::

 
Not a single California beach

Not a single California beach in "Dr. Beach's" top 10. Nor is one on last year's list.

Californians - don't despair. He used a rational method for placing a beach in New York in the top 5 while ignoring the Golden State. Per his website:

Dr. Beach has evaluated all major public recreational beaches in the U.S. America eagerly awaits his annual top 10 list, now there's a second list to help you find your perfect beach. His latest project, under the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University is the National Healthy Beaches Campaign The campaign is dedicated to promoting balance between recreational use of our nation's beaches and maintaining the environmental quality and safety of this prized resource.

No doubt this list and website entitles the guy to travel these beaches as a "business expense" and thereby get deductions for his vacations.

Pure quackery.


Adam Sullivan, 18:56 | 0 comments

::

 
Political Identity

Both Michael Totten and Roger L. Simon are talking (intelligently) about political identity.

What is it to be a member of a political party in the US, anyway?

In other countries joining a party implies political activism, whereas here in the US it implies that you registered to vote.

I suppose a big reason for that is the Electoral College. Prior to the last presidential election, the electoral college was largely ignored except those who got "A's" in high school civics classes. Yet it comprises the persons who actually elect the president.

What does that have to do with declaring a political identity in a two - party republic? Everything.

If the electoral college can't decide a president by majority (not plurality) on the first poll, the legislative branch of the government decides. Period. Early history of the US demonstrated that this was messy and fraught with uncertainty. Coalitions would be bargained as votes were cast to elect the chief executive for a four year term.

Having two major political parties reduced uncertainty by pushing the bargaining to the conventions that selected party nominees. The Republican and Democratic parties emerged as extremely stable coalitions that managed to produce candidates that had enough national appeal to get a first ballot win from the Electoral College.

Those coalitions survive today. They have constructed laws that give them the inside advantage, from getting public funds for their conventions to getting candidates listed on ballots.

The Republicans and Democrats are really just coalitions. On the major issues, we have the opponent interest groups in one or the other camp. Unions vs. Corporations. Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life. Social Conservatives vs. Social Liberals. Environmentalists vs. Heavy Industry. Pick the fight, see the sides, and you already know which coalition they belong to. But not because there is ideological consistency.

"But they are united by an ideology" is the unthinking utterance of the orthodox.

What ideology? Yes, there are the broad strokes - but how can you be for a lack of regulation when it comes to commercial activity yet want to regulate people's sexual behavior? "Free trade, excepting seminal fluid exchange" doesn't jive with an ideology. It jives with a coalition that has constructed an orthodoxy that people accept as "ideology" and thereby delivers consistent votes.

How does being "pro-choice" jive with denial of choice when it comes to publicly funded education? It just doesn't - if the morality of reproductive decision making should be left to the individual, shouldn't the individual have some say in choosing what moral code her child (which she chose to have) is taught in school? Especially when her tax dollars are allowed to subsidize only one moral perspective?

These are all complex issues having to do with public policy. One can rightly fall into a conflicting camp due to one's judgment on an important issue rather that adhering to political consistency. IMO, that is a very good thing. But so are stable coalitions.

Stable coalitions do us the service of provding a clear choice going into an election. What you see is what you get. In countries where the legislature picks a Prime Minister, a coalition is often assembled from various factions after an election. This is true in France, Israel and Germany to take a small sample. When a party has a clear majority, coalition be damned (as is with Labour in the UK). But in so many cases, the majority has to be built after election day through political horse trading.

To Americans, having a fringe party yield excessive influence over the government seems like lunacy. Yet Communists (yes - bona fide red flag waving Communists) have held significant influence in French politics for years by putting the Socialists "over the top" in assembling a coalition. The Communists have been awarded the French administrative positions over transportation for some time now, and when they are displeased, they have exercised their capacity to shut down France with strikes.

Americans like political stability very much. Which is why the two party system will likely not go away, nor the electoral college (even when the guy with the most votes didn't win last time). Stable coalitions called the Democrats and the Republicans give you that. But neither is ideologically pure by any stretch.

It is a mistake, IMO, to confuse one's party affiliation with one's politcal identity. Doing so can only set oneself up for disappointment when the coalition does what you think is simply wrong.

Adam Sullivan, 16:29 | 0 comments

::

 
Stupid Bumper Stickers

Seeing as the political winds for the 2004 US presidential elections will soon blow into a gale, no one is surprised to see political bumper stickers start appearing.

Some of these stir contempt rather than introspection to the intended audience. If the objective is to promote an idea, person or party, you should aim your message at the undecided. That way you might get some productive yield for having polluted everyone's visual environment.

So are we seeing stickers that inspire thought? Introspection?

Naaaa.

Today I saw: "For your country, For your children, Vote Republican".

This implies that Democrats neither love nor value either children or the country. I can remember sitting in a ditch about 12 years ago, wearing an Army uniform wondering if I would die soon, but figuring it was a risk worth taking. I loved my country. I loved my family (didn't have kids yet). I was a registered Democrat.

Here is another: "Regime Change in 2004!"

Folks - that one is going nowhere. Just nowhere. Sure, it might "fire up the base" but it will not get anyone else to think. Why? Because it demonstrates a lack of thought. Just a capacity to throw rocks. What is next? "Intifada in DC!"?

Try to be clever.

Adam Sullivan, 15:42 | 0 comments

::

 
I love this

So Israel is kicking around the idea of applying for EU membership.

At least that is what they have presented to visiting (and stunned) EU officials.

Can you imagine the semantic gymnastry we would witness if Israeli entry came down to a vote among the EU states? The prospect of one of the stars on the EU flag being the Star of David is enough, I suspect, to make many of Europe's anti-Semitic elites cringe. No, not cringe - writhe.

Of course, it would be a great deal for Europe - having a member that attracts educated immigrants and has great economic dynamism (albeit hampered when fighting for its survival) would be a great boon to a lackluster European economy with a shrinking pool of workers. And Israeli moderates would win big, as so many entitlements going to religious conservatives and settlers would have to be undine to conform to European human rights and economic standards.

That the issue comes up now, as Sharon walks the Road Map to his cabinet (defying expectations of the bloggeratti, I might add), takes many sticks away from his opponents. After all, the EU can't hound him on detail (he has agreed to the Road Map) nor can they voice that he might have false intentions - Israel can't get in the EU without having any border disputes cleared up. That includes the Golan Heights with Syria.

So where oh where can the EU push to get progress down the Road? Might they have to confront Hamas and Hezzbolla as - gulp - terrorists?

It looks like that "shitty little country" might just have given the EU elites a "shitty little problem".

Brilliant.

Adam Sullivan, 15:13 | 0 comments

::

 
The Red Cross

Known world wide for its good work, the Red Cross has enjoyed a certain unassailable status among charities.

Yet fund raising scandals pop up from time to time, never gathering enough momentum to get people to look hard at the international organization as, perhaps, an elite club that enjoys a certain level of comfort that donors may not have expected, not dissimilar to what the IOC (International Olympic Committee) proved to be a couple years ago.

What brings this to mind is a scan of the headlines in Australia, where one finds this scandal. It would seem that the Red Cross there used the Bali Bombings to raise funds, and then diverted them elsewhere while taking some off the top for administration. Similar criticism was directed at the Red Cross around 9/11 fund raising.

A more obscure scandal cost some local Red Cross officials their high paying jobs in San Diego, California a few years back. It is detailed in this award winning collection of links that the San Diego Union Tribune maintains.

Adam Sullivan, 13:30 | 0 comments

::

 
Now I know

Now I know what it is to be victim of "blogger hasn't been cooperating." I'll confine myself to some short posts (a welcome relief for all, no doubt).


Adam Sullivan, 17:33 | 0 comments

::

 
After the War on Terror

After the War on Terror will have to come the war on corruption. There is no chance that liberal democracies can take root when graft and corruption rule political behavior.

After all, if spreading opportunity and prosperity is key to securing a peaceful future for the world, then taking down tyrants will have to be followed by taking down those on the take.

Not that this gets any attention right now. In San Francisco, this trial of a former Ukranian politician is taking place with little notice. The Japanese don't seem to want to hand over Fujimori to Peru. And we have endemic corruption in places like Nigeria. How are we to see pluralistic democracies take root in such places? The problem also points to how fragile western democracies really are (and worthy of protecting, BTW).


Adam Sullivan, 23:12 | 0 comments

::

 
Deprive yourself of tedium.

Go to Andrew Apostolou (who doesn't regen his archives quickly enough for his admirers to provide timely perma-links), where you can see great quotes such as:

If tedium constitutes torture then one could legitimately call in an air strike on most universities.

The story he references is one of US PsyOps soldiers grinding down prisoners with Barney and Sesame Street tunes to get them to talk. The story doesn't mention her majesty's MOAT (Mother Of All Tedium). Teletubbies.

Adam Sullivan, 21:03 | 0 comments

::

 
Bob Graham - Get serious

I heard this interview with Sen. Bob Graham this morning, who wishes to be the next president of these United States.

His tax proposals are very reasonable (simple and small business growth oriented). Probably better that Bush's, but not detailed.

But regarding the War, well, how can I say this nicely? I guess I can't.

He pupports to be an expert in national security (he should be if he was paying attention as chair of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence for about 10 years). Yet he wants to do a few really stupid things:

Release the "full report" on the intelligence / law enforcement breakdown that preceded 9/11.

Bob insinuates that the report's more sensitive portions haven't been released due to political motivation rather than security. Hey Bob - any embarrassments out of pre 9/11 are likely to fall on many laps, not just GWBs. Why keep the complete report secret?

Talk to Don Rumsfeld. He has testified (to your committee on the Senate, no less) that his greatest fears are the "unknown unknowns" - essentially, the intelligence and security weaknesses that we aren't aware of. Have you considered, Bob, that it might be a good idea to keep our full understanding of 9/11 out of Al Qaeda's hands so that they can't find any security lapses that we might have missed?

Strengthen the position of the director of the CIA. Essentially he should run the show, as intended by congress in 1948.

Gee, Bob. Ya think we should hand counter-intelligence to the CIA? That is what you are calling for, after all. Right now it is up to the FBI (under the DOJ) to look into foreign agents on US soil. Terrorists too. If folks think Ashcroft is bad for civil liberties, wait till they burn you in effigy for enfranchising the CIA to spy domestically. Imagine how pissed the electorate will be when the CIA can use overseas assets to bug their cell phones without any warrant. Without any judge needing to be consulted. Because the technology is there, as is the lack o' jurisdiction if the CIA is running the game from elsewhere.

If the problem you are trying to solve is one of accountability, remember Bob, there is one office that sits over both the CIA and DOJ - it is the office you would like us to elect you to.

We need more human intelligence because we ran down the capability in the Cold War.

Yes, we need more human intelligence (something Tenent asked for from your committee before 9/11). But to propose that the Cold War was where we ran the capability down is absurd. Again, Tenent can tell you that the capability was run down during the budget cuts made AFTER the Cold War (he stated as much in Woodward’s Bush at War).

War on Iraq distracted us from Al Qaeda, as we have seen demonstrated in the last few days.

Reasonable minds can differ. Seeing as it has been demonstrated that you, Sen. Bob Graham, lack one such mind, I will point out that Al Qaeda's scope and span of operations are shrinking. Measurably.

They continue to see a decline in their all important "zealot-to-kill ratio" for each attack. On 9/11 19 zealots killed over 2000 people for a rough 1:100+ ratio. Last week Al Qaeda got something less than a 1:10 ratio in their backyard using much cruder and less effective means. That is an order of magnitude drop, Bob.

They are farther away and less deadly, Bob. And our presence in Iraq give us more flexibility as we continue to kick their asses. This is considered a good thing, Bob.

Adam Sullivan, 20:38 | 0 comments

::

 
Time to check the policy limits

Clearly it is time for me to check my medical insurance policy limits for mental health treatment.

I took the political identity test that Michael Totten blogged.

Turns out I am a lunatic. You see, I fall into the bottom right hand quadrant, which is "right / libertarian". According to the site that runs the test, only Milton Friedman shares that quadrant. At least Maggie Thatcher has a colorful guy like Hitler to keep her company.

If you must know (you must, you must) I score Economic Left/Right: 0.62 and Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.46. I am so marginally right that if Milty and I want to converse, we will have to shout to each other.

Adam Sullivan, 19:32 | 0 comments

::

 
Must mean progress

The fact that Israel has seen 5 bombings in 48 hours means one thing to me: the Road Map must have some potential of making progress. Neither Hezzbolla nor its sponsors have any interest in seeing stability in the region. That is why the progress in implementing Oslo was met with violence (from the Israeli right, as well - sure to re emerge as we go down the Road) and why the bombings are intensifying now.

IMO, the Arabist elites that run the region would have nothing to distract their masses with were it not for the festering wound that is Palestine / Israel. If it shows sign of healing, the scab must be picked.


Adam Sullivan, 17:27 | 0 comments

::

 
What led to what

Another mystery solved by the inquisitor.

This ...



is the result of people confusing this ...



with this ...



QED.

Adam Sullivan, 15:19 | 0 comments

::

 
Something of Interest

I am working on a lengthy post on Islam and economic history.

That economics seems to be a "blind spot" in discussions of history is something I have stated before. To me, the history of trade finance, religious views of usury, and general innovations in finance tell a compelling story that clearly distinguishes western economic development from middle eastern economic development.

Interest (known in arabic "riba") is forbidden in Islam. Starting a business is very difficult when you can't borrow money without paying interest. Capital flows tend to "seize up" when the lender can't get compensated for the risks of lending.

The middle east was arguably more developed than the west in the dark ages. It was a region of the world known for trade prowess, strategically at the crossroads of east and west. The surpluses that trade generated helped to fund development of arts and sciences that many point to when establishing a rich arabian civil history. Starting around the time of the Renaissance, western economies started to grow while middle eastern economies stagnated (in relative terms). I intend to demonstrate that the evolution of trade finance (as well as the social adaptations that allowed it) had a significant impact on altering the course of development of the western world versus the arab world.

Today, regulation of interest rates are the primary tool that western governments use to stabilize and promote economic activty. Ask Gerhardt Shroeder how much he'd like to see a cut in interest rates right now. That islamists insist that borrowing and lending is expressly prohibited when an interest rate is charged says a lot about why arab oil states have yet to be able to diversify their economies and why arab "have nots" have few prospects of emerging into "haves".

Certainly there are other factors involved (many of which tie back to development of economic surplus). But interest based borrowing (being such a fundamental force in trade economies) is a fundamental tool that islamic economies lack. Their people are systemically denied opportunity as a result. As they see more indulgent western wealth on their television screens (which they didn't buy on credit), how are they to feel?


Adam Sullivan, 12:58 | 0 comments