not democratic rights, language rights or minority language education of citizens (sort of). That is, provinces and the national parliament can abridge fundamental freedoms but not language rights (well,e except for immigrants in Quebec, I guess). And only for five years (but renewable every five years).
Anyhow, the larger point remains--countries with relatively new sets of rules are learning from the past experiences of other countries but also building rules that benefit those already in power. Because, hey, making the rules is POLITICAL. In any case, the US system has pro's and con's, as do British-style parliaments as do the European institutions. Smart folks will try to figure out which circumstances outside their country match their situation and then choose those institutions that have the desired effects (stability vs. adaptability; minority protection vs. efficiency, whatever). And learning from the social science of this is not a bad way to go. This is one of the areas that has received much attention and will continue to do so. Just saying that the American rules are always best is just as silly as saying the Canadian rules rock! They may rock! But they may not work elsewhere. Unless you like a constitutional crisis every fifteen years.
Civ-Mil Spat of the Weekend
I got in a minor twitter spat with a military officer (and I was not alone). Peter Munson tweeted his frustration at the ivory-towered folks who simplistically recommend force (this time over Syria), that R2P folks should line up at the recruiting office. Munson and I went back and forth. He later explained on his blog:
But the idea that only folks with military experience should be able to advocate the use of military force is a very dangerous one. One of the best things about post-World War II democracies is the rise of alternative sources of information about security issues. It used to be that only the militaries, with some rare exceptions, seriously studied war, strategy and the rest. Having more folks study it, even those who do not have any military experience is very much a net good.
The argument is also, well, fallacious. The idea that someone who has seen combat has a better idea of what is effective at the strategic level than someone who has no combat experience is like a baseball player feeling as if an observer with heaps of knowledge cannot really know baseball (no, I have not yet seen Moneyball, but I did read the book).
To give the best example I can think of, Obama has no military experience, but clearly takes great care about putting folks in harm's way and certainly appears to feel that burden. But as President, he has to be willing to deploy military force for the national interest (whatever that is), even if combat is incredibly messy on the ground.
Scholars can make claims from their Ivory Towers, based on their research and analysis, about what might work and what the effects might be, even if they have not smelled napalm in the morning. They may be wrong, but so often are the generals and colonels and the retired ones. Policy must be the product of informed analysis. Some information and judgment come from those who have been in harm's way, but some must come from elsewhere.
There are many ways to serve one's country. Fighting for it is one. Providing the best advice one can is another. Limiting input to only those willing to fight is foolish at best, dangerous at worst.
Yes, it was a rhetorical point, but a lousy one that plays to the wrong instincts. We already have enough presidential candidates saying that they will do whatever the generals recommend, as if the generals speak with one voice and think with one mind.
Again, I agree with Munson on the larger point--intervention in Syria is way more complicated than Libya (and Libya has not ended sweetly and easily either). I just disagree with him about the relevance of rhetoric. Arguments matter. Lousy ones tend to get wider play (Huntington, Ferguson, Friedman). Better to make a stronger argument so we do not get distracted.
I annoyed several people today on Twitter when I mused as to whether those who were touting our responsibility to protect (so glibly abbreviated by people who want this to be a "thing" as R2P) the people of Syria were going to be heading down to recruiting offices to join in the effort. This was a rhetorical jab and one that some took umbrage to, saying that people who aren't in the military have a right to an opinion, as well, and that such questions are too important to be left to generals. The sensitivity of these Ivy Tower champions of the utility of force to such jabs drives me to distraction, but it also misses my point.Sure, it was rhetoric and it distracted folks (namely me--I was the one who said "too important to be left to the generals). But I spewed on twitter directly at this line because I don't have a problem with the argument that intervening in Syria would be problematic with second and third order consequences, just as I oppose striking Iran these days or invading Iraq in 2003. I supported the Libyan effort because consistency is the Hobgoblin of little minds. I am not a Realist in terms of IR theory, but I am realistic--I prefer to support stuff that is less complicated and has a high probability of success (even if it means that a linebacker might intercept the ball on the 10 yard line).
But the idea that only folks with military experience should be able to advocate the use of military force is a very dangerous one. One of the best things about post-World War II democracies is the rise of alternative sources of information about security issues. It used to be that only the militaries, with some rare exceptions, seriously studied war, strategy and the rest. Having more folks study it, even those who do not have any military experience is very much a net good.
The argument is also, well, fallacious. The idea that someone who has seen combat has a better idea of what is effective at the strategic level than someone who has no combat experience is like a baseball player feeling as if an observer with heaps of knowledge cannot really know baseball (no, I have not yet seen Moneyball, but I did read the book).
To give the best example I can think of, Obama has no military experience, but clearly takes great care about putting folks in harm's way and certainly appears to feel that burden. But as President, he has to be willing to deploy military force for the national interest (whatever that is), even if combat is incredibly messy on the ground.
Scholars can make claims from their Ivory Towers, based on their research and analysis, about what might work and what the effects might be, even if they have not smelled napalm in the morning. They may be wrong, but so often are the generals and colonels and the retired ones. Policy must be the product of informed analysis. Some information and judgment come from those who have been in harm's way, but some must come from elsewhere.
There are many ways to serve one's country. Fighting for it is one. Providing the best advice one can is another. Limiting input to only those willing to fight is foolish at best, dangerous at worst.
Yes, it was a rhetorical point, but a lousy one that plays to the wrong instincts. We already have enough presidential candidates saying that they will do whatever the generals recommend, as if the generals speak with one voice and think with one mind.
Again, I agree with Munson on the larger point--intervention in Syria is way more complicated than Libya (and Libya has not ended sweetly and easily either). I just disagree with him about the relevance of rhetoric. Arguments matter. Lousy ones tend to get wider play (Huntington, Ferguson, Friedman). Better to make a stronger argument so we do not get distracted.
Afghan Mess
I have long agonized about Afghanistan, criticizing Canada's early departure, but also recognizing that success has been elusive. Lt. Col. Daniel Davis has far more experience and is risking his career shouting out his take on the war. The funny thing is his timing--the US is now rushing to get out of the Afghanistan business, so the message is not quite as crucial now. Still, it is another pin in the "everything is swell" balloon that ISAF, NATO and others keep filling.
To be clear, there is progress in Afghanistan--things are better in some significant ways. But the good works in producing some security here or other and some development in spots are entirely unsustainable. I still don't think Obama was wrong to try a surge and an effort to give Afghanistan a chance, but Karzai and the other P's of Pakistan and poppies turned out to be too much. There has been too much pushing against a successful outcome.
What people forget about counter-insurgency is that it is not just countering the insurgents in the field, but also building something that draws support or at least encourages folks not to help the insurgents. The Karzai government has failed to do that, no matter how much cash was thrown at the government, there seemed to be enough planes to carry that cash out of the country.
Pakistan has been just as unhelpful, even before its sovereignty was so thoroughly violated last summer in the quest to get Bin Laden.
Did we know this in 2009 when Obama was trying to decide on a new Afghan policy? Yes, which is why he took a great deal of time and care to consider it. Why didn't he just fold the tents then? It would have been politically costly at home and abroad. Now, everyone is heading out the door, having tried to do it right more or less for a few years. No country has the patience to be in Afghanistan for more than 12 years or so, especially with fiscal crises at home. Just as the Iraq surge only provided space for a political outcome that did not occur, the Afghan surge extended the clock by a bit but did not change the politics in Afghanistan or in the neighbors that matter.
The move now to Afghans plus Special Operations Folks seems like the only choice left. Keeping heaps of troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 for the US and its allies is just not realistic. But entirely ditching the country is probably not realistic either. While I think a small footprint was a bad idea in 2001-2006, it is inevitable now.
To be clear, there is progress in Afghanistan--things are better in some significant ways. But the good works in producing some security here or other and some development in spots are entirely unsustainable. I still don't think Obama was wrong to try a surge and an effort to give Afghanistan a chance, but Karzai and the other P's of Pakistan and poppies turned out to be too much. There has been too much pushing against a successful outcome.
What people forget about counter-insurgency is that it is not just countering the insurgents in the field, but also building something that draws support or at least encourages folks not to help the insurgents. The Karzai government has failed to do that, no matter how much cash was thrown at the government, there seemed to be enough planes to carry that cash out of the country.
Pakistan has been just as unhelpful, even before its sovereignty was so thoroughly violated last summer in the quest to get Bin Laden.
Did we know this in 2009 when Obama was trying to decide on a new Afghan policy? Yes, which is why he took a great deal of time and care to consider it. Why didn't he just fold the tents then? It would have been politically costly at home and abroad. Now, everyone is heading out the door, having tried to do it right more or less for a few years. No country has the patience to be in Afghanistan for more than 12 years or so, especially with fiscal crises at home. Just as the Iraq surge only provided space for a political outcome that did not occur, the Afghan surge extended the clock by a bit but did not change the politics in Afghanistan or in the neighbors that matter.
The move now to Afghans plus Special Operations Folks seems like the only choice left. Keeping heaps of troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 for the US and its allies is just not realistic. But entirely ditching the country is probably not realistic either. While I think a small footprint was a bad idea in 2001-2006, it is inevitable now.
Car Music
Not sure this was good for the environment, but heaps of creativity ought to be widely shared: OK Go's new video:
Does not take all of the burn out of the big game, but helps.
Does not take all of the burn out of the big game, but helps.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Silly Saturday Stuff
Ok, Syria is depressing, but H/T to Jacob Levy for linking to this place.
Yep, a short video recounting the Death and Life of Superman with NFSW language.
So much goodness, starting where the first scenes are shot--site of Star Trek episodes and heaps of other pop culture. Complete with Mandy Moore, Elijah Wood, cheezy music, and critique of the comic book business, and also Ron Howard.
Nice list of who died and now cameback at 16:07 in the video. Which is why the whole Death of Captain America never really played for me.
Also, nice list of things don't make sense:
Yep, a short video recounting the Death and Life of Superman with NFSW language.
So much goodness, starting where the first scenes are shot--site of Star Trek episodes and heaps of other pop culture. Complete with Mandy Moore, Elijah Wood, cheezy music, and critique of the comic book business, and also Ron Howard.
"The Death and Return of Superman Forever Broke Death in Comics."
Also, nice list of things don't make sense:
UN Security Council Vote on Syria
My twitter feed is aflame with folks upset that Chinese and Russian vetoes stymied the UN Security Resolution on Syria. This raises one question and let's me be smug as well.
The question: what effect would the resolution have had anyway? It would not have given the green light to the use of force as far as I can tell. But it would have made the international community look like it was doing something and might have paved the road to another resolution that would have grant some legitimacy to intervention.
The smug: I always like to poke at the Canadian students who are big fans of the UN--how can a collective body be seen as the legitimator of international actions when the veto by any one country (especially non or semi democracies) can stop an action. Seeking permission from the UN to do something means having it be acceptable to China/Russia (or to US, when US is defending Israel, for instance).
So, another day where the UN and the International Community appear ineffectual. This would not be surprising in any situation but given the complexities of intervening in Syria, doubly not surprising.
The question: what effect would the resolution have had anyway? It would not have given the green light to the use of force as far as I can tell. But it would have made the international community look like it was doing something and might have paved the road to another resolution that would have grant some legitimacy to intervention.
The smug: I always like to poke at the Canadian students who are big fans of the UN--how can a collective body be seen as the legitimator of international actions when the veto by any one country (especially non or semi democracies) can stop an action. Seeking permission from the UN to do something means having it be acceptable to China/Russia (or to US, when US is defending Israel, for instance).
So, another day where the UN and the International Community appear ineffectual. This would not be surprising in any situation but given the complexities of intervening in Syria, doubly not surprising.
Avast Ye Pirates
I have been pirated! A friend pointed out to me that my first book has been torrented. My first reaction? What is wrong with my second book, that it has not!? I, of course, downloaded this pirated copy, as I didn't have a good PDF version of my first book. Otherwise, how do I feel? Not great, not horrible. I am opposed to the violation of copyrights, including mine. I don't download illegally music, videos, movies, television shows, etc., and I discourage my daughter as I do think that such activities are theft.
But the reality is that my book sales on that first tome of knowledge were and have been largely unaffected by piracy. The sales were what they were.
But I am a bit more troubled by on-line note-sharing sites. The Montreal Gazette has a story today about a couple of McGill students putting together a new site, Note.Sac, for the buying and selling of class notes. Yes, this is an old business in a new form, but I guess it bothers me that this kind of intellectual property theft is not seen as problematic as the more well known forms. Why?
But the reality is that my book sales on that first tome of knowledge were and have been largely unaffected by piracy. The sales were what they were.
But I am a bit more troubled by on-line note-sharing sites. The Montreal Gazette has a story today about a couple of McGill students putting together a new site, Note.Sac, for the buying and selling of class notes. Yes, this is an old business in a new form, but I guess it bothers me that this kind of intellectual property theft is not seen as problematic as the more well known forms. Why?
- It is perhaps less obvious that the effort one puts into lecturing is creative, compared to the text of a book. So, this kind of piracy actually contains a bit more dis-respect than other forms.
- The note-takers/sellers may be doing the students who purchase a disservice since they may not get right what I said, how I said it and what it might mean. Sure, buyer beware and all of that, but note-taking services have no real accountability.
- Perhaps most annoying of all--for my big intro class where a note-taking seller would seem to have the most added value and biggest market, I do plenty to help out students who miss a lecture or two or three--posted slides, each lecture is automatically recorded and posted, I have TA's to explain stuff, and my own office hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)