Back to the Past

Just got this email from McGill:

 

A message from Jim Nicell, Associate Vice-Principal (University Services)

As has been the case at dozens of other institutions in recent days, McGill has been the recipient of an envelope containing a white powder.

In all other cases of envelopes containing powder the substances have turned out to be harmless.

Police put a small area in the James Administration Building off limits for a short period of time, before advising us that the area could be reopened. The police informed us that they are of the view the substance is not harmful and business throughout the James Administration Building can continue.

Not only are there literally limbs flying around the country, but someone is imitating the anthrax-folks of 2001, sending powered via the mail to various places to protest.  This time, the protest is aimed at Liberals and Anglophone institutions in Quebec (the body parts seemed to be aimed at a variety of targets).  The powder has proven to be harmless, but, if the intent is to scare people, then it is ... terrorism, right?

Is this a proportionate response to the protests of the spring and the provincial government's attempts to squash said protests?  Nope.  No, this is not probably being done by the main student groups, but their fellow travelers are doing them no favors.  Or favours for that matter.

Lovely.

Flying Over Pakistan

Stuff flying over Pakistan has been a recurring theme of late.  Of course, the focus has been on drones.  So, let me briefly address one point on those before moving to helos.


Drones, by their very nature in 2012, are easy to shoot down.  They move slowly .... mostly in circles.*  Pakistan has an air force (Libya could not shoot down the drones after having its air force and air defenses destroyed), and has shown in the past that they could shoot down Soviet fighters.  A flying lawnmower would be easy pickings.  So, if Pakistan's military really objected to the drone strikes, the US would not be striking via drones over-flying Pakistan, at least not for long.  The real questions are whether the civilians in the government understand this and whether they have control over the military.  Seems to me that Pakistani leaders are playing the same double game that Karzai is--blaming the outsiders while relying on them.  I am not an expert on drones, on Pakistan, or on drones over Pakistan, but I do think some basic logic applies here.

*  Yes, some secret ones may fly faster, higher or more stealthily, but the coverage of the drone strikes seems to make it clear that most of the drones flying over Pakistan these days are fairly ordinary and extremely vulnerable. [update: see this explainer for details for why I am mostly but not entirely correct]

Ok, onto helicopters.  There is a story that NATO helicopters overflew North Waziristan. I found it strange that the helos were described as NATO.  Who else would have helos in the area besides the US?  This part of Pakistan neighbors the sectors of Afghanistan that are American Areas of Responsibility [AOR].  The handy dandy ISAF placemat makes this pretty clear.  The Poles, the non-Americans closest to this area, do have helos (or at least did), but would have to overfly an entire province beyond their AOR.  Plus many countries operating in Afghanistan have rules that make sure that they do not get too close to the border, so flying into North Waziristan would be most unlikely and unlucky.  So, if you had to bet, bet on these helos being Americans, but I doubt Vegas would give you decent odds.

Unions and Student Protests

For those who ponder why I would be less than thrilled with Quebec unions or why I seem to skitter along the political spectrum, the latest stories (in French, in English) about the role of Quebec unions makes it abundantly clear.  What people have long suspected is now quite apparent--that the big unions have been providing significant financial support to the student groups, funding their mobilizations outside of Montreal (subsidizing the buses), for example.

Why would the unions do this?  Of course, they take the stance that they support Quebec's left as a matter of principle.  Sure.  What that really means is that they will support anyone or anything that will screw over Jean Charest and the provincial Liberal party.  The unions have long hated this current government and have long been aligned with the separatists. 

I get it that unions were/are important for being some kind of counter-balance to the power of corporations.  Jacob Levy examines the pro's and con's of unions quite well, although I am not a libertarian so I do not exactly share his point of view (not a surprise to him).  So, I see their necessity, but I also have seen how the combo of strong unions and ties to one side of the political system can seriously warp things. 

The Republican readers of mine (all three of you) are probably gleeful about this, but this combo does not really exist in the US.  Unions are very weak and they are not so embedded in the political system.  Yes, many unions support the Democrats, but this support is weak at best.  They give some money but cannot promise voters.  They certainly do not disrupt ordinary life to make the government of the day look bad.  American unions cannot even mobilize their members that much on election day. 

When I lived in the US, I supported the idea of stronger unions since the political system favors the corporations.  After ten years in Quebec (actually, after a few months), I realized that powerful, entitled unions that are eager to disrupt, prone to sabotage, are hardly ideal.  That they jumped in on the side of students, despite the fact that this ongoing mobilization and the increasing debt crisis are both counter to the interests of their members, is hardly surprising.  Any chance to mess with Charest and the Liberals makes sense to them.  But given the polls, where the student movement is hardly popular, it is pretty clear that the unions' strategy of remaining in the background was their wisest decision. 

I wonder if the student organizers realize that they are a stalking horse?  Maybe if they went to classes?  Probably not--they will just consider themselves the vanguard of the proletariat. 

More Than a Band of Brothers

While the paratroopers tend to get heaps of attention when we think about D-Day, this Band of Brothers was more than just the 101st or the 82nd.  While Omaha was the toughest beach, the others were not so easy.  This video (h/t to Stephane Roussel on fb, a noted tank aficionado) provides a short illustration that this Band was quite big and quite multinational:


Update: The Army site on Normandy makes it clear that the selection bias towards paratroops is not entirely unwarranted.  That is, four US divisions (in addition to the Brits, Canadians and Poles)--two infantry (1st and 4th ID's) and two paratroop (82nd and 101st).  On the other hand, other tales of the war, such as the Battle of the Bulge focus almost entirely on the 101st, when the gravestones I saw nearby clearly show that many, many units had a role to play.

Selection Bias and Academic Experts

This column is so on target but also so off target: that lazy media outlets end up using quotes from the academics that they can reach instead of those that have expertise.  Yes, relying on an expert on Greece is a particularly egregious example of an ill-suited academic expert.  I know whereof I speak since I have been asked to speak on things that I know poorly, such as the likelihood of suicide bombing if the US were to invade Iraq (asked in early 2003). 

Even when I know what I am talking about and when the pre-interview focuses on questions that I can answer with some degree of certainty (even if I am wrong, at least I might be certain), the interviewer often goes off-script asking questions entirely unrelated to the pre-interview.  The same goes for how one is described.  I have tried to tell the producers that I am not a terrorism expert or an Afghan expert, but an expert on ethnic conflict and, more recently, an expert of sorts on NATO.  But the anchor/reporter will often then indicate that I am expert on things that I have never claimed to be an expert.  I make fun of myself by saying that my ten days in Afghanistan in 2007 make me an expert--it is a JOKE. 

But back to the main point, media outlets tend to go to the same well time and time again.  Sometimes this makes sense, when someone is an expert on Canadian defence procurement.  Other times, it makes less sense like the aforementioned expert on Greece. 

The problem with this particular article is that it uses this critique of the media and of academia as part of a screed about progress in Afghanistan.  That the academics are wrong, that Afghanistan is making progress.  Maybe, maybe not.  The more one learns about Afghanistan and/or about counter-insurgency, the more one realizes how hard it is.  I am sure we can find ill-informed experts saying how wonderful things are in Afghanistan as well.  So, this column really is a good example of biased selection rather than a good indictment of experts or a good argument that there is heaps of progress in Afghanistan.

Still, I will try to be a bit more cautious for at least awhile in what I say to the media since I don't want to be the poster boy for the next screed about academic experts in the media.

Short Dose of Honesty

The Republican Party has focused heaps of attention the past decade (and then some) on restricting the ability of people to vote.  Citing the chimera (that is, the illusory threat) of voter fraud, the GOP and its minions have tried to kick people off the rolls.  Today, the issue is whether to allow people in line to vote when the polls are supposed to close in Wisconsin.  The obvious answer, if you support democracy and freedom, is this: let people vote.

But if you consistently try to prevent people from voting, that says much about the nature of your party regardless of whatever justifications one presents.  It means that any stance on freedom is, well, bullshit since there is no more basic freedom than the right to vote.  In the past, the courts always erred on the side of freedom.  Where are they now?  I don't know. 

The Republicans can talk about voter fraud all they want, but there has been no systematic evidence of abuse of voting, except if one includes elected officials denying voters the ability to vote because they might vote for the Democrats.

So, when you hear voter fraud, you should think: the apparent threat is a fraud and those citing it are frauds.  Those who raise the threat are con artists trying to deny people the most basic of rights.  Can I say it any plainer than that?

Bonjour-Hi

There is a secret code for folks shopping in Montreal: when in a store, the clerk will often say Bonjour-Hi.  And then you pick in which language the rest of the transaction takes place.  At first, I tried to do these transactions in my poor French, but that just caused confusion and frustration.  So, I just would say hi and move on in English.  This is pretty cool for a city where people speak multiple languages.

Well, unless your job is to enforce French supremacy.  Don Macpherson has a piece today about how the language police office is upset that 13% of transactions in downtown Montreal begin with Bonjour-Hi.  Worse, the Liberal language rep is "concerned."  Oh, please.  This is all just posturing for the language nationalists.  That sales folks want to make customers feel comfortable by operating in their language of choice, 13% of the time downtown, that is, is something to be concerned or irritated about? 

Ah, the joy of misplaced priorities. This, I will not miss.  Absolument non.

The Wire As a Musical? Count Me In

The Wire: The Musical with Michael Kenneth Williams from Michael Kenneth Williams     

oh my!

More Expertise on Political Violence

There is a new blog on the block: Political Violence @ a Glance.  I would recommend it even if I were not one of the bloggers.  I am in great company as the folks who will be blogging here are a bunch of sharp people who study political violence--IR scholars and Comparativists and especially those who dwell at the intersection of these two fields.

Assoc Prof Blues

A colleague posted this article on dissatisfaction in the academic world, where it found that Associate Profs are the most unhappy.  This seems surprising since these folks are mostly tenured, and the stress of the job falls mostly on those seeking tenure.  Not so surprising really.

First, as the article notes, whatever protections one has from additional work (and this varies among institutions) while pre-tenure, these drop away after tenure.  One ends up doing far more service to the profession and the university, one usually does far more supervision especially of grad students, and the toll accumulates.  Studies of gender and academia (that I have read but not read myself) indicate that the service problem is worse for women who get more requests to do this sort of stuff.  This is especially the case where there is uneven burden-sharing--where Full Professors pass on responsibilities because, well, they can.

Second, and, critically, where you stand depends on where you sit in time.  My colleague pondered whether time in rank might matter--that is, there are two kinds of Associate Professors--those that are on their way to promotion to Full Professor and those that are going to be Associate Professors for the rest of the their career.  Those who find themselves stuck at the same level for too long may become frustrated and bitter, even if their situation is a result of declining productivity post-tenure (or getting tenure despite not having a strong trajectory). So, you might find that folks who have been Associate Professors for less than seven years might not be that displeased as opposed to those who have been in that status for more than a decade.  To be clear, there is a third kind of Associate Prof--ones who deserve to get promoted to Full but do not for reasons of politics, personal politics.

I will not get into the details about how I fit into that third category.  My friends know only too well as I do not suffer in silence.  Clues abound in my three years of blogging. To be clear, I would be leaving McGill this summer anyhow as the opportunities at Carleton are just too good, that my Canada Research Chair was ending in any case, and Montreal, well, wore me out.

The bad news is that the folks who thwarted me have no learning curves (I also might have become Leeroy Jenkins).  The good news is that time will ultimately end this problem as the accomplishments of those behind me are too great to be denied for too long, and the Fulls are getting mighty old.  The best news is that doing right by the profession (publishing in leading journals, getting cited, doing interesting research, placing graduate students in good tenure track jobs) is its own reward.  Moreover, by doing those things, I was able to get a great job offer.  As a result, my blogging this month will be spotty as I prepare for the move while reading three dissertations and finishing one book.

Completely Different, pt II

Continuing my journey back in time:

Axl Rose: Hard to work with?  Who would have thunk it?

One of many videos that MTV was surprisingly reluctant to play.


Tone Loc: Wild Thing.  MTV took a while to get to rap, but not as slow as I.

Meet the Mets!

The NY Mets are the first team I was ever aware of, having been raised my first few years in the shadow of Shea Stadium.  So, I am mighty pleased that they finally had a no-hit game by Johann Santana.  Santana has been hurt much of his time in NY, making his big contract seem not worth it.  But if any big contract can be worth it (debatable), finally giving the Mets its first no-hitter gives Santana reason not worry so much about the $$.  Given how many great pitchers threw for the Mets and how many of them ended up with no-hitters in their post-Mets destinations, it is cool that they got a great pitcher who threw one for them for a change.  Woo hoo!

The Future Is Not Yet Written

Ah, Doc Brown, you had it so right and so write:




From this story.  Also see below.



The future keeps getting further and further away. Or does it?  Damn, where is my hover board?

Quick Hits and Runs on Quebec Protest Stuff

Another depressing morning reading coverage of the Quebec protests and what they portend for the future of the province (have I mentioned how thrilled I am to be moving in 25 days?  Oh, I have?  Never mind). 

Let me just address a few stories and reactions:

• There is an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail about some entrepreneurial folks who have been translating the French press into English since there seemed to be such a divide in coverage and perceptions.  There are a few problems with this.  First, there are Anglophones who have been supporting the students.  Just check out the past couple of days of pieces in the Montreal Gazette written by McGill profs.  Second, maybe the problem is with the French media?  Given that public opinion is not pro-student and is especially not pro-student outside of Montreal, perhaps it is not the English media that have a bad grasp of what is going on but the French media.  Of course, there are language politics in play, as ably analyzed by Jacob Levy, but not all of the French folks love the status quo.
• Past QC protests gave us the current generation of leaders. which explains much.  If this is true, then the future of Quebec is mighty dark indeed.  These student protest leaders have little control over their groups, their groups have dubious legitimacy given how voters were conducted and given how the overwhelming majority of students are not represented by these groups.  Oh, and the leaders' positions on injunctions raises questions about their democratic credentials if democracy has anything to do with the rule of law.  Yes, I sound like a reactionary, but when Your Rights are more important than my rights because you feel yours intensely, well, that is not good for me or actually even for you.  
• As I remarked the other day, this impasse is entirely understandable given the politics of the situation.
• There is an interesting question raised and addressed today: why this battle?  why now?  Charest has often surrendered quite quickly and easily to smaller protests.  Perhaps he read the public well and the students poorly?  That is, the public was/is not willing to pay higher taxes for low tuition, but he misread the staying power of the students.  I am reluctant to draw big lessons from all of this because the protestors themselves are hardly a unified entity.  People are seeing in this effort what they want to see.  If this was a great awakening, then wouldn't the protests continue if the government froze tuition for a few years?  No, the students will go back home, having won their narrow objective even as little progress would have been made on really making the government accountable.  Of course, I could be reading too much in to this.  Perhaps this is a genuine awakening---but again only of 1/3 of the population are "awakened." 
• I have mixed feelings about Mario Dumont, who used to lead a popular third party that did well in one election by relying on xenophobia.  But he is right here:

“Would you consider the total incapacity to make change in a society an awakening? I'm not so sure,” says Mr. Dumont, who embraces the free-market ideology the protesters are railing against. “It's a bit exaggerated. The basis of this whole thing is the refusal of one group to pay more for a given service. There's nothing more ‘business as usual' than that.”

And that is why I am relieved to be leaving Montreal--the longer I stay in Quebec, the more right-wing I feel: anti-union, pro-law and order, etc.  That makes me very uncomfortable.  I am not sure how things will change when I move to Ontario (as I am aware that province has problems as well), but I am pretty sure that my position on the spectrum will shift back to the middle, more or less, where I am far more at home.

Now For Something Complete Different, pt I

No, not Monty Python.  Just a few videos that caught my eye.  I read the new MTV oral history book, and thought I would check out some of the videos that had interesting stories.

First, Milton Berle and RATT:


Then, a classic A-ha, Take On Me:

Best Reason to Have Another Child

So cool.  Ok, I am not going to have any more kids, but thanks to DesignTAXI.com and to https://twitter.com/#!/caidid/ for the link!  Yes, they used canon characters from the books and not just the movies.

Riddle Me This: What Counts as War?

Yesterday's NYT had a big story about drones being used all over the place by the US.  Today's has a story about the cyberwar the US has been engaged in against Iran.  I am more focused on the latter today: given that the US has been pushing for NATO to consider a cyber-attack as an act of war that would activate Article V's attack upon one is equal to attack upon all commitment, these attacks upon Iran are pretty, well, war-like. 

So, my question is: is this a new war that the US is fighting against Iran? Or is it an on-going war that is being fought by alternative means?  Iran has reputedly been supporting terrorism against the US since, well, the revolution.  Its support of the taking of hostages at the embassy made that event more of an inter-country thing than a random act by a few students.  Iran apparently supported the groups behind terrorist attacks against the US Marines and French in Lebanon in 1983 and then other attacks as far away as Argentine.  Perhaps those efforts might be too distant from Iran, but Iran's provision of the most advanced roadside bomb materials for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan is much more direct and clear.

I am actually less worried about antagonizing Iran since the Iranian actors (elements of the government or the entire enchilada) seem to have no qualms given what they did to assist the insurgents in I/A, and more worried about the computer viruses spilling over and increasing the expertise of the folks who are now seeing the start of the art. 

But there is this larger question about what counts as war.  The usual dataset question relies on body-counts, but cyberwarfare kills centrifuges and other equipment, not people thus far.  Is it a matter of scale, like body counts?  That specialized, focused efforts do not cross the threshold, such as attacks on nuclear programs, but a cyber attack that wiped out the electricity production of a swath of a country would? 

I am sure scholars of cyber-stuff have asked these questions.  This is way outside my expertise, but I am curious.  What say you?

The Countdown Begins

In one month (the last Thursday of June), we will be unpacking and awaiting the technicians to connect the internet and the satellite dish.  So, my long march out of town is near an end.  Ordinarily, this process is far shorter, as academics usually get job offers in the winter or early spring, bargain and then decide, with only a few months to get the wagon packed.  But I have known about this since, well, August. 

This has given me much time to reflect on the place that I lived the longest since high school.  I spent more than I should this morning on a future blog post--one slated for the day the movers come to pack things up.  Despite all my complaining about the roads and Quebec corruption and despite some unfortunate obstacles along the way in my time at McGill (I will not link to the relevant posts but they are not that hard to find), I know that I had it mighty good here.  I had a Canada Research Chair which gave me a fancy title, course reductions, and seed money for research.  I helped in hiring a great batch of folks, including several who became lifelong friends (whether they know it or not!), and teaching here has been a blast.  I had a great batch of grad students who will be employed next fall.  While here, I got enough grant money to fund the travel for my second book (xenophobia rocks!?) and even more travel for my third book.  I got to live in a town with the most vibrant ultimate frisbee community I have experienced (apparently, Ottawa has a great one as well).  The skiing has been great, except this year. 

What got me thinking about all of this today?  Well, my wife has started a countdown on her FB page, but it was the news that I reached the top of the waiting list at the parking garage across the street from my office.  Not only is there a spot waiting for me, but the folks at the parking office were most friendly in letting me wait until July to start paying.  Thus far, everyone at Carleton has been most friendly and helpful.  Of course, it took about three years at McGill before the bureaucracy tried to fire me ....

Impasse

I am shocked that there is an impasse between the Quebec government and the students who have been protesting the proposed tuition hike.  Ok, not shocked. Why not shocked? 

Well, if the government really makes a significant compromise, it will look like its surrendering to violent tactics.  Also, the government has gotten whatever standing in the polls by rebuffing the students. 

I am not surprised to see the students keep on keeping on.  First, there are three groups having representatives at the meeting, so that fact by itself suggests impasse.  The more people who can say no (can veto the agreement), the harder it is to come to an agreement.  It does not take a sharp game theorist/scholar of comparative politics to figure this out, but it does not hurt.  Further, the student leaders have been getting heaps of attention from the media so why would they want this to end.  Yes, I am suggesting that the interests of the leaders and the interests of the students might not be identical!  Shocking?  Of course not.  The "costs" of not compromising are currently non-existent for the students since the threat of classes being cancelled is no longer operative (they got pushed to August).  So, why give in?  It would mean less media attention, less ego-stroking, and, also, why give in when only the other side seems to be pressured?

The student proposal seems to be a two year freeze where the lost tuition would be replaced by reductions in tax credits. 

 She and her fellow student leaders said their proposal would have avoided fee hikes for two years by instead reducing the income-tax credit on post-secondary tuitions — a move that would have been cost-neutral for the government, which was one of its parameters during bargaining.

So, this would mean that the kids would not be paying more but parents might be?  Now we have some generational conflict!  Oh, and why would Charest do this?  He would be giving a group that will not vote him, the students, what they want, and alienating a group that might vote for him (the parents).  So, this really is a non-starter.  Plus, would the agreement be: two year freeze and then the planned increase in tuition? If so, it is hard to see CLASSE supporting that.

Thus, we are left with continued unrest.  Less violent than before, noisier, and little chance for progress.  I really don't see how this ends.  The government could submit to mediation, but will not submit to arbitration unless it games the results.  The government simply cannot freeze tuition after all of this.

That's my take.  What is yours?

Long Relationships and Shorter Ones

I am inspired by Bill Simmon's latest tweets about how long he has been with Thinkpads and how that would be his longest relationship--longer than his current job, longer than his marriage and so on:

My longest relationships: Thinkpad (17 years), AOL (16 years), my wife (14 years), ESPN (11 years), Blackberry (7 years).
— Bill Simmons (@sportsguy33) May 30, 2012

Well, with less than a month before my move to Ottawa, I have been thinking about similar comparisons.  Leaving out my wife and daughter (who skew all results for being in my life for 26 and 16 years respectively):

• Tenure, baby: 11 plus years and counting.  I got tenure at Texas Tech, had my first real tenured year in the Pentagon, was asked if I minded dropping it when I got the McGill job (I said, nope, I like my tenure just fine), and have thoroughly embraced tenure ever since. 
• Summer camp: 11 years.  Eight as a camper, three as a counselor.  When I look back, my nostalgia for high school is entirely unearned but my nostalgia for camp is entirely earned.
• McGill, Montreal and Thinkpad X-series: 10 years.  The only one to continue will be the X-series.
• Lower Moreland (3rd grade to graduation): 10 years.  So, Montreal matched but did not exceed where I spent most of my life growing up.  However, given that I spent most of my summers elsewhere (see the aforementioned summer camp), I spent more time in Montreal although it flew by much faster.
• Facebook:  7 years.  Really.  I got on it initially to see if students were sharing an exam question inappropriately.
• TTU and Lubbock: 6 years.
• Grad school and San Diego: 5 years.
• Current book project: 5 years? Inspired by the Pentagon, I started it around the time the previous book was in production, but only got serious in 2009 as I started wandering the planet to study interesting cases.
• Bitterness and resentment.  4 years.  I plan to leave these companions behind as I move on.
• Blogging: Three years ago.  I started in April 2009.   I forgot to mark the anniversary. Does that mean I am becoming less of a narcissist?  No, just busy with the move.
• Twitter: Three years ago.  I started in July 2009. 
• Pentagon and Virginia: 1 year.  Shortest of all these spans of time, but the most indelible.  Partly because it was one year, partly because the experiences were so different from ordinary academic life, and partly because the stuff was so interesting.

The funny thing is that what comes to mind are places, schools, and technology, mostly.  I could have listed Ultimate (27 years), but does one have a relationship with sports?  I guess so.  I might have listed my current sunday team, General Admission, but I forget when I started with them.   Anyhow, as I approach my last month in Montreal, I do appreciate that this has been the place I have been the longest since high school, especially after signing mortgage documents in Ottawa that really commit me to five years at minimum.

Of the places I have spent significant time, Montreal ranks behind San Diego and summer camp but ahead of every place else.  It has been a great decade, but I do look forward to moving on.  Not quite yet to thank everyone for all of the fish, but getting closer.

Chicago Pie Crust Promises

I am actually a fan of NATO, but an informed fan, I guess.  The CIC piece of the week indicates much skepticism about the bounty produced at the Chicago summit.  I do highlight the big non-promise that maintains NATO's credibility in the short-term--not letting Georgia in yet.

Student Protests and the Academic Job Market

I guess I am surprised it took this long for people to start to speculate about the impact of the student protests on the ability of Quebec's universities to recruit faculty. 

Alex Usher, president of the Toronto-based consultancy Higher Education Strategy Associates, thinks it’s a distinct possibility.
“If I were a Quebec university president right now, I’d be terrified about what’s going on,” he said on Tuesday. “If you’re trying to lure a professor to Quebec, it’s going to be a problem. If you have a choice between an offer in Quebec or elsewhere, you’d go elsewhere.” And he thinks the damage could last five or six years. “Who’s going to want to go to Montreal?” he asked. “For McGill, Concordia and U de M (Université de Montréal), it’s a disaster. The damage is done.”

I wouldn't worry so much if I were he for a couple of reasons:

• on the positive side, the academic job market is still pretty weak.  Indeed, the numbers are quite clear that there are simply fewer tenure track positions than in the past.  So, people are still post-doc-ing and looking for tenure track jobs or took jobs that they want to escape (as I did after the weak job markets and my weak record in the early 1990's).  So, there will still be plenty of applications for tenure-track positions at McGill, Concordia and UdeM.  
• on the negative side, it has always been challenging to attract professors to Quebec schools.  The taxes are very high and yet wages are lower than in the rest of Canada. Language politics complicates not just the education of a potential's prof's kids (discussed at the Spew ad nauseam) but also employment for the "trailing" spouse.  These are very significant barriers, they are not new and they are not temporary.  

Will potential professors be turned off of Quebec employment opportunities by this spring's events? A few here and there, but those are probably folks who would have already been deterred from applying due to the obstacles mentioned above or would have turned down a job offer after they learned about the complexities involved with moving to Quebec.  We moved to Quebec with our eyes mostly shut: we were so eager to get out of Lubbock that we were willing to take a paycut, that we didn't notice that Quebec was about to close the loophole for the rules governing the education of immigrants, and because the opportunity presented by McGill was so good.

We are not leaving in a month because of the student protests.  No, we made this decision last fall partly due to the long-term and structural challenges of Quebec--less resources for universities (including lower pay), infrastructure that is falling apart, high taxes, language politics and its implications (including very little accountability for good governance).  To be clear, the move is more about pull than push--Ottawa and Carleton are attractive for a variety of reasons including both professional and personal opportunities.  The spring political mess makes it easier to justify the move, but the reality is that I and academics like me respond not to temporary events (few, if any, moved north with Bush's election despite the claims otherwise) but to the long-term realities.  McGill continues to present excellent opportunities, but it will also be frustrated in many job searches where non-McG factors kick in to prevent people from taking the job.  And those non-McG factors are often tied up with the long-term dysfunctions of Quebec, which are partly manifested in these protests.

Writing Too Much?

Perhaps my problem is not writer's block, but just too many outlets ;)

Here is my latest post at Current Intelligence, which is now, thankfully, a quarterly.  It is on NATO in the aftermath of the Chicago Summit.

Era of Ignorance

Are we living in a unique era?  Much is being made lately of Donald Trump's stance on Obama's birthplace.  Who the hell died to make Donald Trump seemingly relevant?  Bad hair and a played out reality TV show really should not earn someone any air time.  Why do the media give such folks platforms?

I guess the answer is the cable revolution--heaps and heaps of channels with 24 hours to fill with programming every day.  So, I guess this leads to the fundamental question: the proliferation of the networks have given us Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Justified, the Shield, and so much other TV-goodness but it also allows the dreck to get recycled so that the news programs are stuck with displaying people who have been discredited multiple times (Eliot Spitzer!), so is it worth it?  Does the great TV offset the damage these folks are doing to the world?

What say you?

Writer's Block

How does one deal with writer's block?



Ok, that's one way to go.  My current case is not research related as I am in the revision phase for the Dave and Steve, "Everything You Wanted to Know About NATO and Afghanistan But Were Afraid to Ask" book.  Nope, my block is social--I seem to be blocked in terms of writing blog entries, facebook status comments, and tweets.  Strange but true.  Sure, there is plenty to talk about, but I find myself starting tweets and fb comments and then erasing.  I find myself having to post beer videos due to the lack of inspiration.  I am sure this phase will not last long.  But there is the explanation for the past few slow blogging days.

Graphically Confusing

This pic suggests that one should not bother with prostate screening:


I am not sure I believe it entirely.  But the idea that lots of folks get false alarms and then have to have biopsies is pretty alarming.  I am not that kind of doctor, but suddenly I feel less pressure to get screened as I approach the big 50 in a few years.  How about you?

Update: This editorial suggests that the graphic above is not so random.  The Preventative Services Task Force has concluded that seeking to attack prostate cancer early does more harm than good. 

Hardly Academic? Hardly!

A very good piece in the NYT today about the debate within West Point about the future of counter-insurgency and the US military.  The article covers the views of both COIN-istas and COIN haters.  This is progress.  Why? Because ten years ago, there was little debate about COIN at all.  Now, you have two sides engaged in an argument, which is one of the best things that can happen to the folks going through West Point--to be exposed to this argument.  They don't have be a COIN fan or foe, but to see that sharp minds can disagree is a valuable thing.  When these cadets some day get placed into harm's way or are in the chain of command, they will perhaps be more open to different points of view.

One of the critical problems in the US military has been the desire to forget unfortunate pasts and avoid skill sets that might end up being used.  After Vietnam, COIN was put away and not really considered except by some mavericks like Petraeus.  My hope is that this history is not repeated.  The reality is that politicians will put troops into situations that require many of the skills and tactics that the Army learned at great cost the past ten years, whether the military wants to do such stuff or not.  Better to remember these lessons with a slightly higher risk of having to use them than to forget and then have to re-learn while under fire.

War, as Clausewitz said, is politics by other means.  COIN doctrine takes that to heart.  US grand strategy may be better served by avoiding fighting any insurgents, but as long as the US remains the predominant conventional power, the opponents of the US will mostly try to fight via insurgency.  Well, the smart ones, anyway.  Shouldn't we be prepared for that reality?

Memorial Day With Some Perspective Sauce

Joe Biden is often viewed as a joke, especially when he goes off script.  Not here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Re-thinking Bill 78

When it was first announced, I was pretty horrified by Bill 78.  It seemed to be an overreaction, self-defeating and oppressive.  Well, two out of three ain't good, but not as horrible as I originally thought.  As others have argued, the really objectionable part of this are the fines that can be levied against people and organizations that may not have any real ties to the particular crime du jour.  Notification of protests is not an onerous requirement. Keeping protesters a bit further away from schools is not very problematic. 

Yes, Quebec continues to push me to the right wing, I suppose.  But I am joining the majority of Quebec and the majority of Canada in that.  Surveys show that Quebeckers support most of the elements of Bill 78, but the entire package is not supported.  Why?  Partly the fines and partly the spin.

All I know is that I am not a big fan of the movement's smallest or grandest concerns.  I support tuition increases, not just because of my own pocket (well, not that either since I am leaving) but due to my concerns about the funding of Quebec universities.  I certainly am not a fan of the folks who seek to overthrow capitalism and neo-liberalism (whatever that is). 

So, my objections to Bill 78 are not moral ones but political ones--that Charest's moves here were done so badly that they created far more support for groups that had been alienating nearly everyone, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Bill 78 did more to unify a bunch of folks with disparate motivates.  Divide and conquer would have been my choice of strategy.  The government tried that earlier with the negotiations.  Submitting to a mediator would have been an even better step in that direction--as long as a tuition freeze was off the table.  Now, at least one of the student groups is talking about the pace and magnitude of increases, rather  than seeking a freeze and then cuts.  Bring it on--the negotiations that is.  This should split the movement, which is a good thing since CLASSE, the more extreme student group, is most ironically titled--they lack class and seem not to be interested in classes.

I would spend more time researching and linking for this post, but I have work to do.  But for some really thoughtful stuff, check out this post by Jacob Levy.

Do Not Underestimate the Power of the Dark Side

Do not underestimate the power of the dark side.  Which dark side?  Political theory.  Well, specifically political theorists.  I have long teased my soon to be ex-colleague Jacob Levy about his field's apparent fact-less-ness.  Why need grant money to do research when it mostly involves sitting in a comfy chair and thinking deep thoughts?  Why need RAs?  Of course, most of this came out of a deep jealousy: that Jacob was able to build McGill's political theory program over the course of actually a few short years (about half my time at McGill), that it has its own space, and, more importantly, a deep reality of community.  Not my subfield, which has stagnated via spin-cycle.  Theory has accumulated positions while IR has stood still (well, backwards next year after I leave and the place only begins the replacement process).

Anyhow, I always knew Jacob to be very, very bright, and was always amazed with his ability to speak eloquently in paragraphs at the drop of a hat.  Well, he marshaled his intellect to ponder the Quebec higher educational system.  Check it out here.  The combination of high taxes and cheap tuition for Quebeckers (and higher tuition for those coming from outside QC) leads to this:

 even if some number of high-earning francophones leave (and therefore never "pay back" the cheap university educations they receive) the system broadly tends toward making francophone Quebec a more self-contained economic world in which people do spend their whole life cycles, while simultaneously subtly encouraging anglophone out-migration and discouraging anglophone in-migration.

Jacob goes on to note his sympathy with this system in that it is a less coercive strategy to "sustain the French fact" even if it probably "depress the overall prosperity of Quebec."  This is quite a tradeoff.  A second significant set of costs would be alienating the Anglophones within Quebec and alienating those beyond as well.  A less diverse Quebec is, well, a less diverse Quebec.  While I remain deeply skeptical in debates about ethnic conflict about diversity as independent variable (that more diverse populations might have more ethnic strife), I do think that more diversity is better than less.  Pushing Anglophones and allophones (immigrants who speak three or more languages) to leave Quebec is damaging to Quebec's future because it will not have the necessary population to sustain the social programs without significant help.  Aye, there is the rub.

The Quebec distinct society currently depends on huge subsidies from Canada (that would be Alberta mostly these days and Ontario in the recent past).  The question then becomes: does sending out alienated Anglos to populate the political systems of the rest of Canada [ROC] build glue between Quebec and ROC so that folks out there remain willing to fund Quebec (guess who pays for the low tuition ultimately--Canadians elsewhere to a significant degree) or does it just give those outside more facts, more attitude that decrease tolerance of paying for the "French fact"?

The only thing that is really clear to me is if you spot a sharp political theorist with a few facts, they will blow your mind.

In a Valley A Long Time Ago

Great use of two movies to illustrate a bombing campaign during WWII:


And happy 35th anniversary to you and yours (and thanks to Starbuck).

Protest is a Many Splendored Thing

I think the ongoing strife in Quebec is quite the Rorschach test.  People can find something in the past 14 weeks of events whatever they want to find: entitled students, oppressive government, corruption, the power of unions, the divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada, a battle against capitalism and neo-liberalism, whatever.

Bill 78 did not create an unholy alliance between student protesters, unions and the Parti Quebecois.  That existed before, as the PQ was supporting any effort to attack the Liberals as good governance has never been its mission.  Unions supported the students because they are not thrilled with the Charest government.  There were already folks involved in the movement spouting off the usual rhetoric about capitalism and neo-liberalism.  But Bill 78 did cause folks who believe in civil liberties, such as this McGill Poli Sci student, among others to oppose the government.

I understand that Occupy movements have been complaining about capitalism and that neo-liberalism is a nice thing to blast.  I do ponder what the hell would be the alternative.  Socialism?  Where is that working out?  I do believe in well-regulated capitalism, so I wish the focus of mobilization in Quebec would be good governance rather than tuition avoidance and whatever is now being demanded with the expanded coalition of the mobilized.  Indeed, this thing was never has coherent as advertised, but seemed to be since the two non-CLASSE groups tied themselves to CLASSE which sought a rollback in tuition and then some.  Negotiations were already hard since CLASSE was never interested in any kind of compromise, but now that the "movement" has grown to include folks seeking the end of capitalism, well, good luck bargaining on that.

Given the union funding behind the students and given the principal-agent problems on both sides, I am skeptical that this will end soon.  So, expect a summer of protests with occasional outbursts of violence.  I guess I picked the right summer not to attend the Just for Laughs festival.

The Mounting Costs of the Quebec Mess

The costs to Montreal and to Quebec are mounting.  Check out this piece.  Obviously, people should not stop dissenting simply because it imposes costs upon the society.  Indeed, imposing costs is a logical way to get heard and force a bargain (since bargaining is often about the power to hurt the other).  But what this does point towards is the dis-proportionality of the entire situation. 

The student protests over tuition increases never really seemed proportionate to the change in tuition.  Yes, tuition was going up, but mostly to offset past freezes.  Yes, to double from the lowest in Canada to, well, the lowest in Canada, but not beyond that.  Sure, one could be concerned about the future beyond that, but the level of rhetoric and mobilization and threats to property went quickly beyond what a $1/day increase seemed to warrant.

The government has acted disproportionately as well.  Bill 78 is a hammer, not a surgical tool, so it has unified much of the folks who might otherwise have competing concerns.  I do think the initial alterations were proportionate--extend the tuition increases two more years so the growth is slower, provide more assistance.  But the reactions since and the rhetoric--less than helpful.

Of course, my posts here have not always been exactly proportionate either.  I mean, I said the students don't understand math or their interests.  That may be true.  Well, it is true.  But there are legitimate grievances.  Lots of education money has been wasted on excess construction (UQAM), new satellite campuses (several), the costs of changing administrations with buyouts (Concordia), and other stuff (McGill has some $$ offices, more admin).  Corruption in Quebec does have an impact on the quality of construction at the universities.  But the real source of the new tuition increase is really the old tuition freeze--something like thirteen or more years followed by very token increases ($50/year).  The basic idea here is that the students pay a share, something like 20%, of the costs of their education, with the province (taxpayers) picking up the rest. 

Some of the groups (all?) may want zero tuition as that is what they perceive to be their right under some old documents, but that would require significantly more money to be spent by the province at a time where taxes are quite high and debt is higher still. 

So, the government cannot bargain much more since it cannot agree to a freeze without, well, surrendering entirely.  The students have no unity but have tended to tie themselves to the more extreme demands, which means that they have little accountability, little responsibility and every reason to keep on keeping on, especially now that the threat of cancelled or postponed classes has taken place. 

The costs, like casualties in a war, will simply continue to increase, unless somebody finds a way to profit off of this.  Hmmmm.... maybe red-patch dolls? Charest pinatas? 

Harper and Afghanistan: Slip Sliding Away

Am I surprised that PM Harper is saying non to another Afghan mission?  No.  Can he change his mind on a random weekend like he did with the training mission?  Absolument. But Harper has had enough of expending political capital for efforts that he does not control very well. He is very fond of repeating that the Afghanistan war of 2001 to present has lasted longer than the two World Wars combined. 

And I am very fond of pointing out that that comparison is damned near meaningless since (a) Canada did not have troops in harm's way for all of that time--just 2002 and 2005-2011--so the math does not work; and (b) having nearly 3k soldiers deployed and reaching 160 KIA is nothing compared to Vimy, Dieppe, the average day on the Italian front in 1943-44, Market Garden, and so on. 

Yes, the war in Afghanistan has been long, but it has only been intense for the small number of folks who went and are now back, facing a variety of challenges (PTSD, post concussion issues, loss of limbs, etc).  For the country, just as is the case for the rest of NATO, the war really did not touch the populace in any way like WWI and WWII did. 

The point about the clock is that this is a domestic concern--how long can a democratic public tolerate a war?  That depends on a variety of factors--the perceived stakes, the pace of costs (casualties, money), the economy at the time, and ... leadership.  Harper rarely stood in front of the mission and stopped doing that in 2008.  So, he can blame the clock and he can blame the duration of the war, but he knows that he chose not to try to shape public opinion because it seemed to hard and because it got in the way of his dreams for a majority government.

I just find the whole "longer than World Wars" line to be deceptive and evasive.  There are good reasons to pull out, there are better ways to express what the country's contributions have been. 

McG Smooth Move of the Year

I have been pretty critical of McGill's handling of dissent this year, so I must take my bandana hat off to the folks running the place.  They sent out a memo today addressing the question of what happens to those students who have been admitted to McGill but will not have completed their requirements (no certification of completion of credits at CEGEPs closed by the shenanigans). 

As the situation unfolded, we anticipated that a number of those admitted would in fact have difficulty in finishing on time. Accordingly, we have designed special provisions to ensure that most of the affected CEGEP students – presently estimated to be about 330 individuals – should be able to begin our fall term on time.

Wow!  What a smart way to go.  Rather than being stuck by past rules and fear of future precedents, the administrators decided that being caught up in the turmoil should not hinder a student's educational journey.  Sure, one can look at this as a raised middle finger at protesters and/or the Quebec government since it is saying that McGill is beyond and above the petty problems and that efforts to derail things will fail, at least at McGill.  But I think this is the right thing.  Sure, some of the students who have not completed are being given a reward for the dissent they supported.  But others, who did not vote or voted against strikes, will not see their lives disrupted by the poor choices of the organizations and the government.

So, on this, woohoo, McGill!

Making Money Off Of Dissent

It was perhaps inevitable that a sports book online would start taking bets on the Quebec strife.  Specifically, there is over/under for the strike is September 1st.  They have also set bets on:

• what the tuition increase will be (2.25:1 on my best guess $200-$300);
• provincial referendum of 4:1 by end of the year on fees;
• will the new Quebec Minister of Education lose her job by the end of the year: 9-2;
• Even money that Loi 78 that was supposed to quell the protests but had the reverse effect would be amended by the end of the year (I would bet that it will be).
• Martial law: 11-2.  Really?  I think the odds would be much longer.  I would bet no martial law--if I had spare cash (moving makes wagering right now difficult), I would bet as much as I could on no martial law, even if it means betting $5.50 to win one.  It is a sure bet--martial law?  Please.
• Fines on CLASSE, the most extreme of the groups--with a sweetspot of 2.4 to 1 that the group will be fined $100k-$500k.  
• Next is various celebrities--who would be the first to wear the red patch, indicating support for the students with Michael Moore a very tempting 7 to 1.  The problem is verifying who is first among those listed.  I would kind of like to bet on Youppi.  Of course, I would then buy a Youppi costume and make it happen.....

What prop bets would I add to this?

• Odds that student protesters will fall into a sinkhole: 1 to 2.  That is, I think is more likely that this will happen.
• The students will do something that will undercut public support--it is their turn to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory  Let's say: 3 to 1.  
• Pauline Marois of the Parti Quebecois will stop wearing the red square before the strike ends: 10 to 1. Odds that she will stop wearing the red square if some government official (including police officers) is harmed seriously during a protest: 10 to 1.
• That the protesters will focus exclusively on corruption as that is the most severe problem facing Quebec: 100 to 1.  
• That Jean Charest will call an election before the end of June: 25 to 1. Entirely motivated by my moving schedule.
• Odds that I will be in downtown Montreal in the next month after 6pm: 1000 to 1.  No thanks.  My rules for ultimate subbing--not going to cross a bridge or go into or past downtown for ultimate have been reinforced by the past 14 weeks of this mess.

Montreal News: Squirrel Again

I have been harping and harping on the idea that perhaps we are not so focused on the important stuff in Montreal.  Here is a tale of two pictures and then a third story:

http://www.news1130.com

This is from the big protest yesterday to mark the 100th day of the student protests of tuition (which has morphed into many issues with the current government, especially its response to the protests).

Montreal Gazette

This is a sinkhole that formed right outside McGill an hour or so after the protesters marched by.  My tweet last night was essentially that I have long compared the roads of Montreal/Quebec to World War I battlefields, but I will have to stop because it is an insult to the battlefields.

Ah, but why, other than the path of the protest, are these two pics related?  Because of a story buried in the paper: Quebec Justice Charbonneau is starting her commission to look into corruption in Montreal's construction industry.  Yes, the students have complained about corruption a bit, but that is not really the focus of their effort, and their efforts have taken the spotlight (as seen by the headlines and frontpages [the commission's opening is not even linked to the Gazette's front page on its website this morning]) off of the corruption problem.

That Montreal's infrastructure is literally collapsing should be the top story as it is a threat to people's lives, as opposed to the symbolic threat of an increase in tuition to access to education (symbolic because the crafting of the increase means that less than wealthy folks are not going to see any increase).

I get that the students are frustrated, I get that the rest of the province is frustrated with Jean Charest's mishandling of the crisis.  But the reality is that these protests are not going to empower real political change that might lead to less corruption, less waste and better construction.  It is no accident that the big unions are supporting the students--they are part of the corruption racket.  A new government led by the Parti Quebecois would not be focused on fighting corruption but on justifying secession.  Their focus is explicitly not on good governance (except when an occasional third party pushes them in that direction) but on more distraction sauce.  Would independence solve or ameliorate corruption and bad governance?  Hell no!  Would a separatist campaign that falls short make the roads better and the universities less expensive?  No.  So, consider me frustrated, too, as all of the attention is on issues that are not the fundamental ones.

Again, I get it that the demands of the students and their allies have accumulated so that corruption is now a bit more visible as a claim, but if only that were the central focus, then I might be supportive.  Instead, as the newspapers demonstrate, SQUIRREL!

Selective Reading Illustrated

 I have blogged before about how selective people's readings are of the Bible and other other totemic text, like ... Clausewitz.  This picture does the best job of illustrating this.  Ye olde text says many things, so let's just pick the one thing that supports one's attitudes (homophobia) and ignore the rest (tattoos as taboo, legitimating slavery, yada, yada, yada). 

I will shall rely on a selective reading of a different text: equal protection (I tend not to consider gun ownership sacrosanct nor am I all that focused on quartering of soldiers these days).  I think that one pretty much trumps everything else that might suggest it would be ok to discriminate against people due to their sexuality.

But folks who want to use the Bible to justify being intolerant--go ahead.  I am sure that is consistent with the rest of one's beliefs.  And, yes, consistency is the hobgoblin!