Most of the United States' wars have been started by Democrats. It may seem counterintuitive but it's true. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. This is a big question in IR, because obviously Democrats are the more dovish party.

There's a concept called diversionary war theory. The idea is that when the economy is bad or his poll numbers are down a president will engage in a foreign conflict to provoke what's called a "rally around the flag effect". (ie: before 9/11 Bush had low poll numbers, after 9/11 he had some of the highest ever) In a time of crisis the country comes together.

Some authors say this applies not so much to poll numbers as to the economy. But this still doesn't explain why Democrats have started more wars than Republicans.

I'm bullshitting with a bullshit little project right now that involved coming up with a bullshit hypothesis that was a bullshit part of the overall grade. In the process thereof I managed to come up with something though:

H1: Republicans' elite constituencies would prefer economic problems be solved by monetary policy whereas Democrats are more apt to rely on fiscal policy. It is easier to change monetary policy than to engage in diversionary conflict, but it is easier to engage in diversionary conflict than it is to change fiscal policy. Thus, Democrats will be more likely to divert than Republicans.

Republicans would rather fix the economy through the Fed. That's done by having Tim Geihtner talk to Ben Bernanke at lunch. Democrats would rather fix the economy by increasing federal expenditures, tweaking tax codes, etc. which requires a huge amount of effort. So basically, it's easier to talk to Ben Bernanke than it is to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth, but it's easier to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth than it is to change spending patterns and tax codes. So in the event of a high misery index, Republicans don't have as much reason to bomb some shithole on the other side of the earth because it's easier to do what they would want to do in the first place. Democrats on the other hand do.

Thus: why most wars are started by Democrats.

At the end of every semester I'm a little disappointed. When someone talks to you three days a week for months on end you get used to them, their mannerisms, their humor and so forth. You get to feel as if you really know these people. Now that I'm about to leave Tallahassee I'm looking back on the past three years and recalling those faces. In one of my last spurts of academic procrastination (I only have seven opportunities left) I've made a list of my favorites. Some are included because I gleaned more from their class than I do from most. Others because I liked them on a personal level. Still more because I simply found them entertaining.

One thing that has become apparent is that my favorite semester was fall of 2009. Four of the eleven are from that semester. Given that I took five classes that bodes well.



Sheffies  -  Micro economics  -  Macro economics  -  (TCC, summer 08)

Megan  -  Intro to Political Science  -  Intro to Comparative Politics  -  (TCC, spring 08 fall 08)

Will Moore  -  International Human Rights  -  (FSU, fall 09)

Dr. Grosser   -  Game Theory - (FSU, fall 09)

Dr. Crew   -  Florida Government - (FSU, spring 10)

Patrick Armshaw  -  International Organizations  -  (FSU, fall 09)

Missy James  -  Argument and Persuasion  -  (TCC, fall 07)

Weber  -  American Foreign Policy  -  (FSU, spring 10)

Elizabeth Nyman  -  Theories of International Relations  -  (FSU, fall 09)

James Nelson  -  Intro to Public Policy  -  (FSU, spring 09)

Daniel  -  Political Science Research Methods  -  (FSU, summer 09)

Nope, I was wrong. After talking to someone with a PhD and a half century of experience Charlie will ultimately caucus with the Republicans.

It appears as if Charlie Crist may run as an independent in Florida's US Senatorial election this year. There was recently a bill regarding teacher pay that passed through the Florida senate. Without going too far into detail (in large part because I don't know a great deal about it), the bill dealt with a favorite topic among Florida Republicans: education reform. At the same time, Democrats are somewhat ambivalent about education reform and teachers unions were fiercely opposed. Having been badly trailing Marco Rubio in the Republican primary, Crist has been having to hew to the right over the past few months even though he was elected as a moderate. However... Governor Crist vetoed the bill a few days ago.

If Governor Crist was planning on losing the Republican primary, that was the absolute right move. Otherwise, it indicates he's returning to his moderate roots. Florida Governors are limited to two four year terms and from that point the only place to go is into the federal government. Crist has been involved in politics for a very long time. He's also always kind of struck me as a political opportunist (though to be fair I don't know as much about him as I probably should). Given the situation facing his career and since polls show him eeking out a narrow victory in a three way race, it only seems logical for him to run as an independent. I'm waiting with fingers crossed.

Even if a Senator Crist was to the right of my personal ideology, I think he would be great for the country and spectacular for Florida. Charlie Crist has the second highest approval ratings for any Florida governor on record (though they only go back to Graham) and is well liked by both Democrats and Republicans. Though it may sound strange to most, in actuality Florida is evenly divided in terms of voter registration. The reason state politics are controlled by Republicans is basically because they outplayed the Democrats in the 90s and then gamed the system (there's a little more to it than that). I'm a little thin when it comes to domestic politics, but it seems to me that in this environment if Charlie Crist won a senate seat it would be thanks to both moderate Republicans and to Democrats who have no idea who Kendrick Meek is. He's already on the bad side of Jeb Bush because of the veto and running as an independent would seal his fate within the Republican party. So Crist would be beholden to moderates and through this, to Florida's best interests. He would have to pay close attention to what Floridians want and work very hard to make sure we keep loving him.

An outcome like that is exactly what the country needs. The Republican party is throwing in their lot with fanatics and garnering favor with old white people. If the tea-baggers succeed, it will result in a hopelessly deadlocked government for a little bit, and then as white people progressively become less of a majority the Democrats will come back, smash the Republicans into itty-bitty pieces and we'll have only one functioning party until the GOP can get their act together. Given that the Republicans should have been getting their act together since the 2006 midterms and have instead been reheating left over Reagan lasagna, we'd probably be stuck with one party for quite a while.

But it seems to me that Charlie Crist would have a difficult time caucusing with either party. The Republicans would hate him. Throwing his support their way isn't going to help get the GOP machinery of Florida on his side for the next election. Going too far to the right would alienate the South Florida Democrats that helped to put him in office anyway. But he would have to be careful about associating too closely with President Obama. Republicans make up half of Florida and part of the reason why they control the state is that Florida Republicans are more excitable than Florida Democrats. While this would make Senator Crist's incumbency tenuous, it would also make it remarkable. Of the two independents in the Senate both currently caucus with the Democrats. Of course, Lieberman does have a tendency to do his own thing, but his own thing has already been laid out and the guy's been in the Senate so long he doesn't really have to worry about his constituents anymore. Crist on the other hand, would be a legitimately up for grabs vote in the Senate. A true independent would be a breath of fresh air. At the very least it would provide some respite from the insanity we've been seeing for so long. At best it will show us a path forward.

What Crist will really be great for is Florida. The Democrats will want his vote badly. At the same time, it will have to be apparent as to exactly how careful he has to be about straying too far from his conservative roots. These two things equal: bank. He will be in a prime position to lavish Florida with federal riches. The Democrats will probably be happy to oblige too. If he can bring home the bacon, Florida Republicans will be more forgiving of him straying from their party line, allowing him to worry about Florida Democrats and stray toward their party line. Given that Crist is so experienced in politics, he'll most likely be able to capitalize on this.

All of that is very dependent on where he gets his support. It's my opinion that in the end politicians are responsible to the voters. However, you'd have a hard time finding someone who would disagree with the statement that there's a lot more to it than just that. Getting and retaining support from the people that count is exceedingly important. If he can still get some big time Republicans to back him (doesn't seem likely) he might end up caucusing with the Republicans. If he gets more Democratic groups to back him it would go the other way. It seems like he's still figuring that one out himself right now, so there's no way to tell.

And if all of this comes to naught? Say he loses after one term in office. In that case we'll have dodged a tea-bagger incumbent. Say he loses this November. Well, Meek would probably have gotten destroyed by Rubio anyway. Florida Republicans are more enthusiastic than Florida Democrats in general, and Republicans are more enthused than Democrats nationally at the moment. Not good for a Democratic candidate with terrible name recognition. But a three way race will be pretty cool. There will be a lot of attention on the race and a lot of money pumped into the state in the process. So even if he falls flat on his face, at the bare minimum Charlie is bound to give us a good show.

 I was sitting in class today looking down at the desk. There was the tiniest bit of inane writing on it. It struck me as to quite how long I've been doing this school thing. The pointless doodle etched into the back of the desk in front of me was exactly the same sort of thing I might have seen better than a decade ago in middle school. The person who put it there this time around wasn't forced to be there by law but they were forced at least by societal norms. Both the person who put the doodle on today's desk and the person who put the doodle on the desk ten years ago in high school were there against there will and bored as shit. Same old song.

What further struck me is how odd it is that I'll be done with it so soon. A few weeks ago I was walking along, giving myself a pep talk. Whenever I do a road trip I psych myself up the following way: "1/5 of the way there, I've only got to do this four more times", "1/4 of the way there, I only have to do that three more times", and so forth. So the pep talk of a few weeks ago was "one more week, and then I'm two weeks from halfway through the semester, but really exam week doesn't count so I'll only be one week away from halfway done by this Friday". A little confusticated, but whatever gets you through. Now I'm a legit two weeks away from my final class. On Thursday of the week after next I will put a scantron on Dr. Jackson's desk, pop my collar, brush my shoulder and walk out of a classroom for the last time. How quickly those few weeks went by.

But really, how quickly FSU went by. It seems like yesterday that I was just getting into the swing of my first semester of classes. TCC today feels like it took a while, but when I graduated from that fine institution it certainly felt as if it went by quickly. It's a little unsettling. All along, I've been cheering this passing of time. Life in Tallahassee has left something to be desired. My saying has been "there's a wide world out there... and it's not in Tallahassee." However, passing of time is passing of time. In a couple of weeks my dues in terms of education will finally have been paid. In a little over a month I'll have used up probably more than a third of my time on the earth (average life expectancy of an American male is 72?). In the blink of an eye I'll be thirty. And then before I know it I'll be old and dead.

My theory being addiction is just another word for love, thankfully I haven't ever fallen in love with a substance. I often times, however, have become enamored. Currently I am enamored with Ambien. What makes it better is that this time around I'm not doing anything illegal. In fact, it's called for.

Some background would probably be necessary. This is something I wrote last semester:

In regard to torture, the USSR really had it's ducks in a row. While I haven't studied Soviet torture techniques specifically, the ancillary knowledge from related topics leads me to the belief. Under the second Bush administration, the United States in some ways had it's ducks even more precisely aligned, but in others just had no idea. US torture techniques were the result of quasi scientific analyses utilized by lawyers and sadistic military personnel working in tandem. Some of the stuff used was sincerely on point. And true to the torture techniques of all liberal democracies, no scars! Yet the US ultimately had no idea what it was doing because a) in the western world you can't get a conviction when there's torture involved b) we used the wrong kind of torture.

Case in point is a favorite Soviet tactic: sleep deprivation. It may sound silly, but former Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin (I believe it was) who was subjected to it offered up his opinion that the desire for sleep far and away is greater than that for food or water. Quite simply: after three days, you will do anything. Great tactic for extracting false confessions, terrible for extracting military intelligence as we tried to do. Not only did one detainee confess to masterminding almost all recent terrorist attacks, but also confessed to the sun revolving around the earth.

This is the level I'm on. Gitmo detainees would be given roughly four hours in breaks per 24 for months. I have had 1hr of sleep 27 hours ago and in the past 72 hours have had 4 in bits and pieces. Once every couple of weeks I used to get a solid nine hours. But it's been getting progressively getting worse. Tonight was supposed to be my good sleep night. It's not happening. I want to sleep so badly, but just can't. It dawned on me the other day, that by the definition of most, I'm subjecting myself to torture. At the moment I simply go about is if I were drunk. But jf this were being enforced by someone else my mind would be profoundly fucked.


That entry ended talking about an appointment to see a doctor about sleeping medication. I was wracked with the pain of lack of sleep, grasping for reasons why. Hopefully, I pleaded, they might be able to do something for me. Well, this is about six months later. Since then I went to a few appointments. And upon leaving the last of those doctors' offices I found myself with these lovely little white pills which appear to be crafted from only the waftiest of clouds,

The Ambien has saved me. I can sleep. I try to tough it out a few nights here and there, but end up up layng in bed for seven or eight hours, finding that I had been closing in a quasi-sleep like state during the last forty five minutes or so. Other nights though, I ease gently into dreamland and wake eight or nine hours later fresh as a daisy with feminine wash..

Of course, the reason I'm enamored with Ambien is more than just that. Some of the side effects are a change in the way you feel things. There's a certain quality to freshly washed cold bedsheets that there wasn't before. Walking up and cooking a midnight snack I can feel vastly more textures on the kitchen tile floor than I had previously. The sole of my foot sticks to the clean, cool tile ever, ever so slightly. The air seems freshly condensed, with a hint of cucumber. These are only a few, hopefully to give you an overall idea. But my favorite, favorite, favorite one is when you hold your arms over your chest it's a different kind of warmth. It brings a different type of momentary introversion and for that moment you're 6 years old again and safe under your blankee.

I recently had an ex-girlfriend de-friend me on facebook. It's a little odd because the whole deal wrapped itself up like two years ago and I had kind of assumed that I was as inconsequential to this person by now as she is to me. So I can't help but analyze it some. The fact that I have a lot of stuff to do and really don't want to do any is contributing to that... a skosh. After employing hard earned skills that I will never use in the real world, I have two views on it. The first is that it's a a good outcome for me, the second that it's notable. How do I come to this conclusion empirically? Game theory.


A facebook de-friend is a serious social faux pas. Here's the reason why.

   - maintaining the facebook friendship takes nothing

   - player 1 de-friending player 2 takes effort

   - player 2 recognizes that it takes effort

   - player 1 recognizes that player 2 recognizes it takes

   - this in turn makes it more costly for player 1 than the simple action of clicking a button


But it's even more intense in this case. I really dislike the bitch at this point, and would assume the feeling is mutual. The particular situation was pretty hard on both parties and isn't the sort of thing you forget. So we'll start from the assumption that neither of us really want to see the other person's picture and status updates and what not. But nobody wants to seem as if the other person was getting to them in any way. A facebook de-friend is a costly action and social faux pas. To utilize it here is kind of a big deal.

Onto the fun part. You might be thinking that I'm mis-reading the situation for some reason. But through game theory I can deduce that I'm absolutely not. Here's what this particular game looks like. I've abbreviated it some, but this is essentially it (see below).

I'm player one, and she's player two. Where there's an X shows what her best response is given my action. For instance, if my action is “de-friend”, she's better off choosing “maintain” because to “cost of de-friend” is more than the cost of seeing the other person's shit. Or more importantly, if I maintain she's better off maintaining. This is why I know I'm right. In the first box you can see that for two years (maintain, maintain) was the equilibrium. Assuming she plays rationally, that means the cost of de-friending (C) is higher than the cost of seeing the other person online (S), hence the second X I placed in the top right box (de-friend, maintain).

BUT, that's no longer the outcome. The equilibrium has changed. Now the equilibrium is that she de-friended and I maintained. That's the second box. What can this mean? The cost of de-friend has changed for her. The cost of de-friend is (pleasure from not seeing the other person online) - (cost of losing face). One of these two things has changed on her part.

Now, the thing is that if she truly didn't give a shit either way, pleasure from not seeing the other person online should equal 0. The cost of losing face will always equal at least something which would make (C) negative. Pleasure from not seeing the other person online is essentially (S), though I forgot to write that down. Which would mean that if she truly didn't give a shit, it would never be rational to de-friend.

Dr. Grosser said we would use this stuff in our everyday lives. A dubious assumption for most, but I actually do so all of the time. I have to say though, this has definitely been the most fun application yet.

Down to brass tax. What does this all boil down to? In this game my optimum outcome was achieved. Somehow, I got under her skin more than she did mine. Two years on, the things I said were rough enough to when she my profile online it was difficult for her to some degree, and I cared less. I win.

Too bad game theory was last semester and I couldn't find an analogy pertaining to Emerging Democracy in North East Asia instead.

For the first post in this fresh new blog I've decided to talk about a subject close to my heart: television.

Television really is an incredible medium. In my opinion it's the ultimate form of art in the modern age. The creators have so many opportunities to get their point across, it doesn't really matter what strictures they are bound by in terms of network rules and demographic targets etc. Ultimately they'll get their point across. More importantly though, everyone and everything involved will leave an imprint on the final product in some way. As I will discuss in a minute, in terms of a television show being art, one of the most important of these factors in the context in which it was produced.

If a stranger were to ask me about my taste in television, at the moment I'd probably say my favorite show is Mad Men. But it would be a lie. The only reason I would say that is because I wouldn't want them to look at me funny. In reality, my main squeeze at the moment is Bewitched. Ironically for some of the same reasons as Mad Men.

Anyone who's known me for a length of time will tell you I'm prone to following some weird shows. Dharma and Greg was at the top spot on the old Tivo list for a little while. But I'll admit when a show is stupid and I enjoy it in an abstract manner. At the same time, I'm a critical viewer and can really tell good television. In my analysis of different shows, there are a multitude of factors but in the end the most important aspect foor me is the characters, particularly character development. I want to get to know them, I want to come to like them and I want to feel at home in their reality. This is really one of the big reasons I would call Bewitched a great show and put it in the same league as the Simpsons. The first two seasons at any rate. During the first two seasons of Bewitched the character development was amazing. The writers really took into account the complexities of the situation they were putting these different people into and if you really watch closely it shows.

To be sure there are drawbacks. The laugh track is terribly intrusive. What's particularly unfortunate is that during the first two seasons the jokes were genuinely funny and they really didn't need it. The show isn't dynamic. By the second year they were married Darrin and Samantha would have worked out a lot of issues that were never resolved in the show. Endora (Samantha's mother) would have been banned from the house by Samantha because she was really ruining their lives. Darrin would have quite McMann and Tate because it was a terrible working environment, not only due to the constant prying into his private life, but mainly because his boss and supposed best friend threatened to fire him every other week. Inflexibility is one of the pitfalls of shows of the era. Sitcoms used to be very formulaic. Maybe it had something to do with 30+ episodes a season was the norm.

However, for the downsides of it being made in the 1960s there are upshots as well. What I find particularly fascinating about the show is the context in which it was made. Bewitched is a show about the most mixed of marriages... and happened to be made during the civil rights movement.  It's a show about a woman more or less learning her place in society... and happened to be made during a massive cultural upheaval. It's a show about choosing to earn what you have in life rather than simply "zapping" it into existence... and happened to be made smack in the middle of the cold war.

What have I learned from my procrastination and incidental case study? Well, for as much as I love Samantha, I hate the values of the writers. They placed themselves on the losing side of the culture revolution. Darrin with his acquiescence to work, only putting his family first on Christmas eve. Him coming home and getting angry with his wife for not doing slave work the hard way, and the fact that ultimately Samantha agrees with him on it! And then there's the lack of cultural sensitivity in regard to witches as a separate species. True Blood viewers should be well acquainted with that theme. The show's treatment of women and cultural insensitivity is best exemplified in the fourth(?) season. Apparently the witches have a system of governance, a monarchy. And apparently the queen is chosen in a similar way to the Dalai Lama. The difference is that the to-be head witch doesn't know until she's installed. Long story short, Samantha is crowned queen of the witches, the highest honor among her people. Accommodating to Darrin's needs as always, she promises only to do royal business after midnight.  But some of those attending court were mistakenly waking up Darrin. Furious he demanded she abdicate, in front of her subjects no less. Now from where I'm standing, while it's true that when something is earned it holds more meaning, witches are clearly a superior species. And not only that, but Samantha has become the head of the witches. Given that witches live for centuries, she'll be getting her cute little ass kissed for a lot longer than Darrin will be around.  In 2010 the equation is simple: her job is more important and is more consequential for her life than yours is for you. Get ready to spend some quality time with Tabatha. But in 1967, they had a blowout fight that ended up with Samantha agreeing to step down after her mandatory year was up. It's unlikely that these were stances held only by the writers of the show. Given that Bewitched was wildly popular these values had to be held by a large portion of the audience as well.

What's interesting though, is that upon re-watching some episodes of I Dream of Jeannie, it becomes apparent that Tony and Jeannie were placed on the opposite divide of the culture revolution. Both shows ripped on hippies, but Jeannie did so in a gentle way. Bewitched took it as a given that they were the bane of society. Roger Healy (third character in Jeannie) held a "mod party" at which Tony and Jeannie fit right in. Tony accepted some of Jeannie's culture (that of white, blonde haired Iraqis from 2000 years ago) and never really had a problem with her magic at base level. His issue was that she always botched it or used it at inappropriate times. He actually banked on it at times. While Darrin was pissed if his breakfast wasn't hand made Tony tried to keep Jeannie from actually cooking.

Tony's take on magic versus that of Darrin is another interesting reflection on the politics of the time. Tony too believed in hard work and building something with your own two hands. He was an astronaut and exemplary of American enthusiasm and a huge proponent of American exceptionalism. Anything less would have been unfitting. However, Tony would leverage Jeannie's abilities when it didn't mess with the big picture. Darrin on the other hand "forbid" magic in his house at all times... except of course when they ran out of gas in the pouring rain (it's all laissez faire until you get into deep shit). Thus we can see Tony as a reflection of Johnson's Great Society, while Darrin put a Goldwater sticker on his Corvair.

Oh yeah, before I wrap this up, that's another thing that strikes me about these shows. Both were direct competitors on different networks... and both were sponsored by GM. Darrin drove Chevrolets, Tony drove Pontiacs (specifically GTO convertibles). These were the days when General Motors had such a massive market share it's brands actually competed with one another. I could write for hours on that alone. 

So once again I find myself asking the eternal question: I Dream of Jeannie versus Bewitched. On their merit as a quality television show, there's no doubt that during it's first two seasons Bewitched faaaar outclassed Jeannie. After that Jeannie probably had the edge, but that's more a matter of personal taste. At that point both shows were pretty stupid. As to the likability of characters, again after the first two seasons Bewitched went downhill in a major way. Some of the characters still had their moments, but on the whole it was mostly Darrin screaming, Larry being a prick and Endora not being used to a fact of life. Jeannie had a cast of characters it was hard not to love. But then again, Samantha's just so damn sweet she makes up for the rest of them. Hotness of female lead: Jeannie's got the body, but Samantha's got the face. How well can I see myself as a part of their world? The Stephens' don't share my values, whereas Tony Nelson and his magical sex slave do.  At the same time, the Sopranos didn't share my values and I felt comfortable in their house.

So in the end it comes down to one thing: Tony drives a GTO, Darrin drives a Corvair.