Books, TV, Movies--My List

Ok, I haven't blogged in awhile, been real busy trying to remodel a room at the house, teach four classes and a lab session each week, and keep up with reading.  Hey that's what I am blogging about now, reading, or reading and watching, what should people interested in political science, particularly international relations, read and watch.  I am spurred to this effort by the work of Stephen Saideman and a piece at Ducks of Minerva.  I have some overlap with both of these lists, and, of course Steve may not like it that I say you should read more realism, but hey, this is my two cents.

Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, I re-read it every few years.  Why does the largest group not always win? 

Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics,  one very cogent way to think about the puzzle that is our world is simply to realize that our world is a puzzle.  Charity toward our fellow man, population, state, should teach us that we may not understand what is meant by words and actions that others take and often we have created bias that informs our understanding in a bad way.

Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, realism from a political economic perspective that also teaches us that while Marx is dead, and communism pretty much sucks, that Marx did understand a few things about perspective that can be applied to understanding competition for power and security.

John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, thoughtful, and easy to read.  Wow, why can't everyone make interesting material approachable.  And, yes, great power behavior is tragic.

Stephen Walt, The Origin of Alliances, why do we make friends, why do we take sides?  I happen to agree with Walt, threat matters more than ideology.

Hugo Slim, Killing Civilians, one of the hardest to read (because of the content, no problems with style) books I ever picked up.  Immensely valuable material, particularly for the sheltered in our midst, that I suggest everyone read in any class on warfare of any type. 

Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, a difficult read, but a must if you really want to understand constructivist viewpoints regarding international relations.

Brigitte Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, I would not normally recommend a textbook, but this one is useful and practical for understanding various ways of discussing, defining, and generally understanding terrorism.

Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War, quoting from Ducks of Minerva, "Most successfuls comps outline in the history of academia," which sums up this book nicely.

St. Augustine The City of God and Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, both need to be read, particularly if you want to really understand just war theory.

What to watch, I have to agree here with Steve, watch classic Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica.  I also recommend watching Breaker Morant and Lord of War for various reasons related to human behavior in wartime and human insanity in general.

Buy a Shotgun

Joe Biden, the esteemed vice-president of the United States, in pushing the firearm agenda of the Obama administration says that we should buy a shotgun. Now, I have no real issue with this comment.  In fact, I have told people for years, if you are not going to take the time and make the effort to be proficient in the use of a handgun or rifle, and still want to defend yourself, buy a shotgun.  Of course, my buy a shotgun is apparently different than that of VP Biden, who wants you to have a single-barrel, single-shot or at best a double-barrel shotgun.

"We live in an area that's wooded and secluded," Biden said. "I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here ... put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

"I promise you whoever's coming in is not gonna," Biden said. "You don't need an AR-15 (assault rifle). It's harder to aim. It's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."
"Buy a shotgun," he said, lowering his voice almost to whisper.

Well, let's stop and think about this for a minute VP Biden.  "Fire two blasts outside the house."  Fire at what, do you aim, or just fire off both barrels?  Once you have fired those two barrels into the air, what happens next?  Most people are not going to be proficient at rapid reloading of shotguns.  I can fire about 6 rounds per minute with a single-barrel, if I hold shells between my lips and between my fingers when I start the process.  And what did you hit if you just blasted off two rounds?  

Sorry VP Biden, but while the shotgun idea is sound, what is more sound is to buy a pump action or semi-automatic shotgun that holds five or more 2 3/4 or 3 inch shells loaded with buck shot.  What is even more sound is to aim at the intruder in the window, doorway, hallway through which they are invading your personal space/private property, not to go outside the house and fire off two rounds (which assumes you are going to hear the intruder coming and hear them outside your home).  Even more sound is having aimed at the intruder to shoot the intruder.  Of course this is only my two cents worth of thought, and I pray to God that no person has to make these sound decisions, ever.  

Academic Writing vs. Public Writing

Since most of the pointy-headed academics types (full disclosure:  this statement refers to myself) read the same blogs and works when they do research in the same or similar areas, I am not surprised to find my mentor, Steve Saideman, commenting upon this recent blog from Stephen Walt.  I am also not surprised to find Steve pointing us back to Drezner and to the response to Walt by Ulfelder.  You can read Saideman's response to Walt here.  And of course, here is my two cents on the Walt comments.

First, the conversation regarding writing well in academia is as old as writing in the academy.  So, if anyone expected something earth-shattering or new, forget about it.  Walt gives a restatement and his own opinion, but not a new argument.

I have personally found writing in general to be poor stylistically and grammatically in the last several years of my academic career.  My own writing suffers from issues of style and clarity, that I must work very hard to overcome.  So, my own argument is that we simply do not work carefully enough on our writing.  More to come on this issue.

What does Walt get right?  Well, what we are writing about is often difficult to express with great ease and clarity for the general public.  But, that is the general public.  I think Walt fails to account for the intended audience of the written work.

Walt considers logic of discovery and logic of presentation.  Well, logic of discovery is appropriate in the language of the written work or oral presentation if one is writing to other academics or students of the subject matter.  Logic of presentation is appropriate if you are writing to a general audience that is not versed in the "jargon" of the academic discipline which the written work is attempting to engage. 

Walt himself makes this point, but seems to ignore it in his critique of writing well:

"really effective writing involves sitting down and thinking hard about the best way to present that argument to the reader."

Well, to whom am I writing.  If I am writing to other political scientists who study conflict processes (ethnic conflict, civil wars) and political violence (terrorism and counter-terrorism) I use a different prose and metric of writing than if I am writing to my mom and dad about the discoveries I have made in my research.  I would also write differently to policy-makers than to my mom and dad about the same discoveries.  I mean by questioning how well we write to question how well we edit our work for the intended audience.  We academics often forget to ask who the reader is before submitting work for consumption--or maybe I am just writing about myself.  However, what we academics need to further ensure is that in addition to crafting the work for the intended reader is that we grammatically craft our work properly, period.   

China and Tibetan Self-Immolations

So, according to my count from various sites, Tibetan self-immolations hit 100 last year.  According to this article the number is approaching 100.  But more importantly look at what the Chinese are doing in response to Tibetan self-immolation.  Over 70 arrests of people who are inciting the self-immolations and continued denunciation of the Dalai Lama, apparently this is the best the Chinese can do.

Here's my two cents.  The Chinese government might want to investigate why 100 people were willing to set themselves on fire.  The Chinese government might find that some policies can be altered in ways that change the socio-econonomic and socio-political landscape in Tibet.  Policy might even be changed without the Chinese government losing control of the territory.

DOJ White Paper on Targeting U.S. Citizens

I have previously addressed what I consider to be the constitutional issue of killing Anwar Al-Awlaki.  So anyone who knows what I have written and what I stand for knows that I believe in a tight reading and application of the U.S. Constitution.  But, here we go again, thank you DOJ for ensuring that I continue to view my government with suspicion and disgust.

In as few words as possible, the best way to understand the DOJs determination in the white paper is stated by Rosa Brooks at foreignpolicy.com:

"If you were worried about whether it was okay for the U.S. government to kill an American citizen overseas, you can relax: The Justice Department says such killings are hunky dory, as long as some "informed, high-level official" decides that citizen poses and "imminent threat" and capture would be "unfeasible"."  (read the article here)

Kudos to Brooks for then tearing apart, cleanly, and systematically the logic of the papers key claims.  Paramount within these claims are that a senior official can make the decision, and that imminent threat may not actually mean something that we know will happen soon, or even ever.  Who is a senior official?  And, what happened to imminent meaning right now and threat meaning something that will really happen?

Of course, my biggest problem is still that the 4th and 5th amendments to the U.S. Constitution are violated.  I could care less about what Pakistan thinks about us striking targets inside Pakistan, but can those targets include U.S. citizens--not without a trial and a finding by a court that this U.S. citizen is guilty of a crime.  And even then, execution requires a finding of guilty of a capital offense and that proper procedure be followed in the carrying out of the sentence--is death by drone strike cruel and unusual?

Thoughts on France

So, I spent ten days in Nantes (yes, the Nantes of the Edict of Nantes (1598) abrogated by Louis XIV (1685)), Normandy, and Paris.  Surprising, I suspect, those who mistake my making IR jokes about France for a dislike of France.  Remember that the only government that I tell more jokes about than the govt of France is the govt of the U.S.

So, as usual, I do have my own two-cents worth of thoughts about places that I visit.  One, the French nationals in Nantes and Normandy were as friendly and helpful as you will find people anywhere.  Ok, maybe this has to do with my inept attempts to at least ask directions to the bathroom and for a cup of coffee in their language.  Two, Jules Verne rocks--got to go to his house (now a museum) look at the models and posters of movies made from his books and just ponder for a moment or two the breadth of imagination that filled those rooms during Verne's lifetime.  Three, Saumur Champigny is a great red wine varietal.  Four, I still feel like a 10 year old school boy when I see castles and ruins--loved Clisson, Angers, and Guerande.  Five, Normandy was chilling, I walked where death and destruction were mighty and heroes still lie, I'll admit it, I wept.  Point du Hoc (hail to the Rangers), ya'll climbed that under fire--wow.  Omaha beach, that ravine is the path of the beach, through that foliage, and oh yeah the guys shooting at you from up there.  For an old airman, and pointy-headed academic geek, it was a nearly overwhelming experience.  Six, Versailles is a low rent district palace in comparison to the Peterhof, Catherine's Palace and the Winter Palace I saw in St. Petersburg last May, sorry France, but ya'll don't have enough gold leaf covering everything.  Seven, did you see the "Marriage at Cana" by Veronese?  No, but I saw that little painting on the other side of the room called "Mona Lisa".  Of course I saw the Marriage at Cana--it is huge.  You really need several hours or only one hour to go to the Louvre--do you want overload or just to look at some specific art?  Finally, Parisians told me to enjoy the snow because it doesn't happen that often, well if I wanted snow I could have stayed at home.

Anyway, that is the abbreviated two cents.  I'll say more,maybe even share a picture or two later.  Meantime, go to my website to see pictures as I post them:   http://www2.gcc.edu/dept/pols/faculty/stanton/

Final Tibet Self-Immolation Count for 2012

Total Self-Immolations:

         100

And just to make sure the socio-political situation does not change...
  

China appoints new Tibet governor, hardline policies to remain