Self Promoter

Wired magazine has a poll to find "The Greatest Self-Promoter of All Time". Most nominations went to familiar media figures like Donald Trump and Paris Hilton. I nominated Ahmed Chalabi, as the guy who talked the Bush administration into invading Iraq.

Self-promoter? Con man? Whatever.

"Put me in charge of Iraq" he said "The Iraqi people will acclaim me as their leader, and I will turn Iraq into a true paradise of Democracy, give the US all the military bases it wants, sell off Iraq's oil, and recognize Israel."

So we did. And we found that his description of his popularity was, ahem, a bit exaggerated. The vast majority of Iraqis had never heard of him, and those who had, hated his guts.

And here we are, five years later, with an unwinnable quagmire. Near as I can tell, there are no good answers.

According to Brigadier General Mark Scheid *, Donald Rumsfeld told his strategy group to stop working on plans for the Iraqi occupation -- and he'd fire anybody he caught working on them. Now, with the military, this means that somebody else is working on it, and that those particular people didn't have a "need to know". Nothing sinister, just standard OPSEC.

But we've never seen any evidence for any planning. Supposedly the State Department had been working on plans for occupying Iraq for years. They were trashcanned as "not suitable". All we saw was "everybody sit down and don't move until we have this figured out". They did, however, manage to guard the oil ministry. Figures.

And that lack of planning is, IMHO, the biggest war crime of the whole Iraq mess. There comes a point where stupidity becomes criminal, and this is 'way past that point.

There's an old saying that "you can't swindle an honest man." Your friendly average swindler plays on one of the great human desires -- the desire to get in on the inside of a crooked game. Chalabi told the Administration exactly what they wanted to hear, and they fell for it like a ton of bricks. Makes those guys in Nigeria look like rank amateurs.

* I couldn't find an original source, so the link is to a moderately right- of- center blog run by some very well respected legal types. It's a sad commentary on current journalism that blogs are a better resource than the mainstream media for historical (2005) information.

Page 3

Quote of the day:

"When the Journal gets its Page 3 girls, we'll make sure they have M.B.A.s."

— Rupert Murdoch, on his attempt to purchase the Wall Street Journal

Household Explosives, Redux

It's always fun to check out the Site Meter stats (icon at the bottom of the page). Since I've been inactive for the last couple of years, most of the visits I've had are people looking for something else. I wrote about this in Referral, where somebody was looking for "pocket sized witch detectors". I still have no idea what they were after.

Far and away the most common search that's finding me is for "household explosives". The searches find "What's Your Household Like?", which is almost certainly not what they're looking for.

I suspect that the folks doing the searches are looking to make explosives out of stuff they already have lying around. The one comment on the post suggests this. Folks, if you're thinking of trying this. one word of advice. Don't

The World's Dirtiest Joke

A new act comes in to a vaudeville booker. It's a man, a woman, a little girl, and a little dog. They're all well dressed and clean-cut and wholesome looking.

"So what's your act?" the agent asks.

"It's kind of hard to describe", the man replies. "We'll show you."

So they start into a sweet little song-and-dance number. However, it starts to change. Soon is is the most ghastly, obscene routine imaginable. It's the kind of act that would be banned in Thailand.

(This is what makes this the World's Dirtiest Joke — it's all in your head. I'm sure you can think of things that would gross you out totally that I might consider a mildly boring kink, and vice versa. Just imagine the grossest thing you possibly can.)

As the act comes to a close, it changes back to a sweet little song-and-dance. They've worked cleaning themselves up and rearranging clothing into the act, so that when they finish, they're all clean-cut and wholesome looking again.

The agent is aghast. "Well, what do you think of it?" the man asks.

The agent is speechless. He tries to think of something to say, but all that comes out is "What do you call your act"?

"The Aristocrats"

The metaphor is obvious.

New Template!!

Woohoo!

The old one was nice for its time, but it was seriously long in the tooth. It used lots of tables for layout, and was quite cluttered. Blogger doesn't seem to have the little graphics that did these table outlines any more. Sic transit Web.

I've tried to keep the CSS down to a set that any modern browser can handle. If not, it'll work just fine without it. The only Javascript is for the comments and site counter. When I figure out an acceptably obfuscated way of handling mailto: URLs, it may use Javascript.

Naturally, I'm not completely happy with the template. In particular, I'm not sure about the popups. They're CSS, not Javascript, so they'll work properly on non-CSS or text browsers. I don't know if I like having the sidebar boxes as popups or not. If you have an opinion one way or the other, please leave me a message in the comments. After all, it'll be mutating anyway. What about the popup lists coming up over the post text? The template doesn't need the extra width, and if I start getting a zillion hits, there's lots of room for Blogads. (Ha!)

Some general coments

• The font for the posts is set to the default font. If you don't like it, or it's the wrong size, check your own browser settings.
• If one of the popup lists goes off the bottom of the screen, you can navigate in it by putting your cursor somewhere inside the list and using the arrow keys or the scroll wheel to go up and down.
• I may or may not go back and add tags to old posts. It's probably not worth the effort.
• The "No comment" section is just a bunch of random links that I find interesting, for some reason. They'll come or go at whim.
• The template is set up to resize properly. I hate having to side-scroll to read something. (I'm lookin' at you, LiveJournal.)

Anyway, we'll see if it works!

Alternate Universe

Another traditional SF theme is the Alternate Universe. What would things be like if some historical event happened just a little bit differently? It's a fun area of speculation; two of my favorites are Too Many Magicians, by Randall Garrett (Richard III didn't die at the siege of Chaluz) and 1632, by Eric Flint (small town in West Virginia gets dropped into the middle of the Thirty Years War. Alternate History ensues).

Now, folks in the Administration have come out with statements about American and World history that range from wrong to hallucinatory. Assuming they're not just Making Stuff Up, what Universe are they from? Greg Cochran has an article in American Conservative that puts all of the pieces together. By golly, they all fit! So, our current ruling politicians are, quite literally, from another world. A not very nice one, it seems.

The question, of course, is what to do about it. Greg suggests:

Of course this means that we need to corral some or all of these visitors for study and experimentation. Such experiments would, I suppose, interfere with their civil liberties, if they had any, but they’re obviously not citizens of these United States. Technically they’re illegal aliens. Gitmo’s a-waitin’.

Hey, it's their laws!

"Pro-Life"? Bunk.

So the Supremes uphold the ban on the medical procedure "intact dilation and extraction" (IDX), misnamed "partial- birth abortion". What other specific medical procedures have been banned by name? I can't think of any. Misnamed? IDX is almost never used on a viable fetus. I say "almost" as a safety measure; I've never heard of it being used on a viable fetus, but I'm no expert.

IDX is a method of getting a dead or dying fetus out of a woman's body. Just how, exactly, is banning it "pro-life"? In its absence, a woman is supposed to wait for a "spontaneous miscarriage", which will hopefully happen before she dies. Often, it doesn't.

Yeah, IDX is icky. Note that "icky" is neither a medical term nor a legal term.

So we are going to have women dying to keep doctors from doing an icky procedure. Shows ya how much the "pro-lifers" value women.

The so- called "pro- life" types cleave naturally into two camps. The true pro- life folks are the ones who push sex education, provide prenatal and neonatal care for poor women, work with adoption agencies, and in general try to see to it that the people who get born have as good a chance as possible. Do they want to ban abortions? Some do, some don't. Most see it as a necessary evil. Legal abortion may be bad, but illegal abortion is a lot worse. I have really nothing to say to the true "pro- lifers"; it's a respectable position.

The "anti- choice" contingent is a lot simpler. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant. It's not about "life", it's about control. Simplistic way of telling who's who — "pro- lifers" are women; "anti- choicers" are men.

The anti-choicers are the ones who make most of the noise — to the extent that a lot of pro-choicers I've talked to don't seem to think the "real pro- lifers" really exist. They do; they just tend to be quiet.

I could get into all sorts of things like the bogus theology that the anti- choicers throw around — St Augustine and Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception and the Scofield Bible, but that would bore most people to distraction. I could document that the most fanatical anti- choicers have real Issues with (ie, are terrified of) women, but that's pretty obvious.

I'll just say that this nonsense is going to kill people.

There's a Word ...

So Georgie made a fool of himself at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. I've not seen any speculation as to why Georgie acted this way, other than the usual and unhelpful he's a jerk.

Nobody else seems to have said this, so I will. Looks to me like he was drunk.

Time to Drop Anchor

So the DLC is saying that Democrats should move to the right; tringulate, to use their term.

Wrong.

Voters are polarized, to the point that any more movement to the right will lose significant numbers of votes on the left. They may vote for Ralph Nader or just stay home; either way, they're lost. And, because of the degree of polarization, you're not going to pick up any appreciable numbers of voters from the Republican "base", either.

Time to drop anchor. The Democratic Party needs to dig in its heels and not let itself be dragged any further from its own principals. Remember, you never really compromise with a fanatic — you move, the fanatic doesn't.

So what should the core principals are we talking about? Well, let's see:

• Start with Civil Rights. This means everybody's civil rights — white, black, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, atheist, straight, gay, whatever. Everybody.
• War on Terror: Get the bastards. But make sure we're going after the right bastards. We don't need more Iraqs. Also, this will involve more diplomacy (ie, twisting Saudi arms) than military action. Essentially, this is police work with soldiers backing up the cops.
• Foreign policy: We can't be the World's Nose Wiper. Yeah, there are Bad People in the world. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about most of them. Iraq was an attempt to do so; see how well that worked.
• Fiscal policy: Wants are infinite, resources are finite. Work toward a balanced budget and paying down the national debt. Yeah, this means raising Paris Hilton's taxes.
• Energy: Start prying the House of Saud's fingers off of our throat. At the same time, we can work on lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
• Healthcare: While true universal health care is not an option in the next election cycle, we have to start looking toward it. A good start would be to move public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and their state and local equivalents in the direction of a "single payer" system. The current system is a nightmare; it wouldn't be hard to improve it a lot.
• Honesty, openness, accountability, and competence. Easy to promise; hard to deliver, and the Republicans' biggest weakness.

Some minor points, and implications of the above:

• Abortion: Pro-choice all the way. Siding with the anti-choicers in a misguided attempt at "triangulation" will just lose votes from the base.
• Stem cells: Ditto. The vast majority of voters on all sides are in favor of stem cell research.
• Iraq: Start working on digging ourselves out. It ain't gonna be easy — the choices I see range from disasterous to catastrophic.
• Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons, torture, and "extraordinary rendition": They all stop. Now. If this means high-level spooks and generals walk out, so be it.
• Gun control: Let it drop. The arguments on both sides are all heat and no light.
• Social Security: It ain't broke. Don't screw with it. Point out that the "privatisers'" numbers don't add up.

Some tactics:

• Run against Bush. His popularity is down about to the Yellow Dog level. The slogan "Rubber Stamp Republican" is good here. Congressional Republicans have gone along with just about all of Bush's harebrained schemes; call them on it.
• Yeah, the press is against you. Deal. Likewise, the Republicans are going to be spewing large amounts of slime It's all they have left. Plan for it; have responses ready. Don't get Switboated again.
• Learn to use numbers effectively. Know when raw numbers are better and when percentages are better. Use familiar analogies — credit cards, car loans, etc.
• Lose the fruitcakes. We're not going to outlaw SUVs, confiscate guns, disband the military, tear down the suburbs, or commit any other form of ritual suicide. Anybody who wants to is Outside the Tent. Let 'em piss in; you're known as much by who your enemies are as by who your friends are.
• Lose the DLC. They're the Neocon wing of the Democratic party — and financed by the same foundations that fund the Republican neocons. They're the ones pushing the line "We're just like Republicans, only better". If there was ever a guaranteed loser of an attitude, that's it.
• Lose the Big Bucks Consultants. They're the ones who have been consistantly losing elections for the last 25 or so years. They also suck enormous amounts of money.
• Make damn sure everybody knows you're going to fight tooth and toenail over any suggestion of vote fraud, especially anything involving electronic voting machines. And carry through after election day. Don't be afraid to raise a fuss.

Above all, keep in mind that we're in this for the long haul. We don't want to just win this election; we want to force the Republicans to cough up the Neocon - Theocrat furball permanently, like the Democrats threw out the Communists and the white-sheet crowd. This means plan for the long haul, and don't just assume that the NTs, or whatever other group that wants to drag us back to the rule of the Priest-Kings can be ignored just because they're ridiculous.

LATER — Avedon has another tactical suggestion, via American Microphone. Learn how the Republicans run their "big tent". Do it. When somebody is willing to work with you, don't insist that they agree with you on every tiny little detail. My "lose the fruitcakes" comment above refers to either people who try to hijack the party for their own personal crusades (uhh ... jihads?) or who are so far out on the fringe that nobody wants to deal with them I'm lookin' at you, Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky. Nothing wrong with the granola crowd if they're willing to go along with the program and not claim that, for example, the Democrats will outlaw SUVs. Yeah, I've heard this one.

The Center

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ...

— William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming, 1919

The Common Wisdom in politics is run to the center. Supposedly, Bill Clinton was the master of triangulation; moving enough to the Center to get what you want by giving the other side some of what they want. This used to be called compromise, but that word seems to be out of favor now.

Mathematically, opinions are usually on a normal distribution — the familiar bell-shaped curve. In this situation, the candidate that's closest to the center of the curve will get the most votes. Undecided votes are considered to be in the center.

Note that I said usually. If everybody pulls back into their own side of the argument, the opinions become polarized. This is represented by two overlapping bell curves. If they are far enough apart that there's a dip between them, moving to the center will lose votes.

Currently, it looks to me like our polarized curves are not only far apart, they're in different universes. The one on the left is the traditional Liberal-Conservative distribution while the one on the right might be thought of as the Neocon-Theocrat axis. There's simply no way to appeal to both. Unfortunately, right now, the N-T axis is controlling the terms of political discourse and attracting a good chunk of the right-hand side of the left (L-C) curve.

Yo! Democrats! Stop moving to the Center (which doesn't really exist) and you can pick up the whole left-hand curve — practically everybody. Your friendly average "conservative" (yes, they really do exist) has no interest in massive deficits, giveaways to Halliburton, foreign empire building, gay bashing, or Christianism.