We put WAY TOO much emphasis on estimators & software (Stata v R 🙄); not enough on the quality of the data going into the analysis.
Was the attack on the US Capitol an attempted coup?
Rather than debate that question here (or in another forum), I'm making it an assignment. Specifically, I'm asking my Quantitative Security students to determine if it belongs in our coup/attempted coup datasets.
[THREAD]
We put WAY TOO much emphasis on estimators & software (Stata v R 🙄); not enough on the quality of the data going into the analysis.
These include...
https://t.co/dyFBxlMGMt
Let me try this again\u2026 What would it look like if this were a coup (failed, in progress, or otherwise)? 1/n
— Kristen Harkness (@HarknessKristen) January 7, 2021
https://t.co/oyvCZPRTiH
Some thoughts on what we are seeing, why it is not a coup, what sort of bad thing it is, and what might make it a coup attempt.
— Naunihal Singh (@naunihalpublic) January 6, 2021
https://t.co/dRLmleKQky
https://t.co/3VZHAo35uX
Okay, a brief thread about this 'coup' framing. Coups involve overt attempts unseat a sitting executive, backed by the use or threat of force. The types of steps Trump is taking to discredit the election & remain in power are incredibly worrying, but they are not a coup. 1/x https://t.co/WQeGDRqusj
— Erica De Bruin (@esdebruin) November 10, 2020
Those include...
https://t.co/pdxbxJ9B1h
So, I'm not a political science junky, but it seems today's chaos does in fact fit the definition of a coup laid out by the Cline Center for Democracy.
— Jordan Weissmann \U0001f5fd (@JHWeissmann) January 6, 2021
They break coups into 12 different categories, including so-called "dissident actions." https://t.co/CaejpXg0NM pic.twitter.com/YO3du08xJm
https://t.co/HMYTUVrhEp
These include...
"based on what you read and based on the coding criteria used in the datasets you explored, should the event of Jan 6 be included as an observation in a coup attempt dataset?"
https://t.co/xhVElSAcoj
More from Paul Poast
Why are civil-mil scholars upset about Austin Lloyd's nomination as the 28th Secretary of Defense?
Consider the nomination of the 3rd Secretary of Defense: George Marshall
[THREAD]
In 1950, Truman wanted to fire the second SecDef, Louis Johnson, and install George Marshall as Secretary of Defense.
There was a problem: when the Department of Defense was created in 1947, section 202 of the 1947 National Security Act (which created the DoD, then called "The National Military Establishment") would not allow recently retired officers to serve as SecDef
https://t.co/bWx4h1OFah
Marshall had only retired as a 5-star General in 1947
Of course, by 1950 Marshall had already served as Secretary of State and had proposed the "Marshall Plan" for the recovery of Europe
Consider the nomination of the 3rd Secretary of Defense: George Marshall
[THREAD]
In 1950, Truman wanted to fire the second SecDef, Louis Johnson, and install George Marshall as Secretary of Defense.
There was a problem: when the Department of Defense was created in 1947, section 202 of the 1947 National Security Act (which created the DoD, then called "The National Military Establishment") would not allow recently retired officers to serve as SecDef
https://t.co/bWx4h1OFah
Marshall had only retired as a 5-star General in 1947
Of course, by 1950 Marshall had already served as Secretary of State and had proposed the "Marshall Plan" for the recovery of Europe
Let's talk about that "Longer Telegram" making the rounds...and why it's a
First, to be clear, it IS NOT a telegram. It's a report. I mean, it has a flipping 11.5 page executive "summary"...
...a two page table of contents...
...and clocks in at 62 pages (minus the forward and executive summary) or 73 pages (if you include the executive summary).
Of course, the author of "The Longer Telegram" calls it a "telegram" because they want it to be directly and explicitly compared to George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" about US policy towards the Soviet Union.
https://t.co/rHikkOYuoT
First, to be clear, it IS NOT a telegram. It's a report. I mean, it has a flipping 11.5 page executive "summary"...
...a two page table of contents...
...and clocks in at 62 pages (minus the forward and executive summary) or 73 pages (if you include the executive summary).
Of course, the author of "The Longer Telegram" calls it a "telegram" because they want it to be directly and explicitly compared to George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" about US policy towards the Soviet Union.
https://t.co/rHikkOYuoT
Is it true that democracies don't go to war with each other?
Sort of. But I wouldn't base public policy on the finding.
Why? Let's turn to the data.
[THREAD]
The idea of a "Democratic Peace" is a widely held view that's been around for a long time.
By 1988, there already existed enough studies on the topic for Jack Levy to famously label Democratic Peace "an empirical law"
The earliest empirical work on the topic was the 1964 report by Dean Babst published in the "Wisconsin Sociologist"
Using the war participation data from Quincy Wright's "A Study of War", Babst produced the following two tables
The tables show that democracies were NOT on both sides (of course, Finland is awkward given that it fought WITH Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union).
Babst expanded his study beyond the World Wars in a 1972 paper in Industrial Research. He confirmed his finding.
Sort of. But I wouldn't base public policy on the finding.
Why? Let's turn to the data.
[THREAD]
Democracies do not go to war with each other. There are a lot of empirical data to support that theory. I summarize that literature here. https://t.co/SQLk9J9rZ8 https://t.co/tLlSyisEIU
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) December 12, 2020
The idea of a "Democratic Peace" is a widely held view that's been around for a long time.
By 1988, there already existed enough studies on the topic for Jack Levy to famously label Democratic Peace "an empirical law"
The earliest empirical work on the topic was the 1964 report by Dean Babst published in the "Wisconsin Sociologist"
Using the war participation data from Quincy Wright's "A Study of War", Babst produced the following two tables
The tables show that democracies were NOT on both sides (of course, Finland is awkward given that it fought WITH Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union).
Babst expanded his study beyond the World Wars in a 1972 paper in Industrial Research. He confirmed his finding.
More from Government
They shouldn't be.
The pattern is:
GOP in power - GOP dictates policy
Dems in power - GOP dictates policy
The Dems shouldn't legislate toward the GOP.
The GOP doesn't represent its constituents.
The GOP can push it's agenda on its own time.
If Dems push an agenda that actually helps people, it'll also actually help the GOP constituency.
The GOP won't. So give them nothing.
The Dems should ignore the GOP just like the GOP ignores the Dems.
Make them pay for every moment of obstruction.
Just a hard press on legislation that is unassailable and shine a light on the GOP.
Constant. Relentless. Unyielding.
Shut them out and shut them down.
The GOP is not a legitimate political party. It is an anti-democratic, fascist criminal syndicate with no interest whatsoever in governance.
Nobody should give them the slightest bit of credit or legitimacy ever again.
Not a fucking ounce.
Nobody should engage them in legitimate debate in Congress.
They should be pariahs and treated as unserious occupants of Congress.
Because these people were totally ok with their colleagues being killed in furtherance of the destruction of the insitution.
The pattern is:
GOP in power - GOP dictates policy
Dems in power - GOP dictates policy
Soooooooo what\u2019s the problem. The statement I responded to read as it they haven\u2019t been trying to work together.. but they have so..?
— Othello (@BurberryKid11) February 2, 2021
The Dems shouldn't legislate toward the GOP.
The GOP doesn't represent its constituents.
The GOP can push it's agenda on its own time.
If Dems push an agenda that actually helps people, it'll also actually help the GOP constituency.
The GOP won't. So give them nothing.
The Dems should ignore the GOP just like the GOP ignores the Dems.
Make them pay for every moment of obstruction.
Just a hard press on legislation that is unassailable and shine a light on the GOP.
Constant. Relentless. Unyielding.
Shut them out and shut them down.
The GOP is not a legitimate political party. It is an anti-democratic, fascist criminal syndicate with no interest whatsoever in governance.
Nobody should give them the slightest bit of credit or legitimacy ever again.
Not a fucking ounce.
Nobody should engage them in legitimate debate in Congress.
They should be pariahs and treated as unserious occupants of Congress.
Because these people were totally ok with their colleagues being killed in furtherance of the destruction of the insitution.
You May Also Like
Stan Lee’s fictional superheroes lived in the real New York. Here’s where they lived, and why. https://t.co/oV1IGGN8R6
Stan Lee, who died Monday at 95, was born in Manhattan and graduated from DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx. His pulp-fiction heroes have come to define much of popular culture in the early 21st century.
Tying Marvel’s stable of pulp-fiction heroes to a real place — New York — served a counterbalance to the sometimes gravity-challenged action and the improbability of the stories. That was just what Stan Lee wanted. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The New York universe hooked readers. And the artists drew what they were familiar with, which made the Marvel universe authentic-looking, down to the water towers atop many of the buildings. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The Avengers Mansion was a Beaux-Arts palace. Fans know it as 890 Fifth Avenue. The Frick Collection, which now occupies the place, uses the address of the front door: 1 East 70th Street.
Stan Lee, who died Monday at 95, was born in Manhattan and graduated from DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx. His pulp-fiction heroes have come to define much of popular culture in the early 21st century.
Tying Marvel’s stable of pulp-fiction heroes to a real place — New York — served a counterbalance to the sometimes gravity-challenged action and the improbability of the stories. That was just what Stan Lee wanted. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The New York universe hooked readers. And the artists drew what they were familiar with, which made the Marvel universe authentic-looking, down to the water towers atop many of the buildings. https://t.co/rDosqzpP8i
The Avengers Mansion was a Beaux-Arts palace. Fans know it as 890 Fifth Avenue. The Frick Collection, which now occupies the place, uses the address of the front door: 1 East 70th Street.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?