Says Mr. Reynolds: “This is also why I prefer a Mussolini-style ending in which Saddam is lynched by his own people to exile, or even a trial. I think that would provide a valuable lesson.” Yes, that’s what I always think about lynchings. They’ll provide a valuable lesson. Precisely. People get uppity, you know? But you know, I think Den Beste is right (original) when he says the world political order is about to change. He’s wrong about a bunch of other things; he clearly doesn’t understand the concept that international legitimacy may be important for any other reason than the immediately practical. I’ve written before about the sheer folly of assuming that the United States will always be in the privileged power position we currently enjoy, and I’ve discussed why enlightened self-interest leads us to the conclusion that we must not encourage a world in preemptively securing one’s own position by invading other countries is wise. Ah well. ...

This prank is what I call culture jamming. I wish I still lived in California; I’d take him up on this.

By the People, For the People (original) is one of my favorite Library of Congress collections. (I promise not to do this sort of thing very often. It’s been a whimsical weekend.)

Warning: this may be disturbing to real cooks. Or not. I really have no idea. My aunt, blessed be her name, gave me a rice cooker for Christmas. It has a no-stick pot so it’s super easy to wash. You don’t have to pay attention to it while you’re cooking something. It rocks. I made rice and put some beans in and it was great. So then I decided to try something else. There’s a rumor floating around out there that you can cook meat in it. Mmm, steamed chicken! So I cut up some chicken and some sausage, and put some olive oil into the bottom of the pot, and turned it on. When the oil heated up, I threw in the chicken and sausage and stir fried it a little till I got bored. Then I dumped in a bunch of rice and some water and a can of black beans and a few random spices that were probably past their expiration date, and closed the lid, and made myself go into the living room to read comics. ...

[This article](http://web.archive.org/web/20110721182206/http://web.archive.org/web/20110721182206/http://gummibear.netfirms.com/oj/oj_marches.html (original) “OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today”) (original) is about the funniest parody I’ve read in some time, and makes it mercilessly clear why you can’t just invert protest numbers to determine the number of people who support the status quo. It’s pretty obvious, by the by, that the numbers of people protesting are important. You can tell, because people who support whatever’s being protested generally aim for the low end of the possible range. Nathan Newman makes an interesting argument against mass protests (link via Electrolite), but I don’t think the math is as simple as he does. A really sizable protest makes it psychologically easier for those who might support the cause but be uncertain of themselves to come out the next time; humans have a lot of herd animal in them. It’d be nice if it were otherwise, and perhaps someday, but right now? Perceptions of numbers matter. ...

Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday dear me; happy birthday to me! That is all.

OK, I think I figured this one out. And you thought I’d forgotten all about it… Without further ado, the Population: One two axis predictive political graph. Axis one is still freedom vs. safety. Which matters more in your personal calculus? Will you give up safety for freedom, or vice versa? Axis two is privileged position vs. one among many. Do you think that your club/state/nation/special interest group has a privileged position vis a vis the rest of the world, for whatever reason? If so, perhaps you think God granted said status; perhaps you think it’s been earned by means of a sterling diplomatic record. The question is whether or not you think it exists, not why it exists. ...

Kevin Drum challenges us to come up with a two-axis system of political temperament classification that makes sense. OK, I’ll bite. Preferatory, I’ll note that I think it’s important that the ends of the axes are non-pejorative. The Libertarian quiz fails because the questions are slanted. Any useful system can’t be biased towards one result. That’s propaganda, not political science. So: axis one is Freedom vs. Safety. What’s more important to you? There’s no “right” answer to this question, in my book. I have my own strong preferences. That’s me. Someone else might have different preferences. Note that this isn’t a question about rights; I might think that everyone has a natural right to be safe but personally prefer to give up that right for the sake of freedom. ...

Turns out the Sharpton fire was just an overloaded extension cord. My cynicism was unwarranted, too. I’m glad.

Al Sharpton is a demagogue of a fairly virulent sort, and I have little sympathy for him. However, the news that his offices burned down this morning is potentially very disturbing. According to Susannah of cut on the bias, it was a two alarm fire, which means it’s more than a cigarette in a trash can. It took out his civil rights group HQ and his presidential campaign HQ. ...