http://tinyurl.com/y9frowx
Besides the Presidential Primary and “Live Free or Die!” (the state motto and, for many, an aspiration of sorts), New Hampshire (my “work state” — I reside in Massachusetts) has one more claim to fame as the home state of Franklin Pierce, 14th president of the US who served one term (1853-1857). Pierce is typically regarded by all as worthy of an extremely low rating in that job, and there is no doubt that he was a nice but incompetent gentleman who will probably best be known for his support of the South during the Civil War.
Despite this, his name adorns a college in NH that is best known for its law school (which may separate and become part of the University of New Hampshire in the not too distance future).
That all said, and despite a very informative Wikipedia entry, there is perhaps no better insight into Pierce than a short radio piece titled The Saddest President. Worth a listen, especially if you are in the mood to hear about someone who just could not cut a break….
November 20th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
This morning’s profile of US Senate candidate Scott Brown in the Boston Globe was very interesting on a number of counts — quite a character. I especially liked the bit about him being the third best known person in his family.
There is also a few whiffs of “juicy” stuff as well — from his wild childhood to his nude centerfold pic in Cosmopolitan. One episode not mentioned was a public “meltdown” he had in early 2007 in front of an audience of high school kids. See here, where you will also get a look at that centerfold photo.
But what is really interesting about that write up in CapeCodToday was the fourth comment posted below the article from “Ted from Hyannis Port”: Cosmo approached me for that photo shoot, but their magazine wasn’t wide enough.
Given what we now know about Ted Kennedy’s sense of humor, I thought it is a good bet as to the author’s identity. But alas, Ted from HP is still commenting in CCT, which makes my “find” highly suspicious…. Oh well, it seemed worth a good speculation and blog post….
November 20th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
After years of studying and writing about the Constitution, I’ve become somewhat attached to that instrument, not because it reflects the genius of some mythical “founders”, but rather because it represents the enduring nature of political bargains struck in the heat of summer by a bunch of “interesting” pols who just wanted to get the hell out of Philadelphia.
I have also come to appreciate the degree of respect paid to the document, and am always thankful that most of those who study and “practice” it appreciate its complexities and subtleties — at least most of the time.
Some recent events have me concerned, however. First is the indifference and impatience demonstrated by those — the Dick Cheyneys and John Yoos of the right and a growing number of commentators on the left — who think Congress is irrelevant and there to be circumvented. As I point out to my students, there is a reason that Congress is the subject of the first Article of the Constitution, and even more significant that all the substantive powers of the national government are placed in that Article — and therefore in Congress. They are more than a hurdle for the president to overcome or circumvent. In fact, with the exception of the ambiguous phrases “executive power” (which did not mean “CEO” at the time of the writing) and commander-in-chief, there is little doubt that what the president can do is determined by provision of the law as passed by Congress. Proposals or strategies designed to circumvent Congress would be — and should be — unconstitutional. Period.
The problem is that many of those who advocated emasculating Congress are members of Congress — and we have seen this in one form or another for most of the 20th century as Congress gleefully outsources its responsibilities (in law school terms, delegates it authority) to others. The latest is the so-called Independent Deficit Commission — a bad idea that has popular legs and might actually be enacted. What is being advocated is more than a delegation of authority which (pre-FDR) would have never been considered viable, constitutional or wise. But wisdom is in short supply in Washington at the moment…..
What seems incongruous is that this proposal is being considered just as we see a push in the Senate to emasculate the Fed — and for good reason. The Fed is an independent monetary policy commission that has used it authority over the flow of money through national banks to leverage a deregulatory policy agenda that is clearly at the heart of the current financial crisis. It is assumed that independence and autonomy was necessary for the Fed to control monetary policy as it has, but the boundaries of that authority knows no bounds in the wrong hands. Compare (as many now are) the inflation hawk decisions of Volcker (where the model worked) with the policies under Greenspan who was not as concerned with do the job the Fed was authorized to do as he was with freeing up the financial markets. We are living through the results….
What we need is a movement for a responsible Congress, not one focused on being responsible to public opinion or the interests of constituents, but rather responsible to its constitutional role…..
After years of studying and writing about the Constitution, I’ve become somewhat attached to that instrument, not because it reflects the genius of some mythical “founders”, but rather because it represents the enduring nature of political bargains struck in the heat of summer by a bunch of “interesting” pols who just wanted to get the hell out of Philadelphia.
I have also come to appreciate the degree of respect paid to the document, and am always thankful that most of those who study and “practice” it appreciate its complexities and subtleties — at least most of the time.
Some recent events have me concerned, however. First is the indifference and impatience demonstrated by those — the Dick Cheyneys and John Yoos of the right and a growing number of commentators on the left — who think Congress is irrelevant and there to be circumvented. As I point out to my students, there is a reason that Congress is the subject of the first Article of the Constitution, and even more significant that all the substantive powers of the national government are placed in that Article (Section Eight) — and therefore in Congress. They are more than some “hurdle” for the president to overcome or circumvent. In fact, with the exception of the ambiguous phrases “executive power” (which did not mean “CEO” at the time of the writing) and commander-in-chief, there is little doubt that what the president can do is determined by provision of the law as passed by Congress. Proposals or strategies designed to circumvent Congress would be — and should be — unconstitutional. Period.
The problem is that many of those who advocated emasculating Congress are members of Congress — and we have seen this in one form or another for most of the 20th century as Congress gleefully outsourced its responsibilities (in law school terms, delegates it authority) to the president, independent agencies, and others. The latest is the so-called Independent Deficit Commission — a bad idea that has popular legs and might actually be enacted. What is being advocated is more than a delegation of authority which (pre-FDR) would have never been considered viable, constitutional or wise. But wisdom is in short supply in Washington at the moment…..
What seems incongruous is that this proposal is being considered just as we see a push in the Senate to emasculate the Fed which, when oyu think about it, is an Independent Monetary Policy Commission. The anti-Fed moves are wrranted. As an independent monetary policy commission, the Fed (mainly under Greenspan) has used its authority over the flow of money through national banks to leverage a much more significant deregulatory policy agenda that is clearly at the heart of the current financial crisis. It was rightly assumed that independence and autonomy was necessary for the Fed to control monetary policy as it has, but the boundaries of that authority knows no bounds in the wrong hands. Compare (as many now are) the inflation hawk decisions of Volcker (where the model worked) with the policies under Greenspan who was not as concerned with doing the job the Fed was authorized to do as he was with freeing up the financial markets. We are living through the results….
What we need is a movement for a Responsible Congress, but not one focused on being responsible to public opinion or the interests of constituents, but rather responsible to its constitutional role….
November 12th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
Having been through the H1N1 valley, first reaction is: eh!
Climbing the ridge to the other side has proven more difficult — Mr.Wheez (who was the only good company I had on the trip) has turned into an potentially evil road companion. Possible pneumonia fears (nothing positive yet on xrays) leads to prednizone protocol and escalation of Albuterol… Read More treatment using a “nebulizer” (puffing ain’t good enough, obviously; now have to use a nasty little air compressor gadget that has all the power (but none of the charm) of a bong — and some of the same outcomes; what are those old Beatle tunes that keep running through my head….)
But, that regimen of prednizone is having the predicted impact on my diabates which I had under reasonable control. Has raised my already abnormally high BG count to average of 200 so far after only one day….Result is I have do those damn BG readings every 90 minutes or so (oh, my poor finger tips filled with little holes!). That is in addition … Read Moreto the pills X, Y, Z every two to fours, the albuturol treatment every six hours, plus my usual regimen of pills for this in the AM and that in the PM. I was kidding in earlier post somewhere that I needed a project management software to get through this — well, no longer kidding. The to-do list cannot manage this thing.
I am beginning to wonder if the deaths among older adults linked to H1N1 are result of exhaustion….
October 23rd, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
Observation: The flu treatment plan is a work in progress.
Testing is strange — tests seem to confirm in couple of hours, but take 24 hours to disconfirm, but by then patient may actually develop the flu (either that or their are several tests out there…) and nothing is definite since tests don’t confirm specific flu (seasonal or H1N1). Logic is applied: you have tested positive for flu, and since we have not seen seasonal flu cases in this area yet, it must be H1N1 (problem is, folks like me who have now had “confirmed” H1N1 walk around as if immune, but what if it was false positive for H1N1 and really was seasonal; am I really off the hook now or should I take the vaccine when provided?)
No wonder the words used by CDC are parsed.
And those parsed words are changing and problematic as well, since the instructions you get depends on the last time the medical staff read them. So as of now I am more than 24 hours without fever, although not fully asymptomatic since I have a lingering cough. From all I can tell, this cough will linger for awhile — some place I read it hangs on for weeks. In acknowledging such, CDC modified its advice on H1N1 from 24 hours fever-free plus no symptoms to 24 hours fever-free. But that update does not seem to be passed on….
Then there is the paranoiac behavior of grown-ups who only hear what they want to hear. Oblivious to information, they wander around seeking a temporary germ-free lifestyle and conjure up Monty Pythonic images of their bodies being tossed onto rickety old wooden carts while they scream “but I’m not dead yet!” One begins to understand how quickly all pretenses of civility and common sense courtesies disappear during periods of real panic — and why those who keep some sense of proportion and concern deserve all the admiration we bestow on them. At minimum they are worthy of being called “mensches” — but sometimes they are rewarded cultish sainthood….
Bottom line, however, is that if what I had was H1N1, then all I can say is that the bodily illness itself will likely prove a hell of a lot less annoying to its individual victims (actually, pretty mild compared to previous flu bouts) than will its social consequences….
October 21st, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
[I got carried away with my FB posts on Ostrom this AM, so thought I'd bring it all to one place where it might make more sense...]
Basics of Ostrom’s work: institutions and “science” matter.
Institutions matter because people matter, not as self-serving individuals, but as social beings engaged in developing solutions to collective problems from dealing with potholes and arranging for other public services to establishing rules for dealing with the “commons”. Here is where she most overlaps with her co-winner, Oliver Williamson…..
Along these lines, the work of Ostrom and Williamson can be traced back to Adam Smith — but not the Smith of Wealth of Nations (a “false god” if there ever was one), but the Smith of Theory of Moral Sentiments. My work on accountability is directly related to the idea that the relationships underlying governance are ultimately shape by the constitutive arrangements of “moral communities” that form and direct the operations of the two major economic institutions of our day: the commons (Ostrom) and the firm (Williamson)…..
Science matters because it provides the opportunity to test our views on institutions — not as a means to “prove”, but as a driving force to “falsify” the unwarranted assertions of reformers who often forget that logic and belief are not enough when it comes to governing.
This was the lesson of the NSF-funded course I took from Lin as a young assistant prof. In promoting that view over the decades she has put to use a very liberal approach to methdology, calling on her students and colleagues to rely on surveys, field research, social experiments, etc — whatever it takes to put assertions to the test. In this respect, her work is distinct from Williamson, and is more in the tradition of another political science Nobel laureate, Herbert Simon.
October 12th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
Anyone who watches (let alone experiences) a “flash mob” (here and here) cannot help but be amazed at capacity of folks to harness, shape and literally direct collective action. But getting past the “awesome”-ness of it, there are some really interesting questions to ask and comments to make.
There seems to be a general (and unproven) rule regarding the “new technology” that anything we are anxious or concerned about turns out to have a net positive impact. The “biggy” in this regard was the prediction and fear that computers and the internet will isolate us all, increasing alienation and promoting anti-social behavior (see here for interesting exposition from Chinese analyst). The counter arguments — that the fears were exaggerated or that new forms of sociability will replace old — are proving fascinatingly correct. The fact that “promise-trumps-anxiety” is a topic worth exploring.
Even more significant has been the impact of the new technology on our views of collective behavior, especially as it relates to “cults” and “mobs”. Two dominant tropes of the recent past have been the “lemmings to the sea” (derived from a “Disney myth”; see here) and “day of the locust” (associated with Nathaniel West novel; see here) metaphors that have all too often been used to justify laws and other actions that attempt to constrain the undesirable potential threats (real and imagined) that cults and mobs represented. These constraints relate to two dangers: that a collective assembly can turn into an ugly mob unless governed; and that a governed mob can turn to cultish behavior if over-controlled. Assuming the best of intentions, efforts to strike a balance can be seen as the rationale for fostering what Foucault called “governmentality” which plays a central role in making us all “governable.”
Flash mobs and the like are just the latest and most public examples of a different perspective that emerged from the study of chaos and complexity in the 1980s and by the mid-1990s had taken the form of “artificial life” studies. Questions about the underlying “emergent” mechanisms that generated social behavior among “other species” (from Wilson’s work on the sociobiology of ants to the examination of flocking birds) were initially accepted as further proof of the lack of human capacity to naturally harness the positive potential of emergent collective action — it just wasn’t in our genes!
The creation and study of algorithm-driven artificial life led to a rethinking of the possibilities, but experiments with “mobs” outside the safe confines of computer simulations were out of the question. Nevertheless, some natural experiments have emerged on the political (e.g., the color revolutions) and artistic stages (flash mobs) that cannot be ignored by students of collective behavior.
The key here is obviously the spread of what analysts are now calling “locative media” (read here and here) — itself an emergent institution being inadvertently generated by the commercial development of location-based “devices” (e.g., cell phones) and location-based services (e.g., GPS and iPhone “apps”). The old fears and anxieties about panoptic surveillance risks and the threat to privacy are clearly warranted, and the careful examination of these “downsides” requires as much attention as ever. But we social scientists also need to stand back a bit and consider the impact and implications — both positive and negative — of these new developments in collective behavior.
September 27th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
One of the basic distinctions I try to emphasize in my courses is the difference between a dilemma and a problem. A dilemma involves choosing between (or among) roughly equivalent good (or bad) options, while a problem calls for selecting what is determined to be the better option among a range of choices that are not deemed even roughly equivalent. This is a somewhat “loose” distinction that comes in handy when trying to understand the work of public administrators.
I think the difference applies in the current situation in Afghanistan. A Facebook post this morning from a former student stationed there drew attention to a Washington Post story about a decision to pull US troops from deployment in a sparsely populated area where the Taliban was active and instead focus US military commitments to more populated areas where US troops can be used to greater effect.
Going beyond the details, this is a classic case of “dilemma dealing” in that the commanders had to chose between two equally (again, roughly speaking) bad options. It is also an indication of the current state of affairs in what the Post now calls the “AfPak” front. The focus is no longer on solving the Taliban “problem”, but rather in dealing with the dilemmas created by our commitment to confront that problem.
Understood this way, one can have a greater appreciation of the significance of the current debate over “strategic options” within the Obama Administration. Strategies are designed to address problems, but it would be a mistake for them to be considered without focusing on the dilemmas they create for the troops on the ground. McChrystal’s now well publicized report should be read for what it is: an assessment of the dilemmas the US deployment is facing that have to be contended with. It is not, as some have read it, a call for any particular change in the strategic approach. This is not an emerging MacArthur-Truman confrontation as some seem to be implying.
September 24th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
When I was in Belfast a few years ago (January 2005 to be more precise), the BBC broadcast a fascinating and very controversial 3-part documentary titled “The Power of Nightmares.” The basic theme framed neo-conservatism and the radical Jihad movements as parallel developments, each promoting visions that are at the heart of the current “war on terror.” Despite my inclination to take such strong interpretative presentations lightly, this was a coherent and impressive piece of work, and I wondered how it might play in the US.
Well, I never got the opportunity to find out, because it never did make it to the US. (I wrote on this in a May 2005 post, and mentioned it again in a July 2005 post.) In what can only be regarded as a case of censorship, it was not really possible to find the documentary anywhere — the BBC maintained its site pages on the show (but did not include access to clips) and only snippets showed up on youTube and the other usual places. Having seen the three “chapters”, it was certainly not because of any graphic depictions or gross libel. Rather, this was purely a case of outright blockage, either out of fear by US broadcasters that the presentation was just too controversial or simply outright censorship.
And so I was pleasantly surprised to stumble on the documentary in downloadable formats at archive.org (http://tinyurl.com/ahfjb). I don’t know how they managed to pull this off since, as some of the comments note, they do not seem to have any permissions posted with the film. But just in case, I’ve downloaded the three segments to store for future use and reference. (I have since revisited a site noted in my earlier posts where the show can still be streamed (http://tinyurl.com/6kya9), and the same stream is accessible via Google.) video. These essentially claim noncommerical “fair use” rights.)
The comments at the archive.com site, by the way, attest to just how controversial the show is. Those with the strongest negative opinions focus on the portrayal of the neo-cons, and accuse the producer of gross distortions of the movement and its history. But while they make special note of the editing and overall presentation of the narrative, the quality of the interviews with notable figures in (and students of) the neo-con movement is impressive. I am certain some of those interviewed had no idea how their responses would be used, and perhaps it is their influence that has kept the film off US screens for several years. I do believe, however, that this will prove to be an interesting (and cited) source of historical research on the post-9/11 era.
September 12th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
My colleague, Justin O’Brien, presented our co-authored paper at the American Political Science meeting in Toronto yesterday. The conference is actually still going on (until Sunday), but our paper was scheduled for a panel on Thursday.
Thanks in large measure to huge time zone differences (Justin is based in Brisbane, I’m in Massachusetts), as well as my inability “let go” of any project without a fight, we did not finish this paper until Tuesday — and even then there was plenty of material left on the virtual “editing room floor”.
I could not make it to Toronto, but Justin said the paper was well received among those who had a chance to look it over. But of course we would like to have more feedback — and so the paper is posted at http://mjdubnick.dubnick.net/papersrw/2009/dubobr2009.html. Feel free to download, read and provide feedback. All we ask at the moment is that it not be cirted without “permission” (in short, if there is something worthy to use — or attack — in the paper, no problem so long as we are aware).
The idea for the paper came from the frustration felt over the years of having to deal with the meaning of accountability. In recent years, the use of the term has increased significantly, and yet we probably have less of a grasp on what this concept means than we might have several decades ago. And then came the current financial crisis, and if there is one term that pervades all the debates and narratives it is “accountability.” Here was an opportunity to get some insight into accountabiltiy by studying its use in the discourses surround the global financial market collapse.
There is little systematic analysis in this paper. Instead we try to draw out and highlight what we can from the use of this important “Keyword”. A couple of interesting frameworks emerged as a result, and we think this may prove to be a fruitful approach to deal with this elusive concept and its role in governance.
Hope some of you will read the paper and send us some feedback. Our emails are on the title page.
mjd
September 4th, 2009
Posted by
mjd |
accountabilitybloke |
no comments
A blog focused on things related to accountability, governance and all sorts of other ideas that I might want to share.