Teen Albums

Which albums were the ones I listened to the most when I was a teen?  This is a facebook trend, so why not?  Mostly classic rock but some new wave.

• Supertramp, Breakfast in America
• Pat Benatar, Crimes of Passion
• Blondie, Parallel Lines
• B-52s, the B-52s
• Chicago, 16
• Graham Parker, Squeezing Out Sparks
• Rush, Moving Pictures
• Journey, Escape
• Billy Joel, Nylon Curtain
• Steve Miller Band, Greatest Hits 1974-78

Queen would have been on this list had the songs been concentrated in one or two albums, same for Bruce, Devo, Styx, Yes, .38 Special, and a bunch of others. 

Anyhow, time to go to bed in Japan, where I am thinking of Cheap Trick, Live at Budokan!

New Strangest Question

Having been in this business for over twenty years, I have received some strange questions.  After a presentation today at the International University of Japan in Niigata on the Uncertainty Machine that is Trump, I was asked: how could Trump's term end abruptly? 

Oh my.  I pondered the possibilites:

• Impeachment?  Nope.
• Coup?  No, despite my general concern, the US military is not going to remove Trump.  They might not follow unlawful orders, but coup? No.
• 25h amendment?   Almost certainly not, since Trump is picking most folks who are loyal to him, but it is possible.  Unlikely but not impossible.
• That option involving failure by the Secret Service.  Not likely as they protected an African-American president successfully for eight years.  An orange one should be easier.

I was left with one possibility that is not unlikely:

My Moscow Experience

Way back when there was still a Leningrad, I spent two weeks in the Soviet Union.  It was a winter term college trip, led by a Russian language prof and a Soviet politics prof.  We were a group of 20 or so folks, with mixed language skills.  Of course, we stayed only at hotels that were run by intourist, the Soviet government agency that kept track of us.  All of our touring was led by people from this agency.  We were able to go out on our own and did meet some Russians in Moscow and Leningrad and some Estonians in Tallinn.

But the point of this tale is not the friendly folks of the USSR.  No, it was that we constantly joked about being recorded.  We (ok, I) talked into lamps.  It was all fun, and then something strange happened

In between the two beds was a shelf/table built into the wall.  It had a hole/socket in it that would fit the plug for old headphones (not the smaller receptacle we are accustomed to now).  Anyhow, my roomie and I were surprised when a maid knocked, entered the room, and then stuck something into the hole in the shelf.  She then removed it, and left the room.  Was she starting or stopping the recording?  Or was it something else?

 All I know is that what goes in Moscow probably does not stay in Moscow (otherwise, the place is just like Vegas).

Of course, much has changed in thirty years (happy anniversary, college trip to the USSR!).   But honey traps, videotaping high profile folks, and all that?  Not sure that has changed.

I honestly don't know if the Russians have anything on Trump.  Trump's stances are so awful, it almost does not matter if he is a stooge or not.  But yes, it should matter.  Indeed, one of the reasons I got the election wrong is that I thought there were more nevertrumpers among the GOP, who were appalled by Trump's ties to/love of Putin, which were known then.  Ooops, party > country.

Good times, eh?  Nyet.

Sake! Oh, and Japan Research

I spent much of the day at a Japan Foundation Fellows Conference.  I am hazy about the partnership between SSRC and the Japan Foundation, but my Abe Fellowship, which is funding my time here in Tokyo, is a product of their teamwork.  So, I spent the day listening to presentations by folks who are far sharper about Japan--mostly much younger folks from all over the world.  The Japan Foundation is most generous to fund so many fellows each year.

The best part?  Learning some sake tradition:

 Did you know that sake can be drunk from a square wooden cup? I didn't, but know I do. 

Yes, I got caught absconding with a cube (they gave them
away, which also happens at weddings and such)

Gate

Shrine at night

Shinjuku

A Dusty Au Revoir

I could not watch Obama's Farewell Address live as I was traveling to Nagano to interview a former defense minister.  So, I finally got to watch it tonight from my hotel room, and I am putting it here so that I can find it easily in the future


Of course, one could read this speech as one big subtweet towards Trump, but that would diminish the moment and the meaning.  It was a terrific discussion of the threads to democracy, not just here but everywhere else.  When people say he was a weak leader, I will point to this speech. 

Obama was hardly perfect, and I will always be frustrated with how he did not reverse the accumulation of executive power.  But as this speech demonstrates yet again, the man is not only smart and perceptive, but generous and kind and full of grace and class.  So, yeah, I got teary eyed as he did, thanking his family and the Bidens and the rest.  Watching Malia and Michelle and Jill trying to hold it together was pretty special.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see what role Obama plays in the difficult years ahead.  All I can do know is be thankful for what he has done and to embrace the good stuff that he brought along.  Oh, and thanks for bringing Joe along, too.

Old Tactics, New Media

I love this so much (h/t Stephanie Carvin)

[VIDEO] How to stop a tank using felled trees pic.twitter.com/blZSgNxJOP

— NATO (@NATO) January 9, 2017

So, NATO countries are working together to teach the Baltic countries how to stop a Russian invasion.  Woot.  So much comes up here.

1. Obviously, the classic Monty Python Lumberjack sketch 
2. Abatisi or Abatisses showed up in a Jack Reacher book a ways back.
3. That the soldier doing the briefing is Canadian is so perfect.  Non-violent means to stymie an attack.  Woot, eh!
4. I suddenly realized that the Dave and Steve book might apply: that countries with Green parties in coalition might impose restrictions on their forces, preventing them from Abatis-ing.  Environmental caveats?  
5. Yet more evidence NATO is signaling not just to its own publics but to Russia--that an invasion would be costly.  
6. Puts a different spin on the whole anti-access area denial stuff.  For the cost of a chain saw or two...

I don't mean to mock--this is serious stuff--preparing for war.  There is a lot going on in Eastern Europe right now, with everyone waiting for January 20th and what uncertainty that will breed.

Accidental Tourist Report, Day Two, January 2017

Looking for the ceremony at the Meiji Shrine

Like yesterday, intent and reality diverged.  Today is Coming of Age Day, where women who turn 20 may dress up in the classic garb and go though some kind of ceremony.   I was told where such stuff might be happening, but didn't find the right spot until late in the day.  I then felt awkward outside the building, so I didn't go in.  So much for that.  But along the way?  Heaps of fun signs, great food and interesting sights.

Twitter and Extended Deterrence

People gripe about twitter, and deservedly so (evergreen opening line), but it is mighty handy.  Latest examples:

@smsaideman @USArmyEurope @4thInfDiv Some additional details here: https://t.co/lMRiAc4Epk

— US Mission to NATO (@USNATO) January 8, 2017

@smsaideman more info: https://t.co/kEf5fjEtuq

— U.S. Army Europe (@USArmyEurope) January 8, 2017

I had a question, and it got answered quickly: that the US deployment of troops to Europe will close the window of opportunity presented by the gap in how long it will take for the allies to follow through on their Warsaw Summit commitments.  I have been worried since November and was reassured when I saw Obama sending the troops early.

Once I saw that the US was sending a Brigade Combat Team, I began to wonder about where it might go.  A BCT with 3500 troops is larger than the 1k troops that are the US commitment to Poland, as agreed to at the Warsaw Summit.  So, I began to wonder if some of the troops might be going elsewhere to fill out the allies who are moving slower (that would be you, Canada, and nearly everyone else).  That is, there are two needs: now and later.  Now, to deny Putin any faits accompli.  Later, as the allies may not be sending enough to reach the 1k in each spot AND for extended deterrence (the tripwire) to really work, Russia should be concerned about bumping into American troops, not just any NATO soldiers.

So, I am pleased, although I fully recognize that Trump can reverse this.  But to do so, he would first run into SecDef to be Mattis who would certainly support NATO here.  As I discussed before, it would be far easier for Trump to say " the troops are coming sometime, just like my tax returns."  Much harder to pull out troops sent to a NATO mission.  Not impossible, but it would be visible and politically charged in Europe and Washington, DC.  The stakes are high enough that Mattis would be forced to wonder if it made sense to stick around.

So, not perfect, but not bad either.  This US force will be sending troops hither and yon in Eastern Europe to provide stability.  Should Russia be threatened by this?  Frustrated?  Yes, as it weakens their leverage and perhaps denies Putin some opportunities.  But threatened?  One BCT is not capable of invading Russia, and, by the way, Russia has those nuke thingies that are sufficient for deterring any and all peer-states from invading (can't say the same for terrorists/secessionists/domestic challenges).  So, Russia can say it is threatened, but the force here is modest enough that it should not activate any spirals.  Also, Russia moved first, so NATO/US not moving would be provocative in a different way: "here's an open door, I dare you to walk inside."

Anyhow, I am glad that social media allows me to engage with many different kinds of actors, including the units doing the stuff that I have been talking about.

Update: Stars and Stripes has a good piece on this, noting that the deployment is moving so fast that they didn't have time to change the camoflauge on the tanks from desert (Afghanistan, Iraq) to forest green (East Europe).  Gives you a hint that Obama pushed this quickly after the election.

Accidental Tourist Report, First Day, Jan 2017

I am back in Japan to do follow up interviews to catch folks I missed last time (this trip's specialty will be former Defense Ministers*) and to present some of my preliminary findings (one talk is a bit different--implications of Trump's Presidency).

Which means I am adjusting to jetlag today.  So, I chose to start walking in a neighborhood that I had not visited last time.  It had some amazing views and funky signs and architecture.  But not many restaurants, and thus my accidental tourism began.  My search for lunch ended in some great ramen, but also put me near a major Kabuki threater.  The price was so cheap that I just had to buy a one act ticket (the plays are all day long affairs with multiple acts).  But the show was not for two hours, so I had to find places to hang out amidst the rain.  Which led to more accidental tourism.

Specifically, I ended up ducking into a building that had Nissan concept cars on the first couple of levels and then Sony products on the upper floors. 







After that, I went into a department store, and was surprised to find the top floor populated by women wearing traditional garb, lots of traditional stuff being sold, and even a demo for those who don't know how to put it on. 





And then I went to the Kabuki show.   What did I learn from my one experience (other plays may be different)?

• I should have invested in the translator device--it provides subtitles.  I didn't think one was necessary because I thought there would be more action and less monologues.
• Jeez, there were a lot of monologues.  
• The set construction was amazing with multiple changes even though the initial one seemed permanent to me until it was not.
• Kabuki is the opposite of baseball--no crying in baseball, heaps of crying in this show, including an extended crying scene involving a guy who might have been dying.
• Very narrow seats at the top--I was less comfortable in this seat than in the ordinary economy seat on a plane.
• Not very funny--only two or three times where the audience laughed in 1.5 hours of show, and the first laugh was about an hour in.  
• Oh, did I say little action, I meant no action unless a bunch of identically clad women carrying stuff in and out counts.
• Yes, the language barrier probably inhibited my enjoyment, but I doubt that I would have liked it a lot even if I understood what was being said.  Still, worth the experience to see what this term I have been throwing around really means.  

Oh, and a repeated realization--Japan is a great place for a single person to go out to eat since so many restaurants have places for singles to sit without any ostracism.   Another one: the food is damn good.

Traveling To Tokyo Again, with Some Deja Vu

I landed last night/earlier today (always fun to talk about time on the other side of the dateline) in Tokyo for two weeks of follow up interviews and talks where I trot out what I have learned thus far.  Everything was super smooth (see short movie reactions below), and I have some repeated realizations:

• Stuff always seems to happen when I fly and am out of touch.  This time there is both the hacking report going public and a plagiarism scandal for the new admin.  I missed Trump's reaction but he was already engaged in pre-reacting, attacking the intel folks.  Not a good look.  I am starting to think that this admin should have a new bumper sticker: "Surprising? No. Appalling?  Yes"
• Long flights are good for bad movies or movies that I would probably not see if I were not, um, a captured audience.
• Never Go Back, the new Jack Reacher movie, was ok.  The basic problem, once again, is that Reacher is a huge guy and is a force of menace and destruction.  Tom Cruise is not, so it is hard to watch these movies if you are a fan of the books.  The plot was also changed around to film in New Orleans for some reason.  They did get both female parts right, with Cobie Smulders being far more well cast than Cruise.
• Jason Bourne--what a silly movie.  Seems like the CIA can access the street cameras only sometimes.  A lot in messed up Greece but not at all in London which has cameras everywhere.  Just a dumb extension of a played out franchise.  The CIA assassin piles up a tremendous body count along the way, making Bourne look restrained.  Oh, and it was hard to root for Bourne since he was somewhat allied with Snowden/Assange type folks, if only accidentally.  Of course, the politics were dumb--Director of National Intelligence does not pick Director of CIA.... the President does that.
• Pete's Dragon was sweet and fun, but I wouldn't see it ordinarily since I have no kid at home anymore.  
• Shin Godzilla was terrific.  The latest Godzilla movie out of Japan focuses mostly on how the politicians and bureaucrats screw up the response, and it is only when they are marginalized/killed that a younger politician is able to implement a plan made by a bunch of outsiders--nerds!  It was more fun for me as I understood the terrain of the battle--where things in Tokyo are--as a result of my last trip here.  And given that one of my basic questions of this case study is "is the agency charged with overseeing Japan's Self-Defence Force an agent of the politicians or vice versa", the movie is pretty relevant for my work.
•  Getting five hours of sleep is a victory the first night abroad.  Which is why I fly in on weekends to give myself time to adjust.  An important lesson learned after falling asleep on the couch of a Turkish General at NATO HQ in Naples.

Oh, and yes, I am superthankful that I will be in Japan and then in the air when Trump is inaugurated.  I can miss that anytime and twice on Sunday.

Dishonesty? In the Trump Administration? Shocking

As an academic, I am always offended when I see plagiarism.  But I am not surprised when a Trump admin pick, such as Monica Crowley, is caught red-handed, having plagiarized much of her book.  I am envious of CNN's graphically clear way of presenting the offending texts.  I wish I could do that when I spot plagiarism.

Why should we care?  Because dishonesty is bad. If Crowley cheats when she "writes" a book, will she be honest in her job as, wait for it, senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council.  Yes, NSC officials can lie, but to have a reputation as a proven liar means that her credibility both within and outside of the Trump admin comes pre-tarnished.

Also, it suggests that, if the iron law of cheating is correct, Crowley is lazy and dumb.  Not great attributes for someone who is working on the National Security Council.

Will the Trufolks abandon her?  Probably not, as shame is not something these folks care about.  Which juxtaposes quite clearly with what happened to a rising star in German Politics, former Defense Minister Von Guttenberg who lost his job because people found out he plagiarized his dissertation.  The upside: my favorite video from his retirement ceremony

mp br />

It Is Always About Personnel

Remember the old days where the "smart" Bolsheviks left the personnel and other boring issues to Stalin?  Yeah, so Stalin staffed the new Soviet government with his guys, and the theorists, well, they did not end up this way.  That might be too bloody of an example, but I am not at all surprised that General (retired) Mattis is having tensions with Michael Flynn and the other Trump folks over who to staff the Pentagon.

If Mattis can't pick his own staff, it will mean not only that he will not have control over the building (the Pentagon), but he would have very little influence at National Security Council meetings.  he would start the administration pre-neutered.  I don't know the guy, but all I have heard about him suggests that he won't let that happen.  Which means he gets his choices or he abandons ship (Marines are used to that kind of thing).

The SecDef job is one of the hardest jobs in government--having to manage the biggest budget, with the stakes being war, peace, victory, defeat, one of the largest bodies of personnel, etc.  It requires a team of people who the SecDef trusts to manage procurement, take care of the personnel, and work with the rest of the interagency while he (could have been she...) advises the President on the use of force around the world.  If Mattis has to work with Trump appointees that he does not like or trust, then he has lost before the battle has started.

I have always argued that Colin Powell's big mistake in 2000 was not fighting the Rumsfeld appointment, but that is a reach since his political capital at the time might not have been sufficient to block an appointment of another cabinet secretary.  This is much different, as the Secretary should have much influence over who his staff is.  

I am sure this news has Vegas re-setting the over/under of how long Mattis will last.  Whatever it is, I am tempted to bet the under.  We shall see how daring/stupid Flynn/Bannon and others driving this clash are. 

Investigating Sexual Harassment

Because of what I wrote here last March, I have received a number of media inquiries about sexual harassment in universities, including at McGill.  The problem is that I can only give these reporters so much information since I was not the one who was harassed. Given that McGill ultimately failed to respond adequately, I am not surprised that victims don't come forward.  Because McGill, like many other institutions, throws a cloak of confidentiality over these events, it is hard to assess what happened and what happens to the perpetrators.  Reporters who approached me last winter were not able to get any documentation from McGill. 

And this is not just a McGill thing, as I was most recently contacted by Hilary Beaumont of VICE News, who is looking into the broader story across Canada. So, if you have information about this case or others, read on and perhaps provide some info.

Hello, I'm a staff reporter with VICE News based in Toronto and I'm interested in speaking to anyone who has experienced sexual harassment, assault or inappropriate behavior from a professor, faculty member or person in a position of power at a Canadian university. I'm interested in knowing what happened and how the school responded. You can contact me at hilary.beaumont@vice.com.

ISA Conferences in the Age of Trump

In conversations with friends, I quickly realized that the International Studies Association faces some significant problems ahead.  The advent of the Trump administration is likely to lead to two kinds of complications:

• it may be hard for foreign scholars to get visas to attend the conference
• that scholars may want to boycott conferences that take place in the US if Trump follows through on a variety of things he promised/threatened/tweeted during the campaign.

I have not yet gotten numbers from the ISA about the composition of the membership, although it is largely a North American organization with many scholars from other parts of the world joining the fun.  There are brother/sister organizations around the world, but the ISA as we know it, has annual meetings in North America--mostly in the US, occasionally in Canada, once in semi-recent history in Mexico.  It also has co-sponsored conferences around the world with similar organizations.

I have been in contact with the past President of the ISA, Paul Diehl, and the current executive director, Mark Boyer, because my tweets and facebook queries produced informative responses.

The visa issue has long bedeviled ISA scholars--mostly when the meetings are held in Canada.  This may become more problematic if Trump follows through on his promises.

The second issue is that the ISA has developed convention siting policies so that the conferences will not be held in the future in places that have discriminatory laws.  This was an issue when the ISA was in New Orleans, for example.  But it is one thing to say no to a city, but what happens if Trump gets laws passed or engages in executive decisions that would trigger boycotts or violate the ISA policy?  People have suggest that the ISA might have to meet outside the US.  This is not an easy solution given that more of its membership is in the US than elsewhere (I believe), so moving outside of the US is likely to raise the costs quite significantly for a majority of the membership.  It also would not necessarily solve the visa problem.  Moving meetings to Canada may not work either, as past governing council meetings have mentioned how the ISA has gotten too big for the hotels in Canada--that we need clusters of hotels that give us enough breakout rooms for all of the panels (the next Toronto meeting will be the last one in Canada for the foreseeable future).  So, either ISA goes to Canada* but rejects more paper submissions or it stays in the US.

* Meetings could move to Mexico as well, but I have only heard whispers of the Acapulco ISA being problematic. I don't know why as it was before my time.

There is a third issue that did not come up in my conversations with Mark or Paul, but it is one of security.  That with rising Islamophobia and other forms of xenophobia, potential participants may fear coming to the US because they might be targeted for violence.  While the odds of an ISA attendee being harmed are low, certainly lower than conferences that were scheduled to take place in Turkey, they are above zero and may be rising. 

All this means that stuff is about to get difficult for the ISA.  This upcoming meeting in Baltimore will have to address these issues with so much uncertainty--because Trump is an uncertainty engine.  Does this put 2020's meeting in Honolulu in danger?  I hope not.  The good news is that 2021 in Vegas would be after Trump (if he only has one term).  Hmmm.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

Explaining Canada to Americans, Edition 150

Americans following my twitter account may be confused as my Canadian friends are arguing about when Canada became a country.  Why? Because it is a wee bit complicated.  The government of Canada is celebrating 2017 as Canada's 150th birthday!  Woot!  Partaaay!

Why? Because the British North America Act is the fundamental starting point for this country, even if ... it was not entirely sovereign at that time. Others would focus on 1917, when Canada commanded its own troops in a pivotal battle, Vimy.  Others might say 1939 since Canada entered World War II separately from the UK (a couple of days later).  Correlates of War types say it is 1920 because prior to that the British did stuff like negotiate boundaries with the US.  Others say 1967 because, um, reasons.  1982 is the most recent date that one could consider to be Canada's independence day, as the constitution was patriated or repatriated--Queen Elizabeth sent the constitution back to Canada, where Canadians could amend it without any involvement of the British parliament (I think, not all of this was in the citizenship guide).  Also, 1982 is when Canada passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, akin to the US Bill of Rights, that is now a key part of the Canadian constitution (along with that British North American Act).

Americans reading that paragraph should be super-confused.  After all, the US has a single date--July 4th, 1776.  Ooops, the Declaration of Independence was adopted on that date, but not signed until a month later.  And, oh yeah, the US was not actually independent until the Revolutionary War was won--either 1781 when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown or 1783 when the official end of the war, marked by the Treaty of Paris.  But the US as we know it is really about the Constitution, which was negotiated in 1787 but only ratified in 1788.  Alas, the US remained only half-free until 1865 with the end of the Civil War.  Some would argue that the Civil War only ended in 1965 with the Civil Rights Movement and Voting Rights Act.  So, perhaps the Americans should embrace Canada's confusion for its own?

This all turns on what does it mean to be Canada or to be the United States, what does it mean to be a country and what does it mean to be independent.  If it is about independence, for the US, the date really is 1781--when the British lost the war even if it took some time for everyone to recognize that fact (if it were about democracy, the US argument should center on 1865 or 1965, but even 1920--if it is about women's suffrage).  But things remain tricky for Canada, since Canada did not become completely independent in 1867.  What it did become in that year is a big spot on the map with a set of rules to largely but not entirely govern itself.  And it means that there will be heaps of parties this year and free entry to Canada's parks, so I guess we can stick with 1867 as the answer even if it is not entirely satisfying to history pedants.

Things To Look Forward to in 2017: Anniversary Watch

We seem to only care about anniversaries that end in 5 or 0.  So, what are the big dates that we will be marking this year besides, of course, Canada being 150 (depending on what you count)?

1917: was kind of a big year as US enters WWI, Bolsheviks seize power in Russia, so 100 years! Woot!
1927: All I can think of are the Yankees with Ruth and Gehrig and Murderer's Row
1937: Lots of stuff along the way to WWII, especially with Japan and China.
1942:  Midway, Stalingrad
1947: Cold War is On with Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine, House UnAmerican Activities Committee and the Blacklist.  The upside: Jackie Robinson's first year with the Dodgers.  So, 70th anniversary of some cool and some un-cool stuff.
1952: First thermonuclear bomb.  Woot!
1957: 60th anniversary of Sputnik, integration of Little Rock high school with Ike calling out the army.
1962: Cuban Missile Crisis with Magneto and the X-Men.
1967: Biafra secedes, becoming key case in my dissertation.  More importantly, Six-Day War ends with Israel having far more territory, creating the Occupied Territories and generating much angina these days.  Given that anniversaries serve as focal points for those who like to engage in violence, fiftieth anniversary of this war is, um, not good. 
1972: Nixon goes to China, but then Watergate, Munich Olympics
1977: Star Wars!  40th anniversary--Ruby colored lightsabers for everyone!
1982: I got my driver's license (same day as first car date!).  Almost as exciting as Falklands/Malavinas war and Israel invading Lebanon. ERA fails ratification--not great, Bob.
1987: heaps of Iran-Contra aftermath.  So, for 30th anniversary, meh.
1992: My first APSA and ISA! 25 years of drinking and talking with political scientists!!!  Formal break up of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, making my dissertation super-hip.  NAFTA signed, to be undone in 2017?  Also, Rodney King-related riots.  [Doing modest research for this reminds me that President Bush pardoned the Iran-Contra schmucks.  Not cool.]  Oh, and Clinton/Gore break 12 years of GOP rule.
1997: 20th anniversary of Heaven's Gate mass suicide.  Um, yuck. 
2002: I move to Canada, start working at McGill. Woot!!! 15th anniversary!!  Time flies.
2007: Iraq surge.  My first sabbatical! Woot!
2012: I move to Ottawa, start working at Carleton. Woot! Five years flies by.  

So, heaps of anniversaries this year to track.  Some may serve as positive focal points, some as negative and some are purely opportunities for me to engage in nostalgia.

It will be interesting to see which ones get noticed.  Once again, happy new year!

2017: Not 2016 But

Lots of folks are happy that 2016 is over because, well, a lot of our favorite celebrities died and because that whole campaign and Trump victory thing.  Alas, we need to look forward with clear eyes (full heart and all that): 2017 will be worse than 2016.  Perhaps not on the celebrity death front, but in the real world that affects us--via the policies that Trump and his administration will make or duck (omission can be just as sinful as commission).

If you think it was bad having a deliberately ignorant, white supremacist misogynist run a campaign and then win, just wait until you see him administrate.  Can we name one thing Trump has done since the election to reassure anyone?

• Has he become less spiteful?  Nope.
• Has he stopped threatening those who might protest his policies?
• Has he disentangled himself from his businesses so that the conflicts of interest will not raise questions every time he engages with a foreign actor (or domestic)?
• Has he chosen a team of extremely qualified and reasonable people to run his White House?  
• Has he staffed his cabinet with people who will limit Trump's excesses and govern from the middle of the GOP? Folks will mention Mattis here, and I am not so assuaged.
• Has his first interactions with foreign leaders demonstrated a willingness and a capability to build on the expertise that exists within the government?

I can go on, of course.  Trump has done little to demonstrate that he will act as President in any way that is different from how he campaigned, up to and including wanting to sleep at home in Trump Tower.  Indeed, that one stance demonstrates how thoroughly inconsiderate he is, so no, don't expect him to change or to learn much.  It is simply not in his nature. 

Moreover, Trump has already set the wheels in motion for the most destructive government.  His apparent submission to Steve Bannon means that those selected to run the government tend to share one quality (Mattis excepted): the desire to burn down the agency that they will be leading.  We will have an Attorney General who the Senate rejected thirty years ago because he was too racist to be a judge.  That epitomizes the selection criteria for cabinet positions, other than being white, male and rich. 

So, I don't want to start a new year on a down note, but we must be realistic.  The policies and budgets that the Trump administration puts into place and implements will do real and serious harm.  The Republican Party is not going to save us from this via impeachment. Indeed, they will go along with much of Trump's agenda and mostly just flop around when Trump does stuff they don't like (remember when the GOP were critical of Obama for being soft on Putin?).  The US has bounced back from dark times before, but the cost of those dark times were, well, staggering.  We can focus on the former, but must recognize the latter. 

As a friend posted this morning, the only way out is through.  Which led me to two handy memes:

And, rebellions are built on hope. 

I am not making many resolutions this year, but I will try to find the upsides, the positive notes, and emphasize them.  I will try to offset the downpour of bad news by noting the successful acts of resistance and where Trump fails to get his way.  Oh, and by discussing the usual silly stuff, like applying political science and international relations theory to understand stuff like Arrival.

Semi Review Spew, 2016

Yes, 2016 was an awful year for actors, musicians, other celebrities, referenda, elections, democracy and refugees.  But, more importantly, was it a good year for me?  Ok, perhaps that is a bit much, but I have generally looked back at my year in blogging on or around New Year's Eve, and this has proven to be most useful for me when I need to track down notable old posts.  So, here we go again with the td/dr summary: the Spew had a better year than the stuff listed above.

January

The year started really with some experimentation--how to make good butter beer!  Glad I found this as it may inspire some more production before College Spew goes back to school.

One of the basic tendencies of 2016 was to trash millennials, so I am glad I started the year by pushing back against it.

My book was released and hit the top of a (specialized) bestseller list!  Woot!

I got to go to Japan!!!  I had never been before, never studied the place, but a trip organized by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not only educational but great prep for the research trip in October and again the one starting later this week.

Resolution Report Card, 2016

My big prediction of the year sucked, but how did I do in keeping my resolutions?

• To self-promote more as Adapting in the Dust comes out in January and I have a bunch of talks lined up this winter.  
• To read more.  Maybe with all the flying and perhaps with reviewing a bit less?
• To disrupt disrupting.  I hate the use of the word disrupt to discuss any new tech/idea/movement that aims to change stuff.  My first talk of the year will be at a Queens event "Re-thinking Pedagogy in International Relations in an Era of Globalization and Disruption", and my role is to be the scold.  This jargon from the tech world tends to overplay the impact of whatever is doing the disrupting and have been used so much as to become meaningless. 
• To return to the big network grant project. It has been on the back burner as I have sought money for my work and then for my sabbatical.  This summer, I turn back to the greater good.
• Be a better co-author for some of my co-authors.  On one key project, I have been the obstacle to getting stuff done.  Indeed, I need to return to that project this afternoon rather than blog about my year....
• On the other hand, I resolve to keep on blogging and tweeting as it is going to be an interesting year with the book tour, with research trips to Brazil, Japan and maybe South Korea.
• I resolve to enjoy the hell out of my sabbatical that starts in July. 

Resolving to self-promote was an easy one to keep, as I did give many book talks throughout Canada although I somehow did not manage to go to Calgary or Toronto like I had hoped.  Still, the two talks in Vancouver plus great skiing at Whistler were highlights of the year as were the talks in Quebec where I got to see former students thrive.  If only I had one of my former students working near the Alps...

Read more?  Fail.  I read a lot online, but have not caught up on either the books I have meant to read or the journals.  I am hoping the second half of my sabbatical is a smidge more productive than the first half.

Once I push the launch button on the big network grant project in early February, I will have more time to catch up on the reading. The good news is that this project to fund a network has produced heaps of fun and informative networking.  So, even if it does not get funded, it will have been worth it.


I have been a better co-author for most of my partners, and a frustrating one for two friends awaiting some resolution to our stymied project.  But the one mentioned above is under review, so woot?

I didn't go to Brazil or South Korea, but Japan was pretty amazing, and I go back to Japan for followups and talks next week.  Because of impeachment in Brazil, I had to postpone that trip until this spring.  Because of impeachment in South Korea, I will have to postpone that trip until next year.  The project itself is already successful with our first publications (here's Dave's contribution).  I learned a great deal in Japan, just as Phil has learned much from his trip down under and his France/Belgium research as has Dave from his Arctic explorations.  Still much to learn, much more to write, but I feel pretty vindicated by both our progress and events in the world that have made the issue of legislative oversight over armed forces more obviously relevant.

My sabbatical?  Yes, I am enjoying it, although spending too much time thinking and writing about Canada's defence review in the summer and the American election and outcome this fall has probably gotten in the way of doing the aforementioned reading that will, of course, re-appear in tomorrow's resolutions for 2017.

2016 was an awful year to be a celebrity, and the US election was awful in both process and outcome.  But professionally and personally, it was an excellent year for me and my family.  I will be reviewing the year in Spew tomorrow to see how 2016 was in Spew.  I hope you and yours have a great 2017.  At the very least, the year will end with yet more Star Wars.

The New Kaiser?

In an argument about monarchy, someone pushed back and pointed at Trump, suggesting that inheritance might be just as good of a way to select leaders as elections in democracies.  A lousy argument, of course, but it came back to me this morning when I saw that Trump's "doctrine" might be "Peace Through Strength." 

Sure, it sounds Reagan-esque except for a few things:

• Reagan was really only dealing with the Soviet Union in a bipolar world, so confronting the other superpower was not as complicated as confronting many potential adversaries (more on that in a minute).
• Reagan went from being confrontational to cooperative pretty damned quickly, trying to radically reverse the arms race during a walk in Reykjavik. 
• The US might have been in a better position then to run up huge deficits in an arms race.  Now?

The key now is that the US faces multiple adversaries--mostly Russia and China (one could toss in Iran, North Korea, and non-state actors I suppose).  Which means multipolarity--that misperceptions and reactions to reactions can be all so complicated.  Fundamentally, the problem with pushing too hard, being a bully, to engage in the Kaiser's risk theory, is that countries will react.  The fundamentals of IR have not changed--the security dilemma remains operative--that any effort to increase one's security unilaterally threatens others, leading them to react, causing the first player to be less secure.  Being aggressive in such a situation exacerbates the basic tendencies of international relations.  The Kaiser ended up provoking the creation of a coalition against his country and paid an enormous price. 

The US has benefited from a liberal international order based largely on positive reciprocity, which has meant peace among the great powers and prosperity.  Antagonizing those whose help we might need to fight terrorism, to contain North Korea, to sanction Iran or whoever is simply a bad idea.

Oh, and of course, this peace through strength thing seems to run directly counter to the love fest for Putin's Russia, so there's that as well.

Of course, Trump has no education in international relations, and his primary foreign policy advisers seem to be blithely ignorant of the security dilemma and the basic reality that being a bully does not pay in international relations.  General Mattis may try to instruct Trump, but, so far, he has largely been neither seen nor heard as Trump builds his team and enunciates his "grand strategy" which is neither grand nor much of a strategy.

So much for ending 2016 on a happy note.