Paul in third pace in NH?

I figured 10 percent was the most Paulians could hope for in Iowa, and while that's enough for the faithful it's small enough that the MSM can pretty much ignore it. Then comes this:

New Hampshire GOP Primary
John McCain	31%
Mitt Romney	26%
Ron Paul	14%
Mike Huckabee	11%
Rudy Giuliani	8%
Fred Thompson	5%
Some other candidate	2%

From the Rasmussen poll for January 4. I still don't expect Paul to win--and have some doubts about what would happen if he did--but it's harder to deny that he is tapping into something.

UPDATE (Jan 11): Well, I blew it on that call. Between falling below Gulliani and the newsletter problem, it may well be that Paul has peaked. Even if true, he's performed a service in getting people to discuss libertarian ideas in public. His worldview may be impractical, but at least it gets people to think. What other candidate has done that?

"Reality" is really, really weird

Someone finally managed to perform the Wheeler beam-splitting test of quantum mechanics. It works as predicted. How an experimenter chooses to set a second beam splitter affects the "reality" of a photon at the first beam-splitter, even if the choice is made after the photon has already passed the first device. Interpret it anyway you like--causation backwards in time, selection among alternate universes, whatever--it's still fascinating.

UPDATE (Jan 11): It's only tangentially related, but interesting that some in the U.S. Army are talking about eventually shifting from the electromagnetic spectrum to quantum communications.

Paul tops Guliani in Iowa poll

It's quite a slide for a "front-runner".

Bhutto assassination

A few questions and observations:

Bhutto was shot in the same park where Pakistan’s first prime minister, Nawabzda Liaquat, was assassinated in October 1951. Was that intended to serve as a message, or was this just the most convenient place to strike?

The assassin shot her, and then blew himself up. Is that a normal pattern for Rawalpindi (a city with over 50 suicide bombers last year, as I recall)? If he had already succeeded, why would he blow himself up? Just to avoid questioning? It doesn't feel right.

Let me get this straight: a dangerous city, an obvious target, and a lone assassin who dies before he can reveal anything of interest. The conspiracy theorists--and Pakistan is loaded with conspiracy theorists--are going to have a field day.

No conclusions. Just thinking out loud.

Oil reserves

James Joiner, over at OTB, has published a map where the area of the country is proportionate to its share of known oil reserves.

I have a few points to add. First, these are known reserves. Two weeks ago Brazil announced finding oil fields to rival (or surpass) Venezuela. One part of the contest between Russia and Canada over the north pole is the prospect for as-yet undiscovered oil. Second, available oil is always at a given price. Change the price and you change the amount it can be profitable to produce. Third, I don't trust the estimates from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Influence in OPEC--and one's portion of the oil to be released-- is directly related to national estimates of reserves. Every country--and probably Saudi Arabia tops the list--has reasons to overestimate what they have.

Nevertheless, it's a sobering reminder of why the middle east looms so large in American (and everyone else's) strategic calculations.

Interesting trends in Iowa

At present, it looks like only two contenders are growing in support in Iowa: Huckabee and Paul. Huckabee (green line) has the explosive growth, of course, but that may run into a ceiling. Paul (red line) is just beginning to take off.

In elections, it's not just about being number one, it's about when you are number one. Timing is everything. And in a caucus state, where people get to change their minds during the process, trends are especially important.

There may be a lot of surprised (and angry) pundits in a few weeks.

Size, homogeneity, and development

Zenpundit has another great discussion. This time it's on the relative importance of size and homogeneity for economic and political success. The answers, whatever they are, will help to define the shape of the world. I'll repeat my small contribution here:

Most of the better points have already been made (especially Phil on hyperpolarity and Dan txdap on variance), but I’ll add my two cents.

Size matters if there are economies of scale. Economies of scale matter most in head-to-head competition in a relatively stable environment. It also allows one more capital to throw into a project. The costs of scale are that it is more difficult to make rapid changes, or to learn from the experience of others. If, as Robb suggests, we are in a world requiring quick adaptation to asymmetric challenges (economic or security) there is a maximum size beyond which states no longer make sense, and that size may be shrinking.

Instead of unitary states or multiethnic empires, the capital accumulation problem can be handled by federations, common markets, etc. Ethnic (or cultural) autonomy promotes experimentation, but a few limited common institutions allow those experiments–if successful–to be adopted, by consensus, on the larger scale. Diversity allows choices and commonalities allow mutual support. The result looks something like the alliances among airlines (for frequent flier programs and landing rights) or among microchip manufacturers (for R and D).

And has anyone been noticing what’s happening to Belgium lately? It’s not Nigeria, by any means, but it’s getting more difficult to put together a government.

So how about this vision of the future: thousands of microstates (and virtual states) linked into networks of overlapping interest. One state will be in multiple networks, depending on issues. Any pair of states could in competitive networks and in cooperative networks at the same time.

Come to think of it, we’re not so far from that today. Fragmentation within states, coupled with regional and global institutions.

I recommend you take a look at the whole thing.

What I want for Christmas (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_iup2jXQqI

Bombs don't kill people, bodyguards kill people

Strategypage provides yet another example of why I don't want to ever be surrounded by gun-happy people, even if they are nominally on my side:

November 23, 2007: In Afghanistan, an examination of the 77 people killed by a November 6 suicide bomb attack, found that most of them were killed by bullets, not the bomb. The bullets came from the bodyguards of tribal chiefs and politicians that were at the gathering. More than a hundred people were wounded as well, and most were hit by bullets. The bodyguards fired for more than three minutes after the bomb went off. Most of the dead (61 of 77) were students from a local school. Five teachers and five bodyguards also died.

Please note: I have nothing against guns, per se. I just worry about some of the idiots who carry them.

Follow the money

An excerpt from pinr---

Chinese Banks Becoming Powerful Factor in the Global Financial Sector
Drafted By: Adam Wolfe
http://www.pinr.com

On October 25, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (I.C.B.C.), the world's largest bank by market capitalization, announced that it would purchase a 20 percent stake in Standard Bank, South Africa's largest bank. If the US$5.6 billion deal is approved, it will be the largest foreign direct investment in South Africa since the end of apartheid in 1994 and the biggest overseas investment by a mainland Chinese company.

Altering its Approach to Africa

The deal is a logical extension of China's shifting approach to Africa, which PINR first outlined in February, but it also demonstrates the growing power of China's banking sector. Until recently, most observers have focused on the bad debt held by Chinese banks, in addition to the lack of internal controls. However, with some strategic help from the Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P.), China's banking sector appears posed to grow into a powerful factor in the global financial sector. [See: "China Adjusts its Approach in Africa"]

Whereas China remains primarily interested in securing access to Africa's natural resources for its growing economy, this year has marked an evolution to the arrangement in which China increasingly involves itself in African politics in order to foster a better business relationship.

There's good news and bad news here. The good news is China is integrating itself into the world financial system. The bad news is its another sign of the relative decline of American power in this sector, and money that will not be invested in American treasury bonds. Have the Party and the banks come to the conclusion that investing in US bonds is a bad deal? That would have all sorts of consequences for the American economy, budget deficits, and taxes. Who knows--we might even have to pay more of the price of empire. And that may not be so bad after all.