Category: Main

Pissed off at your DSL provider for crummy service?
Sue ’em. might win.

If you’re wondering just how bad an effect worm you’re hearing about has had, check out this page from Matrix, which shows all sorts of interesting graphs on the overall ‘health’ of the Internet.
As, ironically, that page itself may be hard to reach, you’ll see below a sample graph which shows ‘reachability’ of Internet sites over the past seven days. You can clearly see the spike downwards early this morning; good news is, it seems like the worst is over and we’re trending upwards back to normal levels.
I can’t vouch for the accuracy of any of this data, of course, but it seems to correlate logically with the descriptions of the worm attack.
Update: Here’s the Carnegie Mellon CERT report on the attack, which has more detailed / technical information than you’ll find in news reports. Dave Winer also has good coverage (link courtesy InstaGuy), and points to Slashdot, natch.

Papa Goldberg (sire o’ Jonah) points out in a letter to his spawn that the Left agrees with me on the amoral nature of worshiping “sovereignty” as a holy concept — or at least, supposed to:
It’s peculiar to listen to lefties make “sovereignty” a sacrosanct issue, so that it is sinful to attack the “sovereign” state of Iraq. Without going into the merits of it, historically the Left has been against the concept of sovereignty. This is what broke up the Second International at the outset of WWI…
Probably a tad unfair to lump the whole left in with the Second International, but hey, why quibble?

Have I mentioned that Jules’ cover of Tears For Fears’ Mad World is absolutely gorgeous?
Hint: It’s on the Donnie Darko soundtrack.

So as a part of the Seemingly Endless Job Search, I’ve concluded that it might be useful for me to obtain formal certification as a project manager from the Management Institute.
In my jobhunt, I have encountered a small minority of openings that are looking exclusively for PMI-certified managers, so obviously it would help with those, and it seems a nice extra boost to have on one’s resume in general.
Now, the issue is how best to do it. The requirements, as I understand it, are threefold: one, to have 4,500 hours of project management experience; two, to have 35 hours of formal project management education, and three, to pass the certification exam.
I’ve no problem with the first part; I hesitate to count how many (real, not billed) hours of experience I’ve had in my career, but it’s sure is heck a lot more than 4,500. And the exam shouldn’t be a problem: got a study guide today at Borders, and thus far, it seems pretty straightforward based on my consulting experience and my old firm’s standard practices.
The middle part, though, requires some investigation: I doubt I can show 35 hours of training, so I’ll have to go find some.
So: Any suggestions? I’m particularly interested in either online coursework or courses given in Southern California, obviously. And oh, yeah: it would be nice if it was cheap, too.
I’d also welcome feedback/thoughts from anyone who has obtained PMI certification: was it worth it? Any suggestions for how to go through the process?
Anyway, will keep y’all posted on how I decide to proceed; I’m sure you are waiting with baited breath…

Virginia Heinlein, Robert Heinlein’s wife of many years, died this past Sunday at the age of 86. Calpundit has fine piece on her life with Robert, and Jane Galt also says a few words.
My father raised me on Heinlein’s work, and the vast majority of my political philosophy (Release 1.0 of it, at least) came from his ideas, and ideals. His death in 1988 was probably the first and only passing of a public figure that I truly and deeply mourned.
If there is indeed an afterlife, I hope Robert and Ginny are happily reunited there. I owe them both a great debt that cannot be repaid, although that won’t stop me from trying.

Maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but isn’t it somewhat significant that the anti-war camp lost the Washington Post editorial board?
These folks are not generally known as bloodthirsty hawks, last time I checked… but they seem to be giving Bush a pretty clear green light…

Wow: Today is the day that Mitnick is legally permitted to have full access to the online world again.
I remember I was at the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference in Chicago back in ’94, and the big excitement was that some of the law-enforcement folks at the conference thought an attendee was Mitnick and called in a raid.
He wasn’t (a fact recognized fairly quickly by the cops; the guy was released reasonably swiftly) but boy, was he popular for the rest of the conference…
Update: Another story from ComputerWorld, which points to KevinMitnick.com … geez, busy little Future Enterpriser, ain’t he?

I’m a hawk, but only just barely (I almost slipped into ‘Realist’ territory.)
This, I think, should surprise absolutely nobody…

Have you ever noticed how stunningly inappropriate some of the advertisements which appear on the pages of can be?
If they are using any kind of logic to present ads appropriate to the readership of a given piece, then it has to be the worst such system ever created, as the advertisements seem to be utterly random. But this can lead to amusement: in a moment of boredom, I decided to make it a game. (And you can play along at home, too!)
What’s the most inappropriate pairing of a Slate piece and its accompanying advertisement that can be found?
With little effort, I managed to get a spot for Joe Klein’s Clinton biography The Natural to pop up under Christopher Hitchens’ latest column, which seemed a good start, given Hitchens loathing for the former President.
I then succeeded, with a little more clicking, in pairing an advertisement for theeducationplan.com (tagline: “Every Cent Counts Towards Your Child’s Education”) with Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon’s sobering discussion of the pain of miscarriage.
Which pretty much seemed inappropriate enough, so I’ll retire from the game for now. Your turn…

Tired of Nigerian spam? Bored with Viagra advertisements?
Never fear: now your elected representatives spam you:
Constituent Managment System
Developed by Constituents Direct, CMS is a powerful e-mail relationship management (ERM) tool that immediately connects you to your constituents. If you do not have your own e-mail database, use our proprietary database of over 60 million e-mail addresses. Use our CMS to spread your message quickly and efficiently and build lasting relationships with your constituents. Use our CMS to WIN campaigns.
Charming.

Just a public service reminder: one must make time in life for truly important things.

Bill Quick is the WaPo to task for trying to change the character of the debate over war:
…WaPo is still trying to shift the debate from one in which it is incumbent upon Saddam to prove he has no WMD and is not violating previous resolutions, to one in which it is incumbent upon the United States to prove that Saddam does have WMD, and is violating UN resolutions.
Bill has staked out a firm position on Bush’s wobbliness, and I’m glad he’s done so — while he hasn’t convinced me, I’m still listening, and I certainly have to admit unease at how long we’ve waited to begin the ‘real war’.
I think in this case he may be correct about the WaPo’s motivations, but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate their point. It is certainly right to say that, in moral and U.N.-legal terms (I know, that last bit is an oxymoron), the burden is on Saddam to prove himself in compliance.
But concluding that Saddam has failed to do so and that action against him is morally or legally justified is a very different thing than saying that the United States should send the men and women of its armed forces into harm’s way to stop him. For that, the American public must be convinced the cause is justified — the argument that Saddam has failed to prove his innocence is just not going to be sufficient.
I think we’ve already got plenty of evidence to justify action, and I also recognize that there’s a decent percentage of the population that will simply never be convinced that military force is justified. But what I expect to see is a variation on Bush’s stellar U.N. speech last year in his State of the Union address — a matter-of-fact litany of all the cease-fire violations Hussein has committed over the years, probably mixed in with some (hopefully dramatic) new evidence of his weapons programs. And of course: a reminder of the horrifying consequences that we now cannot avoid understanding can result when powerful madmen with a hatred of America are allowed to go unchecked.
And I’ll make a prediction: if he delivers that speech, or something like it, U.S. popular support for a war will skyrocket. Partly because war truly is the sensible option at this point — and partly because I think deep down, Americans know that this war is going to happen; that our President is firmly convinced it is necessary; that the troops are already in place, and that no protest on the Mall is going to stop it. And while the ANSWER crowd will continue to fight, most Americans will realize that the threshold has already been crossed: we’re already committed to this war.
And one last reason why the tide will turn: unless I’m misremembering, Bush has never made a direct appeal to the American people to support an attack on Iraq. This will be the first time, and I expect it will be a powerful statement. Because the American people want to be asked. Part of the reason why support has not been stellar is that many of those on the fence are waiting to hear it from Bush’s own lips. They want to hear him make his case, and they want to be asked by their President for support.
Once he does so, the public-support war will be all over — at least until the fighting starts — and the ANSWER crowd might as well go on vacation for a few weeks.
PS – Speaking of evidence, see today’s LA Times for yet another example. Courtesy o’ Slate’s Today’s Papers.

While I’m waiting for responses to modest proposal for a cross-blog Iraq debate, a few random thoughts/updates.
First, those of you who pay attention to such things around here have probably noticed that my blogging in general has been light, and in particular, the Weblog Action Center and the Weblog MetaData Initative have been languishing almost completely for the past month.
This is nobody’s fault but my own, of course: I have managed once again to overcommit myself across these various projects, the core of TTLB itself, and oh, yeah, little things in real life like, say, finding a job.
So, I’ve been re-evaluating priorities lately. No, I’m not giving up blogging, far from it. But I am trying to focus my blog-efforts more precisely in areas that interest me most, and where I feel I can make the most interesting contribution.
One part of that is that I’ll likely be giving up the Weblog Action Center to a new owner sometime in the near future. I’ve decided that it would be better served being hosted by someone with more time to dedicate to it, and that someone clearly isn’t me at the moment. So there’s a request out to the regular contributors to the Center for a volunteer to take ownership (and even if you haven’t contributed previously, if you’re interested in taking it on, drop me a line and we can talk).
Beyond that, I’m trying to focus my blogging on what I enjoy most, which generally comes down to decent think-pieces with a bit of humor tossed in now and again, with my non-writing efforts focused on WMDI (whose mission I remain passionately committed to). And oh yes: the blending of traditional fiction writing with blogging, which I find fascinating, not to mention quite a bit of fun.
And on that note, one bit of “good” news for the masochists who actually enjoy my more creative work around here: I have a major piece currently in progress, somewhat similar to my view of the future in 2014. This one, however, is significantly more ambitious, and will consist of multiple parts spanning from present-day to a decade or more into the future. No promises whatsoever on when it will be done, but I’m anxious to get Part I finished as soon as possible, so hopefully you’ll see something of it in the not-too-distant future.
This weblog is a hobby, of course, so I make no commitments other than to continue doing what I find enjoyable. But I am genuinely interested in feedback from the peanut gallery on what you find interesting around here (assuming there is anything). So feel free to drop your thoughts in the Comments; I’d love to hear what you’d like to see more (or less) of.
Thanks all…
-NZB

I’ve been thinking about musings below on fostering dialogue across the pro- and anti- sides of the Iraq debate. In the words of Xander Harris: “I think I’m having a thought. Yes, it’s definitely a thought… no, wait: now I’m having a plan!”
Here’s the idea:
– Have two blogs, one each for the pro- and anti- side, set up as points of coordination for planning a cross blog debate.
– On each coordination blog, solicit input from any & all who are interested to create a list of questions (let’s say, five of them) for the opposite side of the debate to answer. Example: the pro- side might pose the following question to the anti-side: “What, specifically, would U.N. inspectors need to find in Iraq for you to support military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime?”, while the anti-side might in turn ask “Is there any possible result of the current inspections that would convince you to oppose military action against Iraq?”
– Narrow down the list of submitted questions however you like; democratic vote or by fiat by the coordination blogger; whatever.
– Once the lists of questions are finalized, open season begins: anyone who is interested in joining the debate can simply go ahead and post their responses to the appropriate set of questions on their own blog.
– Finally, the coordination blogs can post a roundup of all the various responses to the debate so folks can browse through them all. From there, I think the process becomes natural: the responses will themselves breed counter-responses, and so on.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Interest? If you think this is a worthwhile endeavor, and would be willing to participate, please drop a “yeah” into the Comments section.

Odd moment of the day: submitting a resume to IBM’s website (yes, still unemployed — yes, still looking for help with that) and being asked:
“How did you hear about us?”
Er, by not being asleep for the past thirty years?

From recent AP story on the inspections game, a choice quote from Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency:
War “is the worst case scenario,” ElBaradei said. “If we can avoid that, even spending a few more months to complete our job, that is time well spent.”
No, you jackass. War now is a far, far cry from the worst case scenario, and if you haven’t learned that in the past two years, then there’s just no helping you.
PS – You’re the head of the frickin’ IAEA, do I need to draw you a picture?

Jonah over at Corner drew my attention to www.notinourname.net , which is exactly what it sounds like.
I share his general reaction (“I feel the need to smash their guitar against the wall of the Delta House.”) But I wonder if there isn’t more that could be done to counteract the drivel of half-witted slogans and rhymes that ooze out of the allegedly anti-war movement these days.
Any community of like-minded folks can become an echo-chamber, and that’s a danger which our part of the weblog world (call it the “anti-idiotarian side”; the “warbloggers”, whatever) certainly faces. One risk of this trap is that we fail to listen to arguments from outside the tribe that disagree with our generally held views. But another danger is that we fail to reach out beyond our traditional borders to audiences that don’t already agree with us.
I suppose what I’m saying is, perhaps we need a little less preaching to the choir, and a little more evangelizing.
So what can we do to better spread our gospel ?
First, didn’t somebody in the Blogosphere call for a “In Our Name” campaign a ways back to counteract the “Not in Our Name” crowd? It might be time to revive that idea. (And if anyone remembers who did it, please, speak up: I’d like to give credit where credit is due here). Personally, I’d like to see a nice web-button that could be placed on a weblog or other web page to show support for the war to liberate Iraq. (I generally have a rule on TTLB: no buttons. But I’d make an exception in this case).
Second, why not confront these folks head on? Challenge them to an online debate — they pick a few of their best essayists, we pick a few of ours. Figure out an appropriate format, and have at you! And of course, make sure that the results get prominent play across the Blogosphere and real media — and we know enough to know which folks in Big Media would listen without slanting the coverage.
Third, who is covering the rally in D.C. this weekend? I know what the the Stand Down contingent of the Blogosphere is up to. But what about coverage of the demonstrations from the more, shall we say, skeptical side? Volunteers? (I’m in California; don’t look at me.)
Other ideas for ways to reach out beyond our traditional audiences are welcome. You know where the comment button is…

First Iain Murray is from his job, reporting that his blog was stated as the reason. And now Andrew Dodge is being refused entry to the U.K. ?
No word on the latter on Andrew’s post-Dodgeblog home at La Blogatrice’s place, but that probably makes sense if Andrew and Sasha are tied up at immigration. (The above link and news come from Frank Sensenbrenner over at England’s Sword.)