GOP SotU Response Better than SotU (2) - Didn't Expect that

Part one of my response to Obama’s 2012 State of the Union is here.

3. The foreign policy section was weaker and more militaristic than usual. The opening bit about the Iraq war making us ‘safer and more respected around the world’ was jaw-dropping. I guess this really is a campaign speech outreach to the right, because I can’t believe any of the president’s 2008 voters actually buy that line. Does anyone believe that anymore, except for the right-wing think-tank set or something? Wow. Didn’t we vote for Obama because of exactly the kind of Bushian American hubris that can read an unjustified, unprovoked, unilateral assault on another state (which would have provoked howls of rejection by Americans if done by any other country in the world) as a great American victory? Veterans too got a pander wishlist – even though even Michelle Bachmann (!) has come to realize that VA benefits will have to be included in any budget deal.

Friday "I Really Am Just a Nerd" Blogging

I was shocked and dismayed to read Brian Rathbun's characterization of me in a recent Canard as a "robot" who has only been posing as a Battlestar Galactica addict as part of my cover (!):

The academic and foreign policy worlds were rocked today by the news that Charli Carpenter -- prolific academic, policy wonk, and mom -- is in fact a robot. An anonymous source told this paper: "There were the academic writings, then all the policy work, the grant writing and management. She never missed her son's soccer games though... it was just too much. Her makers made a mistake by not giving her any weaknesses."

The revelation replaces the previous rumor among academics that Carpenter was actually an alien from the series Battlestar Galactica that she loves so much. That appears to have just been a hobby for the robot... Our CIA source said, "There is no room in this country for relentlessly hard-working academic robots raising well-adjusted families, no matter who it turns out they work for."

This bit of yellow journalism, peppered with conjecture and misinformation, regurgitates a malicious leak from the alleged intelligence community without corroboration, and ill-befits a blogger of Rathbun's caliber. The saddest part is that colleagues I know and love (to watch sci-fi with) have apparently taken these rumors at face value and are now doubting my status as a bona-fide nerd:

Friends were shocked, but not necessarily surprised. Dan Nexon, a professor at Georgetown University, said, "We always joked that Charli was a machine. She writes like a book a week. And good ones, too. Not the usual schlock we turn out." He added, "She was always so good with technology. And she really likes science fiction. We all hoped she was just a nerd though. I guess we were fooling ourselves. I feel so betrayed."

Well, to Dan and to anyone who has fallen victim to this conspiracy theory, I offer up the following as proof of both my humanity and my authentic nerd-dom:

GOP Response Better than SotU (1) - Wow, How'd that Happen?

Each year I try to write on the SotU (2010, 2011). I know they are preposterously scripted, usually forgettable, and almost meaningless as a guide for the upcoming policy season/budget debate. But the political scientist in me thinks that showing the whole panorama of democratic government in one room is hugely instructive for the both US citizenry and for foreigners interested in the US, as well as a great example of how democracies differ from oligarchies and dictatorships with their sycophantic, faux ‘legislatures.’ Let’s hope that somewhere some Chinese, or Burmese, or Syrians can see this and dream that one day they too can … play their own SotU drinking game.

Friday Nerd Blogging

Even Brian Fratbun will have to admit this is pretty brilliant!

More on the most anticipated Super Bowl Commercials of 2012.

BREAKING NEWS -- Charli Carpenter is a Machine!

THE CANARD

"All the fake news that fit to print."

-- Amherst

The academic and foreign policy worlds were rocked today by the news that Charli Carpenter -- prolific academic, policy wonk, and mom -- is in fact a robot. She was taken captive this morning in a rare joint operation by the FBI, the CIA, and NASA.

Friends were shocked, but not necessarily surprised. Dan Nexon, a professor at Georgetown University, said, "We always joked that Charli was a machine. She writes like a book a week. And good ones, too. Not the usual schlock we turn out." He added, "She was always so good with technology. And she really likes science fiction. We all hoped she was just a nerd though. I guess we were fooling ourselves. I feel so betrayed."

Indeed it was this ferocious work ethic, combined with Carpenter's interest in robotic warfare, that first set off alarm bells in the CIA. Carpenter blogged frequently about issues of robotic warfare at the Duck of Minerva, monitored by the Company as a barometer of academic opinion on issues of international relations. It is believed that Carpenter's research on whether there was an emerging norm against robotic warfare was a either probe of the level of human resistance that would accompany the revelation of her race of machines, or an elaborate ruse to gain access to policy-making circles so that she could collect intelligence about the state of machine-led warfare in the U.S. in an effort to prepare for an eventual takeover of the world.



The 'human' Carpenter

However, it was only after the FBI began monitoring the droid professor that they began to suspect that she was a machine. An anonymous source told this paper: "There were the academic writings, then all the policy work, the grant writing and management. She never missed her son's soccer games though. And she is so pretty too. It was just too much. Her makers made a mistake by not giving her any weaknesses." He added, "And you would give a female robot a boy's name, wouldn't you? It was just too obvious." Surveillance revealed that Carpenter never slept.

Carpenter is currently being held in an undisclosed location thought to be somewhere near her home in Amherst. Our anonymous source said, "She can't do much harm there. There are more dairy cows than people." Previously used methods of enhanced interrogation are, of course, proving fruitless on the robot. It is not known where she came from or her precise instructions.

Carpenter's true "self"

The revelation replaces the previous rumor among academics that Carpenter was actually an alien from the series Battlestar Galactica that she loves so much. That appears to have just been a hobby for the robot. Carpenter also seems to have developed a taste for American fantasy literature as well. Our CIA source said, "It makes you think more about the boundary between man and machine. Where does one begin and the other end? Still it is our job to protect American security. There is no room in this country for relentlessly hard-working academic robots raising well-adjusted families, no matter who it turns out they work for."

Robotic Planes: Harbinger of Robotic Weapons?

LA Times' latest article on drones raises the spectre of "robot weapons" in relations to the X-47B, Northrup Grumman's new drone prototype with the ability to fly solo - part of an ongoing force restructuring as the US military cuts back significantly on human personnel.

While one might well ask whether a robotic plane (i.e. one that can fly autonomously) constitutes a robotic weapon if a human is in the loop for any targeting decisions, what's notable about this narrative in press coverage is that the increasing autonomy of non-lethal systems is certainly being constructed as a harbinger of a slippery slope to a world of fully autonomous weapons systems (AWS). Anti-AWS campaigner Noel Sharkey is quoted in the article:

"Lethal actions should have a clear chain of accountability," said Noel Sharkey, a computer scientist and robotics expert. "This is difficult with a robot weapon. The robot cannot be held accountable. So is it the commander who used it? The politician who authorized it? The military's acquisition process? The manufacturer, for faulty equipment?"

And this is the first press coverage I've seen that invokes the evolving position of the ICRC on the topic:

"The deployment of such systems would reflect … a major qualitative change in the conduct of hostilities," committee President Jakob Kellenberger said at a recent conference. "The capacity to discriminate, as required by [international humanitarian law], will depend entirely on the quality and variety of sensors and programming employed within the system."

Indeed, ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger's keynote address during last year's ICRC meeting on new weapons technologies in San Remo suggest that legal issues pertaining to autonomous weapons are indeed at least percolating on the organization's internal agenda now, as opposed to previously. Thinking ahead to norm development in this area - the interest of a key player in the arms control regime signals an emerging trend in that direction - it's worth having a look at the entire relevant text from that speech by Kellenberger:

Obama's Offshore Dominance

Before I launch in, I just wanted to say quickly to Dan Nexon and all the folk at the Duck, thanks for letting me stay on board! I normally lose respect for institutions that decide to keep me as a member, but this is one exception.

Its a little late in coming, but I wanted to post some thoughts on Peter Beinart's thoughtful recent description of President Obama's evolving approach to US grand strategy as 'offshore balancing.'

Stephen Walt has already responded, and there have already been some great posts on the broader issue of what really counts as offshore balancing, here, and here.

One of the difficulties in the endless debate over how to taxonomise US strategic behaviour is that many folk naturally emphasise techniques or goals (or means and ends) at the other's expense. Perhaps this reflects a deeper reflex in Washington foreign policy debate, where the overriding goals of American diplomacy are debated far less intensively than the means. Muscular liberals might agree with Neoconservatives that the ultimate goal is American benevolent primacy in the world, which in turn would advance American and global security, but they disagree at times over how to get there (consensual multilateralism and institution-building or hawkish unilateral action, etc). At times this can lead to a certain 'narcissism of small differences.'

Robots and Prejudice

At ThinkProgress Alyssa Rosenberg shares a lovely new short film about robots and prejudice:

No Robots from YungHan Chang on Vimeo.

Rosenberg draws a distinction between the representations of robots in this film and the scarier representations in much popular culture:

Often, when we see robots in popular culture, they’re actually more powerful than we are. If the Cylons were a metaphor for, say, Irish immigrants to the United States, they’d be telling a story about workers rising up from the slums and engulfing us all in whiskey and potatoes. These metaphors tend to legitimate the fears of privileged class rather than debunking them. But a movie like No Robots has a different power differential. The shopkeeper is angry at a robot who is physically smaller than he is, who is annoying rather than intimidating. He commits an act of terrible violence against that much more vulnerable actor. And then he discovers that things he’s conditioned to want to protect and find adorable—kittens—are emotionally dependent on the robot, who has been stealing milk to feed them. It’s a narrative that questions the shopkeeper’s prejudices and assumptions, rather than suggesting he’s right to be angry and afraid of a new element in his environment.

I think she may overstate the case: there are an awful lot of pop culture archetypes of robots as a vulnerable, altruistic underclass even in the West (remember AI? Wall-E?) and in Japanese culture the Terminator/Cylon archetype is far less prevalent than a view of robots as cute, cuddly and benign. But still, on this blog at least we've certainly focused more on war-bots, and this film is a healthy reminder of the many ways robots can be used as metaphors for complex social relations and hierarchies. Kudos to the producers.

Bad Predator?

Peter Singer has an op-ed in the Times which carefully makes the case against drones by carefully putting forth the proposition that their use undermines democracy:

What troubles me, though, is how a new technology is short-circuiting the decision-making process for what used to be the most important choice a democracy could make... We must now accept that technologies that remove humans from the battlefield, from unmanned systems like the Predator to cyberweapons like the Stuxnet computer worm, are becoming the new normal in war. And like it or not, the new standard we’ve established for them is that presidents need to seek approval only for operations that send people into harm’s way — not for those that involve waging war by other means... WITHOUT any actual political debate, we have set an enormous precedent, blurring the civilian and military roles in war and circumventing the Constitution’s mandate for authorizing it.

Well, as least this is a better argument than the other barbs against drones - the ones that focus on the weapons themselves as somehow uniquely offensive in terms of war law. (Last year, Lina Shakhouni and I bombed that set of arguments back to the stone age.)

But Singer narrows in on a different thread in this debate: that certain weapons are a game-changer not because they are useful, but because of how the conditions under which they are used affect our sense of how war is to be conducted, what it is, and who decides. It's an interesting set of arguments.

But is it any better in terms of the causal claims on which it rests? Dissenting views are rolling in.

The ICC and Kenya: In the Thick of Deterrence

Antony Njuguna / Nairobi

The big news out of the ICC today was the confirmation of charges against four of the "Ocampo Six" Kenyan elites accused of orchestrating and inciting the country's post-election violence in 2007-2008. Ruto, Arap Sang, Muthaura and Kenyatta had their charges confirmed and are expected to appeal; charges against Kosgey and Ali were dismissed by the Court's judges because of a lack of evidence.

The decision comes four years after the violence and almost two years after the investigation was opened by the Chief Prosecutor. In that sense it is an underwhelming "milestone" but it is nevertheless an important reminder of the potential significance of ICC justice for Kenyan politics and stability.

The Court is mindful of its impact on stability. In its summary statement today it expressed that

"The chamber is mindful of concerns regarding the precarious security situation in parts of the country. It is also attentive of its responsibility to maintain stability in Kenya, and to fulfill its duty vis-a-vis the protection of victims and witnesses....It is our utmost desire that the decisions issued by this Chamber today, bring peace to the people of the Republic of Kenya and prevent any sort of hostility."

Stability concerns are related to the upcoming presidential election. Two of those now set to stand trial - Kenyatta and Ruto - have both expressed their intention to run in the election but it's now unclear if that will be possible. But their rival ethnic and political factions are more likely to use domestic and international attempts to mete out justice as political engineering.

Power Shift in Global Economic Governance

Has the worm finally turned? Reuters today featured a story on the emerging market economies' push-back against the status quo of Western-dominated global economic governance. The piece features an explicit demand (and overt exercise of financial leverage) for a power shift in the predominant international financial institutions, specifically in the context of the IMF's recent request for an additional $600 billion in resources from its member states to help bail out Europe.

Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal is quoted in the story as saying:"What we can be certain of is that large developing nations will not agree to provide additional funds without a greater say in the IMF, and this applies to all global economic governance organizations."

Urination Distraction

Over the past few weeks we’ve had to endure military brass and top government officials falling over themselves to condemn American GIs – first for urinating on dead Afghans, and more recently for beating a sheep. Earlier in the Iraq and Afghan wars, we’ve suffered through pious denunciations of soldiers who tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib or laughed as they targeted “dead men” with drones.

How noble the sentiment!  Criticizing ordinary servicemen who do not abide by the rules of engagement or who break the laws of war.  In fact, however, most of the official condemnation has ulterior motives.

The real purpose is not to shame or punish the soldiers, appropriate as that is.  Rather it is to advance and legitimate the war effort, with all its attendant inhumanity and cruelty.

Happy Year of the Dragon

I apologize to Duck readers for being such a slacker this past semester.

Some things on the home/work front have had me tied down a bit, and the truth is I won't be fully back in the saddle until after this manuscript is done.

But. In the words of George R. R. Martin, fire cannot kill a dragon, and my Chinese New Years' Resolution is to start posting again (at least semi-regularly) despite all.

So what have I missed the chance to gripe about during my quasi-hiatus?

Great snakes, we are apparently one minute closer to our doom! Besides the collapse of Obama's nuclear non-proliferation agenda, I see Iraq is erupting predictably. Guantanamo Bay lingers ten years later, though with our brave new National Defense Authorization Act it may turn out to be a bit of a redundancy. Oh, and it looks like we may be gearing up for a fresh war.

Meanwhile, I see some of our Marines have tried to piss away whatever moral standing we still have abroad. (So says the media narrative, anyway. And then there's the sheep-beating video. I have a few thoughts on the whole "war stress" angle: but my main question is why fools like these keep posting videos online. Could it be a form of protest?)

Of course there are a few bright spots (or maybe not, depending on where you sit) the Obama Administration is championing human rights abroad in significant ways. The world is down a few dictators. And PC Magazine reports on the very patriotic porn industry's new effort to help troops reach out and touch loved ones.

Well so much for the stories I wish I'd had the time to blog about when they were in the news cycle. I may return to some of these in future weeks, though most of my posting this term will relate to doctoral pedagogy (teaching new seminar), battlefield robots and civilian protection (must finish book must finish book) and of course my share of nerd blogging. If readers have specific requests, do leave them in the comments.

House MD Epistemologist

Like many of my nerdy friends, I am eagerly awaiting the return of  the second half of this season's "House MD." But let's be honest, the show basically substitutes a flow chart for a plot. No one with half a brain actually watches the show for the "medical mystery"; after all the show is premised on a suspension of disbelief. It's entertaining and a guilty pleasure because of the wit and antics of the ever gruff Hugh Laurie.

But the show can be read as more than a series of implausible medical escapades; it is also a commentary on epistemology and society. Here is a quick round-up of what I have learned from House MD:

1. House is the most rational person in the world; House is a complete drug addict. These two statements are not a contradiction within the parameters of the show. House is a calculating, self-interested, rational utility maximizer par excellence. His utility is pleasure and his pleasure is avoiding pain... and of course getting more pleasure. He is Bentham's man; he is John Stuart Mill's homo-economicus; he is a neo-liberal fantasy in the flesh. House is not a complete human being by any stretch of the imagination and yet this is the human being idealized by rational choice theorists.

Thus, perhaps it should not surprise us that the show's protagonist moves rather indifferently from the hospital to the prison and back to the hospital as if these were merely interchangeable backdrops from Foucault's carceral archipelago. House cannot be reformed, resocialized, or rehabilitated by social institutions -- he is hardwired, his preferences are (apparently) exogenous -- governmentality does not apply to House. Notably, his incarceration makes little real impact on his personality or on his medical practice (and why should it?).

2. Everybody lies. Everyone, particularly every patient, on the show lies constantly -- it's the motto of the show. The interviewed subject (i.e. patient) can never be believed. The subject is a knowing subject who willfully deceives the (medical) examiner by telling him or her what they want or expect to hear. More importantly, the body contains the truth of the subject, but even the body deceives the examiner. Of course, the truth would not be worth much without being defined by these lies. The lies are what make the show interesting; the reasons for the lies are what are worth investigating. The lies uphold the social order and their unmasking reveals the inner workings of that society. Without understanding the reason for the lies, there is no way to solve the mystery.

What I Learned Teaching IR in Asia (1): Learning to Love US Hegemony

If you haven’t seen this yet, it’s pretty hysterical

I’d like to thank Duck contributors/editor, especially Vikash, for soliciting my contribution. The Duck is a great site, one I link to a lot on my own blog, so I am happy to come aboard. Thank you.

I have been teaching IR in Korea for almost 4 years. Generally, it’s a lot like teaching it in the West. The same theories get circulated, and we read the same journals. My university, a big state school, is organized a lot like any Big U in the US – dozens of departments, huge faculty, growing administration, a large middle class student body (but no student athletics). As at home, my department has theorists, internationalists, comparativists, and Koreanists. In fact, given how far away the Western system is geographically, it is almost a little too easy, too seamless. I guess this means political science really is a globalizing discipline.

So here are a few macro-lessons I have picked up teaching and conferencing IR in Asia:

Duck Stuff: In with the Old, in with the New

We are pleased to announce roster changes at the Duck.

Patrick Porter and Brian Rathbun have agreed to become permanent contributors. Quacktacular!

And today we want to introduce a new guest blogger - Robert Kelly. Bob teaches IR at Pusan National University in Korea and writes a lot on East Asian IR now. He went to Ohio State; his areas are security and IO. He has own site, which we recommend: Asian Security Blog. His favorite work to date is this. We are glad to have him.

Damn Yankees!

Wow. South Carolina took a cane to the "Mormon Massachusetts Moderate" last night. This moves Nate Silver to write a longish post comparing the conventional wisdom (now embodied by my colleague, Hans Noel, and his co-authors) with the "This time it's different" crowd, in which Silver makes not a single, tiny, one-off mention of Citizens United. I'm not saying that it's certain that Newt's rich friends dumping millions of dollars through independent, pristine, non-corrupting, corporations-are-people-too UberPacs  into a relatively small media market might have impacted the race (we'll wait for the capital-P, capital-S Political Scientists to prove it... or not)

Meanwhile, Romney has decided to heed campaign 101 and avoid the drip, drip, drip of TaxAvoidanceGate by releasing all of his returns his 2010 returns. Maybe Mitt can blow this, after all.

$h•! PTJ Says #3: protest banners vs. precise terms

 I am going to try writing down pieces of advice that I give to students all the time, in the hopes that they might be useful for people who can't make it to my office hours.


"Many if not most of the terms we use to differentiate styles and traditions of scholarly inquiry are tools for positioning ourselves relative to other scholars. Names of schools of thought, incontrovertible assumptions that have to be agreed to in order to belong to a particular club, shorthand references to 'great debates' and 'key controversies' -- treating these as though they had positive content is basically the same mistake as treating a nationalist claim to possessing some patch of ground from time immemorial as though it were a factual claim. Positioning can provide a helpful signal to other scholars, but but one should be careful not to go overboard in trying to give serious content to something that is basically a set of mapping coordinates.


"This is particularly problematic when we are discussing methodological terms, which are supposed to provide actual guidance for how to do good research. The ordinary academic machine that translates such terms into shibboleths and slogans does an immense disservice to anyone trying to figure out how to do, or to teach others to do, scholarly research, because if open is not careful one can easily find oneself trapped in a hall of mirrors. Perhaps the worst offenders nowadays are words like 'qualitative' and 'interpretive,' which seem to say something important about a style of research but actually don't. Both are better thought of as hortatory protest banners: 'qualitative' means something like 'you don't have to use numbers in order to engage in systematic procedures of data-collection and -analysis' and 'interpretive' means something like 'get out of your office and go talk to some people, and not just in order to plug their responses into a regression equation'. Okay, fine, but this tells me basically nothing about how to actually do anything.


"Precise terms give us guidance about how to 'go on' in producing scholarship that is in some sense valid. Protest banners get our blood pumping and fuel our passion, and maybe get us out into the streets to complain about the lack of thinking space for our kind of work in our field or discipline, but that's all they are good for. Don't try to teach using them, and don't spend too much time trying to give them positive meaning in your own work. Use them to carve out a little academic space for yourself, if you must, and then move on. Because at the end of the day, if you don't show me the intellectual payoff of your conceptual apparatus, I am not sure what on earth it might possibly be for."

Friday Anti-Nerd Blogging: The Appeal of Downton Abbey

People are going mad about Downton Abbey. The Rolling Stone calls it "crack for Anglophiles." The demand was enough to create a second "season," and is even giving PBS the notion that it might begin to draw in some of the types who watch Showtime and HBO series, maybe even Game of Thrones fans. I doubt it, if for no other reason that there are a lot more gratuitous boobs and f-bombs on the cable networks.

I have watched it. I like it. I will keep watching it. But I am curious as to why this particular British BBC import has done so well in the US, because, as I can tell, it is a pretty garden variety Masterpiece Theater-type show. It hits on all the usual themes of British period dramas -- class relations between nobles and the uppity bourgeoisie, upstairs-downstairs dynamics, the difficulties the British aristocracy faces in keeping their estates alive in a time of industrialization, the importation of wealthy American wives to solve that problem, soul mates who never love each other at the same time, the noble archetype character who loves so much but is too honorable to every say it because he feels so unworthy of receiving love (Mr. Bates), etc. And Maggie Smith as a bitch. Why do you all think it is so popular? No one has ever watched PBS before.

The thing that I find particularly interesting and noteworthy is that it shows how international conflicts change class dynamics at home. Most of these period dramas are set before or after WWI. Downton Abbey will straddle that war and show us the whole process. It is fascinating to watch the aristocracy bow to the inevitable decline in their position, even accept the legitimacy of that change, yet strive to maintain something of their former lives. But it probably appeals to me most because I am interested in war. Is that why everyone else likes it? I'd be curious to hear what you all think.

Except for you, nerds. Go back to your video games. NEEEEERRRRRDDDDSSSSS!

Friday Nerd Blogging

Hey, don't say Lord Eddard didn't warn us...