FORGOTTEN, BUT NOT GONE Ralph Nader declares his candidacy again.

I confess, I’ve never really understood the appeal of figures like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. I vote for candidates who can’t possibly win–but only when I am genuinely unable to muster a preference between the major-party candidates. Ralph Nader voters clearly have a preference for Democrats over Republicans, and Ron Paul voters, at least those who have graduated from college already, probably mostly prefer the reverse. So why vote for the guy you know can’t win?

I know, I know–you want to move the party in the direction of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. But this is wishful thinking. The reason that those of us on the fringe–libertarians, Greens, socialist workers, or what have you–do not have more representation in government is not because there is some structural problem with the American political system, like a lack of IRV or minority party candidates. The reason we don’t have more representation is that most people just don’t agree with us. Oh, I know you can find a poll that says that voters want national health care, a guaranteed income, a carbon tax, or lower government spending. But voters like lots of things in the abstract. When you get down to the specifics of raising their taxes and restricting their choices, they tend to get balky. The Democrats cannot move significantly closer to Nader, nor the Republicans to Ron Paul, without losing more voters in the center than they gain on the fringe.

That’s not to say that you should have a preference between Democrats and Republicans–frankly, these days, it feels a lot like “So, by which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed?” But if you do, you should vote for that candidate, rather than making an expressive vote which could put your last choice into office.

THE SCIENCE OF weird food cravings.

IS A CAR GREENER THAN A PEDICAB? John Tierney thinks so.

BILL BRADLEY finds that the editor responsible for pushing the non-story about John McCain’s alleged “affair” in the New York Times also pushed a sensationalist and conveniently-timed story about Arnold Schwartznegger in the Los Angeles Times.

WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH THE LANCET? Apparently, it is now publishing articles like this:

Rich countries are poaching so many African health workers that the practice should be viewed as a crime, a team of international disease experts say in the British medical journal The Lancet.

The provision of health services in poor countries is a huge problem that the international community should worry about. But not by declaring medical personnel the property of the state, and their migration therefore a form of thievery. There’s been a lot of talk recently about the right of entry for poor people, but even more important is the right of exit. There’s a reason that places which require their citizens to get permission to migrate are generally dreadful places to live.

Update Reader Douglas writes:

In the early “naughties” I thought it ironic that Alan Milburn as health secretary was hiring recruiting companies to bring medical staff from all over the world to the UK, and Clare Short as international development secretary was funding programs to encourage them to stay in their home countries. My tax
dollars at work!

With NHS and nationalized colleges and universities, any lack of medical staff is another example of the harvest not meeting the needs in a centrally planned economy.

BILL ARDOLINO continues his series on Iraq’s legislative progress at the Long War Journal.

KOSOVO BALKANIZES Europe again.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. The Clinton campaign stooped so low circulating a picture of Barack Obama in African dress. The Obama camp responded with shaming: “On the very day that Sen. Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.” And then the Clinton side shamed them back: “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.” This is the classic rhetorical device that is technically termed “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”

NOAH POLLAK: Hamas hoped to send a human wave of Palestinians through the border fence into Israel today, but no one showed up. “Perhaps today the people of Gaza feel that they don’t owe so much to Hamas, after all.”

I’M WORKING FROM HOME this morning, and the cable news channel is crammed with E*Trade ads along the lines of this one:

It just occurred to me how odd it is to see ads in the style of the late 1990’s “Make a fortune in the stock market with [insert financial services firm here”. The Dow is in the doldrums, and more to the point, you would think that people would be tired of get-rich-quick schemes based on rising asset prices. But perhaps they never do.

THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER Incidentally, there’s a pretty interesting discussion in the comment thread of Tyler Cowen’s Cuba post at Marginal Revolution. Tyler says:

A simple checklist would start with the question of whether an apologist has visited both the Dominican Republic and Cuba. And a non-communist Cuba could have done much better than the DR. It is a fascinating place for visitors, but right now the quality of life in Cuba isn’t close to that of the DR or for that matter Honduras, the second-biggest Latino mess in the hemisphere. While we’re at it, let’s not forget northern Mexico or even central Mexico. It’s time to stop apologizing for communist dictatorships; are you really so taken with the idea of confiscating property as to overlook decades of tyranny, impoverishment, and human misery? Yes I am familiar with the UN social indicators; I say you need to visit each of these countries, preferably speaking Spanish, and then report back to me.

A couple of commenters claim that they have visited Cuba, and it looks a lot better than Northern Mexico. It’s pretty unambiguously clear to economists that quality of life is higher in Northern Mexico, which is the richest part of a country that has a per-capita GDP three times higher than that of Cuba. So why the difference?

Possibilities:

1) Sample error: they visited the nicest parts of Cuba, and the nastiest part of northern Mexico.

2) The economists are wrong: per-capita GDP is missing important components of quality of life; a more egalitarian distribution of a little income makes people, on average, better off than a much higher GDP unequally distributed.

3) Deep poverty is much more picturesque than moderate poverty. Poor countries have their old colonial buildings still standing, because no one had the money (or the reason) to tear them down and put up something bigger. The countryside is dotted with adorable houses made out of natural materials and natives wearing colorful traditional garb. Animals graze in verdant fields, besides teams of sowers and reapers. Middle income countries are smoggy, and almost everything looks like a cheaper, shabbier version of what you get in the US. Scenic landscapes are despoiled by cinderblock buildings with hideous tin roofs, or trailers; cities are choked with boxy modern buildings that look something like our housing projects. The genteel decay that looks gothic and intriguing on an old Victorian mansion just looks seedy when it’s eating away at badly poured concrete. Affluent Americans underestimate the utility value of things like having personal space, or an automobile.

4) Cuba was relatively wealthy in 1959; it therefore has more of the markers, like old majestic buildings, that we associate with wealth.

Obviously, 2 is true to some degree, but not enough to explain why you would think Cuba is better off than northern Mexico. Northern Mexico could be a lot more unequal than Cuba and still provide a better standard of living to its citizenry. Especially since a lot of big improvements in third world poverty come not from transfer payments, but from fixed infrastructure like electricity, sanitation, and decent roads; higher per-capita GDP simply provides more of those things. I’d put a lot of emphasis on 4, and especially 3; I have no idea what role 1 might play.

HOPELESS IN HAVANA

I wanted to blog something about Cuba last week, but frankly, I was too stunned. “Castro-supporting leftist” is one of those stereotypes that I doubted could be found in the wild any more–until Castro stepped down and the Castro apologists crawled out from under their rocks. “Okay, dictatorship bad, but–universal health care! And he really stood up to Uncle Sam, which is, like, totally awesome!”

Leave aside the extreme dubiousness of the proposition that Castro has, in fact, made his countrymen better off. This is like listening to those conservatives one occasionally encounters in the darker corners of the movement who drop gems such as “Well, I don’t excuse Pinochet, but Chile wouldn’t have a privatized social security system without him.” I’ve never managed a snappy comeback to this because my jaw is always too firmly glued to the floor. Chile’s Social Security system is really pretty great. But it’s not so fantastic that it’s worth purchasing via a reign of terror. Neither is universal health care–particularly when the free clinics are short of medicine and equipment, making them worth about what you pay for their services.

Even more bizarre were arguments along the lines of “Well, Cuba only has about a hundred political prisoners . . . ” Only? That’s a lot of prisoners of conscience for a small island nation. Moreover, it fundamentally misunderstands the problem with dictatorship. The Cuban government doesn’t need to use force to punish any but the most glaring and vocal dissenters, because it has widespread powers of economic coercion. As a Russian co-worker once told me, “Americans have a silly idea about communism. It wasn’t that if you told a joke about Brezhnev, the secret police would arrest you–it was that you’d lose your job. And in Russia, there were no other jobs.” When the government controls your paycheck, your housing, and your ration card, it doesn’t need to put you in jail; you are in jail.

Nor is it much of an excuse that Bautista was awful; dictatorships almost never follow stable governments with sensible leaders who command the support of the majority of the population. Allende was a disaster who was rapidly driving his country down the road to economic ruin–and yet, still not a good reason to staff up the secret police and make his supporters disappear. There are some things for which there is no excuse. Pinochet’s regime was one of them. Castro’s is another.

At any rate, I was reminded to deliver this rant by Mahalanobis, which has a good post on life in Havana.

“DETROIT AND D,C,, PAY ATTENTION.” A review of Bob Zubrin’s Energy Victory. It’s pretty positive.

JOHN KERRY ON BARACK OBAMA: “I believe Barack Obama has this moment of history to be able to change these politics and take the negative off, to take the politics of destruction away. He isn’t seeking to perfect Swift-boating, he’s seeking to end it. This is a man who understands we’ve got to talk to each other.” And Kerry is a man who doesn’t understand that he was a terrible candidate.

“THANK YOU LIFE, THANK YOU LOVE, and it is true, there is some angels in this city.” Marion Cotillard was adorable accepting the Best Actress Oscar last night. But I had the impression it was a very lackluster show (maybe because we came in late and breezed through it on the TiVo). But the LA Times has a Best and Worst of the Oscars slideshow with comments that makes it seem pretty entertaining. Reminisce about Jon Stewart saying Gaydolf Titler, etc.

JOSH MARSHALL WINS A POLK AWARD and gets a nice write-up in the NYT. (Am I supposed to punish the NYT for the dreadful McCain story? I’ve got to make an exception and link to this.) “[H]e operates a long way from the clichéd pajama-wearing, coffee-sipping commentator on the news.” Dammit, where’s my coffee? And enough with the pajamas cliché — which is a cliché even when you’re calling it a cliché.

By the way, speaking of clichés: Have you noticed you never see MSM articles carping about bloggers anymore? Like this one from back in September 2006. Actually, I think that one was so dumb that no one ever wrote another one.

OBAMA IS “MAKING A PROMISE TO VOTERS that is as old as the country itself.” It’s an American thing to start over again.

OAKLAND’S GUN BUYBACK didn’t work out quite as planned: “Fortunately the buyback did manage to get some guns off the street, too bad they were turned in by a bunch of senior citizens from an assisted living facility. ”