BTIRAM:Vinjamuri on the the Indie vs. Mainstream publishing throwdown

Best Thing I Read All Month (BTIRAM) or F is For Foot in Your Mouth

The article Publishing Is Broken, We're Drowning In Indie Books - And That's A Good Thing by David Vinjamuri (@dvinjamuri)  is the best thing I have read all month.  

As a former English major, I love these types of pieces--I crave them--I keep the them open on a tab in my Chrome browser and read and reread them all month when I am bored in class.  

Vinjamuri writes beautifully and clearly about the tension between Indie and Mainstream publishing.  He also exposes what a jerk best-selling author Sue Grafton is.  About Indie authors she said:

To me, it seems disrespectful…that a ‘wannabe’ assumes it’s all so easy s/he can put out a ‘published novel’ without bothering to read, study, or do the research. … Self-publishing is a short cut and I don’t believe in short cuts when it comes to the arts. I compare self-publishing to a student managing to conquer Five Easy Pieces on the piano and then wondering if s/he’s ready to be booked into Carnegie Hall.

That quote alone is enough to ensure I never pay to read a word Grafton writes.  Not that it will affect her, I know, but I will consider it my small part to strike back against pompous authors that make imprecise, illogical and inane comparisons.  

If you are undecided on the merits of Indie publishing, might I suggest you start here with Hugh Howey's gripping novel (series) Wool.  

F is For Foot in Your Mouth by Sue Grafton

PAST BITRAMs:

Gunpowder and Lead on Islamism

LINKS:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2012/08/15/publishing-is-broken-were-drowning-in-indie-books-and-thats-a-good-thing/print/

http://blogs.forbes.com/davidvinjamuri/

http://fuuo.blogspot.com/2012/07/gunpowder-and-lead-on-islamism-best.html

Wool Omnibus Edition (Wool 1 - 5)

Notes on Stephen Walt's "IR: One World, Many Theories"

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Stephen Walt, IR: One World, Many Theories 1998

*We are better off with a diverse array of competing ideas than a single theoretical orthodoxy.

Where are we coming from?

-  study of IR is protracted competition between realist, liberal and radical

*Realism: struggle for power among self-interested states, pessimistic about prospects for peace

            Classical:     states (like humans) have innate desire to dominate others

            Neorealist:   effects of international system, a number of great powers trying to                                    survive

            Defensive:states merely seek to survive and guarantee security through                                                alliances and defensive military postures

*Liberalism:

            - economic interdependence would discourage states from using force against each other

            - Spread of the democracy the key to world peace (democratic states more peaceful than autocratic ones)

            - encourage states to forgo immediate gains for greater benefits of long term           

            cooperation

*Radicalism:

            - orthodox Marxism say capitalism central cause of conflict

            - neomarxist dependency theory says large capitalists states ally with elites of developing world to exploit the masses

            - deconstructionist emphasize importance of language and discourse but haven’t   

            offered a lot on alternatives to mainstream theories

New Wrinkles in Old Paradigms

*In Realism redux, the problem of relative and absolute gains arises. 

*New Liberalism:

            - Democratic peace theory says democracies rarely fight each other, however in new democracies, the states are more prone to war, so promoting democracy can actually promote instability

            - Institutionalist point to NATOs ability to adapt

*Constructivism

            - the impact of ideas, such as Gorbachev embracing ‘common security’

            - Wendt: Anarchy is what states make of it

Domestic politics Reconsidered:

- emergence of interest in the concept of culture which intersects and overlaps with constructivists

*Walt points to realism as the most compelling framework for the future

Libya as a Case Study in the Difficulty of Developing a Scratch Democracy

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

          Libya as a Case Study in the Difficulty of Developing a Scratch Democracy

             Owens is clear that there is no reliable method to determine the cost and method by which to create a democracy (there’s not even a prevailing opinion on the matter).  So then perhaps the best solution is to espouse Huntington’s “Peace Among Civilizations;”  it stands to reason that the states best poised to assist a country in transitioning to a democracy would come from within their own civilization.  If one is to accept the claim of Mansfield and Snyder that adolescent or “partial” democracies fight more often (and are a larger threat externally) than stable, mature democracies, then a carefully structured and supported transition is of ultimate importance.  The problem with this rationale emerges when then if there are no (or few) democratic states in that civilization.

            

              An example of this is found in Libya.  This nation stands as a daily study in the difficulty of developing a democracy.  In Libya’s case, completing the first step of instituting a rule of law is a behemoth task, since Gaddafi stifled any and all institutions during his 40-year reign.  That Libya only has existed as a nation for just over 60 years (previous to that it was a federation of three provinces) adds to the difficult undertaking.  Libya’s case is further complicated in that it is not a cohesive nation-state, but rather a coalition (as opposed to a more permanent alliance) of disparate ethnic, tribal and religious groups.  This was evident in the revolution against the Gaddafi regime.  This international effort turned out to be a coalition within a coalition—disparate groups only temporarily cooperating for a common goal. 

Further question for discussion:

If emerging democracies tend to be outwardly aggressive, are they also more likely to be inwardly suppressive (toward minority or disenfranchised groups)?

Twitter as the New Nuke and the Convergence with Technology

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Twitter as the New Nuke and the Convergence with Technology

         Constructivists eschew the realist notion of the absolute importance of security and material power.  Instead they argue that it is ideas and beliefs that drive the forces within the world.  To better understand the value of constructivist theory it is useful to examine the relationship between these ideas and different technological breakthroughs.

           Two divergent technological advances to investigate are the employment of nuclear weapons and mobile smart phones.  Tannewald cogently reasons that a “nuclear taboo” developed due to the wellspring of ideas within the general public that influenced both institutions and states in such a way that effectively prevented their use after WWII.  The power of these ideas served as a necessary check valve against realist and liberal tendencies toward use/non-use of nuclear weapons.    In a parallel way, the Arab spring was realized not because of mobile smart phone technology itself, but because the technology serves as a nearly infinite amplifier of the wellspring of ideas.  Furthermore, this technology breaks down traditional identity barriers of state, socioeconomic class and ethnicity.  It is the dissolution of these impediments that allows a global transparency that has never been possible.  This transparency itself becomes an idea—realized communicatively through the idea of social justice. 

Questions for discussion:

1.  Is Twitter the new nuke, inverted?  Instead of an all-destructive nuclear weapon that no one will ever use, Twitter (and I’m using Twitter as a symbol for all social media conducted through mobile phones) is a non-violent weapon that everyone uses.  How powerful is a weapon that will never be used in comparison?   

2.  As new emerging powers develop nuclear weapons, will the current global “nuclear taboo” actually be proved to be global?  In other words, would a nation whose public has never had to grapple with the idea of the employment of nuclear weapons develop the same taboo? 

3.  What do liberals, realists and constructivists have to say about political/scientific assassination (aka the Israeli method)?  I know this one has nothing to do with what I wrote; I just wanted to have it here to examine at a later date.  

How Much is Your Vote Worth? Great graphic from NYT.

How democratic is the US System?

We came across this graphic in my Ethnic conflict class today--it's from several years ago but is definitely thought provoking.

NOTES:

The Senate?

            Places not people

            The 17^th Ammendment (1913)—more or less democractic

            *But Senate is partially there to protect the unique states’ rights

The Judiciary

            Override impossible

Suffrage

            State prerogatives

            Franchise and enforcement

Incumbent Advantage:

- In most countries, voting is a national holiday.  Why not in the US?  Cynical answer is because one can exclude the lower class this way. 

- # of days you can advertise prior to an election

Review/Summary of Dahl's exposition on US Democratic System.

LINKS:

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/legal/dahlra.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02cowan.html

On the Dangers of Half-Hearted IR Policy Implementation

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

On the Dangers of Half-Hearted IR Policy Implementation- A Historical Example    

   The post-WWI isolationist Congress’ handcuffing of Wilson’s idealism/liberalism and aspirations for a “community of power,” illustrates well the dangers of half-heartedly attempting to implement any sole international relations theory.  From the onset, the absence of crucial members sapped the power of the League of Nations; this weakness was further amplified by the lack of any concrete means to enforce its charter.  Finally, the League’s impotence was fully realized in the flawed policy of appeasement that grew from it.  The most obvious counterfactual to first explore then is: How effective would the League have been with the membership and the U.S., Germany and Japan?  

      Even the full-blown implementation of Wilson’s plan, however, likely would have met defeat (at some level) because liberalism (and realism) assume too much about the nature of man (and require every state to buy into the same interpretation).  Liberalism assumes a common value system shared by every person and state, when in reality many states have very different value systems; and it also assumes (and continues to assume) democracy as the best answer.  It was these different value systems that made the effects of appeasement so egregious in the time period leading up to WWII.  In appeasing Germany the aggressor state, the allies ignored the associated territorial and human losses.  While appeasement can be an effective diplomatic tool,[1] its effects can be devastating when the appeased operate on a different value system from the appeasers.  Had the allies operated under the realist assumption of the selfish, dominant nature of man (and by extension state), they never would have trusted the promises of Hitler.  Unfortunately, Hitler demonstrated the power of an unbridled realist, one who forged public opinion to his foreign policy desires, and not the other way around, as was the case with Wilson. 

Questions for further discussion include:

1.  How has the U. S. presidential election cycle (and the equivalent cycle in other democratic states) correlated to significant foreign policy decisions throughout history?

In other words, is decision-making about conflicts arising closer to an election ‘season’ influenced more by public opinion?  To that end, is the influence of public opinion less pronounced on newly elected leaders?

2.  How has the assumption of democracy as a ‘value system’ shaped and continue to shape foreign policy?  Does this assumption affect both realism and liberalism equally?  How does monarchy fit into state-state interactions today?

---

[1] Nye, Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (New York, Pearson Longman, 2009), 111.

Notes on Selected Chapters of Force and Statecraft by Lauren, Craig and George

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Notes on Selected Chapters of Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Challenges of our Time

Notes on Force and Statecraft

Introduction:

Dilemma of Force and Statecraft is when/how/if to use force—force that can be so dangerous

FAO *Diplomacy statue by Alves good model for FAOs*

*Does a superpower likes the US actually damage the world order and stability?

*Collective cooperation requires:

            - common interests and competition

            - structure appropriate to size

            - common values and procedures within the structure

            - adaptability

CHAPTER 1: THE EMERGENCE OF DIPLOMACY AND THE GREAT POWERS

Intro:

Diplomacy: the system of regulated and organized contacts between states which Europe has evolved…one of her most important gifts to the world

The Early techniques, instruments and ideas of diplomacy:

- From 6^th century B.C., the Greeks developed the practice of choosing ambassadors—they have no battleships at their disposal…their only weapons are words and opportunities (Demosthenes).

- Romans developed legal concepts like the law of nations, the law that’s commons to all mankind, and the importance of respecting legal obligations and honor treaties.

- Following the Romans, the Byzantine empire organized a special permanent governmental department to deal with foreign affairs.

- The Venetians (15^th century) established permanent diplomatic missions with a systemized diplomatic service.

- This all led to the creation of political science—notably among the creators of this discipline was Machiavelli

States and Raison d’Etat in the 17^th Century

- War shaped the formation, character and development of modern states

- Transformation began with the 30 years war (1618-48) and the Treaty of Westphalia

- The emergence of the modern state due to:

            Effective armed forces, able bureaucracy and theory of state that defined political interest in rational/practical terms.

- Rise of the raison d’etat = a state is more than its ruler, crown, prince and people…the state above all else!      

            EX: Cardinal Richelieu used this idea ruthlessly. 

            *French becomes the lingua franca of diplomacy itself

- Diplomats job = maintaining effective communication between the two princes, delivering letters and in protecting his Master’s subjects and conserving his interests.

- Overwhelming French power led to alliances to balance the power and to the Nine Years War (1688-97)

War and Competition in the 18^th Century:

-  this Age of Reason also witnessed an anarchy against all

- Began with Great Northern War of 1700-1721 (supremacy in the Baltic region)

            Peter the Great brought Russia into being as a modern state to do win at the Battle            of Poltava

- 1713/14 Treaty of Utrecht = first European treaty to mention BoP

- Callieres On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes 1716—best writing ever on diplomatic methodology

            *Cautions again large diplomatic conferences and reliance on lawyers

            *Foreign relations should be done by trained professionals vice politically- connected amateurs

Diplomats should be carefully educated in the lessons of history and trained in diplomatic skills and techniques, and should know exactly the state of the military forces both on land and sea.

- Frederick the Great stated: Negotiating without arms produce as little impression as musical scores without instruments.

- The rape of Silesia by Frederick is a great example of raison d’etat personified

- It took the French revolution and ensuing Napoleonic Wars to shock Europe into collaboration…defeating French forces during the Battle of Nations at Leipzig in 1813

            *Following 1815 Battle of Waterloo this collaboration stood as basis for first          international system based upon BoP for peace and security

CHAPTER 2: THE CLASSICAL SYSTEM OF DIPLOMACY, 1815-1914

Intro:

- efforts here produced a period of unprecedented peace…the classical system of diplomacy

Building a System with a BoP and a Concert:

- Congress of Vienna- major task not to just end past hostilities by to make a viable international system of peace and security

            *Castlereagh and Metternich were the two principal architects to tackle: how to     put power into the service of peace and security

            *The generality of dissatisfaction is a condition of stability because it ensures no     one party is totally satisfied and ensure relative  security (Kissinger)

- This all required a corporate buy-in though and to that end they made the Quadruple Alliance (soon added France to it) and the Concert of Europe

- In every crisis from 1815-1854 they worked together to find solutions to prevent war, and to minimize the wars of 1850s and 60s

- Why could they do this?!

            *Unusually skilled statesmen, and free from pressures of transparent democracies             to some extent

- Clausewitz’s On War: war is the continuation of political activity by other means.  The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it and those means can’t ever be in isolation from their purpose.

Change and an Experiment with a Defensive Alliance System

- Following revolutions of 1848, rise of nationalism created a rise of realpolitiker

            Statecraft is only defined in the exercise and application of raw power

            *Example of the folly of this being the senseless killings in the Crimean War

- the lessons of one generation are not always accepted by another

- This time period saw the widespread acceptance of Darwinism and rise jingoism

-  All this concerned Bismark, who wanted to puruse safety-politics

            *So he created an elaborate defensive alliance system: maintain equilibrium of  forces that was very complicated (and weak because of its complexity)

- 1864 Geneva Convention signed

- 1878 Congress of Berlin prevents danger in the Balkans

- 1884-85 Conference of Berlin called to forestall possibility of crisis arising

Further Change and an Experiment with Bipolar Alignment

- This change started with German-Russian alliance was severed in 1879

            *Poor German leadership launched Weltpolitik = make Germany a global power

- Evolved into post 1907 Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, and Italy) and Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia). 

Characteristics of the System

- Composition, numbers and types of actors

- Structure = balance among Great Powers…but this requires flexibility

- Shared goals and objectives

- Statesmen had to develop norms, methods and rules of accommodation

- Wars if fought with limited means for limited political objectives could be legitimate instruments of policy

- Reliance on just war theory and professional diplomats