The Quantitative Peace

Tom Coburn's Grudge, Part II

Via Jennifer Diascro's Twitter feed: The Economist has an article up addressing the specific targeting of Political Science Research by Senator Coburn. The article addresses a point that I've brought up a couple of times in the past (see here for example). Specifically, why only political science?

The Economist:

The real debate seems to be over what is of value. For many Republicans the answer is nothing having to do with political science. Yet it is hard to see how that discipline is any more frivolous than—or even all that different from—economics, sociology or anthropology.Mr Coburn's measure wouldn’t touch NSF funding for other social sciences. But this is the fourth time since 2006 a Republican has singled out political science for cuts.

If we look closer at those efforts, the picture becomes a bit clearer. Mr Coburn, for example, has particularly objected to studies on American attitudes to the filibuster, at a time when Republicans are using the filibuster routinely. Mr Flake had likewise complained about research on climate-change negotiations. When Mr Coburn first proposed cutting off funding in 2009, he complained that NSF money had gone to fund The Human Rights Data Project, which, he noted, had “concluded that the United States has been ‘increasingly willing to torture enemy combatants and imprison suspected terrorists,’ leading to a worldwide increase in ‘human rights violations’ as others followed-suit.” Mr Coburn even groused that Paul Krugman had received NSF grants more than 15 years earlier. Presumably that was because Mr Krugman went on to become a liberal columnist and not because the research won him a Nobel prize.

In all of these cases, the research risked calling into question the wisdom of policies supported by the Republican Party. In none of the cases did Republicans argue that the studies were flawed. They appeared to simply object to financing research that might contradict their point of view.

I would add that my impression is that political science research is probably the one field that is most likely to draw upon and combine insights from all of these other fields. Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing the work of scholars from these other disciplines, but if this view is accurate then it further hurts the credibility of Coburn's claims to be going after wasteful spending. If the idea is to get as much bang for our buck as taxpayers, political science seems like exactly the right field to invest in. But does this matter? Probably not. Most people just don't know or care enough about this to really see the problem, and for these people Coburn's credibility is really a non-issue, so he can still claim to be simply fighting the good fight against bloated government budgets. 

Finally, I'd urge all of my Americanist and comparativist colleagues to start building up the national security implications of their work. After all, we must remain ever vigilant to safeguard our democratic institutions from infiltration by the communist scourge. Maybe ANES can just add a question asking "Are you a communist spy?" or "Are you a terrorist?" and Coburn will be satisfied. 

Tom Coburn's Grudge

So I'm a little late getting to this, but Tom Coburn is at it again—more successfully this time, it appears. The short version is that Coburn was able to get an amendment through that prohibits the National Science Foundation from funding political science research, with the exception of research that "promotes the national security or economic interests of the United States." I just have a couple of thoughts:

1. Whose economic interests are we talking about, Tom? I mean thank god government contributes such a negligible portion of Oklahoma's economy (See page 13). Sure this is a petty point, but it does speak to an important issue that political scientists have spent some time working on. What is "good" in terms of the economy—and security for that matter—is often defined in very different ways by different groups across society. So perhaps the Senator would be so kind as to clarify who will be the ultimate arbiter on that issue in the case of political science funding.  
2. Why political science again? This is not the first time we've seen this show, yet I remain unclear as to why political science specifically is being targeted. Unless I've missed something, there is no comparable amendment to eliminate funding for economics or sociological research. If this were genuinely about cutting "unnecessary" spending, I'd have to imagine that with just a little more effort on Coburn's part, he could be extend his watchful anti-waste gaze to other fields too.  Maybe I just missed this though...

Again, I've benefited personally from NSF funding (though not any longer) Though I do think the particular project I worked on was important, I realize that's not a satisfactory defense for a lot of people. But I'm not entirely sure that such a defense is required. The NSF's purpose is to advance our collective knowledge and understanding of a whole range of subjects—even if we as individuals may not understand the specific research that is being conducted at any given time in any given field, or see its immediate practical applications for that matter. And they're not just giving this money out, either. I applied for a dissertation improvement grant a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time working on what I believe was a fairly thorough and well thought out proposal, and I was ultimately rejected. This is a highly competitive process, and the NSF isn't just handing out cash to people that put their hands out and ask for it. 

Links Galore

It's been a while since my last post, so I thought it was time to put up at least a little something:

Senate Republicans are, for the moment, blocking Chuck Hagel's nomination as Defense Secretary. Admittedly, my attention to current events has been spotty over the past couple of months, but it seems that every time I turn my attention back to this the basic rationale for opposing Hagel has changed. Initially it concerned his comments regarding Israel, then it morphed to include a means of obtaining more information about the attacks on Benghazi, and now it seems to have evolved further to include concerns over compensation Hagel received for giving some speeches since he left the Senate. Ultimately I guess I remain unsure as to how this works out for the better for Republicans—now, or in the long run. 

A meteor injured several hundred people in Russia. 

Spencer Ackerman has a piece up at Wired looking at the mistakes made by the Galactic Empire at the Battle of Hoth. There is also a broader set of responses to Ackerman's piece at Wired, and the folks at the Duck of Minerva have several followup posts debating the shortcomings of the Empire in a wider context. Itemize these posts, I will:

1. Here's Ackerman's post.
2. Wired's symposium.
3. Dan Nexon's piece for said Wired symposium.
4. Patrick Thaddeus Jackon's piece at the Duck.
5. Robert Kelly's piece at the Duck.
6. Steve Saideman piece at the Duck.
7. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson's followup at the Duck.

As these discussions have mirrored some of the lunchtime discussions I've had over the past few years with fellow bloggers Chad Clay and Michael Allen, I've enjoyed reading them immensely. I will try to update this list if there are any new additions.

 

 

Quick Plug on New Pubs

Just some quick and dirty near-self-promotion. Michael Allen (Boise State) and Matthew DiGiuseppie (University of Mississippi)—both of whom are proud, card-carrying Binghamton PhDs—have a new piece on credit and alliance formation that is now available on International Studies Quarterly's early view. The link to the paper can be found here. Take a look.

Updates

Just a couple of links, comments, etc.

1. Six seismologists in Italy have recently been convicted and sentenced to six years in prison (each) for issuing a "falsely reassuring statement" prior to the 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy (BBC Article). The seismologists have been charged with manslaughter over the deaths of over 300 people in the quake, and have also been barred from holding public office ever again in the future. Yesterday's BBC Global News Podcast (Monday, October 22 AM) has some additional details on the situation behind this particular event—apparently there were a series of smaller quakes in the preceding month, but it sounds like such clusters of quakes are pretty common. Some commentators interviewed by the BBC have suggested that this could pave the way for politicians in Italy and other countries to impose new laws criminalizing what I can only label as "bad advice" from scientists, thereby making scientists less likely to offer advice to policymakers. I can't really speak to how likely I think this is, though my initial thought it "not very." Still, I would not have thought it very likely for six seismologists to be sentenced to prison terms under such circumstances in an advanced industrial democracy either. If such laws did become more prevalent, however, I guess I'd be more worried that one potential implication is that failure to come forward to begin with would suggest culpability as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
2. Dan Nexon has recently announced a new blogging reception at ISA's 2013 meeting in San Francisco.  It looks as though nominations for the various award categories are open in the comments thread. Some great blogs already appear to be listed, like Phil Arena's and IPE@UNC. If you somehow read this blog, but not any of these others, you should probably go check them out.
3. The presidential foreign policy debate was last night, and though I don't have a lot to say at this point I do have a couple of brief thoughts. First, Romney definitely seemed more tentative last night than in either of the previous debates. As many others have noted, it seems like this is partially because there's just not a lot of daylight between Romney and Obama on many of these issues. This could also be the result of Obama simply having a greater edge on this subject area because of the job he's held for the past four years, combined with the fact that he's proved far less a lefty on foreign policy than many on the left would have liked, and many on the right had feared. Romney clearly tried to steer the conversation away from what I'll say was a more traditional discussion of security issues to the economy. That's fine, so long as he could have framed it in a clear and convincing way. It's hard to argue that economic policy is not intimately tied in with national security. However, I don't really think Romney did that effectively. His reference to Mike Mullen's earlier comments were helpful, but I think it's getting harder for the Republicans to argue that Obama has reduced our military to some impotent shadow of its former self. Obama's comment on bayonets and horses, while cute, does carry some truth.* Further, that Obama highlighted the fact that we spend more than the next ten top spenders combined on our military helped to further discredit the idea that our military is languishing. He could have increased that number quite a bit and only strengthened that position. In short, I think Romney was weaker here not just because Obama had an experiential advantage, but because even on national security the facts just don't play out as the Republicans would like. 

 

*I'm curious as to how much of this total is simply smaller support vessels that we just don't need anymore. The way to support and maintain ships is quite a bit different now than it was in the early 1900s. The elimination of battleships probably cuts down on this as well. The period Romney referenced is often identified with a significant buildup of increasingly large big-gun ships. 

 

 

Changing the Rules to Get the Outcome You Want

For the last 15 years, more Americans have opted to take advantage of early voting opportunities (either through early in-person voting or mail ballots). By 2008, early voting compromised one third of the vote. Early voting seemed to help Democrats more than Republicans in 2008, as Democrats were more likely to vote early than Republicans. 

Since early voting tended to help Democrats more than Republicans in the last presidential election, it is not surprising that Republican lawmakers in several key states have tried to reduce early in-person voting in their states this year. Limiting this type of early voting could reduce the number of votes for Obama. If the new voting rules are too restrictive, some of Obama's supporters may be unable or unwilling to pay a higher cost to vote.

In the last few weeks, the media has given a great deal of attention to the changes in Ohio's early in-person voting rules. Obama is challenging the new rules because they appear to favor Republican voters and hurt Democratic voters (see here and here). Below is a summary of some efforts by Republicans to reduce early in person voting in two other states, Florida and North Carolina.

Florida 

Obama easily carried Florida in 2008, by about 3% of the vote. But Florida is a swing state, so small changes in voting rules and procedures could theoretically affect the election outcome (like in the 2000 election). Unsurprisingly, Republican lawmakers in Florida changed the voting rules again in this upcoming election, and these changes could negatively affect Obama's vote share this fall.

One of the reasons Obama won Florida so easily in 2008 was early voting. 3.3 million Florida Democrats voted early in 2008, while only 810,666 Florida Republicans voted early. Obama may not have this advantage again this year. Last May, Florida lawmakers reduced the number of early in-person voting days from 14 to 8. This could limit the number of early votes Obama receives in November.

Reducing the number of early voting days may have some impact on Obama's vote share, but what may be even more damaging to Democrats in Florida this fall is the fact that voters will no longer be able to vote the Sunday before the election. Sunday voting before the election was an important day to several African American church goers in the 2008 election. Several African American church congregations went from church to the polls in en masse as part of the "souls to the polls" drive. Limiting Sunday voting obviously would have an impact on these types of vote drives and inadvertently affect the ability of African Americans to vote in Florida. This would clearly reduce Obama's vote share in November, as he has done well amongst the black American community.

North Carolina

Barack Obama did something in 2008 no Democratic presidential candidate has done since 1976: he won North Carolina. The election was quite close- Obama won 49.7% of the vote, while McCain received 49.38%. Early voting really seemed to help Obama, while the Election Day vote hurt him. Obama won the early vote by 178,000 votes and lost the Election Day vote by 165,000 votes.

It is not surprising that Obama won the early vote in North Carolina. More than half of black voters in North Carolina voted early in 2008, and Obama did well amongst that particular group. According to exit polls, 100% of black women voted for Obama while 87% of black men voted for him. In contrast, it is also not surprising that Obama lost the Election Day vote. About 60% of white voters voted on election day, and Obama only won 37% of the white vote.

Given Obama's razor thin victory in 2008, it would be relatively easy for North Carolina Republican lawmakers to prevent Obama from winning the state in 2012 simply by making it harder for black voters to vote. Since a large number of black voters voted early, if lawmakers reduced early voting in the state, that could reduce the number of black voters who could vote. North Carolina Republicans did attempt to reduce early voting back in May 2011, but the bill only passed the state House. They promised to revisit the measure this year, but there has been no movement on the bill since last May. (It is important to note that since the governor of North Carolina is a Democrat, the bill probably will not be passed this year).

Paul Ryan's Foreign Policy Views

Much has been made lately of the idea that Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as VP signals that he is doubling down on the economy for the election. Ryan is clearly known more for his activities on the House Budget Committee than anything else, and that's fine, but just because it's a major signal doesn't mean there are no implications for foreign policy. That said, James Lindsay at the Water's Edge has a brief post discussing some of Ryan's foreign policy views/positions. It's worth checking out.

 

When losing is the winning strategy: Game Theory, Badminton, and the 2012 Summer Olympics

The Badminton World Federation disqualified four female badminton teams today from the London Olympics for unsportsmanlike behavior. These teams purposefully tried to lose their first match in a round robin event in order to be paired against easier teams in subsequent rounds (video recap here). These teams were obviously cheating as purposely losing in this manner is against the badminton rules. So why would so many teams blatantly cheat in a very public and very important sporting event? Because they thought they could get away with it. Prior to this mass banning of teams, several Chinese teams had a history of purposefully trying to lose in badminton matches and they were never punished for their behavior.

Being able to cheat and get away with it gave the Chinese teams a huge advantage in the Olympics. Hence, other teams followed the example of the Chinese teams and tried to lose, so they would also have an advantage in later rounds of the competition. All the cheating teams believed there existed a low probability of being caught and/or punished for cheating given past examples.

I created a game to demonstrate why it was in the best interest of all the badminton teams to try to lose their first badminton matches, assuming there was a very low probability that they would be caught.

The Players

There are two players in this game, Team 1 and Team 2. Team 1 is the better team. They have a 60% chance of winning the match if both teams play fairly. Team 2 is the weaker team. They only have a 40% chance of winning the match if both teams play fairly.

Both teams want to lose the match (while the A team is the better team in this particular round, they would rather have easier competition in subsequent rounds of tournament play). If a team loses, they receive 10 points. Alternatively, if a team wins, they receive 0 points.

Nature also plays a role in this game. Nature represents both the probability that the team will be found cheating and punished for their behavior.  If Nature decides that a team played unfairly, Nature will punish the team, but only 5% of the time.  Given that punishment has been rare in the past, this probability is reasonable, but can be altered to change the risk/reward ratio for cheating. If a team is caught cheating, they receive -10 points.

The Moves (See Figure 1)

Team 1 goes first. They can “Cooperate” and try to win the game, or they can “Defect”, and purposefully try to lose.

Team 2 moves next. They observed Team 1’s move. Team 2 can also “Cooperate” and try to win the game, or “Defect”, and purposefully try to lose.

The Outcomes

There are four outcomes.

1. Both teams Cooperate

For this outcome, both teams played fairly and tried to win the game. Team 1 wins 60% of the time when this occurs, and Team 2 wins 40% of the time. A team receives 0 points for winning and 10 points for losing. Hence, the expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.6*0)+(0.4*10)] , [(0.4*0)+(0.6*10)]) = (4, 6)

2. Team 1 Cooperates, Team 2 Defects

For this outcome, Team 1 tried to win and Team 2 tried to lose. Team 1 wins with a 100% probability and receives 0 points for winning.

Since Team 2 cheated, there is a probability that Nature will punish them. Nature punishes Team 2 5% of the time. If Team 2 is punished, they receive -10 points. The other 95% of the time, Team 2 gets away with it and receives 10 points for losing.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

(0, [(0.95*10)+(0.05*-10)]) = (0, 9)

3. Team 1 Defects, Team 2 Cooperates

For this outcome, Team 1 tried to lose and Team 2 tried to win. Team 2 wins with a 100% probability and receives 0 points for winning.

Since Team 1 cheated, there is a probability that Nature will punish them. Nature punishes Team 1 5% of the time. If Team 1 is punished, they receive -10 points. The other 95% of the time, Team 1 gets away with it and receives 10 points for losing.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.95*10)+(0.05*-10)], 0) = (9, 0)

4. Team 1 Defects, Team 2 Defects

For this outcome, both teams tried to lose. Since both teams tried to lose, there is a 50% chance that any team could win.

If a team wins, and Nature does not catch them cheating (which happens 95% of the time), the team receives 0 points.

If a team loses, and Nature does not catch them cheating (which happens 95% of the time), the team receives 10 points.

If Nature catches a team cheating (which happens 5% of the time), regardless of whether the team won or lost, the team receives -10 points.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.5*(0.95*0))+(0.5*(0.95*10))+(0.05*-10)], [(0.5*(0.95*0))+(0.5*(0.95*10))+(0.05*-10)]) = (4.25, 4.25)

The Nash Equilibria (See Figures 2 and 3)

There is one Nash Equilibrium derived from backwards induction, {Defect; Defect, Defect}.

There are two Nash Equilibria derived from the strategic form game, {Defect; Cooperate, Defect} and {Defect; Defect, Defect}.

This game suggests that as long as the Badminton World Federation rarely punishes players for trying to lose in the first match of a round robin even, it is in a team’s best interest to try to cheat early on in order to improve their chances of winning in subsequent rounds. To change this outcome, the Badminton World Federation should either detect and punish cheating more often, or change the rules of the tournament where losing in an early round is not so advantageous.

(For another interesting sports match- the 1994 Caribbean Cup provides a classic example of how rules fundamentally change the expected behavior of players in an environment where the object of the game appears simple. By the end of the game, it was in the best interest of both teams to try to score points for the other team).

 

Observations from Jury Duty

I had the opportunity to serve as a juror this week for a case in Ontario County, NY. This was the first time I served on a jury. I thought it would be funny to do something like this to get out of it, but now I am really glad I served. It was a great experience. I made several observations about the process, and now that the trial is over, I can talk about it!

Jury Selection

Jury selection was a long and tedious process. I was actually quite surprised at how well the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney handled it. They had to ask 42 potential jurors the same questions over and over, and this lasted about 5 hours. Despite the long and repetitive nature of this procedure, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney were polite, friendly, and energetic when they questioned each potential juror. I think this made it easier for everyone to relax and be patient through the entire process.

Next, before this whole process began, I was under the assumption that during jury selection, lawyers tried to choose jurors who were sympathetic to their side. This is probably because I am quite cynical- instead of following the letter of the law, I expected the lawyers to try to manipulate the verdict by stacking the jury with people they could easily manipulate. In this particular case, it does not appear that lawyers did this at all. Instead, the lawyers simply tried to look for jurors who were, in the very least, not biased against their side. For example, the prosecutor had one witness who was disabled and needed assistance testifying. He asked several questions to determine if potential jurors were biased against testimony from witnesses who were disabled, something he clearly wanted to avoid. In addition, the defense attorney knew that the prosecutor would call several law enforcement officials to testify. She asked several questions to determine if potential jurors were biased in favor of witnesses who worked in law enforcement, something she clearly wanted to avoid.

Next, several of the potential jurors were surprised to learn that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and that the defense does not have to present any evidence at all. Several of the potential jurors were confused why a defendant would not have to provide evidence. They assumed that if a defendant did not testify, this meant the defendant was guilty. Clearly those jurors were not selected, since they had a clear bias against the process.

Even though I knew prior to this that a defendant does not have to testify in court, I did not know why. Luckily (for me?) the judge told us briefly about the history of this rule. For those of you who do not know, a defendant does not have to testify because forcing a defendant to testify is akin to torture. In England during the 15^th to 17^th centuries, courts would determine guilt by torturing victims until they made a statement. This practice was abolished in the 18^th century, and defendants no longer had to answer questions. This rule was incorporated into US law with the adoption of the Fifth Amendment. (Another random fact I learned from the judge- in the US, judges did not wear formal robes until the 1880s- the history of this dress code formality can be found here).

Last, I was quite amused at the behavior of the last group of potential jurors. Some background- the day began with the first group of 14 potential jurors (they eventually needed 12 regular jurors and 2 alternates). They chose 5 people from this group (I was in this group, probably because I am unlucky, but I digress!). Then there was the second group of jurors, in which 6 people were picked, which brought the total to 11 jurors, with 3 slots left. Then there was the third group of 14 jurors, in which 3 people would be chosen. The judge indicated that the first 7 people in this group were more likely to be called as jurors than the second 7 people. Apparently instead of looking at the entire group of 14 as a whole to determine who would be jurors, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney looked at each juror, in the order they were selected, and determined if they would be a juror or not.

So, out of all the potential jurors questioned that day, these 7 potential jurors had the highest probability of being selected compared to all the other potential jurors. If these people really did not want to serve on a jury, they really had to put in the effort to be sent home. In addition, these potential jurors had more information about what would disqualify them as jurors, as they were able to observe how the other 28 potential jurors acted, observe which ones were sent home, and then make inferences based on this information what they had to do to be sent home. As expected, as the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney asked these 7 potential jurors questions one by one, most of them made unusually inflammatory statements about how they could not be fair and impartial in the trial. I found this slightly amusing (cynical me again). The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney ended up having to select potential juror 8 as an alternate since 5 of the first 7 jurors disqualified themselves. If the potential jurors in the first two groups acted this way earlier in the day, I imagine the judge would have had to call a fourth group of potential jurors because there would not have been enough people to fill 14 slots.

The Trial

Before the trial began, the judge instructed us to base our decisions on the law and to not make our decisions based on what we think the law should be. In his words, we were not able to legislate. Nevertheless, even though were not able to legislate, it is clear to me now that sometimes when legislators pass laws, they delegate some power to judges, lawyers, and jurors to interpret the laws they write.

Background- The defendant of the case, Grant Ackley, is a Level 3 sex offender. In New York State, all Level 3 sex offenders have to fill out a form with a county or state government office that states their current residence every 90 days. They also have to bring in a letter they received at that address within 10 days of the application to prove they are living there. In addition, if a Level 3 sex offender moves within the 90 day period between applications, they have 10 calendar days to report their move to a county or state government. On December 14, 2011, Grant Ackley filled out a form indicating he was living at the Woodridge Hotel in Canandaigua, NY. He did not provide the proper mail to prove his residence, but the clerk accepted his application anyways. On the same day, he also filled out a form for food stamp benefits stating the same address.

There were three charges in the case: (1) the prosecution claimed that Grant Ackley moved out of the Woodridge Hotel sometime in October 2011, he moved into an apartment of a friend who lived above a toy store, and he failed to inform a county or state government official of his move within 10 days of his move; (2) he falsely filled out his 90 residence form with a fake address; and (3) that he also falsely filled out a food stamps application with a fake address. As a jury, we had to determine what a residence or address really meant, and determine whether Ackley gave his correct residence or address. In other words, instead of the legislature or the bureaucracy determining what a residence or address was, it was the responsibility of the jury to determine this definition.

The trial itself only lasted 2 days. Nevertheless, the prosecution presented a lot of evidence on the first day and it was mentally exhausting. I am glad we were able to go home around 4 pm on that day, as it gave us all the opportunity to process the information.  

Jury Deliberations

Jury deliberations lasted about 4 hours. Every one of the jurors was polite and open to having an honest/ educated debate, so it was a pleasant experience. I really enjoyed working with them. I feel as though we examined the evidence differently than the prosecutor and defense attorney. Although both lawyers connected some of the dots for us, it was really up to us to examine the evidence to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

How we decided: We found the defendant guilty on all 3 charges.

How I came to my conclusions:

(1) Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that at some point prior to October 2011, Grant Ackley lived at the Woodridge Hotel. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that he moved out sometime at the end of October/ beginning of November. He was unable to live at the hotel because he could not pay rent. His income was too low. He would have had 5 dollars left to his name every month if he lived there for an entire month at a time. In addition, back in October, he already owed the hotel back about 250 dollars back rent. One of the witnesses from the hotel testified that he still has not paid his back rent. So by the end of October, he was financially unable to live at the hotel, as his income would have been unable to cover the rent plus the back rent. (2) In addition, he also did not pick up his mail from the Woodridge Hotel, his purported mailing address. The prosecution provided evidence of returned mail from the hotel that indicated Ackley was not there for at least 15 days in November. (3) It was pretty clear throughout the trial that Grant Ackley spent a great deal of time at his friend’s apartment during the months of October, November, and December 2011. He also had a lot of belongings at that apartment. (4) The prosecution also provided 2 pieces of evidence where the defendant stated that his address was his friend’s address, not the Woodridge Hotel. During a 911 call about a domestic dispute, Ackley identified his friend’s address as him own. In addition, when Ackley was arrested on December 31, 2011, he identified his friend’s address as his own. (5) The hotel worker provided evidence that someone else was occupying the Woodridge Hotel room from December 22 to December 28, 2011. Ackley could not have lived there. Even IF Ackley lived at the hotel until December 21, based on the law, he would have had to report this move by December 30, the last calendar day he was able to report, which he did not. (6) Last, the evidence definitely suggested that Ackley was not living in the hotel in November and at the end of December. Could Ackley have paid 400 dollars to stay at the hotel in the middle of December to stay there for the week of December 14, 2011? Maybe, but that would have been half his monthly income and he had no intent on staying there long term. His permanent residence was with his friend, as indicated by him being there after December 21, 2011. Essentially his stay at the hotel would have been considered a short vacation or trip, only a temporary movement.

Final Thoughts

As I stated earlier, I am glad I participated on a jury. I am now less cynical about the judicial process. I can also share this experience with my students in the future. Maybe I can leave them with a more positive view of the US judicial system. In addition, after this experience, I feel like I should participate more in politics and other government related activities. It was fun to analyze the judicial process. But I also feel like I learned a lot too, about a topic that is relevant our discipline.

And, finally, just for fun:

Kudos to those who get the reference!

(Mis)Understanding Political Science and Some Other Stuff

Let me preface this by saying that I started writing this post a little while ago, so some of the content is a bit dated at this point. That said, over at the Duck, Steve Saideman has a post up that continues the ongoing discussion on political science, its utility, and its relationship with the broader public. Steve* also links to some research on the subject done by fellow Binghamton University PhD, Conor Dowling. 

You can check out either post for more details on the content/findings of the research. For now, I wanted to focus on a couple of points. Overall, I agree with the vast majority of what Steve says. I've commented previously on the idea of making political science research more readily accessible to outsiders—policymakers in particular. Though I'm a bit skeptical as to just how much of this gap is attributable to political scientists, I do think that we have a lot to add to the public debate on a wide range of issues. And as my fellow blogger Chad Clay has expressed in discussions we've had on the topic, some of this probably does not even imply a complete overhaul of how we go about our work. Maybe we just need to do a better job of publicizing slightly more condensed and less formal versions of the research that we're currently engaged in. 

But I would take Steve's point one step furhter—I think part of the problem is a generally poor understanding of science among the broader public. While I completely agree that most people have no idea what we do, and that the mere sound of what we do probably turns many people off, I'm not sure they really have any idea what most of the hard sciences actually do either. Things like Cancer research excepted, that is. Still, I'm guessing support for funding research in physics, chemistry, biology, etc., is much higher than support for funding political science research, but most people probably have very little idea as to what these disciplines do with their time, or how they do it. And as I've pointed out before, the hard sciences deal with many of the same problems of classification, measurement, etc. The medical field, for all of its developments over the past century or so, still treats a range of mental health issues as though they are somehow not related to an organ in your body. This a simplification, but I don't think it's much of a stretch. Call me crazy, but ECT does not seem like a terribly sophisticated treatment—and yes, this is still used today. 

Overall, my point is that there is somehow a popular distinction as to what qualifies as science and what does not. Science is not viewed as a process of understanding, learning, and evaluation that can be applied to a range of subjects, but it is popularly identified with the subjects themselves. Even though we have the word "science" in the name of our discipline, I don't think most people see it as such. Even if you tell them that we use some of the same methodologies that are used in the hard sciences, I don't think this will change their views either (As Steve notes, this is pretty tough). The widespread use of the term "scientist" to describe someone that does research in any field of the hard sciences is both irksome and somewhat representative of this problem—most people have no idea as to the distinctions that exist between the numerous fields of research within the "scientist" label/category, but they are far more comfortable telling you who is not a scientist. Where this misplaced sense of authority over just what constitutes science—one that many people seem to hold—comes from is not clear, but I blame the ubiquitous question, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" 

As I said, I started this post a little while ago, and I came across some interesting stories this morning as I prepped this for posting. In other news, Financial Times reports that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have "quietly" opened up a pipeline that bypasses the Straight of Hormuz. FT notes that the sanctions have pushed Iranian oil production to its lowest point in 20 years. The new pipelines will also carry a volume of oil that is equivalent to about 40% of the Straight's daily flow. The opening of this pipeline is "news" in some sense, but my guess is that the Iranians have probably known about this for a while now. So my question is, have they yet to react to this development, or is the expectation that this pipeline would open already baked into their behavior?  

Another brief point: Foreign Policy informs me that the Red Cross has classified Syria as a Civil War. Another topic I've talked about before. Keep watching to see if each successive label change comes closer on the heels of the previous. 

-------

*I should disclose that I've never actually met Professor Saideman (unless seeing his face on my Twitter feed counts, but I don't think he follows me so that probably doesn't count), so I may be a bit presumptuous in using such familiar terms.