In the best spirit of counter-insurgency, I am going to kick a particular can down the road. Rather than posting about the excerpts from the new hot book on Afghanistan by, I am going to wait to read the entire thing, and then probably produce an epic blogpost. The book is triggering much interest because it has reported interesting infighting in DC (no surprise), inter-service rivalry in Afghanistan (no surprise), and alliance tensions (no surprise).
The book will, if I am correct, do an excellent job of illustrating all of the dysfunctions that folks who have followed the war are pretty familiar with. Chandrasekaran's previous book, Imperial Life in an Emerald City, was infuriating because it made abundantly clear how bad the Iraq occupation was managed. This new book will probably show smarter and better trained people making mistakes and having a lot of conflict.
The only thing I really want to say now is that the framing is a bit off. If Holbrooke was completely empowered by the Obama White House, he still would not have been able to make a deal with the Taliban. Bosnia 1995 and Af-Pak 2009 are two different contexts with Serbia and Croatia ready for peace. Was Pakistan ready in 2009? Was the Taliban? What kind of deal would they have not only been willing to sign but actually to observe? Thus far, the Taliban record for keeping deals is pretty meager.
Anyhow, that is enough for now--I will read the book in July and post my reactions to the entire thing. I am sure that I will be appalled.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Defensive? But Of Course
My post yesterday on the NYT op-ed that, well, got much wrong about political science went pretty viral--hitting more than one thousand pageviews here and another near 1k over at the Duck. Pretty cool. Well, except that I would have preferred that Jacqueline Stevens had not published her piece in the NYT at all.
Anyhow, I got criticized in one or two places as being defensive. I don't mind getting criticized. Indeed, (a) it is a social science after all, which means people tell me that I am wrong all the time, and it is my job to try to persuade them otherwise; (b) I am attention hound and admitted narcissist so criticism = attention > being ignored.
My post was hardly perfect or complete. For instance, I only took issue with Stevens' depiction of positivist political science--I didn't try to defend post-positivist views. Why? I know what I am and I know what I am not. While I would and have supported the hiring of people who do political science in ways that I don't really think of as political science, I only do political science as I conceive of it--as the development of generalized understandings of how the political world works via development and testing of hypotheses with the aim to provide policy implications.
What I do want to take issue with today is something much sillier and yet much more common: the criticism that one is being defensive. I got that yesterday, and it does not hurt me. It just annoys me greatly. It always has annoyed me. Why? Because if one is attacked, one has two responses--ignore the attack or defend oneself. So, silence is certainly an option but not really a strength of mine. Also, silence is often confused with condoning the accusation. "If you didn't think it was right, why didn't you say anything?" If you say anything, you are being defensive. Damned if you, damned if you don't.
Of course, there is being defensive and there is being DEFENSIVE. I remember one of my first talks at a conference, I tried to reply to every single comment and criticism rather than just picking and choosing a few of the relevant/salient/useful/harmful. But the simple act of responding to riposte in one's direction to deflect the accusation and perhaps illuminate why the attack is flawed is defensive, right? Why is being defensive wrong? The answer: it is not. If someone tries to spread rumors about you, and you then broadcast your view of the truth, is that problematic? I think not.
The point of this particular Spew is just to suggest that if your best criticism is that someone is being "defensive," think again. There are better justifications for dismissing my arguments than that.
Anyhow, I got criticized in one or two places as being defensive. I don't mind getting criticized. Indeed, (a) it is a social science after all, which means people tell me that I am wrong all the time, and it is my job to try to persuade them otherwise; (b) I am attention hound and admitted narcissist so criticism = attention > being ignored.
My post was hardly perfect or complete. For instance, I only took issue with Stevens' depiction of positivist political science--I didn't try to defend post-positivist views. Why? I know what I am and I know what I am not. While I would and have supported the hiring of people who do political science in ways that I don't really think of as political science, I only do political science as I conceive of it--as the development of generalized understandings of how the political world works via development and testing of hypotheses with the aim to provide policy implications.
What I do want to take issue with today is something much sillier and yet much more common: the criticism that one is being defensive. I got that yesterday, and it does not hurt me. It just annoys me greatly. It always has annoyed me. Why? Because if one is attacked, one has two responses--ignore the attack or defend oneself. So, silence is certainly an option but not really a strength of mine. Also, silence is often confused with condoning the accusation. "If you didn't think it was right, why didn't you say anything?" If you say anything, you are being defensive. Damned if you, damned if you don't.
Of course, there is being defensive and there is being DEFENSIVE. I remember one of my first talks at a conference, I tried to reply to every single comment and criticism rather than just picking and choosing a few of the relevant/salient/useful/harmful. But the simple act of responding to riposte in one's direction to deflect the accusation and perhaps illuminate why the attack is flawed is defensive, right? Why is being defensive wrong? The answer: it is not. If someone tries to spread rumors about you, and you then broadcast your view of the truth, is that problematic? I think not.
The point of this particular Spew is just to suggest that if your best criticism is that someone is being "defensive," think again. There are better justifications for dismissing my arguments than that.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Moving Anxiety
As we wait for the movers to arrive to pack us up and then move us down the road, I cannot help but be a bit anxious. None of our moving experiences have been awful, but there have been some hiccups. Let's see if I can remember them all:
- East Coast to San Diego: Everything in or on my 1971 Buick Elektra. No real problems besides the joy of driving coast to coast in a car with no AC. We timed going through the Mojave at night, but it was so dark and we were so tired. The bumpy things on the edges of the highway were new to us and not that reassuring.
- San Diego to Vermont: The truck was late because they didn't turn off and ended up in Canada.
- Vermont to Texas: Late because the truck broke down and they didn't have any flashlights. This meant my pregnant wife was sleeping on the floor as we were too cheap/poor to stay in a hotel.
- Texas to Virginia: No problems as we had the Allied Master Mover, who was designated as such because he was always on time, had no complaints and such. He was fantastic.
- Virginia to Montreal: We had to go with the firm that McGill used. Ug. We loved our Allied experience but could not go back. McGill's moving policies were terrific otherwise. My wife and daughter got to spend several days in a Montreal hotel while I was in our furniture-less house with the dogs. The big complication was getting our Honda across the border since we owed money on this. But back to the movers, they had a truck that was juuuuust the right size. Nothing less assuring than having the mover say: do you really want those bookcases? Um, yes, we own them. And we own a lot of books, so he had to re-arrange to get the stuff in the truck.
Wish us luck!
Best Pop Culture Satire Ever
I should be doing moving stuff but this Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator is incredibly amusing (h/t https://twitter.com/JimmySky):
Self-Hating Political Scientist
I tried, I really tried, to ignore the screed at the NYT against political science (especially of the quant variety), but Jacqueline Stevens's rant is such a poor effort that I know it will be widely read and influential. Why? Because bad ideas often spread further and faster than good ones (see Clash of Civilizations).
There are so many things wrong with this piece that it is hard to know where to start. First, I am , of course, much of what this women hates about political science. I have actually worked not just with Department of Defense dollars but actually in the Pentagon and, dare I say it?, liked it. I have taken National Science Foundation [NSF] money--about $4,000. I have used .... data!
Ok, with that disclaimer aside, I guess the only way to address this piece is to go through it from the top.. Otherwise, I might write something as incoherent as Stevens's piece. Ok, one more disclaimer, I am mighty miffed to see a left-wing political scientist end up being a fellow traveler with the right-wing ones that are trying to de-fund NSF's political science program. I don't know this person as her work is in political theory, a subfield that I do not know well.
Stevens argues that "it's an open secret" that the creation of "contrived data sets" has failed to produce "accurate political predictions." Oh, really? Yes, anyone creating a data set understands that coding political behavior means making assessments and assumptions. But any other methodology that seeks to generalize about politics also has to make assessments and assumptions. So, quantitative work will vary, just as qualitative work will, in how well they are performed. Yes, there are alternatives to using the past in either slices of numbers or in case studies, such as experiments and surveys and game theory--but they will have the same problems. So, either we go ahead and try to test our hypotheses and figure out whether there are generalizable dynamics or we don't. If we don't, then we don't need federal grant money or any funding, as we can just think and write without doing the hard work of gathering data via coding or via interviews or whatever.
The second problem with this sentence is this: most of us do not aspire to provide accurate predictions of single events. Most of us seek to understand the causes of outcomes, which leads us t be able to predict that y is more likely or perhaps only possible if x is present (which she ultimately condemns in her conclusion). This can lead to predictions. Indeed, having more understanding should allow us to develop expectations. Having less understanding or no understanding is probably not the pathway to predicting anything.
There are so many things wrong with this piece that it is hard to know where to start. First, I am , of course, much of what this women hates about political science. I have actually worked not just with Department of Defense dollars but actually in the Pentagon and, dare I say it?, liked it. I have taken National Science Foundation [NSF] money--about $4,000. I have used .... data!
Ok, with that disclaimer aside, I guess the only way to address this piece is to go through it from the top.. Otherwise, I might write something as incoherent as Stevens's piece. Ok, one more disclaimer, I am mighty miffed to see a left-wing political scientist end up being a fellow traveler with the right-wing ones that are trying to de-fund NSF's political science program. I don't know this person as her work is in political theory, a subfield that I do not know well.
Stevens argues that "it's an open secret" that the creation of "contrived data sets" has failed to produce "accurate political predictions." Oh, really? Yes, anyone creating a data set understands that coding political behavior means making assessments and assumptions. But any other methodology that seeks to generalize about politics also has to make assessments and assumptions. So, quantitative work will vary, just as qualitative work will, in how well they are performed. Yes, there are alternatives to using the past in either slices of numbers or in case studies, such as experiments and surveys and game theory--but they will have the same problems. So, either we go ahead and try to test our hypotheses and figure out whether there are generalizable dynamics or we don't. If we don't, then we don't need federal grant money or any funding, as we can just think and write without doing the hard work of gathering data via coding or via interviews or whatever.
The second problem with this sentence is this: most of us do not aspire to provide accurate predictions of single events. Most of us seek to understand the causes of outcomes, which leads us t be able to predict that y is more likely or perhaps only possible if x is present (which she ultimately condemns in her conclusion). This can lead to predictions. Indeed, having more understanding should allow us to develop expectations. Having less understanding or no understanding is probably not the pathway to predicting anything.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Obvious Blogging Outage
For the next week, blogging, well by me anyway, will be intermittent as moving is commencing. So, unless I get more done to prep or inspiration drives my hands to fly across the keyboard, you can expect less Spew.
While I am busy supervising packers/movers and then driving to Ottawa and unpacking, you can post here suggestions for July Spew-age. Let me know what I miss while my head is buried in boxes and as my wifi is getting re-connected. Plus any advice on living in Ottawa (or frisbee teams that need an old/slow handler) is most welcome.
[I am realizing that google's purchase of youtube means that videos work better on Chrome these days than Firefox]
I will have some stuff auto-posting as I leave town. Anyhow, see you in the flipside.
While I am busy supervising packers/movers and then driving to Ottawa and unpacking, you can post here suggestions for July Spew-age. Let me know what I miss while my head is buried in boxes and as my wifi is getting re-connected. Plus any advice on living in Ottawa (or frisbee teams that need an old/slow handler) is most welcome.
[I am realizing that google's purchase of youtube means that videos work better on Chrome these days than Firefox]
I will have some stuff auto-posting as I leave town. Anyhow, see you in the flipside.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Artificial Deadlines: Not This Time
Brian Rathbun's post gets much right about how academics operate, especially the setting of artificial deadlines to motivate production. That he posted it the same day that (a) stop doing academic work so that I can get ready for the movers on Monday; and (b) that my co-author, Dave Auerswald, and I send our book manuscript out to our preferred press for their consideration seems most apt.
Yes, "NATO and Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone" is done. I fully expect both NATO and Afghanistan to cooperate and not change much while the book is under review. Both seemed agreeable. I always warn my students not to study a current event, as one might get hosed by changes in reality that upset one's conclusions. This is all driven by a friend's experience who was writing a research paper in college in the fall of 1986 arguing about how successful the US arms embargo was against Iran. And then Iran-Contra happened.
The way we dealt with this challenge was to focus on much but not all of the NATO experience in Afghanistan--from the start until early 2010. It has been the case that our predictions and explanations could cover the subsequent period, but revising on a daily basis did not make sense. Plus our interview were mostly prior to 2011. We did squeeze in a new chapter--Libya--as it started and ended in a time frame convenient for us, and covering the various actors all in one chapter did not require as much depth as covering a few of the actors (US, France, UK, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand) in Afghanistan with much greater depth.
As readers of this blog know, I loved the research for this effort and not just because of the tourism it facilitated. I not only have had a terrific co-author, but I met a bunch of smart, interesting, engaging people along the way--military officers, policy-makers, diplomats, experts, academics, journalists and others. Oh, and the beer was pretty terrific as well in all the places we visited. More acknowledgements will come--in the acknowledgements section of the book. The readers of my blog here and other places I post online have been helpful as well, pushing me to think more clearly, if not write more clearly.
Anyhow, the book is out of our hands now. Time to focus on moving, on the various responsibilities I have been putting off (setting up the Foreign Policy Analysis program for next year's ISA, among others), and start on the next book.
Yes, "NATO and Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone" is done. I fully expect both NATO and Afghanistan to cooperate and not change much while the book is under review. Both seemed agreeable. I always warn my students not to study a current event, as one might get hosed by changes in reality that upset one's conclusions. This is all driven by a friend's experience who was writing a research paper in college in the fall of 1986 arguing about how successful the US arms embargo was against Iran. And then Iran-Contra happened.
The way we dealt with this challenge was to focus on much but not all of the NATO experience in Afghanistan--from the start until early 2010. It has been the case that our predictions and explanations could cover the subsequent period, but revising on a daily basis did not make sense. Plus our interview were mostly prior to 2011. We did squeeze in a new chapter--Libya--as it started and ended in a time frame convenient for us, and covering the various actors all in one chapter did not require as much depth as covering a few of the actors (US, France, UK, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand) in Afghanistan with much greater depth.
As readers of this blog know, I loved the research for this effort and not just because of the tourism it facilitated. I not only have had a terrific co-author, but I met a bunch of smart, interesting, engaging people along the way--military officers, policy-makers, diplomats, experts, academics, journalists and others. Oh, and the beer was pretty terrific as well in all the places we visited. More acknowledgements will come--in the acknowledgements section of the book. The readers of my blog here and other places I post online have been helpful as well, pushing me to think more clearly, if not write more clearly.
Anyhow, the book is out of our hands now. Time to focus on moving, on the various responsibilities I have been putting off (setting up the Foreign Policy Analysis program for next year's ISA, among others), and start on the next book.
Cartoon Du Jour
Just a great bit of insightful silliness here:
I love the sideburns and bellbottoms, but the phone is the best. I remember when we got our first push-button phone--in the mid-1980's. A friend noticed and welcomed my family in the 1970's.
H/T to https://twitter.com/#!/caidid/
I love the sideburns and bellbottoms, but the phone is the best. I remember when we got our first push-button phone--in the mid-1980's. A friend noticed and welcomed my family in the 1970's.
H/T to https://twitter.com/#!/caidid/
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Ally Confusion
My latest at CIC: who are allies of the US and Canada and who are just friends? Some folks are mighty confused.
The Joy of Moving
Moving is one of the greatest hassles, one of the most significant causes of stress (up there with death, divorce, weddings, and grading). But this big change has been, well, a big boost as well. I remember very fondly the going away party that my favorite cruise director ex-colleague threw for lil' Steve, Katri S and myself over ten years ago.
Well, the advantage of having a long, long goodbye has been that I have had a heap of Sally Field Oscar moments. Yes, I am just as/more insecure than the average academic that feels like an imposter. Given the slings and arrows received over the past four years or so, the year's long farewell has been a big boost.
It started with the comments on my announcement. It was reinforced by the gifts I received from the Pol Sci undergrad student association. I then had a great beer and dinner with the McG poli sci staff. I had a nice beer with my fellow associate professors and then another great beer swilling with a few of the last McG students I know well. And most recently, my teammates threw me a surprise ultimate pickup game.* I have been very moved, very touched by the experience. I will miss these great people and am forever thankful that "social media" (that would be Facebook, Twitter and the rest) will allow me to keep in touch with these folks.
There are two obvious ways to get recognized: die and be eulogizied or leave and be feted on the way out. Thus far, I prefer the latter. Thanks again.
Well, the advantage of having a long, long goodbye has been that I have had a heap of Sally Field Oscar moments. Yes, I am just as/more insecure than the average academic that feels like an imposter. Given the slings and arrows received over the past four years or so, the year's long farewell has been a big boost.
It started with the comments on my announcement. It was reinforced by the gifts I received from the Pol Sci undergrad student association. I then had a great beer and dinner with the McG poli sci staff. I had a nice beer with my fellow associate professors and then another great beer swilling with a few of the last McG students I know well. And most recently, my teammates threw me a surprise ultimate pickup game.* I have been very moved, very touched by the experience. I will miss these great people and am forever thankful that "social media" (that would be Facebook, Twitter and the rest) will allow me to keep in touch with these folks.
There are two obvious ways to get recognized: die and be eulogizied or leave and be feted on the way out. Thus far, I prefer the latter. Thanks again.
* My daughter's friends pulled a similar trick on her--turning an ordinary outing into going away festivities.
Darker is Better?
With a new, apparently darker Spider-man movie about to come out, I began to vent into a broken twitter today: dark is not always better. It may be the case that this Spider-man is better than Raimi's or perhaps just different. But I am pretty damned sure that the new Batman movie will, ahem, pale in comparison to Avengers as an entertainment experience. I doubt that it will inspire multiple posts applying to and from IR as Avengers did. Maybe it will.
I will probably like the movie, but not because it is darker. Having a darker view of anything is not inherently better or worse, although it does seem to be more likely to be reviewed positively. Likewise, I often notice reviewers who complain that a TV show is sentimental. Why is having sentiment (positive) bad? Indeed, there is a contradiction here, because two of the very best comedies on TV are very, very sweet: Parks and Rec and Community. Seinfeld was not at all sentimental and sometimes quite dark (the death of George's fiance). Tis the quality and the context that matter, not the shadings.
Sure, some folks will like darker stuff because they like a dark view of humanity or they are depressed or like the world to be more depressed than they are. Some folks like everything to be sunny because they are depressed and need a pick me up or because they are sunny and don't like downers or because they have a positive view of humanity that they don't want disturbed.
For me, dark and light are like volume--I like somethings loud and somethings quiet. I don't think things should always be loud or quiet--it depends on context, content and execution. Which is why I doubt that I will like the next Spidey or Batman movies more than Avengers--because Joss Whedon did a great job of executing the movie. Prometheus was hell-a-dark, but, well, was pretty flawed.
I think this song captures it all:
I will probably like the movie, but not because it is darker. Having a darker view of anything is not inherently better or worse, although it does seem to be more likely to be reviewed positively. Likewise, I often notice reviewers who complain that a TV show is sentimental. Why is having sentiment (positive) bad? Indeed, there is a contradiction here, because two of the very best comedies on TV are very, very sweet: Parks and Rec and Community. Seinfeld was not at all sentimental and sometimes quite dark (the death of George's fiance). Tis the quality and the context that matter, not the shadings.
Sure, some folks will like darker stuff because they like a dark view of humanity or they are depressed or like the world to be more depressed than they are. Some folks like everything to be sunny because they are depressed and need a pick me up or because they are sunny and don't like downers or because they have a positive view of humanity that they don't want disturbed.
For me, dark and light are like volume--I like somethings loud and somethings quiet. I don't think things should always be loud or quiet--it depends on context, content and execution. Which is why I doubt that I will like the next Spidey or Batman movies more than Avengers--because Joss Whedon did a great job of executing the movie. Prometheus was hell-a-dark, but, well, was pretty flawed.
I think this song captures it all:
Work and Life and Women: Heavy Dose of Perspective Sauce
Anne-Marie Slaughter's post at the Atlantic is flying around the internet this morning. Read it. Now! It is a long but fascinating, persuasive, engaging, articulate piece about the dilemmas of being a woman in the 21st century. Can such a person "have it all"? Probably not. She addresses the perceptions, the tradeoffs, and what must change.
Much of what she said resonated with me even though I am not a woman, and my wife is an aspiring novelist. During my year in the Pentagon, I left for work before the family woke up and returned, exhausted, after dinner and just before my kindergarten-er went to bed. I could only really interact with my daughter on weekends--going to relatives, going to the Mall, going to the parks nearby. It was not a bad year to be "away" since she was engaged in her first year of school, had more family in the neighborhood than ever before or since, and was pretty easy to manage. It was still a hard year for my wife (even if we leave aside my workplace being attacked by terrorists and by anthrax packages). It was a hard year for me--I enjoy hanging out with my kid. I still do although we do not have that much time left as she is now in high school.
Anyhow, the point is that Ann-Marie Slaughter did an excellent job of marshalling not only her experiences and that of people she knows but also scholarship on the issue. A couple of her key implications are:
Again, read the piece.
Much of what she said resonated with me even though I am not a woman, and my wife is an aspiring novelist. During my year in the Pentagon, I left for work before the family woke up and returned, exhausted, after dinner and just before my kindergarten-er went to bed. I could only really interact with my daughter on weekends--going to relatives, going to the Mall, going to the parks nearby. It was not a bad year to be "away" since she was engaged in her first year of school, had more family in the neighborhood than ever before or since, and was pretty easy to manage. It was still a hard year for my wife (even if we leave aside my workplace being attacked by terrorists and by anthrax packages). It was a hard year for me--I enjoy hanging out with my kid. I still do although we do not have that much time left as she is now in high school.
Anyhow, the point is that Ann-Marie Slaughter did an excellent job of marshalling not only her experiences and that of people she knows but also scholarship on the issue. A couple of her key implications are:
"Ultimately, it is society that must change, coming to value choices to put family ahead of work just as much as those to put work ahead of family. If we really valued those choices, we would value the people who make them; if we valued the people who make them, we would do everything possible to hire and retain them; if we did everything possible to allow them to combine work and family equally over time, then the choices would get a lot easier."I not only re-tweeted her post but thanked her via twitter. She responded back that she is getting heaps more agreement on this than on her foreign policy stances. I am not surprised--it is much harder to say to someone like her today that she does not know what she is talking about, that it is all about the work. Of course it is easier to disagree about her stance on Syria, where "other side" of the argument has much firmer ground to stand upon. And I guess that is progress. As she notes in the piece, much progress has been made since the days of Mad Men.
"Fortunately, changing our assumptions is up to us"
Again, read the piece.
Quick, Change!
One of the fun but scary dynamics involved with moving are all of the changes that occur at once: new friends, new neighbors, new teammates, new colleagues, new traffic patterns, new shopping, new restaurants, and perhaps even the chance to re-invent oneself. Will I able to become a hard-ass in my teaching so that students quake and never turn in work late or expect grade changes? Hmmm.
While I ponder that, consider this video tweeted by the man who perfected the career change from child actor/doctor to international man of mystery, Neil Patrick Harris:
I like the video alot, although the change-themed song I still prefer is:
While I ponder that, consider this video tweeted by the man who perfected the career change from child actor/doctor to international man of mystery, Neil Patrick Harris:
I like the video alot, although the change-themed song I still prefer is:
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Belated Reaction to UVA Mess
The story of the President of the University of Virginia, Teresa Sullivan, being dismissed by the Board of Visitors (think Regents or Governors) has spread far and wide. I will not get into the details, but provide a few of my reactions.
What is the academic equivalent of "if you mess with the bull, you get the horns"? Check out this and this. When folks with, ahem, limited worldviews mess with really smart, over-educated people, they will lose the war of words and ideas. Yes, the Visitors may succeed in winning the war--who controls UVA--but at significant cost. Wulf's resignation (the first link) is pretty devastating as he is a man who has done pretty much everything to a high degree of success, that he has been strategically dynamic or dynamically strategic or whatever. Academics tend to have expertise, access to facts, and a keen ability to put it all together pretty well. Sure, they have no real power except the power to make people look foolish. So, the BoV now looks pretty foolish.
The truly stunning thing is that they chose to fire someone who is incredibly rare in the academic enterprise: a university leader respected by pretty much everyone. Sullivan was apparently able to get everyone to buy in to her approach. The only folks who didn't like her are a few people on the board. Otherwise, she was able to convince most of the community to support her. This should not be underestimated. Herding cats? Getting academics, students, and everyone else to move in the same direction is harder than herding cats: perhaps herding cats, dogs and birds? Why mess with that?
One can debate about whether "business model" as a concept applies to a university given that:
While I like to generalize and move around in my research, I know there are many things I cannot do, including run a business. Perhaps those who run businesses might be just a bit more humble about their expertise beyond their experiences. Dan Snyder has not been very good for the Washington Redskins football team despite being a dandy businessperson. Peter Angelos was a very successful lawyer, but the Orioles have failed since he got the franchise. Just perhaps the big business folks who got appointed to the Board of Visitors have few clues about what it takes to run a university. Just a guess.
What is the academic equivalent of "if you mess with the bull, you get the horns"? Check out this and this. When folks with, ahem, limited worldviews mess with really smart, over-educated people, they will lose the war of words and ideas. Yes, the Visitors may succeed in winning the war--who controls UVA--but at significant cost. Wulf's resignation (the first link) is pretty devastating as he is a man who has done pretty much everything to a high degree of success, that he has been strategically dynamic or dynamically strategic or whatever. Academics tend to have expertise, access to facts, and a keen ability to put it all together pretty well. Sure, they have no real power except the power to make people look foolish. So, the BoV now looks pretty foolish.
The truly stunning thing is that they chose to fire someone who is incredibly rare in the academic enterprise: a university leader respected by pretty much everyone. Sullivan was apparently able to get everyone to buy in to her approach. The only folks who didn't like her are a few people on the board. Otherwise, she was able to convince most of the community to support her. This should not be underestimated. Herding cats? Getting academics, students, and everyone else to move in the same direction is harder than herding cats: perhaps herding cats, dogs and birds? Why mess with that?
One can debate about whether "business model" as a concept applies to a university given that:
"Universities have multiple inputs & uncountable and unpredictable outputs. And that’s how we like them." From SlateBut the idea that universities should adopt strategic dynamism is silliness. Universities cannot adjust quickly to exogenous shocks and changes in the marketplace. Much of what we do involves reputations--that schools are valued for perceived impact, whether that is teaching, the quality of the students or in research. None of that changes very quickly. Universities are less like sailboats and more like aircraft carriers--damn hard to turn around quickly.
While I like to generalize and move around in my research, I know there are many things I cannot do, including run a business. Perhaps those who run businesses might be just a bit more humble about their expertise beyond their experiences. Dan Snyder has not been very good for the Washington Redskins football team despite being a dandy businessperson. Peter Angelos was a very successful lawyer, but the Orioles have failed since he got the franchise. Just perhaps the big business folks who got appointed to the Board of Visitors have few clues about what it takes to run a university. Just a guess.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Gunning for the Game
NBC has a new reality show: Stars for Stripes. The idea is that some C level celebrities (Dean Cain, Picaboo Street, Todd Palin, etc) will complete in military style competitions, complete with trainers who co-compete with them. I love the wonderful symmetry between NBC as a crappy network and the Democrats as a crappy party both relying on a retired general, Wesley Clark, who is universally reviled among folks in the US military.
But the point of this post is to suggest potential games for the competition. The articles I have seen mention target shooting and, I think, rappelling out of helicopters. From my time in the Pentagon and then as an observer via twitter and various interactions/interviews over the past decade, I have a few suggestions:
But the point of this post is to suggest potential games for the competition. The articles I have seen mention target shooting and, I think, rappelling out of helicopters. From my time in the Pentagon and then as an observer via twitter and various interactions/interviews over the past decade, I have a few suggestions:
- Powerpoint Ranger: The contestants must take a concept or plan and devise the most complex set of slides. Extra points for flying graphics that swoop across the screen.
- Acronym Alphabet: Competitors must be able to list acronyms from A to Z--the one that can keep going the longest wins.
- Moving Machines: The first contestant to move their belongings from one base to another to a third without losing more than 10% of their belongings wins.
- PC DFAC: During the competition, the contestants must eat only at military dining facilities and must avoid all pork products. Anyone who eats a pork product is out. Also known as the Green Zone Challenge.
- Service Rivalry: Each contest will be associated with a service and within that service a distinct branch (Surface vs Sub, Armor vs Infantry vs. Arty; Pilot vs Missileer, etc). Contestants will compete to buy the biggest, most expensive and least useful pieces of equipment. Winner is the one that gets the largest percentage of the budget.
- Word-Smithing: Each contestant will be given a document and will have to change all of the nouns and verbs to their synonyms, such as small dog to puppy.
- Hooah? Another mindgame: contestants will compete to see who can figure out the meaning of a "hooah" given the context of a particular situation.
- Navy Fashion: Contestants who dresses the fastest in the correct uniform once they are told which season it is wins.
Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts
I have been engaged in a running twitter conversation with NATOSource about the value added to NATO of Greece and whether NATO would miss Greece if it left the alliance.
Of course, before I get going, Greece would never leave NATO since it would never want to be outside an alliance that includes Turkey. While Greece has not been able to use NATO as protection against Turkey while inside NATO, any Greek provocations if Greece were outside might just be a bit more problematic. Plus being inside both NATO and the EU gives Greece multiple opportunities to screw over Turkey and Macedonia. What more could Greece want?
Anyhow, to use Bill Simmon's analogy, does Greece put more on the table than it takes off the table? When I asked NATOSource, the answer was:
While Afghanistan cannot nor should not be the be-all of NATO, it is telling that for much of the mission, Greece had 150 or so Afghanistan--about the same size as each of the Baltic republics. Go ahead, check the old placemats.
So, Greece's added value is Crete as far as I can tell. What does Greece "take off the table"? What costs does Greece impose on the alliance?
I am not advocating kicking Greece out of NATO (although it was my pick and that of many others in the poll a month or two ago of experts on NATO). I am just saying that Greece has little leverage in that direction (especially compared with potentially destroying the Euro).
Or am I completely wrong?
Of course, before I get going, Greece would never leave NATO since it would never want to be outside an alliance that includes Turkey. While Greece has not been able to use NATO as protection against Turkey while inside NATO, any Greek provocations if Greece were outside might just be a bit more problematic. Plus being inside both NATO and the EU gives Greece multiple opportunities to screw over Turkey and Macedonia. What more could Greece want?
Anyhow, to use Bill Simmon's analogy, does Greece put more on the table than it takes off the table? When I asked NATOSource, the answer was:
- Geostrategic value in NATO's southern flank
- Irreplaceable bases in the Eastern Med
- Net stabilizer in the Balkans--troops in KFOR.
While Afghanistan cannot nor should not be the be-all of NATO, it is telling that for much of the mission, Greece had 150 or so Afghanistan--about the same size as each of the Baltic republics. Go ahead, check the old placemats.
So, Greece's added value is Crete as far as I can tell. What does Greece "take off the table"? What costs does Greece impose on the alliance?
- Well, blocking efforts to improve EU/NATO coordination mostly just to screw with Turkey.
- Blocking Macedonia's entry into NATO (which might be a marginal gain except for those who care about maps with no holes) due to Greece's name obsession.
- The ongoing feud between Greece and Turkey on all things, so that NATO occasionally has a war among members. Good times. Yes, Greece's irredentism is just as problematic as Turkey's. And like Turkey, Greece's democracy has occasionally been suspect.
I am not advocating kicking Greece out of NATO (although it was my pick and that of many others in the poll a month or two ago of experts on NATO). I am just saying that Greece has little leverage in that direction (especially compared with potentially destroying the Euro).
Or am I completely wrong?
Tsk, Tsk, Canada!
Today, I have a post at Canadian International Council on the latest reactions to Quebec's protest season. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights lumped bill 78 essentially in with other acts of human rights repression such as the demise of Hungarian democracy.
I found this pretty appalling, so I thought I would suggest a list of real sins that Western democracies have committed and are more deserving of UN HCHR opprobrium:
I found this pretty appalling, so I thought I would suggest a list of real sins that Western democracies have committed and are more deserving of UN HCHR opprobrium:
- Disenfranchising voters who might be Hispanic, Black or otherwise likely Democratic voters in the US.
- Treatment of indigenous peoples in Australia (Aborigines), US (Native Americans), Canada (First Nations), etc.
- The Death Penalty in the US.
- The rise of xenophobia, especially in Europe. Imagine if countries were trying to restrict refugees from Arab Spring from landing on their shores. Oh, right. It happened.
- Fox News and its destruction of understanding.
- Donald Trump.
- The never-ending American presidential election--so punishing to all involved, especially those subjected to campaign ads in swing states.
- Dan Snyder's reign as owner of the Redskins and Peter Angelos's reign as owner of the Orioles.
- Madonna's English accent.
- The firing of Dan Harmon and the placing of Community on Friday night. Anything short of six season and a movie is worthy of an International Criminal Court prosecution.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Lying Frisbee Players!
 |
| The usual pre-game cheer--this time with extra Mojo! |
 |
| I know my place--on the offensive line |
I was very moved, and the pics here will always remind me of the very best part of Montreal--my ultimate Ultimate friends. Merci beaucoup for everything, especially making me look good by catching my questionable passes, throwing the disk at the edge of my decreasing range so that I could dive for the disk, and compensating for my lousy defense. I doubt that I will find a group of folks that combine fun, competitiveness, spirit, and all the rest in one package. It truly has been my pleasure.
 |
| An obviously very silly group of people with big hearts. |
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Sunday Silliness: Game of Thrones Style
My daughter pointed me to a site where one can create a Game of Thrones doll. Here is my attempt:
Definitely heaps of choices. Have fun.
Definitely heaps of choices. Have fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)