Archive for the ‘current events’ Category
In its particular contribution to “jihadi security studies,” The Management of Savagery provides what Will McCants and Jarret Brachman call the “playbook” for what is referred in these writings as “regional jihad”: the attempt to seize territory within the Muslim world and establish a self-governing Islamic state in a sea of hostile opponents backed by the West.
In order to do this, Naji’s strategic doctrine echoes Mao’s familiar three-phase theory of revolutionary warfare in which the insurgent organization can be in one or all phases simultaneously. In the first phase, the Islamist insurgent actor seeks to create or exploit “regions of savagery” through violent or shocking actions that collapse central authority or state control via “damage and exhaustion.” The second phase establishes primitive forms of government to “manage” such “regions of savagery,” which he claims would be accepted by shell-shocked people desperate for security. These forces would gradually expand government services while engaging in even more shocking violence in order to extend the “regions of savagery” and defend them. The final phase is the transition from the “administration of savagery” in various regions to a fully governed Islamic state under a Salafist version of Islamic law.
What is distinctive in Naji’s doctrine is his emphasis on shocking and spectacular violence as an asymmetric warfare strategy—a jihadist shock doctrine. One of most important lessons of Robert Tabler’s The War of the Flea is that insurgent actions must always mobilize a population to side with their cause. In a chapter dedicated to “Using Violence,” Naji emphasizes that shocking violence is not only effective for recruitment and instilling fear, but that it is the primary means to create a society-wide crisis that will polarize the population and drag everyone into the battle. Naji contends that, “We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death. That will be a powerful motive for the individual to choose to fight in the ranks of the people of truth in order to die well, which is better than dying for falsehood and losing both this world and the next.”
Interesting – the strategy is to make death so likely that you care about how you will die, so you are attracted to triumphalist ideologies. Niva’s essays take a Weberian turn. After ISIS creates perpetual crisis, then comes the phase of pacification and monopolization of violence.
In one the proudest moments in the history of nerdery, GenCon’s ownership has come out against Indiana’s SB 101 bill, which encourages private businesses to discriminate against gay customers:
The organizers of Gen Con, the city’s largest convention in attendance and economic impact, are threatening to move the event elsewhere if Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial religious freedom legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples.
“Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years,” said Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con LLC, in a letter sent to Pence just hours after lawmakers sent the measure to his desk.
Gen Con’s website describes the convention as “the original, longest-running, best-attended gaming convention in the world!” The conference attracted 56,000 people last year to the Indiana Convention Center and has an annual economic impact of more than $50 million, Swartout said in the letter.
“Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds,” she wrote. “We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention.”
Let’s hope that the governor sees the wisdom in vetoing this bill.
An op-ed in the New York Times makes the case for open borders. From Debunking the Myth of the Job Stealing Immigrant by Adam Davidson:
… Few of us are calling for the thing that basic economic analysis shows would benefit nearly all of us: radically open borders.
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition. (There is one notable economist who wasn’t polled: George Borjas of Harvard, who believes that his fellow economists underestimate the cost of immigration for low-skilled natives. Borjas’s work is often misused by anti-immigration activists, in much the same way a complicated climate-science result is often invoked as “proof” that global warming is a myth.) Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
Outstanding. I hope this spurs more discussion of open borders.
A few weeks ago, President Obama spoke eloquently about the Civil Rights movement. He reminded us of the struggle for freedom in this country. The separation Blacks and Whites represented an insult to humanity, a violation of morality that simply could not stand.
Today, we are faced with another immoral policy – the wall that separates men and women of different nations. Whether it be an iron curtain, an electric fence, or a border post, the restriction of peaceful movement between countries is a moral and economic disaster. It separates families, it inhibits trade, and prevents people from helping themselves.
On this day, Open Borders Day, I call on President Obama to tear down this wall. Tear down this wall that makes us deport the parents of young children. Tear down this wall that makes us force human beings back into holes of hideous poverty. Tear down this wall that makes us ship our brothers and sisters like cattle into the slaughterhouses of despotic nations.
Mr. President, the Civil Rights movement taught us an eternal lesson – walls are bad. Let us take that lesson to the present. What we do to the men and women of Mexico, or Nigeria, or Sweden, is no less immoral than what we did to African Americans. Let it stop today.
Tear down these walls. Open borders now. Open borders forever.
I’m kind of obsessed with the REF, considering that it has zero direct impact on my life. It’s sort of like watching a train wreck in progress, and every time there’s big REF news I thank my lucky stars I’m in the U.S. and not the U.K.
For those who might not have been paying attention, the REF is the Research Excellence Framework, Britain’s homegrown academic homage to governmentality. Apologies in advance for any incorrect details here; to an outsider, the system’s a bit complex.
Every six years or so, U.K. universities have to submit samples of faculty members’ work – four “research outputs” per person – to a panel of disciplinary experts for evaluation. The panel ranks the outputs from 4* (world leading) to 1* (nationally recognized), although work can also be given no stars. Universities submit the work of most, but not all, of their faculty members; not being submitted to the REF is not, shall we say, a good sign for your career. “Impact” and “environment,” as well as research outputs, are also evaluated at the department level. Oh, and there’s £2 billion of research funding riding on the thing.
The whole system is arcane, and every academic I’ve talked to seems to hate it. Of course, it’s not meant to make academics happy, but to “provide…accountability for public investment in research and produce…evidence of the benefits of this investment.” Well, I don’t know that it’s doing that, but it’s certainly changing the culture of academia. I’d actually be very interested to hear a solid defense of the REF from someone who’s sympathetic to universities, so if you have one, by all means share.
Anyway, 2014 REF results were announced on Friday, to the usual hoopla. (If you’re curious but haven’t been following this, here are the results by field, including Sociology and Business and Management Studies; here are a few pieces of commentary.)
In its current form, outputs are “reviewed” by a panel of scholars in one’s discipline. This was strongly fought for by academics on the grounds that only expert review could be a legitimate way to evaluate research. This peer review, however, has become something of a farce, as panelists are expected to “review” massive quantities of research. (I can’t now find the figure, but I think it’s on the order of 1000 articles per person.)
At the same time, the peer-review element of the process (along with the complex case-study measurement of “impact”) has helped to create an increasingly elaborate, expensive, and energy-consuming infrastructure within universities around the management of the REF process. For example, universities conduct their own large-scale internal review of outputs to try to guess how REF panels will assess them, and to determine which faculty will be included in the REF submission.
All this has led to a renewed conversation about using metrics to distribute the money instead. The LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog has been particularly articulate on this front. The general argument is, “Sure, metrics aren’t great, but neither is the current system, and metrics are a lot simpler and cheaper.”
If I had to place money on it, I would bet that this metrics approach, despite all its limitations, will actually win out in the not-too-distant future. Which is awful, but no more awful than the current version of the REF. Of course metrics can be valuable tools. But as folks who know a thing or two about metrics have pointed out, they’re useful for “facilitating deliberation,” not “substitut[ing] for judgment.” It seems unlikely that any conceivable version of the REF would use metrics as anything other than a substitute for judgment.
In the U.S., this kind of extreme disciplining of the research process does not appear to be just around the corner, although Australia has partially copied the British model. But it is worth paying attention to nonetheless. The current British system took nearly thirty years to evolve into its present shape. One is reminded of the old story about the frog placed in the pot of cool water who, not noticing until too late that it was heating up, inadvertently found himself boiled.
From the Washington Post article on the “insanely confusing” path to citizenship.
Last night, President Obama announced new policies that would allow approximately five million persons to live in peace without fear of deportation. If you have lived in the United States for five years and have no crimes, you can obtain a status that allows you to be a legal resident. A similar rule applies to people brought as children and those with family members who are here legally. All I can say is “bravo.”
As much I applaud this action, it leaves serious problems unresolved. Currently, immigration to the United States is extremely difficult unless you are highly skilled or come from a country that has favored status. If you want to come to America because you want to escape poverty, political persecution, or organized crime, you have to pay thousands of dollars in fees, wait years, and hope that your number will be called. The chart above summarizes the complex and confusing immigration system. It’s not designed to facilitate legal migration. It’s designed to prevent migration.
It is completely normal for people to move to pursue jobs, be with friends, or simply to be in a place that they like better. Thus, let’s abolish this monstrosity of an immigration system. I’d advocate completely open borders, but there are other humane systems. For example, much migration is linked to jobs. Having a program of guest worker permits with unlimited renewals would be one such system. Let’s think of others. This country was founded on open borders, let’s make it that way again.
On Thursday, President Obama is scheduled to make a speech where he will likely announce an executive order that curtails some of the worst aspects of our immigration system, such as deportation of individuals who were brought to our country as children. I fully understand that Obama is a politician, not a magician. Even if he agreed that migration restrictions are unwise, he probably won’t act to pardon every undocumented immigrant.
However, I do hope that tomorrow’s actions won’t be an excuse to restrict migration even more. Instead, I hope that amnesty, or deferral of action, will allow Americans to reassess immigration. I want Americans to realize that travelling from Mexico to Arizona is no different that travelling between North and South Carolina. As long as someone travels peacefully, leave them alone. Preventing someone from taking a job, or owning a home, or enrolling in school, based on their nationality is no different than preventing someone from taking a job because they are Jewish, Black, or female. It’s simply wrong.
So tomorrow, I will cheer for every person who can now sleep without the fear that they will be forcefully moved to another country. But at the same time, I ask my fellow Americans to think seriously about the morality of immigration restrictions and I hope that they see that is simply an unjust law. We need a new world, a world of open borders.