Who Cares About an Independent Quebec?

Yesterday, I got into a conversation with Quebec separatist on twitter, which led to this blogpost about Option Nationale.  One of my assertions was very undeveloped:

The Francophones have won every battle except independence.  And if they become independent, Quebec will lose.  It will lose the subsidies that Canada provides, it will lose cache in the rest of the world, since no one really cares about Quebec that much besides some old nationalists in France.

So, the question du jour is: who would take Quebec's side as it struggles to become independent if a referendum was won by the separatists?  And I do mean struggle both because a Harper government might not be such a friendly bargaining partner as the assets AND debts are divvied up and because starting up a new country is as easy as separatists dream.

Supporting Quebec in this struggle will be, dare I say it, viewed in Canada as being anti-Canadian.  Taking sides in a separatist conflict does, indeed, require taking a side.  The other side will get upset.  Thus, any country that supports Quebec in this imaginary future will risk upsetting Canada.  One might say, who cares about Canada?  But the reality is that countries already have relations with Canada (including that part that happens to have the oil) and benefit from those relations.  Potential supporters would have to consider damaged relations with Canada as part of the cost of supporting Quebec.

Given that supporting a separatist Quebec would not be a cost-free lark, who would be willing to risk these costs?  The separatists would say France.  Sure, common linguistic ties would suggest that France would support Quebec (as my first book would also predict).  But France has bigger fish to fry over the next decade, such as pulling the EU and its own economy out of the current fire.  The funny thing is that Sarkozy, who was leading the right-wing at the time, was not a fan of the Quebec project.  The socialists, Hollande, usually do not play nationalist cards so much.  And there is another target of French nationalism much closer to home.  Why score points on a situation that is not in the hearts and minds of French nationalists (that would be Quebec) when you can focus on immigrants at home? 

France is far less concerned with the defense of the French language (check out their stop signs) than Quebec.  So, will France support Quebec?  Perhaps.  It might be hard to oppose, but what would this support consist of?

Who else would support a separating Quebec?  The US?  Mais non.  The US would not put its virtual body in the way, but it is clear that the US likes Canada whole and not falling apart.  Quebec nationalists say that NAFTA would apply to them, so no real transaction costs for US-Quebec relations.  Sure, right.  Um, no.  The US would have something to say about that, and Canada, as a partner to NAFTA (which Quebec would not be) might use admission to NAFTA as leverage. 

Anyone else matter in this?  Again, I have a hard time figuring that out.  Perhaps some nationalist can convince me of their dreams of the relevance of some other actor who might support a Quebec independence drive in a meaningful way.  The good news for such folks is this: Quebec will not have to resort to arms to separate from Canada so external support really is not that important.  The real issue would be the bargaining process between Quebec and Canada over a variety of issues.  Quebec would have some leverage, but Canada would have much as well.  Ah, but we can dream of a friction-less settlement, right? 

Option Sucketh

For some reason, an advocate of the Option Nationale Party engaged in me a twitter conversation this evening.  He argued that independence would help un-freeze the currently lousy status quo.  Certainly.  But a quick look at the program of the party, which he said I should consider, tells me that the Option Nationale is no option at all for the Anglophones and other minorities in Quebec.

It would do much of what the PQ promises to do without the hedging.  CEGEPS would be restricted to French for Francophones and immigrants.  Funding of universities would be more proportionate, which would mean cutting McGill, Concordia and Bishop's.  Those who partook of free education would have to contribute back to society--suggesting prevention of emigration to Canada/elsewhere, right?  Free higher ed?  How to pay for that?  Who gets it?

The program is quite clearly not interested in making non-Francophones feel comfortable or even equal, so why bother appeal to them?  Yes, Anglophones are sick of the Liberals who have been in power for ten years and are quite corrupt.  But this platform of the O.N. is not about public service and good governance.  It is about inflicting nationalism on all institutions--why would a minority want that.  Is there anything in this that would make a minority feel as if they have a stake in the system?  That their rights would be protected and their interests influential?  No.

Yes, the nationalist discourse is a tremendous distraction from focusing on good governance, but it not clear how a nationalist party would be the right choice.  And, yes, I have full confidence that an independent Quebec would still have parties competing with each other about how best to deprive the minorities rather than focus on good governance.

Thus, I am only confused by one thing--why should a sovereigntist like this engage me?  I am absolutely everything that such folks stand against.  Except I left.   Hmmm.

The nationalist did ask me the right question: what is the resolution?  My answer is demographic change.  The more the old nationalists fade away, the more immigrants gain citizenship, the less relevance the nationalist cause will have at election time.  Some party may eventually emerge and promise good governance. The CAQ might be it.  The NDP farm team might be it.  The Liberals might find defeat to be what they need to reconstitute.  But much of Quebec is tired of the nationalist discourse.  The Francophones have won every battle except independence.  And if they become independent, Quebec will lose.  It will lose the subsidies that Canada provides, it will lose cache in the rest of the world, since no one really cares about Quebec that much besides some old nationalists in France.  It will be marginal, except for producing some electricity for NY and New England.  Oh, and asbestos for India.

Perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part.  I do expect Quebec to be stuck in this rut for quite a while.  But eventually a party/leader will emerge that will persuade enough people to focus on good governance rather than on identity divisions.  Hopefully, that will not take too long and that non-nationalist will be the best thing for the distinct society.

To Tweet Or Not To Tweet? Social Media and Professing

LSE posted a set of suggestions for new scholars.  It is a good pretty good guide, but I don't agree with it entirely.  It also raises some questions, so let me pontificate (since this is my blog).

Let me take the recommendations in the order Salma Patel, the author, put them in and then comment along the way:

LinkedIn.  I believe that the neo-classic internet phrase that best applies here is "meh."  Linkedin provides some connectivity, mostly to the private sector, but I have yet to really find it useful.  Perhaps that is my experience, but I really do not know of any academic friends using it much.  It is aimed at networking, and is free, so no harm here.  Just not any real benefit as far as I can tell.

Academia.edu: Yes.  It is a cheap (free) and easy way to have a web presence.  It can serve as one's professional webpage, complete with pubs and cv uploaded.  Here's mine.  It is kind of a nerdy facebook where you can follow people's work, and they can follow yours.  The more of a footprint one can create that makes it clear what one's work is, the better.  Yes, there is a risk that someone may plagiarize your work, but if you get the stuff up on the web, then people will know who you are.  And that is the best defense against plagiarism in the long run.  People can copy you, but if folks know your work, then the plagiarist is just a plagiarist and your rep is intact.  If you hide your work, but someone finds it and copies it, you have less of an ability to claim that you were there first.

Twitter:  At this point, I think it is now a requirement to have a twitter account--I will be suggesting accounts to follow when I teach Civ-Mil Relations in a couple of weeks.  That does not mean that one needs to tweet.  But I do think that following interesting folks and various sources is a very valuable way to get connected and find out what is going on in your areas of interest.  I find so many links to so much interesting stuff to read.  The problem is actually doing the reading, but a lurker can get much out of twitter without ever posting.  I, obviously from my own behavior, think that tweeting is also important.  I have developed some very valuable contacts by engaging people in conversation, debating sometimes, building on other people's tweets and so on.  Of course, it is easy for me since I have tenure, but I find that there are plenty of interesting graduate students and assistant professors who tweet and are making a mark by doing so.  You don't have to be at the center of the academic universe if you can contribute something interesting to the conversation, whether that is a timely re-tweet of a piece one has discovered, an opinion added to the conversation, a link to a blog post that develops something further, or even just interesting pics.
    The funny thing is that I resisted twitter at first because I didn't think I could ever consistently say anything in 140 characters or less or find anyone else's short messages all that interesting.*  Even if we leave aside shortened links, there are plenty of folks who have demonstrated a capacity for insight, perspective, and humor (not just @depresseddarth).  Take a gander at the folks I follow (https://twitter.com/smsaideman/).

* As it turns out, I ended up using this tool and discovered that although it took a couple of years to sign up, I was still ahead of 90% of the people who are on twitter now.  And this tool is super-useful to track one's own twitter account (I don't think I am the only narcissist on twitter) and others.  H/T to @DaveedGR for the link.  

I probably should hashtag more to get my stuff wider attention.  Thus far, the only consistent hashtag I use is: #voterfraudfraud.  I use it when discussing the attempts to restrict the vote in the US with the excuse that there is voter fraud (which there is not).
So, much longer than a tweet, but the essential idea is that it is worth it as long as you avoid two dangers: major time suck and perhaps shooting one's mouth off a bit much.  Yes, do as I say, not as I do.  My new enterprise is launching NPSIA's twitter presence.  Twitter is an excellent way to advertise.

Blogging.  The suggestions that LSE lays out are quite good.  I think blogger/blogspot is easier for someone who wants to put no effort into formatting.  Wordpress is not hard, but not as intuitive as it would like to think it is.  Either way, the keys about blogging are, in my humble opinion:

1. Write what you know. 
2. Don't put too much time into it.  You will get little credit on the job market or by tenure committees for it.  
3. It is valuable.  There are so many complaints about how we don't engage the public, that our funding produces research that never translates beyond our narrow circles.  Blogging is an excellent way to communicate to interested audiences, especially when combined with twitter.  Just follow the annual national security twitter fight club extragavanza to see young'uns more than hold their own against big-time experts.
4. And be more restrained than I am about talking about one's institutions.  I tried not to say too much about the various tribulations I was experiencing in my past job, but it definitely leaked through.  Again, tenure is a beautiful thing.  Junior faculty should feel free to talk about their research and teaching, but perhaps not so much about more political challenges closer to home.

This entire post has been focused on a reaction to the LSE piece, so it has mostly been on the networking side of things.  All of this stuff has heaps of pedagogical dimensions as well.  But this post is long enough.  Remind me to get back to pedagogical stuff (sounds so much better in Russian: педагогический) if I forget.

Revising History

Seventy years after the events, we finally learn a bit of truth about the Dieppe Raid.  It seemed like a typical tale: Canadian troops losing their lives needlessly due to poor British planning.  There is a documentary tonight in Canada that presents a new take.  See here for the newspaper tale.  The essence is that the entire raid was a cover for a commando raid seeking to get German code books and machines.  And it was led by Ian Fleming, the author of the James Bond books.

The frustrating thing about the newspaper story, and something I will have to track tonight, is whether the raid, actually worked.  Did they get the codes and machines or not?  If they did, then Dieppe can be re-coded a success, that the Canadians who died there helped to save lives elsewhere as the breaking of German codes was huge and entirely secret for decades.  I am kind of surprised that it took a few decades for this new version of the raid to come out since Enigma lost much of its secrecy in the 1970s if I remember correctly.  Then again, the Brits are generally far better at keeping their secrets. 

Even if the mission did not succeed in getting the codes, at least Dieppe now makes some sort of sense.  Still, it remains a testament to poor planning.  Further history work (or perhaps just watching the documentary) will be required to figure out whether the mistakes made were necessary for the mission or just poor planning--that the distraction could have been better planned.

Good Excuses for Blogging Shortage

I blame global warming.  Ok, perhaps not.  But I have not been writing as much here lately.  The new job has kept me hopping.  In addition to the usual teaching, research and service, I have been named Research Mentor.  Don't know what that is?  Neither do I.  I never heard of such a thing, but it is a Carleton thing, I guess.  The idea is to have a person in each unit help with grant-writing and such. 

In my case, I am going to use the title and all the power (none) that comes with it to try to fund-raise to help NPSIA gain more attention and connectivity especially with the folks in and near government who work in the Foreign Policy/International Security/International Development business.  In addition to grants and other begging, I am to help facilitate the intellectual community via speaker series and such.  The third part is to help NPSIA develop a better web presence through blogging (yes, yet another Steve blog) and twitter and such. 

As a warmup, I have been working on a new website for myself.  It is very much in progress (it needs a heap of work), but here it is: www.stevesaideman.com.  Check it out and give me feedback as I desperately need it.

And I will try to get back to blogging once all of my orientation meetings are past tense.

Economic Protectionism is Theme of the Day

My second post of the day is also on protectionism, but a strange kind.  Apparently, some folks in Washington (the state) are upset that their Costco's parking lot is full of Canadian vehicles because the Canadians are running south for cheap goods and gas.  The locals are frustrated that those who come to put money in the local and national economies are filling up the parking lot.  What to do, what to do?

You could blame Obama, I am sure.  But I think you have to blame America and freedom.  That the big box store that Costco exemplifies is such a celebration of "the pursuit of happiness" via consumption and saving money via buying in bulk that resistance is, indeed, futile.

I am too lazy to run down to northern NY for Costco--we have one in Ottawa twenty minutes from my house.  My neighbors, however, did enjoy the hell out of the outlet shopping they sought as part of their summer vacation near American lakes, beaches and cities.  Low sales taxes, great discounts--the American way.

So, residents of Washington, before you protest your parking difficulties, remember that there is nothing more American than buying stuff you probably do not need as long as it is on sale.

Quebec Protectionism

One of the best lines I ever heard when interviewing folks was when I interviewed an Hungarian general.  He said: "Everyone is a nationalist after a few drinks."

Well, the relevance of this is that in an election, especially in a place like Quebec, everyone is an economic nationalists.  The parties are competing to be the best ones to prevent outsiders (Americans!) from taking over companies based in Quebec.  This was inspired, this time, by Lowe's trying to take over Rona, one of the major hardware store chains.  The really funny thing is that Charest is also promising to set aside $$ to help Quebec companies invest abroad.  Yep, no golden rule here.  I guess Charest never read Keohane's stuff on reciprocity.  Of course, he shouldn't.  Reciprocity does not play in an election, but it does tend to make one look just a bit silly.

Of course, this is really just another serving of distraction sauce.  The key issues of today are the usual, basic ones: good governance, jobs, health care, education.  But the Liberals cannot talk about good governance.  The PQ cannot either, since that is the CAQ's big issue, plus the PQ's record on caring about good governance is lousy.  Economic nationalism does sound like protecting jobs, but generally does not help much, especially if one is expecting foreign markets to respond to Quebec protectionism with open arms to their businesses.  Health care?  Good luck with that.  And education right now is covered in other distraction sauce--the student protests.

Anyhow, the point here is that running against Lowe's makes sense for all of the parties, but is not going to mean much down the road.

Joy Joy

We often over-think and over-criticize athletes because, well, it is easy and is a nice distraction from more complicated and more important stuff.

But this one pic shows us something that we should remember: winning is fun.

And it was such a team effort: LeBron making huge plays at the end, Durant sinking shots all over the place, Chris Paul taking control at a key point, Kobe making some timely shots, Kevin Love is apparently too tired to dance since he owned the boards, and so on.  People will complain that they didn't win by as large margins as the original Dream Team, but the quality of competition has caught up to the US.

Not a perfect game, but a fun one to watch.  And it is hard not to take some pleasure in the joy these millionaires felt as they played hard and represented well.

Obsession, Thy Name is Lost

Do check out this wonderfully insane set of photos.  These expectant parents are rabid lost fans.

I found it via Damon Lindelof's tweet:

This nursery is incredible, but you DO realize that baby's gonna have serious daddy issues, right?bit.ly/RN10VL
— Damon Lindelof (@DamonLindelof) August 13, 2012

Just one photo to give you an idea:

Sunday Sniper Silliness

This may be a first for the Spew but very much an internet tradition since 1873: Cat picture!

But I had to, given the civil-military relations embedded in this embedded video:

Running Against the Wind

The PQ has a great chance to gain power again with an exhausted set of incumbents who inevitably presided over a heap of corruption scandals (not that the PQ would be any less corrupt).  But, imitating perhaps the Republicans to the south, the focus ends up being on symbolic politics rather than substance.  The PQ is promising a harsher version of Bill 101, the law that regulates languages.  Not satisfied with denying immigrants and Francophones access to English K-11 (there is no 12th grade in Quebec), the proposal aims to restrict CEGEPs (the semi-junior colleges between high school and university) along the same lines. 

This law is clearly aimed at the nationalist base. In a three-way battle (or five way with two other separatist parties in the mix as well, this makes more sense than the GOP shifting even further rightward since there is less of a need to get any votes in the center and more of a need to cement the base.

The announcements always aim at the shocking disuse of French in Montreal, where the vast majority of the population do speak French.  However, the challenge is that Montreal is chock full of people for whom French is their second language, that their mother tongue is something else.  This allows the PQ to focus its ire on two targets in one shot: Montreal and immigrants.  Running against Montreal is a grand tradition, as it presents the "other" to the rest of Quebec, whether that other is urban, Anglophone, immigrant, gay, educated, or whatever.  Montreal is the economic engine for the province, but the disproportionate distribution of seats (Montreal is under-represented) combined with the usually politicially irrelevant Anglophone community means that it is politically rational to run against the city.  The realities of underinvestment in infrastructure and social services emanate from this--why send resources to Montreal when voters elsewhere matter more?  Why not blast the city for its cosmopolitan-ness even if it does not threaten the rest of Quebec and might even be good as it helps to feed the economy?

The immigrants are the second target.  The PQ has learned some lessons:

1. appealing to immigrants allows other parties to be better xenophobes (ADQ a few years ago);
2. immigrants will learn French (so many speak three or more languages) but learning French does not convert them into either PQ voters or separatists.  So, some proposals of Quebec citizenship are explictly aimed now at immigrants.
3. xenophobia plays well outside of Montreal.

So, what the PQ does makes sense, but once again, what is good for electoral politics in the short-run is bad for Quebec in the long run.  This election can still be about corruption and good governance, but the more the PQ plays up the language stuff, the more Anglophones and Allophones will vote for the corrupt Liberals.  They fear more the certain consequences of an anti-Anglophone/anti-immigrant government and the disruptions that another referendum would bring than the uneven impact of corruption.  Hence Charest's instance that the PQ will hold a referendum and that the new party, the CAQ, may be closet separatists.

Heaps of distraction sauce abound for the Liberals with the PQ playing to its base.  We shall see if corruption becomes the key issue or not of this election.  If the PQ wins because corruption harmed the Liberals, we might not see any improvement in good governance.  Why? Because the PQ does not really care about it.

Yes, I am so very glad I am out out of Quebec.  Ontario may not be paradise, but at least the parties do not seem focused on the threat I pose as an Anglophone and as an immigrant.

Gun Mania

I love how this strip takes the fear of talking about gun control by politicians and moves it to the next level:

Plagiarism Friday

Fareed Zakaria has been accused of plagiarism (and it is pretty open and shut).  It will not prevent him from becoming President--that was never his aspiration.  But it does remind me of someone who ended his political career due to plagiarizing his dissertation:

Demography of Quebec Politics

No, I am not a demographer, I just play one on TV my blog.  I left Quebec behind when I moved to Ottawa, but I cannot help but pay attention to the election there.  So glad I got out before it was called.

Anyway, the stat of the morning is that apparently only 36% of Francophones think that Anglophones play a constructive role in Quebec politics.  There are many ways to read this, but here is my interpretation of this result. 

1. Because of the nationalist politics of the past thirty or forty years, the Anglophones have had only one real choice--the Provincial Liberals.  The Parti Quebecois is not only separatist but regularly promises policies that threaten the interests of the Anglophones--limiting job opportunities, undermining educational opportunities (always the threat for "proportionate" funding of higher education--which means cutting the money going to McGill, Concordia, and Bishop's), and so on.  It is most clear that Anglophones would not be very welcome in an independent Quebec, given the politics and promises of the past.
2. Third parties have generally been vague about their preferences about a future referendum on independence.  The ADQ was "autonomist" but did not rule out independence.  The new third party, the CAQ, had until yesterday or the day before said that it would not seek a referendum for ten years.  Only in the past couple of days has its leader, Francois Legault ruled out a referendum or the goal of independence entirely.  Given his past stances, one could understand why a federalist might be dubious.
3. Given this reality, Anglophones had only one choice--to vote for the Liberals.  Which means that they can be taken for granted.  That the Anglophones could not and probably still cannot reasonably threaten to take their votes and go to another party.  
4. Which makes it damn hard to be constructive.  How do you induce political change, how do you get politicians to focus on good governance, if your vote really hangs on the nationalist question?  Francophones can swing as much as they want because nationalist issues are just some of their concerns.  They have political power because they can choose any party without fear of new laws being enacted to discriminate and even disenfranchise them.  But with Marois positing policies that redefine Citizenship in ways that marginalize minorities, the Anglos have no place to go.

Of course, not being constructive does not mean one is destructive or considered destructive.  That would be an interesting question to ask: are Anglophones a destructive influence on Quebec politics?  Certainly, the majority of potential voters consider the Liberals to be a bad thing according to current polls (with PQ getting over 30% and CAQ at around 25%).  Given that the Liberals need their Anglophone voters (despite selling them out on a regular basis) to stay in power, it is not hard to see how those opposed to Charest and the Liberal party might identify the key Anglo constituency is not constructive.  Given that they would see Charest losing power as constructive, the Anglos ain't constructive.

So, either way you look at it, this particular finding is not surprising.  It has multiple meanings, of course, and we can draw whatever implications we want.  Which is why polls like this are like Rorschach tests--we see what we want to see.  I see a powerless bloc of voters.  Others see a key constituency of a government that sucks.

Yes, the Charest government sucks.  But a PQ government would suck more, especially for Anglos.  Hence the dilemma.

Demography of US Politics

This piece has a very good take on how changing demographics has altered what it takes to win in the US at the Presidential level.  The gist is that Romney can have a relative landslide among whites and still lose if Obama maintains enough turnout and support among non-whites.  The piece tries to be even handed by saying that the GOP forfeits the White House if it cannot appeal to non-whites, but that the Dems will have problems with Congress until it can get enough white support.  Sure, this makes some sense.  But I have a couple of points that could not fit into a tweet or two:

The piece tends to make equivalent a party failing to get more than 20% of non-whites with a party that might get 40% of whites.  What I mean by this is that the GOP appears to be have far more problems appealing to non-whites than the Dems have of appealing to whites.  In any US election at the national level, the outcome is going, the loser is going to get somewhere around 40-49% of the vote (McGovern and Goldwater were in the high 30's).  So, losing some but not all whites is not so damning as the GOP being so miserable about non-white votes. 

Ok, let me be clearer: I think it is abhorrent but normal for one party to be essentially quite racist in its appeal.  The Democrats may often be feeble and divided, but that comes with being a bigger tent.  The party aims to be a multiethnic party.  This might offend some whites, but the party is not anti-white (at least not if one sees reality as it is, not as they fear it to be). 

To be clear, as a political scientist, I understand that the Republican strategy used to make sense--get enough whites and you can win.  But not anymore.  By alienating Hispanics who often have similar values to Republican voters (especially on social issues like abortion), the Republicans gave up California years ago.  That is bad electoral math.  And that math is going to get worse than this article suggests because the demographic shifts have not stopped.  Whites will not lose their plurality status, but they will lose their majority status in many states.  Texas Republicans understand this a bit better, sort of, that if they alienate the Hispanics there, state elections will start to be competitive. 

I understand that lots of the passion and polemics of the last few years (the Tea Party) are a response to the realization that white folks are going to have to share power with non-whites.  This is not a horrible thing, but actually the continued realization of the American dream and the challenges of diversity.  It used to be the case that folks feared the Irish vote and the Italian vote, and so on, but now those immigrant communities are seen as Americans and as worthy targets of vote-seekers.  The Democrats lost the South in the 1960s by supporting civil rights---it was costly in the short and medium term, but history was on their side.  Obama is the beneficiary of the politicians doing what was right back then. 

The Republicans, unless they change course, will be on the wrong side of history.  When Sarah Palin indicated that she just wanted the support of her "Real America," I was fine with that since white, rural America is not only short of 50% but shrinking.  The Republicans will have to face a reckoning at some point--allow some of its members to move back to the middle and to appeal to minorities or become irrelevant.  Not today but soon.

Finger-pointing After Afghanistan

Actually, my latest CIC post is finger-pointing while folks are still in Afghanistan.  So easy to blame-cast, often misses the point.

It Is All Academi-c!

I posted a while back on the name-changing of the most famous private security company--Blackwater.  Because it had not only embarassed itself, but caused a major politico-military crisis for the US in Fallujah, Blackwater re-named itself Xe.  This did not last long (perhaps copyright problems with the handy website that helps people figure out exchange rates).  So, they renamed themselves Academi.  In my previous post, I suggested alternative names, but Academi seems to be sticking.

What does this mean for the company?  Why this name?  I have a few guesses:

• Perhaps the company sought to get out of the bodyguarding business and focus more on pontificating?
• Perhaps it felt the time was right to open up a PhD program in crisis mis-management and collateral damage maximization?
• Perhaps it felt its skills at getting government contracts with no accountability would be better used in the art of gaining grants?
• Perhaps its leaders felt more comfortable in tweed with elbow patches rather than camoflauge?
• Perhaps the organization thought that profs, despite widely depicted as lechs, would be a reputational step up from out-of-control mercenaries?
• Perhaps recklessly killing bystanders has inspired these folks to pursue the life of the mind instead?  Hard to kill somebody by mistake in my business, although I have done it a few times.

What are your thoughts?

Students Really As Consumers

I am not a big fan of For Profit higher education.  Of course, I have a dog in this fight (sorry), as one could imagine a world where these entities take over higher education, making it harder for me and my kind (that would be my grad students) to get and keep jobs.

Instead of spewing my biased spew, I will let Garry Trudeau take the floor:

These schools have been ripping people (especially Veterans) off big-time.  Not good.

Anyhow, I look forward to the rest of the week as the story continues at Doonesbury.

Curing Writer's Bloc With ...

From here.

Great Moments in Electoral Hypocrisy

Driving back and forth to Quebec this summer to take my daughter to and from her summer camp (multiple sessions) is exhausting.  Today, however, it was somewhat uplifting.  My daughter brought me much joy.  How so?  She spotted a Parti Quebecois poster and was most scornful of the slogan:


Pourquoi?  Because "A Nous de Choisir" is pretty much antithetical to what the PQ stands for.  The phrase means "We Have to Choose" essentially, but this is the PQ, whose program contains heaps of un-choices.  That if they are elected, they will apply Bill 101 rules that prevent Francophones and Immigrants from going to English public schools to younger and older folks.  To day care and to CEGEP (the public/free junior college/pre-university stuff between high school and college).  So, choose the party that is against choice.  Unless by choice, one means never taking yes (getting what you want) or no (nope, folks do not want independence) for answers.

It reminds me, of course, if you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice.

So, my teen found the poster to be most snort-worthy.  I could not be prouder.  

Let the Comedians Lead

Check out this interview with Chris Rock.   He has just a very sane perspective about things, including how to deal with internet hysteria: "Just because there’s an alarm going doesn’t mean it’s a fire."  Just because people are making a lot of noise on twitter or elsewhere does not mean something is a crisis or a storm or whatever.  For Rock, the question is: are the fans of person x (Daniel Tosh, Tracy Morgan, whoever) upset?  If not, then it is not much of a problem.

I am a big fan of putting the panic button just a bit further out of reach, so that we do not smack it too often.  The case of the week is clearly Chik-fil-a.  It is within anyone's right be to homophobic and self-righteous.*  It is within anyone's right to boycott or support a firm run by a guy who is homophobic and self-righteous.**  It is certainly fine for someone to boycott firms that donate to anti-gay causes.

*  I was always put off by the very vocal "hey, we don't work Sundays" policy that reminded me of how narrow-minded people could be since Sabbaths vary, but that is just me.

**  And yes, I think it is homophobic and self-righteous because it requires the usual selective reading of the Bible which has all kinds of obsolete crap in it that we ignore, including slavery and horrific rules of war and so on. 

But it is clearly wrong for Mayors to say that Chick-fil-a is not welcome in their towns since that would be a violation of a homophobic chicken kingpin's rights.  People can boycott because they are offended by someone's speech--the first amendment does not restrict offense.  But it does restrict government from punishing people and firms (since firms are apparently people, too) for saying stupid stuff.


More importantly, this convoluted controversy of the week distracted people from the big story: A Bush appointee ruled that the Defense Against Marriage Act is unconstitutional.  Turns out equal protection under the law means something.

I will try not to use all of Chris Rock's writings as totemic, but the idea that we should chill a bit when folks over-react to stuff is pretty darned good advice.

Update: Not all funny people are professional comedians:

Waking Up to The Nuclear Crisis

Very striking video by an expert on the Cuban Missile Crisis (H/T to Chris Albon for the link):


I am pretty much with it until the end.  Nuclear disarmament is a swell idea, but I am a firmer believer in the security dilemma and the complexity of International Relations.  A world without nukes would be interesting, but getting there from here?  I just don't see it.  I see less, as we move to a world of minimal deterrents, but none?  Nope. 

Fun way to wake up on a Sunday, eh?

Deja Vu Quebec Style

Watching the coverage of the summer election campaign in Quebec has, of course, spawned nightmares.  Of more corruption or of more separatism.  It reminds me of two recent elections: the 2007 provincial one and the more recent Montreal municipal election:

In 2007, three parties ran for election for the Quebec National Assembly (the state legislature to my American audience): the federalist Liberals who were the incumbents; the Parti Quebecois who were trying to run a less ethnic campaign, trying to get votes from recent immigrants; and the Action Democratique du Quebec, which was a center-right party that had formed to offer an economic alternative but focused in this election on xenophobia---anti-immigration. The party came in second, stealing more votes from the PQ than from the Liberals, but both more established parties realized that being pro-immigration was a vote loser but being xenophobic was cool.  And what is the best evidence of this?  The head of the PQ, Pauline Marois said this when taking over:
“Let’s stop being afraid. … Afraid to seem intolerant. … Afraid to speak of memory, of history, of people, of identity, of culture.”

In other words, xenophobia is hip.  Indeed, their platform reads as a "hey, if you were not alienated before by our insistence on French, you will be now" manifesto.  It would impose the language rules that currently exist for K-11 (no 12th grade) onto provincially subsidized day care and the CEGEPs (the free colleges that combine junior college with vocational stuff and serve to replace 12th grade and the first year of university).  They might even insist on Quebec citizenship with language fluency in order to do basic civil stuff.  Just awful, awful, awful.

So, I see visions of 2007 dancing in my head.  But I also see the 2009 Montreal municipal election as a good harbinger.  Or bad harbinger.  Why?  Three parties, none directly affiliated with the provincial ones (sort of).  One was led by the mayor, Gerald Tremblay, who had presided over a heap of corruption scandals.  Another was led by Louise Harel, whose number two had to drop out due to ties to corruption.  Harel had previously been a big cheese in the PQ and had launched the merger policy that had upset much of Montreal.  The PQ tends to run against Montreal since the voters are elsewhere, so having someone with a basically anti-Montreal record run for Mayor was kind of entertaining.  Anyhow, the third party was led by someone who was seen as a bit unstable.  So, a three-sided race, which led to the Mayor slipping back into power by getting 1/3 of the votes--such an overwhelming mandate, eh? 

So, the current election is really a four party race: the Liberals, who chose this time frame to avoid the corruption investigation in the fall; the PQ, who are returning to their bread and butter of xenophobia and separatism but also trying to capitalize on the student protests (even though the students are not too popular); the CAQ, a new party that replaced the ADQ as the standard bearer for arguing ambiguously about pushing the separatism can down the road while focusing on improving the economy; and Quebec Solidaire, a party that claims to be more faithfully left wing and separatist than the PQ.  Which could make it quite likely that either the PQ or the Liberals form a minority government.  Which might not be a bad outcome since the PQ could not really push forward a referendum with the CAQ and Liberals having enough votes to resist that.  And the Liberals, if they are returned to power with just a plurality of seats, well, then they can stumble along for a while.

H/T to https://twitter.com/pebayf

Anyhow, 2012 will probably be a mix of 2007 and 2009.  Except for one thing--I am no longer in Quebec.  So, I can be more entertained than upset, although I realize that Quebec has a great ability to export its dysfunctionality.  If the PQ win, they plan to demand a series of things that they cannot get, hoping to mobilize the Quebec population.  This may work even though everyone knows that this is a deliberate strategy, but it may not work because people are sick of the separatism.  

Good times.  Well, good times for my friends at McGill who can analyze this stuff.  And good times for my family, now happily ensconsced in Ottawa where the tunnels do not collapse and where the frisbee fields are not far, far away across fragile bridges.

Billy!

I had to drive to Quebec to pick my daughter up from summer camp as it is in between sessions (one more to go!), and listened to Alec Baldwin's podcast.  He is actually quite a good host, and he had Billy Joel on.  It was a very interesting hour, as Alec asked Billy about various points in his career and the evolution of his music.  They both are very gifted mimics so they went on interesting tangents.

I have long been a fan of Billy Joel, and did find his later albums to seem to be well timed to match the points in my life--like when I married a super-model.  Seriously, it was funny how several of his albums did catch my moods at the time well. 

Anyhow, check out the podcast--it is a breezy, interesting hour.

When Technology Pre-empts Thinking

My memory is shot. Instead of trying to figure out something, I just google or wiki it.  The 21st century breeds a bit of laziness with our dependence on the internet.  I often see folks asking questions on message boards that should be easy to figure out or perhaps they can talk to someone.  Sure, I have crowd-sourced a few times lately when I might have gotten some answers if I did the work myself. 

Why is this a problem?  It is a problem if that breeds habits when one enters the policy world.  In a very interesting post on civil-military relations, Rosa Brooks conveys a story about folks in the White House responding to a crisis and asking to move a drone to cover the event.  Josh Foust points out that there are other assets in play that might work better.  Also, drones have complications attached to them, like who says they can fly over? 

This is more than just the "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem that armed drones made endemic lately.  This is a problem with policy folks who see only one means by which to gain info, when there are many, each with pro's and cons.  But as Josh points out in a subsequent tweet, getting agencies to share information is hard even though that was lesson #1 after 9/11 (and, of course, lesson #1 before 9/11).

I am not anti-drone.  I just think that any technology can be used well or poorly.  Drones, since they don't risk American lives, have been to the go-to tool for all problems, even when there are other means available.  It is not just risk-averse but lazy. 

But I can say that because I am comfy at my desk.  I am not about to drive to a library and look through stacks.  So, I guess it takes a lazy, unimaginative person to know one?

Surprising Cultural Variation

A month into my new life in Ottawa/Ontario, and one key difference stands out (actually many, but this one is where QC seems better): beer is sold mostly in cans in the places that sell beer. Of course, that is the other difference--you can get beer in the grocery stores in Quebec but not Ontario.  Anyway, the beer distributors in Ontario (having flashbacks to growing up in Pennsylvania) sell mostly canned beer, not bottled.  There are even a few microbrews that sell in cans.

This brings back bad memories, growing up with swill in cans.  As it turns out, it may not be that cans are inherently inferior as this article discusses (H/T to Pete Trumbore).  But a key point would be this: if no glasses are available to distance the beer from the icky smell of aluminum (and I like to pronounce aluminum in my head the way the British do), then a bottle > can.  Still, at home, I guess cans would be better, but on the frisbee field, I would stick with bottles if I can (oops).

Breaking Bad Frustration

To be clear, my frustration with Breaking Bad is not with the show but with the podcasts about it.  First, the folks (Sepinwall, the people at Grantland) seem entirely too obsessed with the pacing of this season.  They argue that the format of eight episodes now and eight later raise challenges about how we are going to get to the end of the first set of eight with episodes that do not advance the plot or raise the tension.

Give me a freaking break.  The folks behind the show have long ago earned our trust.  Pretty sure they have a plan for the season, as evidenced by the teaser before the first episode a few weeks ago.  This is just like Mad Men where folks wonder about where things are going too early and then marvel at the season.  Just breathe.

Second is below the break since we now get spoiler-y:

Secession or Corruption? No Thanks

My former colleague Jacob Levy is speaking words of wisdom about the next Quebec provincial election.  See the story below for coverage including two hits by Jake the Snake:

When All the World is a Stage

And we are just players.  I am mostly inspired by the on-going photoshoot of me.  The Faculty of Public Affairs at Carleton has a magazine, and there are folks writing an article on bloggers in the Faculty.*  So, as one of the few bloggers in the FPA (second FPA in which I am a member--Foreign Policy Analysis section of the ISA, but never mind that), they interviewed me yesterday and are shooting me right now.

*  When you see Faculty at Canadian universities, think College or School as in College/School of Arts and Sciences.

So, I thought I would blog about it so that they would have "action" shots.**  Reminds me of the TV folks in Lubbock filming at my office and needing me to type or read or do something so that they could ahve some action while the interview audio is played.

** As it turned out, they were more interested in the crap I keep around my desk than any action shot, except for one where I am holding a wand.... yes, the Death Stick!

Anyhow, the questions yesterday focused on why I blog.  Which actually caused me to ponder why others do not.  Yes, it takes some time, but it is quickly becoming the easiest way to get our ideas as knowledge creators/generators/disseminators/brokers (yes, all of those seem mighty high falutin' and I attach) out to the world.  Of course, the problem is that one can say something that might be regretted later on (see my more recent post about a certain scholar who is attacking the profession).  Still, with so many folks being upset about our publications being gated by academic publishers and that our work is impenetrable due to jargon, etc., it seems to me that we need to blog.  No longer a matter of luxury or hobby, but approaching a requirement for doing academic work if you want to be relevant.

But, of course, it is not for everyone, and the big problem ahead is getting through the clutter of millions of blogs.  Blogging is probably hitting the same process as other internet and non-internet production processes--proliferation, consolidation, merger, division, and so on.  Joining blogging collectives seems to be the thing to do these days. 

Just some ruminations while my paparazzi prepare to make me look good (and, yes, they are taking a heap of time ....).

What is your take on the present and future of blogging by academics?

What Is In A Name?

I revised slightly my piece on the Opening Ceremonies and Macedonia vs. FYROM for the Canadian International Council.  Check it out.

Viral Marketing I Can Believe In

AMC is engaging in some interesting bargaining tactics with the satellite folks:


Oh my.

Politicology? Um, No Thanks

Last month, I blasted a Political Scientist, or perhaps a Politicologist, Jacqueline Stevens, for her piece in the New York Times.  This past week, she took issue with her critics, including me.  So, the conversation continues.  I don't want to address everything in her latest post or in the entire debate, but I would like to clarify a few things and respond to a few things.

First, she takes a bit of umbrage at the title of my post: Self-Hating Political Scientist.  She points out that this is a phrase often used to Zionists against less passionate defenders of the Israel, and that was not my intent.*  However, I used the phrase not with Israel in mind but because I was already frustrated with the folks attacking political science from the Right with Representative Flake at the front of the battle, seeking to de-fund political science and only political science.  Why?  Because he had problems with our epistemology?  With our definition of our discipline is?  No, because political scientists are asking questions that make him and other reality-averse folks uncomfortable, like the quality of representation and the politics of climate change (these are the examples Flake raised: "So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysis; $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do.").

* Zionist ideologues are probably not huge fans of my posts (here or here), either, given that I consider Israel not to be the center of anyone's foreign policy universe except for Israel.  Oh, and conservatives are not so thrilled with me either.

Stevens wrote her piece criticizing the discipline in a particular time and place--this June in the NYT--essentially giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  The enemy?  That would be forces of ignorance--as the Flake Amendment, singling out political science, was aimed at reducing the funds available to do political inquiry.  By taking our intra-discipline squabble about what our discipline is to the editorial section of the NYT, Stevens was giving these folks more ammunition.  Hence my ire.  Hence my labeling her as a Self-Hating Political Scientist when I could have used other labels with right-wing associations as well--such as fellow traveler. In her most recent post, she quite clearly hates the label of political science, as I discuss below, so I don't think the title to my previous post was all that off the mark.  To be clear, I am not invoking the whole "I am sorry if you offended" non-apology because I am not apologizing, just clarifying.

Second, Stevens repeats the idea that some of our arguments and findings are not worth the investment of public dollars because they are "re-representing journalistic observations through equations and not producing new knowledge."  Journalists often get it right, but they often ascribe to events dynamics that are perhaps less than crucial.  For instance, heaps of coverage of political debates but most social science find these to be of marginal influence.  Newspapers report all kinds of stuff and some of our findings concur with the banal, everyday understandings.  But our work also (a) disagrees with much that is asserted in newspapers (see the hardly conservative views of media coverage by Chis & Will Call 'em Out); (b) covers stuff that media does not assert; and (c) adjudicates between the conflicting conventional wisdoms in the news media.  Since when have we seen security dilemmas raised in newspapers as the causes of arms races?  Speaking more closely to Stevens' area of interest: conventional newspaper accounts usually use ancient hatreds--that ethnic groups hate each other--as a central explanation of any civil war.  Does that mean we should ignore studies that show identity to be more complex than that?  I get back to identity further below.

Moving, Electronically

I have a new profile page on the web.  My next step is building my own webpage with docs, links, etc.  If only I had a graphics designer gene buried somewhere.

Best Names for Voter Restriction Efforts

The New York Times has an editorial today entitled "Killing a Fly with a Bazooka" about the efforts by Republicans to "tilt the playing field."  I am now having a contest here at the Spew for the best names for this effort.  I don't think Voter Suppression is good enough.  Here are my suggestions:

• Voter Fraud Fraud
• The Disenfranchise Movement
• Repealing the Voting Rights Act One State at a Time
• Election Wars Six: Revenge of the GOP
• White Man Can't Jump 2: Tilting the Basketball Court

I prefer the first two (easiest acronyms) but the third does have some charm.

What do you suggestion?  Or Prefer?

Cupcakes Uber Alles

If having a cupcake as part of my breakfast is wrong, I don't want to be right:

And, yes, I got the snitch!  Thanks to all of my well-wishers!

When UnOriginal Movies Are Really Unoriginal

My wife and I watched Real Steel the other night (it is on the Canadian movie channel his week), and it was striking how some of the fight sequences seemed to be shot for shot like those in Rocky, especially Rocky 3.  The big bad at the end was clearly Mr T's Clubber Lang.  Anyhow, I thought of that when I saw this (spoiler below the break):

Olympic Inspiration or Why Some Greeks Think I Am a Wanker

I was not watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games, but was watching the twitter snarkery when the topic of FYROM came up.  I guess Macedonia marched along with Fiji and France rather than with Manitoba (kidding).  Why?  Because Greece has obsessively blocked Macedonia's entrance into international organizations under its preferred name.  So FYROM--Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the default until this is resolved. 

What did I tweet that angered the Greeks (well, the ones I angered anyway) on twitter:

Screw that, make the Greeks give up their name as part of debt deal MT @jilliancyork: Poor Macedonia (I mean FYROM).Just change your name
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) July 27, 2012

The Greeks will say that the name Macedonia poses an irredentist threat to Greece--that Macedonia would claim northern parts of Greece.  Who am I to question that?

Well, I wrote the book on irredentism.  Okay, I co-wrote the book on irredentism.  Ok, ok, I co-wrote a book on irredentism.  Anyhow, yes, there are folks in Macedonia who have irredentist ambitions, but these folks are not a powerful force.  More importantly, Greece is a much more powerful country--militarily, economically, politically--so there is really no threat at all of Macedonia taking over hunks of Greece to create a Greater Macedonia.  No, Macedonia is actually threatened by irredentism--the brief skirmish that NATO ended in 2001 was part of a Greater Albania project.  Actually, aside from Turkey (which is a big aside), the biggest irredentist threat in the neighborhood is ... Greece.  Greece's involvement in Cyprus has often been a bit questionable, and Greece has played politics with the Albanian Orthodox Church to get folks in there that support giving up hunks of Albania to Greece.

To be clear, I am not saying that I am in love with the government of Macedonia, which has often been flawed.  What I am saying is that Macedonia does not present a real security threat to Greece.  Instead, it provides an opportunity for politicians to take nationalist stances--that the politician who lets Macedonia enter an international organization as Macedonia will be accused of betrayal.  I compared this outbidding dynamic of a largely substance-less issue to be akin to the silliness of American politicians comparing flag pins that they now must wear or else be accused of being not sufficiently American or patriotic of whatever.  The difference is that the flag pin competition has not had any real impact, whereas keeping Macedonia out of organizations has hurt its economy and perhaps been damaging politically.  Rather than focusing on the substantial issues of the day, Macedonian politicians can focus on the name game, too. 

Indeed, as I have mentioned before, these nationalist games are handy distractions from good governance.  How has Greece's government performed during the era of FYROM/the "threat" of Macedonian irredentism?  Not so good.

As a result, I got called a name that apparently means wanker in Greek.  It does not bother me at all--I might even be a bit proud today.  Antagonizing nationalists around the world? Not a bad slogan.  Not quite as good as "danger is my middle name." 

Anyhow, what an appropriate way to kick off the Olympics, which is one of the many great presents Greece has given the planet (democracy, philosophy, Oedipus jokes, and tzatziki are a few others).   Enjoy the games!

Friday Nerd Blogging: Check It Ooot!

My latest contribution to Friday Nerd Blogging at Duck of Minerva is more than just the standard youtube video or three.  It reviews an excellent book, Redshirts, that has changed my perspective as I partake of fiction now.   Check it out.

Romney Doesn't Know!

Hearing today about Romney's poor start to his Eurotrip reminded me of another poor start to a Eurotrip (NSFW for language):


To be clear, this was supposed to be the easiest part of the trip: they speak the same language (more or less), the Conservative Party is in power.  Just don't kiss the Queen, slap her back or mention that you have met with the head of MI-6.  Ooops! I just wonder how Romney will mess up in subsequent stops, like will over-pandering to Israel and by proxy to evangelical Christians make him seem just a bit whacko?  Or just out of touch? 

Of course, the question really is this: will Romney play the criticisms here to his base like he did for his NAACP trip?  That is, unpopularity in Europe is a sign of righteousness, just as not pandering to African-Americans at the NAACP meeting is a way to play to the whites in the GOP base--that is the entire base.

I don't know.  But I am pretty sure that Romney doesn't know, Romney doesn't know, and so on.

Accountability, Eh?

For the past couple of years, I have had much fun going back and forth with Phil Lagassé, an expert on Canadian defence institutions, about how accountability works up here.  I have been asserting that there is no parliamentary oversight over the Canadian Forces, and his rejoinder is that oversight is a ministerial responsibility, and it is the job of parliament to oversee the Minister of National Defence.  

Which means I am right--no parliamentary oversight over the military.  But when the Minister, um, underperforms, and parliament does not do much about it, it raises questions about this whole process (process, by the way, is the dead giveaway when you are talking to someone--Americans say pra-sess, Canadians say pro-sess).   

Just in the past couple of days, we have had a series of stories about Canadian civil-military relations that remind us that this stuff is really hard.  One story focuses on Libya: that the Minister, Peter MacKay, either didn't know what he was talking about or lied when the question of costs came up.  In the new story, one of the papers got the emails where the military folks were pondering how to react to MacKay's announcement that the mission cost half as much as it really did and that he didn't get any different info from the Canadian Forces even though the Canadian Forces, via General Jon Vance said it indeed did tell the Minister about the costs.  So, was the General wrong, that they told the Minister the wrong info?  Not clear but the exchange is:

Cyr said finance officials were working to confirm what MacKay knew, but "bottom line is that if MND says he did not know, then he did not know."
"If I was wrong I'll certainly own up to it," Vance replied.
"Not suggesting you are or were wrong," Cyr answered in the last email of the chain. "A political truth can sometimes be different."

 Ah, truthiness with a hint of maple flavor.

The second recent story is that DND is cutting the program whereby the CF takes members of parliament on rides--airborne or otherwise--to demonstrate their programs.  This is in reaction to another MacKay mistake--using CF helo on a vacation trip.  Folks in DND got the CF to find information about opposition critics using CF for transport in order to silence the criticism, but these other trips were well within the parameters of educating members of parliament about weapons systems and not about convenient vacation rides.  I engaged with Phil at the time about how questionable it was for the CF to either be compelled to or be enthusiastic about digging through the records to make the opposition look bad.  So, to protect itself, the CF is now out of this business.  Which means that members of parliament can be comfortable in their ignorance about how the military works.

Crisis or not, the system here seems broken.  Not to say that the American system where Congress actually does have a significant role is better or unbroken.  Just that the Canadian system seems broken.  The Minister of National Defence has been overseeing a series of train wrecks--the F35 purchase, truck bids that have to be cancelled, mistakes about the costs of Libya (still darned cheap for what they were trying to do), and so on.  MacKay, because he was leader of one of the major Conservative fractions in Canada before they united, is, dare I say it, bullet-proof.  Harper cannot get rid of him, and so he cannot really be held to account for whatever is going on at DND.  So, accountability at the ministry?  Not so much.  Parliamentary oversight over someone at DND?  Not so much.

The good news is that this will raise heaps of good questions for my first class at Carleton--Civil-Military Relations. 

Update:  See the comment thread as Phil was strawman-ed while out of town.  He responds in the comments and then I respond to him.  The important thing is this: I distracted him from his lovely vacation in France.  So, I win.

Science Fiction and Ethnic Identity

My latest post at Political Violence @ a Glance.  I compare an episode of Star Trek to one of Babylon 5 to show the evolution in how we think about ethnic identity.

Voter Fraud Fraud Illustrated

Check out this piece at Mother Jones.  It does a wonderful job of depressing me early in the morning--demonstrated that voter fraud legislation is awful, awful, awful.  I wrote about this only two weeks ago, but the stats at MJ pushed me to write again.  I cannot think of a more destructive, anti-American movement than this.  What about the presumption of innocence?  What about overcoming a past where Blacks were systematically denied the ability to vote? 

I am glad to see Doonsebury calling, pardon the phrase, a spade a spade:

The bird, of course, is Jim Crow.

Substitute? Hell, Yeah!

As the new kid in town, to play Ultimate, I have had to be a sub.  Teams tend to be short a few players in the dog days of summer as folks go on vacation holiday.  My first Monday in town I subbed for a fun team, and was quickly invited to join the team.

Tonight, after a month in town, I found myself subbing for a Wednesday night team, aiming not to mess things up.  Mostly, the hope for subs is that they do not screw things up.  They don't have to be major factors, but they need to not be major holes.  So, when I arrived and they said that they were talking about my filling in for fast players who can jump high, I knew they were joking--my bio sketch on the league website was pretty honest about my limitations.  After about five points in the game, my temp teammates were indicating that they might want me to stick around.  I was and am mighty pleased.

Why?  Because I am as or more insecure as the next person.  I have long enjoyed ultimate for two basic reasons: it is an inherently fun sport and it is something at which I have always been pretty good.  I am definitely not as good as I once was--I am slower, more easily injured, my defense is often fairly questionable, and I probably cannot throw the disk as far as I used to throw it.  On the other hand, I make fewer dumb choices with my throws (although I still make a few), I still don't drop the disk (although I could have grabbed one difficult pass tonight), and I see the field pretty well. 

My temporary team won, and I helped rather than hindered.  So, I will be invited back (insert Sally Field clip here), I am told.  Not just because they are desperate.  Even if I don't, this night of ultimate was more than I was expecting as I had not planned on playing tonight.  But when the chance arose, I grabbed it because more ultimate is more ultimate. 

So, here is the song of the night:

Reverse Gravitus

When advocates of a policy stance get riled, they put together a letter and then get a bunch of people to sign the letter to show how broad the support is, how wise the letter is given how smart and prestigious the signers are.  The whole idea of imprimatur is that adding big names to the letter makes the letter seem more legitimate.

So, this exemplar du jour raises a bunch of questions for me:

• How unaware are the organizers of the credibility black holes known as Doug Feith (seen by many as semi-responsible for many of the early horrible decisions/implementations of the Iraq war); L. Paul Bremer (whose Coalition Provisional Authority was better known as Can't Produce Anything but more insurgency by firing the Iraqi military) and Robert MacFarlane (Iran-Contra, anyone)?  What value do these guys add? Ok, what positive value do these guys add to such a letter?   Hey, we blew it the last time we were responsible for US policy in the Mideast but trust us now?  Oy freakin' vey!
• Perhaps the organizers are not clueless but powerless?  That Doug, Jerry and Bob (and yes, I am using over-familiarity with first names because I do have just a wee bit of contempt for these folks) found out about the letter, and the organizers did not have the heart or will to keep them out of the meeting/club/whatever. 
• Were any of the signers of this letter advocating safe zones alive and awake in 1994-95?  Srebrenica mean anything to them?
• Are they unfamiliar with the fact that the US is already way over the war cap?  Hey, if they want a war, could they please tell us all how the US should pay for it?  The days of freebie wars are long gone.  

Syria is a hard problem with many complicating dynamics--Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, chemical weapons, Russia, and so on.  But thinking about complicated stuff is not the strength of some of these signers.  Saddam Hussein is dead, so Iraq was a success and that is the end of it.

Would I like to see the US intervene to stop the Syrians from shedding heaps of blood?  Hell, yes.  But wishing and wanting are not = good policy.  What the US can do and what we want it to do are two different things.  Until the advocates of a more aggressive effort can tell us how to pay for the effort, how to manage the post-Assad situation and so on, I will simply make fun of them for including such profound foreign policy failures on their list of august advocates of aggression.

Overthinking the Cupcake

Halloween Cupcake at Busch Gardens!

This piece applies a heap of pop social science to the cupcake phenomenon.  I, too, have pondered how can such a frivolous enterprise, a cupcake store, stay in business.  But then I realized: Cinnabon.  Talk about food that is indulgent yet popular.

So, I have a different theory about cupcakes that requires no social science at all: when done right, they are darned tasty.  Indeed, Magnolia's in NYC is just a semi-religious experience as the food (cupcakes and cookies) are just super-tasty.  Perhaps cupcakes also have special status because they remind us of being a kid--getting the frosting all over our face as we eat the sweet goodness.

All I know is that my birthday is approaching and all I want for that day, besides some beer and friendship, are some CUPCAKES!

Update: The funny thing is that today we learned that Cinnabon is the first American business to open up in Libya! So, sweet addiction to fat and sugar is hardly American.  Perhaps Magnolia will be next?

Quebec in the Rearview Mirror

When I lived in Montreal, I responded to the question about how I like it with this response:
"I love Montreal, I hate Quebec."  No, I don't hate all of Quebec, I just hate the entity that is the Quebec government and I hate the nationalist politics that produces policies such as this.  In short, if you call the provincial health care folks (and remember, despite talk about Canada's national health care program, the policies are provided/regulated/administrated by the provinces), you will have to wait quite a bit to be told that you can press 9 for English.  Then once you do that, someone at the health ministry will assess whether you can speak French enough to keep the conversation in French.

What utter bullshit!  There are areas where the stakes are high enough that we ought to be trying to minimize confusion.  For instance, one time I was stopped for speeding, the officer started in French, and I asked if he could speak English.  I didn't want to make a mistake with an officer of the law.  He replied, "I don't have to" and then proceeded to speak perfectly fine English with me.  Health care is a similarly high stakes enterprise.  If you make a mistake there, someone could literally die.  One could speak good French (not me) and still not master the words associated with advanced health care problems.

In my time in Quebec, I did note that nationalists were upset that one could dial 9 for English.  Note, not 2, not 1 but 9.  I understood why the default would be French and not English (never dial 2 for French), but to deny people the chance to get information in English?  Well, I guess their preference of pushing the Anglophones out is now a policy at the health care ministry.

The funny thing is this is under a Liberal, federalist government that is the only haven for Anglophone votes.  Ah, there is the rub: the Anglophones have few choices, so the provincial Liberals sell them out on a regular basis. 

The reality is that Quebec is always willing to be bilingual--when it is taking your money.  The tax agency, the parking tickets, and such always have been very accommodating to those who are not fluent in French.  But Quebec, I found, to be almost always monolingual when it came to giving out money: grant agencies to be an obvious case.

I didn't move to Ottawa just to escape Quebec, but it certainly played a role.  We are loving Ottawa and Ontario.  The few government folks (motor vehicle, schools) have been very customer service-oriented.  Nice change of pace even if finding a doctor turns out to be a Canadian challenge, not just a Quebec one.

Contrary Man

CIC has had a series on duplicity in IR.  I posted last week a column focusing on where duplicity and confusion are not always the same thing.  This week, I go uber-contrary by talking not about the myths of IR but the enduring realities.  Check it out.

When Hollywood Produces Poor Strategy

Spoilers below as I ponder Dark Knight Rises:

When Militaries Are More Careful Than Cvilians

Sometimes civilians do heaps of PR harm to the military.  In today's exemplar, journalists and legislators are both making the Canadian Forces and Canada by extension appear as deviants from international law.  The piece takes Canada to task for the legislation that ratifies and implements the international treaty on Cluster Bombs. 

The legislation apparently has loopholes written to facilitate Canadian interoperability with those who still use cluster bombs (the US).  The two key holes* are: Canadian commanders ordering personnel from non-signatory countries to use them and secondment issues.

* The other exceptions reflect other issues.  Investment in companies that make cluster bombs is almost certainly not an issue raised by DND but by other folks in the government.  Transit through Canadian territory is probably something that DND does care about--that American planes overfly Canada all the time, and Canada is not interesting in telling the Americans to fly around Canada when CBs are on board.

Regarding the former: when Canadian commanders go into the field, they take with them a letter of intent from above them in the chain of command (CEFCOM until the new institution kicks into gear, Deputy Chief of Defence before CEFCOM existed).  This letter tells the commander going into the field what he/she can and cannot do.  I gained via Access of Information request (akin to Freedom of Information request) several of these letters.  The earlier ones made it clear that Canadians could not use landmines or ask contingents from other countries working under them to deploy landmines.  The more recent ones use very similar language about cluster bombs--that Canadian officers could not ask other countries to use cluster bombs for them.  So, the reality is that the CF is already abiding by the treaty even before it becomes ratified. While these letters can be revised or changed by another order, this is unlikely given that these letters are vetted/written in part by the military's lawyers. 
It is not clear why the Conservative government is providing a loophole that the military is unlikely to ever use.  The disgruntled Foreign Affairs personnel blames a split between Foreign Affairs and DND, but I am confused as to whether and why the CF would want an exception about condoning the use by others given past behavior. 

Regarding the latter: when Canada sends its personnel to work in another country's military, it is hard but not impossible to impose upon them restrictions such as no cluster bomb use.  The idea of these "secondments" is for the officers to be treated as one of the receiving country's personnel so that they can learn how that country operates and can fulfill the functions of the billet (the position) they serve.  Canada lost heaps of cred when it pulled its personnel out of British ships during the Falklands War as the Brits then had to find personnel from elsewhere to staff these positions.  The seconded officers are not just sitting around watching but filling real jobs.  So, putting limitations on them that would make them not as useful as the regular officers cuts into the program of military exchanges.
However, it is not impossible.  When I was at the fighter base in Bagotville in June of 2011, I bumped into a British fighter pilot who had served with the Canadians in the skies over Libya. In our short conversation, it became clear that his rules were not identical to the Canadian ones and that British officers were keeping an eye on him to help him finesse the differences.
Still, I do understand why the CF and DND would want a secondment exception.  In my humble opinion, I do not think this is such a travesty.  


What all this demonstrates really are two things: the intent of the CF to respect international law; and the ignorance that the civilians seem to have about the Canadian military.  It is not clear why the Conservatives felt a need to carve out such exceptions especially since the US works with plenty of countries that have restrictions inspired by the cluster bomb treaty and that are pretty similar if not identical to those produced by the landmine treaty.

Oh, and a third thing: it would have been nice if the author of this article had talked to someone familiar with the CF, rather than just human rights advocates and one government spokesman.  How about interviewing a Judge Advocate General type (a military lawyer)?  Why not take a look at the orders given to the commanders in the field?  The way Access of Information requests work is once they give documents to the person requesting them, the docs are made public.  So, my asking for letters of intent given to Canadian commanders over the past ten years (I have several but not all, and they are at work, not at home) means that any journalist could find these docs if they looked for them.

Of course, I am not an expert on international law, but then again, it would have been swell if the writer had consulted one.

Fixing the Tail

The challenge we often face is how to deal with very aberrant behavior.  The reality of the late 20th and early 21st century is that technology has given individuals far more ability to impact others than in the past (although these sprees are actually in decline).  I am, of course, speaking of Aurora. 

I don't know anything about the perpetrator except that we will find him to be insane.  By society's definition, anyone who shoots up a theater full of people is crazy.  I tend to see this and other kinds of situations as represented by a bell curve--that our policies and our social science can address people who are in the big middle of the curve, but it is hard/impossible to design policies that hit people who are outside the 95% or outside the 99%. 

There seem to be two obvious approaches: improve our mental health care "system" and reduce the damage that such flawed people can do.  If we can get people who have significant mental problems the help they need, this would reduce (although not eliminate) the number of situations like these.  I am not sure how the new health care legislation will affect the provision of mental health care, but I am hoping that events like this might lead people to consider more investment in this side of health care.  Not just to prevent mass murder but to help those who are having problems. 

The second strategy, which is politically unlikely, is to reduce the damage a damaged person can do.  By this, I mean, of course, gun control.  No, we cannot eliminate guns, but it would seem to me that we ought to be able to limit guns that are designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly.  I understand that the 2nd amendment is aimed at providing civilians with the ability to counter-act a repressive state, but if assault rifles are justified by the second amendment then so are mortars, anti-aircraft weapons, landmines, armored vehicles and so on.  While I would love to see really significant gun control, I understand it is not going to happen.  I have lowered my sites (pun intended) to focus just on reducing the speed at which one can fire bullets.  If all you have are guns that can shoot six bullets, then you can only hurt six people at a time.  I am just thinking of reducing, not eliminating, the damage any deranged person can do.

Of course, the guns and their 30 bullet magazines are out there, and no gun control measure will eliminate those.  But it would be nice if we could make it harder, rather than easier, to kill and injure dozens of people in a few minutes, wouldn't it?

We cannot eliminate the tails under any bell curve, but we can do more to help those on the margins and we can do more to limit the damage done by those who slip past.  Or not.

Driving into the Past

Spent today driving to and from Quebec to pick up daughter in between sessions at summer camp.  Had serious deja vu, so I thought my readers should as well: the joy of QC infrastructure.

The Lego Wire

Best part of the 21st century: people can do heaps of fun stuff to make video shorts.  This one is a Lego version of The Wire.

Just too good.