You Can't Get Everything You Want

You cannot make everyone happy.  The decision to try those behind 9/11 has provoked the usual controversy with the NYT focused on how the families of the victims feel.  Some families are pleased and some are upset.  Of course, when making decisions about who to try and how, prosecutors should not care that much about the opinions of the families of the victims if one has a Justice system in place.  What is justice?  This is a difficult question that political theorists ponder all the time in their best efforts to confuse everyone else.  I am pretty sure that revenge is not the defining component, so the families' feelings are not so integral to the process.


While this is a predictable angle the NYT can choose to take, it really does not illuminate much at all.  The other articles about this decision are better at revealing the legal complexities and political tradeoffs.  Once again, thanks to the issues in play and the decisions made by his predecessor, Obama faces few good alternatives and mostly picking the best of a bad set of alternatives.

The Next Big Tragedy: Eggo Shortage

Flooding at one factory and repairs to another have endangered the world's supply of Eggos (hat tip to Dan Drezner and his tweet on this). Who now will leggo their eggo during an eggo famine?

This, of course, raises the question of what other kinds of calamities might cause panic in the streets?

• A tragic popper explosion at the Corn Pops plant leads to a gap in the supply of Corn Pops.
• Mudslides destroy the tart crop, leading to a shortage of Poptarts  [note: the poptarts website has two choices--kids or parents.  The kids' site is broken, and the one for parents has the following web address: http://www.poptarts.com/moms/#/section.  That's correct.  Sexism in the morning food business!!]
• The news gets out that the Frosting on the Frosted Flakes is actually from the bone shavings from endangered tigers. 
• The news gets out that Twinkies are actually made from tofu, organic honey, and love. 
  

As always, stock up on these key necessities and put into your shelter along with the usual Zombie survival supplies--for more info, check out: http://www.zombiesurvivalwiki.com/

Live, but Not Now

I have been doing a fair amount of TV over the past few years as Canada's effort in Afghanistan gains and loses attention.  I just found a clip of my most recent appearance.  It is not the worst job I have done (although I need to start using something to get my hair in order and perhaps look more at the top of the camera). 

In this appearance, just before the second election in Afghanistan was scrapped, I actually had a consistent message--building institutions requires following the rules even when they lead to predictable and/or undesired outcomes, rather than betting on personalities.  I also predicted that Obama would send more troops to Afghanistan--near if not at McChrystal's total, but the wait for that decision goes on. 

Anyhow, any suggestions on improving my media effort, let me know (including if you think I should drop it entirely).

Some Perspective on Afghanistan

Check out the trends at icasualties.org.

Such as this one:

 
This goes a long way towards explaining Obama's need to take time to make the decision.  It also suggests a change in strategy is due.  However, body counts are not necessarily good guides to anything other than the human and political costs, because one may be facing a tougher situation precisely because the troops are more engaged and there are more of them. 

This is from Der Spiegel, and shows that ISAF is significantly larger than it was before.  We should expect to see more casualties as the number of encounters with the enemy increase, as driven by the number of troops on the ground.  One could also read this correlation as increased intolerance of foreigners, but I do not think the public opinion surveys really demonstrate this.  This outcome is almost certainly driven by the logic of numbers in a counter-insurgency campaign--a more serious and active campaign will face more risks. 

The question at the end of the day is whether these efforts are leading towards anything. 

Change in Local Plans: Saideman Spews Live

The speaker for the Research Group on International Security [REGIS/GERSI] Workshop in International Security had to drop out due to flu, so I am going to pinch-hit:

"Fighting Together, Fighting Alone: NATO in Afghanistan"

Steve Saideman

15h30-17h30

Leacock Building LEA 429

I will be presenting our (David Auerwald and I) findings from the research we conducted last summer in Europe and prior to that in Canada and the US.  I think this project is interesting and worth your time ;)

Annoying TV Trend

TV shows have become incredibly lazy lately as they increasingly depend on music and montages at the beginning or end of the show to convey lots of messages without dialogue.  It has become quite annoying.  Done once in a while is ok, but all the time it is a crutch for limited writers.  Mad men has done it a few times, but Flashforward seems to end with such music/montages.  The only good news is that it reminds me of a South Park scene:

Timing is What? Everything?

There is an old saying about comedy--that it is about .... timing.  And the same is clearly true about poker, given the results of this past weekend's World Series of Poker final table, where the timing of events (and position around the table, which affects when one makes decisions) greatly shaped the outcomes. 

Joe Cada, the youngest to ever win the main event, was only around to catch a third two to beat two jacks and a third three to beat two queens, because of the following hand:

• He pushed all in with j-4 because he was down to 2 million chips (less than 1% at the total at the table).
• Another player called with 5-4 since he already had some chips in the middle (antes and blinds) so it was not costing him much to call and it was unlikely that he was dominated (that Cada had either a four or a five and a higher card).
• A third player could have gone in with a6 but the second player served to deter him since he had already lost a fair amount of chips to the second player.
• If the third player had called, he would have won and Cada would have been out.  But he didn't, so Cada doubled up on that hand and then several others, mostly going all in with weaker hands and catching cards.

So, it is about timing.  Gladwell (whose latest book I will review once I finish) points out in Outliers that luck has a great deal to do with success--that being born at the right time matters a great deal.  One still has to put in the reps (repetitions--work) to get excellent at one's profession, but having good timing as well. 

Well, in the academic world, timing matters a great deal.  Being a great Sovietologist was a great thing until 1989.  Studying corruption or counter-insurgency was a wise investment but only in the 2000's.   Likewise, job success depends on timing.  I graduated during the previous recession, and that led to many years at a less than preferred destination.  These days, there are lots of great, accomplished, skilled, creative folks on the academic job market but few jobs.   

The problem of merit pay is similar.   At most institutions, academics are evaluated by their yearly production and then given whatever share they deserve of that year's merit pool.  But one's work does not flow in a relatively fluid, evenly distributed manner.  So, one can have a great year or two of publishing and other output (service, teaching awards, whatever) but have that happen in years with little or any merit increases.  One can have poor years during years of abundant merit pay.  You can guess how I feel about timing right now.

Google This, Dude! Follow-Up

Last week, I discussed a slate article on google's filling in the search tendencies.  Well, Slate had a contest and here are the top five searches.

My reactions:

1. Borax is quite useful but not so easy to find, so I am not surprised it appears on #5.  And obsession with Erin Andrews is a well-known internet syndrome.
2. Watching free movies and especially True Blood seem to be popular.  I have not yet succumbed to the temptation to engage in piracy despite my frustrations with Canadian broadcasting or non-broadcasting of American stuff (ESPN's 30 for 30 comes to mind).
3. Mis-spelling Def Leopard is not a problem.
4. "How Can I Destroy ..." the World, my jeans, a website???  Oh my!
5. The 2nd place finisher illustrated the difference between "how can a person" vs "how can a human" with the latter more focused on .... inter-species reproduction???
6. First place juxtaposes: "is it wrong to" with "is it unethical to."  "Is it wrong to" is completed mostly by questions about "relations" with kinfolk. Oh my.  

Interesting stuff.  I wonder if the answers change over time as this kind of survey changes what people search for, leading to new answers?

Bulgaria: Poster Child for Empty Promises?

“Everything in Bulgaria looks fine formally: the free market, human rights, free speech, the multiparty political system, membership in E.U. and NATO,” Mr. Sugarev said. “But that’s only a facade. Behind it there is nothing.”  NYT

In Kin or Country (see pic on right-hand side of this blog), Bill Ayres and I argue that the membership processes of NATO and the EU were not as influential as often averred.  So, I have mixed feelings to see Bulgaria lagging behind: I am not surprised that we were right, but it is because Bulgarians are doing poorly.  On the other hand, whether we are right or wrong is immaterial to the lives of Bulgarians, so I guess I should not feel much guilt about being happy we have been correct.

Ah, the world is a complex place.  But it is generally safer to underestimate the transformative power of international organizations than to overestimate. 

On another European story, I am not going to link my blog to an article by Robert Kaplan that says that Europe is, in many ways, worse off after the Cold War because it is not united in some grand mission.  I may not be entirely right about Kaplan's assertions, but the general thrust makes reading the argument more closely a waste of time.

Decision Point Arriving

The latest news is that Obama is looking at four options (although one is a mystery) for the big decision in Afghanistan.  His greatest concern is about the partner on the ground.

Officials said that although the president had no doubt about what large numbers of United States troops could achieve on their own in Afghanistan, he repeatedly asked questions during recent meetings on Afghanistan about whether a sizable American force might undercut the urgency of the preparations of the Afghan forces who are learning to stand up on their own.“He’s simply not convinced yet that you can do a lasting counterinsurgency strategy if there is no one to hand it off to,” one participant said.

What kind of President is this?  Asking about the long term?  Thinking about the consequences?  I have not begrudged him the time it has taken for Obama to reach the decision.  Indeed, it provided some leverage over Karzai, although perhaps not enough, over the election wrangling.  I do think that coming close to McChrystal's recommendations is inevitable--both because the situation on the ground requires a better effort and to deflect domestic criticism.  If Afghanistan does not stop sliding in a year or two, then Obama will be in a better position to say that he supported the US military and its advice but the situation is untenable.

Of course, today, on Rememberance Day (as it is known in Canada) or Veterans' Day  (US), we ask is it worth one more American life?  One more Canadian?  Canadians are loathe to admit that they are valuing the lives of their citizens over Afghans.  Americans are more comfortable with that.  If it is all about lives, then sticking around and reinforcing makes sense, as a population centric strategy should both reduce the threat posed by the Taliban to the people of Afghanistan and reduce the likelihood of collateral damage in the long run as the outsiders develop better intel, can react more flexibly, and are better trained to fight tomorrow rather than today if there is a big risk of hurting civilians.

Rememberance Day/Veterans Day Thoughts

In light of recent and on-going events, a few things struck me as we remember the sacrifices made by previous and current generations of military folks:

• The improved technology of medicine means that many soldiers are surviving incredibly debilitating wounds.  There is much good news in this, but we tend to forget how many lives are irrevocably harmed by war because we focus on deaths and not other casualties.
• For instance, the largest cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (to outsiders, that is) will be the next fifty years of disability payments and medical care.
• Also, the media only counts deaths, which both under-counts the sacrifices being made and perhaps distorts the operations on the ground, as contingents may operate only close to base to minimize deaths but not casualties.  
• There will be talk of "war no more" but we can use a variety of IR theories to argue that war will be with us for quite some time to come.
• Structural Realism focuses on the absence of hierarchy in international relations--that anarchy (absence of government) serves as a permissive condition that allows war to take place, and that causes competition and insecurity that make war more likely.
• Liberalism focuses on the patterns of interest.  While one can hope for a harmony of interests among everyone, the reality is that there will always be conflicts of interest, including some worth fighting for.
• Constructivism has many different approaches, but will war be seen as unthinkable and entirely inappropriate down the road, like piracy or slavery?  Ooops, both of those still exist.  Plus there is always competition among different values and norms, so that we face important value conflicts between peace and justice.
• Then we can move to those arguments focused on individual cognition--that we always make mistakes about others' intentions and capabilities and even more perhaps about our own intentions and capabilities (and yet more about what everyone's allies are going to do).
• And onto domestic politics, where politicians usually have incentives that point them towards the short-term, which can often lead to destructive behavior.

While we will mourn the costs of war today as it marks the end of "The War to End War," one of things we need to mourn are the casualties to come.

Teaching the Comparative Method to Kids

In honor of the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, I embed below the bit I remember the most and perhaps shaped me into the political scientist I am today:

Just Like Zombies

The Nazis are Back.  This should not be terribly surprising.  With a bad economy, a Black President, and the Democrats in power, this was inevitable.  The truly disturbing part is that the differences between these guys and the stuff coming out of the right-wing of the Republicans are fewer and fewer.

The Blues Brothers, of course, had the best take on this:



Plus a link to a non-embeddable clip.

Nothing for Something (cont)

I posted a day or two ago about the real money for virtual money industry.  I was puzzled.  Not by the sellers but by the consumers.  Well, now the sellers look far worse.  The CEO Zynga, one of the big ones on facebook, readily admits that they built the business in the early days with some very nasty tactics:

I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away. I mean we gave our users poker chips if they downloaded this zwinky toolbar which was like, I dont know, I downloaded it once and couldn't get rid of it.

So, I just un-installed Mafia Wars even though I didn't buy any of their points.  And I will be dumping a few of the other similar types of games as a result over the next few weeks.  Too bad, as the games did create a few friendships and did help me connect with old friends. 

Mad? No, I am Delighted! [updated]

I have been a day behind in my watching of Mad Men, thanks to my residence in Canada (we get most American TV but with a few annoying anomalies).  So,  I finished watching the season finale, and was most pleased.

For more, see below the break (thankfully blogger now makes that easier for me) since I will spoil like mad:

Movember: Mustaches Uber Cancer

One of my teaching assistants, F.X., has asked for my help, as he is participating in an effort to raise money to fight prostate cancer.  The idea is to get people to pay him and his teammates to grow mustaches in November.  I, of course, agreed to help as any effort that draws attention to facial hair is worthwhile.

So, I have challenged my students in my big class--if they give $600 (an average of a dollar a student) to F.X., then I will shave my beard into the shape of their favorite mustache (with a caveat or two). 

If you are interested in joining the cause, you can email me (steve dot saideman at mcgill dot ca), and I can put you in touch with F.X. 

H1N1 Vaccinations--Barometers of Status?

In the US, Goldman-Sachs gets more bad press (I guess they believe that even bad publicity is better than no publicity?!) for getting vaccinations against h1n1 before their time.  In Canada, the Calgary Flames (a hockey team for the ignorant Americans) got their shots ahead of schedule.

Does this reflect a deep cultural divide?  Sort of.  In Montreal, those donating to Montreal Jewish General got shots ahead of schedule as well, so in either country, money talks. 

I do thing that times of crisis can be quite revealing.  I guess the pandemic of h1n1 counts (at least if one counts how many extensions I gave on a paper this week for my large Intro to IR class).  And we are seeing some great behavior and some awful behavior. 

For a mix of the two: in Montreal, the latest news is that there is effort to deploy retired nurses to help out with shots and care, I think on a volunteer basis.  Very clever idea.  However, these nurses may have to pay $300 per nurse to pay the fee of the nurses' association (union).  Also very clever, but not very productive from the standpoint of what is good for society. 

Poppies Continued

The wearing of poppies by Canadians has become so de rigeur that this weekend's paper had a picture of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, wearing one.  This is striking as there were riots in Quebec during the World War I over conscription, which led to a very different kind of personnel policy for Quebec in World War II.  Yes, indeed, Quebecers did lose their lives in those wars and the on-going campaign in Afghanistan, but the BQ is a separatist party seeking independence for Quebec, and the casualties are suffered by the CANADIAN Forces.  When the 22nd (Van Doos) regiment from Quebec first went to Afghanistan, there was some discussion about whether Quebec should have a say in this by the less well-informed.  I was tempted to remind folks that these soldiers joined the CANADIAN Forces, not the Quebec Forces. 

I guess I have been here too long.  I have the same kind of reaction when anyone talks about the Confederate Army in proud terms.  I see the South in the US Civil War as, well, traitors, deserving very little in the way of praise, and the symbols about them to be offensive. 

I guess I should just see the BQ poppy-wearers as being good human beings, who remember those who have lost lives in past wars.  But I think I am too cynical.

Berlin and All That

After visiting Berlin for the first time this summer (you can see a number of my posts from that trip), I read the NY Times coverage of the anniversary of the wall falling with great interest.  A number of articles around the web have noted that the actual day's events that led to the fall of the wall were a series of accidents, misunderstandings and poor communication.

There is, of course, a deep divide between folks who argue that deeper structural dynamics drive events or the quirks of personalities and accidents of history make the difference. While it is clearer now that poor communication and such produced the focal point in time and space, the fact that large numbers of people rallied to the wall and the gates suggests something more than an accident.  But I am not an expert on intra-German politics.  A year in the Pentagon did teach me that personalities and arcane procedures do matter, more than I wanted to believe.

Either way, these stories are quite intriguing.  And the NY Times story linked above largely asserts reunification worked pretty well, especially given how different the two parts of Germany were economically.  So, perhaps we ought not jump all over Germany for the restrictions on their forces in Afghanistan.

And it is fun to remember people's fears in 1989:

The reality of Germany today makes it difficult to remember the immediate concerns in Europe after the wall fell. Leaders like President François Mitterrand of France and, in particular, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain, worried aloud that a reunified Germany was likely to drift away from the NATO alliance and the structures of the European Union and at worst might return to the path of extreme nationalism.

See Fred Kaplan on why Berlin mattered.

Political Scientists Go Wild!

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita has written a book for the masses, taking what he has been arguing in Poli Sci journals and using as a consultant and putting it out there.  His book is reviewed in today's NY Times.

“Game theory,” Bueno de Mesquita writes, “urges us to take a cold, hard look at what it means to be a calculating, rational decision maker.”And he lives up to his word. Mother Teresa did nice things, sure. But she was awfully public about those good deeds, and she appears to have been seeking fame and reward, either in this life or the next. “Could it be that Mother Teresa’s ambition for herself was tied to her faith in an eternal reward?” Bueno de Mesquita writes. “It makes sense to pay the price of sacrifice for the short, finite time of a life span if the consequence is a reward that goes on for infinity in heaven. In fact, isn’t that exactly the explanation many of us give for the actions of suicide bombers, dying in their own prideful eyes as martyrs who will be rewarded for all eternity in heaven?”  Yes, you read that correctly. On Page 15 of “The Predictioneer’s Game,” Bueno de Mesquita equates Mother Teresa with the likes of Mohamed Atta.

How do his simulations work?

His simulations rely on four factors: who has a stake; what each of these people wants; how much they care; and how much influence they have on others. He surveys experts on the topic, assigns numerical values to the four factors, plugs the data into a computer and waits for his software to spit out the future

So, I am always confused--is this really very impressive? Or is all the real work done by the experts--figuring out who matters, how much they care, how powerful they are?  This is the hard stuff of political science.  So, I guess the big magic is in getting the experts to code these things reliably so that the magic formula of combining the four factors works. 

All of these stories are fascinating. Every chapter in Bueno de Mesquita’s book contains something insightful about human behavior. But a question hovers over the text as he celebrates the brilliance of past predictions: Is this a bunch of baloney? Sure, he’s gotten stuff right. But should we really kick traditional experts outside and rely on the machines?

The reviewer misses the point as I suggested above--the machine relies on experts for the input.  Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.  Definitely a worthwhile read, but I have a few books in line ahead of this one. Let me know what you think.