I am not surprised to learn that Steve has been honored for his mentoring activities at Carleton. I learned a heck of a lot from him about research and teaching. Glad to say I was his first dissertation supervisee. Read about it here: Steve is the Man, at least for today anyway.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Monday, October 5, 2015
The Rationality of Anti-Gun People
Last week another mass shooting took place (using the four victims in one incident counting method--which I find questionable, but hey we need a means of categorizing). I detest violence and criminal behavior and have genuine empathy for those who lost loved ones and friends, or had loved ones and friends injured in this incident. I agree with the general premise that the number of violent deaths in this country is awful and that the number of people killed by people using guns is awful. Of course the awful fact is that most of the people who die as a result of the use of a gun are caused by self-infliction/suicide and we should work harder as a population to deal with the underlying causes of suicide attempts.
What I do not understand is the rationality of those who argue that more laws restricting ability to legally own and use firearms are necessary. We have laws regarding who can and cannot purchase firearms already. For instance Hillary Clinton is saying if elected president she would work to use executive authority to keep people guilty of domestic violence from purchasing firearms--guess what this already happens if people purchase from a dealer or live in states that require background checks on private (person to person, non-dealer) sales. If the question is the laws regarding person to person sales, many states require background checks be completed to make those transfers of firearms legal already. Primarily, I guess my question is what makes anyone think that those who are intent on criminal behavior or are mentally irrational (due to illness, depression, whatever reason) would be so concerned about the law? You cannot take back things that are already in existence, guns already exist and even if outlawed would still exist and still have a marketplace. People who are going to engage in criminal behavior are not those who care what the law says about behaviors, much less about ownership/usage of firearms. People who are mentally irrational may care about the law but are at a place in their life that they either care less about the law or are incapable of caring about the law. For my two cents, this renders arguments in favor of more laws restricting ownership/access to the laws less rational and points out that perhaps we simply need to bolster application of existing laws.
What I do not understand is the rationality of those who argue that more laws restricting ability to legally own and use firearms are necessary. We have laws regarding who can and cannot purchase firearms already. For instance Hillary Clinton is saying if elected president she would work to use executive authority to keep people guilty of domestic violence from purchasing firearms--guess what this already happens if people purchase from a dealer or live in states that require background checks on private (person to person, non-dealer) sales. If the question is the laws regarding person to person sales, many states require background checks be completed to make those transfers of firearms legal already. Primarily, I guess my question is what makes anyone think that those who are intent on criminal behavior or are mentally irrational (due to illness, depression, whatever reason) would be so concerned about the law? You cannot take back things that are already in existence, guns already exist and even if outlawed would still exist and still have a marketplace. People who are going to engage in criminal behavior are not those who care what the law says about behaviors, much less about ownership/usage of firearms. People who are mentally irrational may care about the law but are at a place in their life that they either care less about the law or are incapable of caring about the law. For my two cents, this renders arguments in favor of more laws restricting ownership/access to the laws less rational and points out that perhaps we simply need to bolster application of existing laws.
Baseball Season Nears the End
I am not a very active professional baseball fan. I prefer high school and college sports to professional sports. I have too many other things to do to watch three to four hours four to five days per week to follow a team closely. But, thanks to my parents and some very good kindergarten and 1st grade instructors, I do know how to read and so I can follow baseball with about 15 minutes of reading a few days per week and a few peeks at the crawler on the bottom of the screen on ESPN. Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a Kansas City Royals fan (have been since I lived there in the mid 1970s while my dad was in seminary at Midwestern Theological).
For my two cents, hats off to the NL Central, hands down the toughest group of teams in professional baseball this year. The top three teams in this division had better win-loss records than the Royals, who had the best record in the AL. As the end of the season and the World Series approach, sit back and enjoy some of the best baseball of the year. I'll even make time to watch three or four hours of playoff ball. Go Royals.
For my two cents, hats off to the NL Central, hands down the toughest group of teams in professional baseball this year. The top three teams in this division had better win-loss records than the Royals, who had the best record in the AL. As the end of the season and the World Series approach, sit back and enjoy some of the best baseball of the year. I'll even make time to watch three or four hours of playoff ball. Go Royals.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Syrian Refugees (er, Excuse Me, Migrants)
I have been bothered in recent weeks by the issues surrounding Syrians fleeing fighting between the government, rebel groups (they are not a cohesive, singular rebel group and include Al-Qaeda linked organizations as well as others), and Daesh. These Syrians are the good guys in the equation, threatened by the government because of their political views, threatened by the rebels because of their politics, religious actions, social class, ethnic group, and threatened by Daesh because Daesh pretty much threatens everyone around them. In the last three days I have figured out exactly why I am bothered by this situation. I am bothered because of the use of the word "migrant". These people are not just migrants, migrants legal or illegal leave their home to go and get work or a better life in another country by choice and desire. The Syrians fleeing Syria are doing so out of fear for their life, not fear of their livelihood.
For my two cents, these Syrians, fleeing from Al-Assad and Al-Nussra, and Daesh are refugees. Refugees are accorded special consideration--don't believe me, read the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols on the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Retired Admiral Stavridis called U.S. actions related to this issue a challenge of character. I agree, these are refugees for political and religious reasons--the U.S. signed the Convention and Protocol--now we must act in accordance with the principles of character we espoused as a country or show the world we have no character. I know what I hope we do.
Addition 2 hours Later: Perusing Foreign Policy online and came across this item by Stephen Walt. I was heartened to see that a realist in whom there is no guile (to borrow a phrase) also feels angst over the question of what to do and whether we did the right thing vis-a-vis Syria.
For my two cents, these Syrians, fleeing from Al-Assad and Al-Nussra, and Daesh are refugees. Refugees are accorded special consideration--don't believe me, read the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols on the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Retired Admiral Stavridis called U.S. actions related to this issue a challenge of character. I agree, these are refugees for political and religious reasons--the U.S. signed the Convention and Protocol--now we must act in accordance with the principles of character we espoused as a country or show the world we have no character. I know what I hope we do.
Addition 2 hours Later: Perusing Foreign Policy online and came across this item by Stephen Walt. I was heartened to see that a realist in whom there is no guile (to borrow a phrase) also feels angst over the question of what to do and whether we did the right thing vis-a-vis Syria.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Unitary Rational Actor
One of the assumptions of realist theories in international relations is that states (governments) are unitary rational actors. This assumption means that states (governments) have one voice in international relations and that they act according to rank ordered preferences of outcomes in so far as possible. In relation to Cuba the Obama Administration may be breaking away from what many scholars have said is a tendency toward acting in a manner consistent with variants of realist theories of international relations. According to this article, the administration may break away from Congress in an international forum. When part of the government acts in a manner different from another part of the same government the unitary actor principle is thrown out the door.
For my two cents, the Cuban embargo should have ended long ago. The Cold War is over, in case you neocons and liberal internationalists alike have forgotten. Opportunities exist to make changes in the world to engage in the meaningful spread of economic and political freedoms in the world. But if you choke off the ability to engage populations because of Cold War principles, you are cutting off the potential to make real meaningful change in the contemporary world. What threat to the security of the U.S. population exists from being able to smoke a great Bolivar or Romeo y Julietta while sipping rum on the beach in Cuba? What threat to our security is represented by allowing U.S. companies to trade in Cuba or Cuban companies to trade in the U.S.? If you can explain the threat to me, please do so.
For my two cents, the Cuban embargo should have ended long ago. The Cold War is over, in case you neocons and liberal internationalists alike have forgotten. Opportunities exist to make changes in the world to engage in the meaningful spread of economic and political freedoms in the world. But if you choke off the ability to engage populations because of Cold War principles, you are cutting off the potential to make real meaningful change in the contemporary world. What threat to the security of the U.S. population exists from being able to smoke a great Bolivar or Romeo y Julietta while sipping rum on the beach in Cuba? What threat to our security is represented by allowing U.S. companies to trade in Cuba or Cuban companies to trade in the U.S.? If you can explain the threat to me, please do so.
Standards? What Standards?
Let me see if I understand things correctly. Nuclear probes were supposed to be conducted to determine if the Iranian government was developing fuel and triggers for nuclear weapons at their nuclear energy/technology facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency has responsibility for overseeing the conduct of these probes. The IAEA allows the Iranian government to conduct the probes and submit the reports of findings in these probes. I am not making these statements up out of thin air, read this article.
For my two cents how can you call these probes unbiased, fair, respectable? In no other case of investigation has the investigated party ever been allowed to be responsible for conducting the investigation. What a joke IAEA, what a joke international community. If the question of nuclear proliferation is important, then own up to the responsibility and to holding the Iranian government accountable. Accountability mean having outside oversight to ensure that the actor keeps the standards to which the actor has agreed. If the Iranians agree to the standard of non-proliferation then they must allow the outside accountability or they have not truly agreed to be held accountable for upholding the standard.
For my two cents how can you call these probes unbiased, fair, respectable? In no other case of investigation has the investigated party ever been allowed to be responsible for conducting the investigation. What a joke IAEA, what a joke international community. If the question of nuclear proliferation is important, then own up to the responsibility and to holding the Iranian government accountable. Accountability mean having outside oversight to ensure that the actor keeps the standards to which the actor has agreed. If the Iranians agree to the standard of non-proliferation then they must allow the outside accountability or they have not truly agreed to be held accountable for upholding the standard.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Syllabi Sexism and APSA Baby Issues
Two things piqued my thoughts recently regarding my chosen profession. One is sexism in assigned readings in the study of international relations (interesting blog piece here that started me thinking and looking at my syllabi). The other was that APSA did not have insurance coverage that allowed babies in the annual convention exhibition room.
I do not consider myself to be sexist about academic work. Based on my judgment, 6 out of the top 10 students I have worked with were females at the undergraduate level. Based on those faculty members I was around as an undergraduate and graduate I have a limited sample, but anecdotally the female faculty I worked with were on par with the male faculty I worked with during the same time periods, which is to say some were fantastic, most average, and some, well some... I also had several female classmates as an undergraduate who were fantastic students and several female members of my grad school cohort who were great and several who were, well they were, and again the same could be said of all of the male classmates and grad school cohort members. I have been accused of being sexist because of my belief that some careers are meant for men to fill--I do not believe women should serve in special operations and combat arms areas of the military (go ahead an hate me for saying so if you want, but I have a right to my opinion--and it may stink also, educated though it may be). I have never and will never feel that academia is one of those areas where females should not find fulfilling careers--why, because women are just a smart or smarter than men and just as capable or often better capable than men when it comes to use of analytical thoughts. Which is why I had no surprises when looking at my bookshelf and looking at the readings I required of my students and finding that just shy of 50% of what I have read and/or am requiring my students to read was written by women.
For my two cents, the valid question involved in the issue of sexism in academic study of international relations is on the publishing side of the equation. Does the fact that male publications outnumber female publications create the situation where more male written scholarship appears in our syllabi represent sexism on the part of the syllabi authors or some degree of potential sexism in the editorial and review staff of journals and academic material publishers? As a reviewer I do not know the name of the author or authors who wrote the work I am reviewing. Can I guess, on a rare occasion I can guess the author(s) based on writing style and thematic content. But, the editors at the journals and the presses know. So the question of sexism may or may not be as validly aimed at the writers of syllabi as at the publishers.
On to the baby scandal at APSA. Apparently babies were turned away at the exhibition hall at APSA. Two reasons, one stupid, the other stupider were mentioned by the blogs I have read about the subject. One, only properly credentialed conference attendees are allowed into the exhibition hall (we would not want spouses and kids looking at books, coffee urns, meetings with editors, etc.). Two, APSA did not have the proper insurance to cover kids in the exhibition hall. You decide which is stupid and which is stupider. APSA was, for my two cents, being cheap and opted for a lower level of insurance coverage for the conference that did not cover kids in the exhibition hall. I will not tell you what I think about kids being at conferences as my opinion on the matter is worth no more or no less than anyone other opinion on the matter. Ok, I will tell you, I have taken my kids with me to conferences, but never to the exhibition hall or to professional activities at the conference (they and their mother or they by themselves were capable of staying in the room or engaging in other vacation type activities while I worked). So I really do not have an opinion as I have never been in the position of taking a child requiring adult supervision at all times to a conference and thus have never really thought about the issue until reading about it this week.
I do not consider myself to be sexist about academic work. Based on my judgment, 6 out of the top 10 students I have worked with were females at the undergraduate level. Based on those faculty members I was around as an undergraduate and graduate I have a limited sample, but anecdotally the female faculty I worked with were on par with the male faculty I worked with during the same time periods, which is to say some were fantastic, most average, and some, well some... I also had several female classmates as an undergraduate who were fantastic students and several female members of my grad school cohort who were great and several who were, well they were, and again the same could be said of all of the male classmates and grad school cohort members. I have been accused of being sexist because of my belief that some careers are meant for men to fill--I do not believe women should serve in special operations and combat arms areas of the military (go ahead an hate me for saying so if you want, but I have a right to my opinion--and it may stink also, educated though it may be). I have never and will never feel that academia is one of those areas where females should not find fulfilling careers--why, because women are just a smart or smarter than men and just as capable or often better capable than men when it comes to use of analytical thoughts. Which is why I had no surprises when looking at my bookshelf and looking at the readings I required of my students and finding that just shy of 50% of what I have read and/or am requiring my students to read was written by women.
For my two cents, the valid question involved in the issue of sexism in academic study of international relations is on the publishing side of the equation. Does the fact that male publications outnumber female publications create the situation where more male written scholarship appears in our syllabi represent sexism on the part of the syllabi authors or some degree of potential sexism in the editorial and review staff of journals and academic material publishers? As a reviewer I do not know the name of the author or authors who wrote the work I am reviewing. Can I guess, on a rare occasion I can guess the author(s) based on writing style and thematic content. But, the editors at the journals and the presses know. So the question of sexism may or may not be as validly aimed at the writers of syllabi as at the publishers.
On to the baby scandal at APSA. Apparently babies were turned away at the exhibition hall at APSA. Two reasons, one stupid, the other stupider were mentioned by the blogs I have read about the subject. One, only properly credentialed conference attendees are allowed into the exhibition hall (we would not want spouses and kids looking at books, coffee urns, meetings with editors, etc.). Two, APSA did not have the proper insurance to cover kids in the exhibition hall. You decide which is stupid and which is stupider. APSA was, for my two cents, being cheap and opted for a lower level of insurance coverage for the conference that did not cover kids in the exhibition hall. I will not tell you what I think about kids being at conferences as my opinion on the matter is worth no more or no less than anyone other opinion on the matter. Ok, I will tell you, I have taken my kids with me to conferences, but never to the exhibition hall or to professional activities at the conference (they and their mother or they by themselves were capable of staying in the room or engaging in other vacation type activities while I worked). So I really do not have an opinion as I have never been in the position of taking a child requiring adult supervision at all times to a conference and thus have never really thought about the issue until reading about it this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)