“This is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media,” says Clay Shirky, professor at New York University and author of the book Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. And what’s had the greatest impact? “It’s Twitter,” says Shirky.

So starts my piece in Crikey yesterday, We’re all wearing green for Iran now, apparently.

The article covers two main points.

One, this isn’t really the first time demonstrations have been organised or teargas reported via Twitter. Try Bangkok in October 2008. Try Chişinău in April 2009. And as Business Week pointed out, A Twitter revolution? Hardly.

Two, people are changing their avatars green to “support democracy in Iran” based on very little information. And as commenter Rena Zurawel claimed:

Whether it is a Rose Revolution in Georgia, or Orange Revolution in the Ukraine or a Green revolution in Iran — the source and inspiration is exactly the same: $70 million decided by the Congress to spend on so called “democratic changes in Iran”.

That last point intrigued me, so I poked around a bit.

I found this 2008 report from STRATFOR Global Intelligence: Geopolitical Diary: Iran, Psywar and the Hersh Article… which is reproduced in full over the jump.

US President George W Bush issued a highly classified presidential finding in late 2007 approving the initiation of covert operations focused on “undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” according to a July 7 article in The New Yorker by Seymour Hersh. Congressional leaders reportedly have been informed of the finding, and approved up to $400 million dollars to fund the operation.

This is, of course, explosive news. What is explosive is not that the United States is spending money on covert operations in Iran, but that someone has leaked a highly classified document to a reporter. The secret is now out; indeed, it was released before the article’s publication date. Hersh said only that the person who gave him the information was familiar with the document’s contents. This means his source is a person with extraordinarily high, code-named clearance — not to mention a criminal.

We would expect the Bush administration to be launching multiple investigations to find the leaker. If he is a Republican or a member of the administration or the intelligence community, then massive damage control is essential. If he is a Democrat who leaked (or an official of an agency deemed unfriendly to the administration), the incident represents a political opportunity. Everyone who had access to that document should be attached to a polygraph right now. Washington should have been in turmoil all weekend.

It wasn’t. Aside from some desultory comments, no one seems terribly upset that a major covert operation has been uncovered in the press and thereby crippled.

We are certain that a journalist of Hersh’s stature, writing for a respected publication like The New Yorker, did not make his story up. Since arrests are not pending, we can only conclude that the information was deliberately leaked to Hersh by the administration. This would not be the first time Hersh has been used as a channel by administration leakers. In 2006, he reported that the administration was carrying out covert operations in Iran for roughly the same end. Hersh is not friendly to the administration to say the least. A story by him carries great credibility because it appears to be an authentic scoop by a major journalist revealing things the administration doesn’t want revealed. Such a story therefore increases the sense of uncertainty in Iran substantially more than if a minor, pro-administration journalist published it. As we have pointed out in the case of the Mediterranean air exercises by Israel, the United States and Israel are intent on increasing the psychological pressure on Iran. This story fits into that pattern.

The only thing interesting in the story is the idea that until late 2007 there had been no presidential finding and the United States was not engaged in covert operations in Iran to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program and foment regime change. Given the administration’s stance on Iran, it is unthinkable that the intelligence community would not have been running operations in Iran for years focused on just these things. STRATFOR has regularly reported on various bombings in the southwestern Arab regions of Iran as well as in Sistan-Balochistan, noting that these would be likely areas to foment unrest.

The latest finding could be an intensification in operations, but the authorization to spend up to $400 million to mess with the Iranians is really not all that much money — especially since that is the cap, and the time frame for expenditures isn’t authorized. But as Hersh made clear in 2006, operations already were under way, meaning a finding had to have been in place.

With all due respect to Mr Hersh and The New Yorker, this is a report on the obvious. The United States regards Iran as a major target for covert operations, urgently wants to know everything it can about Iran’s nuclear facilities and would love to overthrow the Iranian government. A few hundred million, even on a long shot, is the least the United States would throw at this. As for a finding in late 2007, we do not know where the bureaucratic process is right now, but there have been presidential findings on covert operations in Iran for almost thirty years. Still, the details the administration has decided to make available to The New Yorker via Hersh should make worthwhile reading.

The important point is that unless there has been a massive breach of security, the administration has again acted to increase tensions with Iran — and this just a week after floating the idea of increased diplomatic ties with Iran and about ten days since leaking the report on the Israeli exercises. Since this article has been in preparation for weeks or months, and its publication date has not been under administration control, it remains unclear where in the sequence this leak was intended. But psychological warfare with Iran seems the order of the day, and this article is clearly part of it.

Our read of course might be wrong. Grand juries might be convening as we write and the FBI could be ranging all over DC taking statements from everyone with access to covert US plans in Iran. But until that happens, we look at this as another attempt to make the Iranians feel insecure.

Please feel free to distribute this Intelligence Report to friends or repost to your Web site linking to www.stratfor.com.

Whew!

Meanwhile, I rounded out my Crikey piece with some words from Meg Pickard, community manager at The Guardian. Amongst other things.

It’s easy to get caught up in the moment, feel the infectious nature of rumour and the thrill of disseminating third(/fourth/fifth/sixth…)-hand experience, and want to feel part of a global movement.

I’m not a big fan of bandwagons.

• McDonald’s partners with earthwave to provide Australians with “Family Friendly” internet services | LinuxWorld: A company called earthwave has scored the deal to provide Australia’s McDonald’s stores with “clean” Internet links. That’s more than 720 locations.
• How to nap | Boston.com: A nice overview of how to take effective nap breaks. I’d have congratulated Boston.com on using a good wide-screen format too, but discovered they’ve done it with images rather than live text on the page. Still, it’s good material.
• What’s your profit : pain ratio? | Bad Language: Very apropos for me this week: an article pointing out that some clients simple aren’t worth the trouble.
• Best advice I’ve heard all week | Wired Blogs: A reminder that humans are really very bad at assessing risk.
• Tanner eyes web 2.0 tools | Australian IT: Australia’s federal government says it'll trial online public consultation through blogs and other social media tools. Good luck, guys, because the first thing you’ll have to learn is how to have an authentic conversation with people, rather than just parroting the party line.
• Bush: “Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over” | The Onion: Written when George W Bush was inaugurated in 2001, this is a scarily prescient piece of satire. Well worth a read today.
• Barack Obama’s acceptance: the transcript | Crikey: The full text of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech. Very powerful writing.
• Not Quite Art | ABC TV: The official ABC website for Marcus Westbury’s series Not Quite Art including full downloadable files of all episodes of series 1 and 2 (provided you’re in Australia).
• The next President of the United States | The Big Picture: Boston.com provides yet another glorious photo essay: this time it’s images of the president-elect of the US, some bloke called Barry.
• Australian Internet Censorship | halans.com: Another powerful analogy to explain why centralised Internet censorship is wrong.
• 6 Nov 2008 – Liberation Day | Microsoft Australia: The Australian launch event for Microsoft’s Azure services platform. I blogged this live previously, and will soon write a more reflective post about it. This page now includes the video of Steve Ballmer’s speech.
• Blog censorship silences free speech around the world | Worldfocus: Thirteen/WNET, the respected PBS station in Boston, blogs about Internet censorship censorship and surveillance around the world, including a link to little old me.
• What Ray Ozzie didn’t tell you about Microsoft Azure | The Register: A nice discussion of the problems Microsoft will face selling its new platform Azure when compared with Amazon’s EC2 and Google’s App Engine.
• 750,000 lost jobs? The dodgy digits behind the war on piracy | ars technica: A nice discussion of where the numbers for “what piracy costs us” come from. This is American rather than Australian, but the points are still valid.
• DVD pirating costing industry $1.7b: Debus | ABC News: Australia’s Home Affairs minister Bob Debus parrots the DVD industry’s claim that illegal copying (which they call “piracy”) costs $1.7B. The bogeyman of “child pornography” is raised to make it sound even scarier.
• “Mankind Is No Island” | One Plus One Equals Three: The winning film in the Tropfest New York short film competition, shot using a mobile phone and found typography in Sydney and NY.

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open it to page 161.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the coolest book you can find. Use what’s actually next to you.

And the sentence is:

“Sensitive site exploitation will continue.”

That sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense by itself, but the next one adds all the context you need:

So far there had been no WMD stockpiles found.

The book is State of Denial: Bush At War, Part III by investigative journalist Bob Woodward. It’s been months since I read it but for some reason it’s still on my desk.

This afternoon the BBC reports that unnamed “US officials” have evidence that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor. Here we go again. I think I might listen to some classic Detroit techno instead.

If the video doesn’t work for you, go directly to part 1 and part 2. Hat-tip to Peter Black.

When your business’ reputation sucks, what do you do? Re-brand it!

Jon Taplin reckons American business is hoping to revive “Brand USA” by supporting Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. In Reviving Brand America, he says:

It is getting very hard to be an American company in much of the world (see photo). Whenever they are pissed off in Karachi, they burn down the KFC. George Bush’s War has made competing against European and Chinese manufacturers like wrestling with one arm tied behind your back. So like any smart CEO, the elite has decided we need a re-branding of America with a charismatic man of colour at the front.

Exhibit A is the New York Post’s endorsement of Obama this morning. I would take it as a given, that Rupert Murdoch saw this editorial before it was published. Exhibit B is MSNBC. I promise you, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann would not be given the free rein to criticize both Hillary and Republican hypocrisy, unless Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE had not given the OK. I obviously think this is a rational move on the part of American business — and I know its not like they all met at some private club to decide this. I just think this is the consensus vision, well outlined by Andrew Sullivan a couple of months ago.

But is American business that concerned with their nation’s international image? Or is Taplin spot on?

Indeed, was the success of Kevin Rudd in Australia’s 2007 election partially the result of our stagnant image overseas?

In Getting Duped: How the Media Messes with Your Mind, Yvonne Raley and Robert Talisse write:

One common method of spinning information is the so-called straw man argument. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, “We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis.” The statement that unnamed “people” are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq “right now” is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal. Most proposed that the soldiers be sent home over several months, a more reasonable and persuasive plan that Bush undercut with his straw man.

The Weak Man tactic is a twist on this…

As Talisse, co-authors of the 2006 paper which coined the term, explains:

[A] person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.” (The editorial actually said that “some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat,” but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.)

O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat: “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The USA can’t control that country. No nation could… Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible — and possibly more likely — reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “USA can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the US government.

Hat-tip to 3 quarks daily.

Hat tip to Peter Black.

This isn’t original. Meg Tsiamis was there first. As she observed, people find one’s website through some astounding searches.

I’ve mentioned before that the most common search bringing people here is “steve irwin jokes” — something I find quite depressing. The Top 10 includes such gems as “gerbil sex”, “royal gay sex”, “glory hole” and “bestiality”. Classy eh?

But scroll down the list’s long tail, through 580 different keyphrases so far this month alone, and you’ll find actual questions. Here, then, are some of the answers. If you can expand upon them, please do!

how to sex a gerbil

Assuming [crosses fingers] you mean “How do I tell whether I need to dress my baby gerbil in blue or pink?”, I suggest you flip it over and look for genitals. If you arouse the gerbil first, this may be easier — though possibly illegal.

who is banksy

He’s the guy who created this street art. That post also has links to his official website and plenty of his work. Enjoy.

what meth looks like

Crystal methamphetamine usually comes in small, clear crystals, though it can be ground up into a white powder to hide the fact it’s been bulked out with something to increase profits. In other words, it looks exactly like 95% of the chemicals on the planet.

can macs get malware?

Yes, Macs can get malware. However at this time there’s far less malware for Macs than for Windows. This will doubtless change as Macs increase their market share.

how gerbils detect adrenaline in someone

By sniffing. Gerbils have a better sense of smell humans, and they can smell the adrenalin given off when we (or other animals) are stressed. Apparently it helps to train the gerbil and put it in a special apparatus.

who goes to hillsong

All sorts of people, including singer Pinky Beecroft and a teenage lesbian. Especially people who are “looking for something meaningful in their life” and will be easily parted from 10% of their money. I don’t know whether they take gerbils along, or even if they’re permitted.

why and how did john winston howard go into politics?

Why? Oh if only we knew, and had a time machine! How? The standard path through the high school debating team, university law school and the Young Liberals. Plus a lot of persistence. John Winston Howard is nothing if not hard-working and persistent.

However a more interesting question this week might be what he’ll do after he leaves politics — something which could happen quite soon. Any suggestions?

how to conduct a political poll

It depends whether you want to find out what people are actually thinking, or whether you want to gather “evidence” to support a specific argument.

If you’re after the truth, you’ll need to carefully word the questions so they don’t introduce bias, and carefully select your sample so that it’s representative — or engage in complicated statistical trickery to re-bias the sample afterwards. You’ll also need to interview around 1200 or more people so you can be 95% sure the answer is correct to plus or minus 2 percentage points. It’s best to hire a specialist to do all this, and it’s expensive.

If you want to support your theory, however, just ask a dozen people who you think will give you the answer you want. You’re bound to get enough right answers, and it’s a lot cheaper.

is abercrombie still relevant

No, probably not. Especially if you mean the American politician rather than the clothing brand. Then again, I’m hardly an expert.

how many people sing in the pussycat dolls band

That’s a trick question, right?

how many bad people does the citizenship test stop

None. It only stops people too stupid to learn the answers from the book they provide, or too poor to buy the answers on the black market.

is it ok to look at porn on the internet

Sure. Go for it. That’s why it was invented. Just be sure to clean up afterwards.

i want to see the sex kitten

That’s more of a statement than a question, but I can understand your desires. Here’s the neo-con sex kitten in all her glory.

Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize is like a Magic Cloak of Invincibility. Now anyone wanting to criticise him had better have all of their ducks in a row — feathers freshly preened and all lined up like the North Korean Army — before they dare open their mouths.

And, through the magic of televisual political frottage, Kevin Rudd gets a +2 on his charisma too, since he’s been seen wandering Melbourne with The Big Al himself, quietly discussing… well, discussing something anyway. Does it matter exactly what?

Kevin Rudd knows Al Gore! AL GORE! He must be cool!

Since the US of A is our best friend and protector, mentor and high-tech stuff salesman, these pairings of potential PM with an Important American define our future.

We have Kevin Rudd, the quiet and unassuming Supernerd who can crack jokes with the president of China in his own language. Next to Kevin we have Al Gore, who everyone knows through that movie.

OK, some people want to spoil the fun by pointing out a few errors, but hey we all got the message.

Al Gore hasn’t yet said whether he’ll run for President, but former president and Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter is behind him.

And then we have the Man of Steel and his submissive relationship with the Lame Duck President, digging up coal and uranium and oil and gas and whatever else they can find and selling it as fast as they can. Dubya is on the nose politically and has been for months, and the Man of Steel is making up policy on the fly.

Gee, there’s a choice, eh?

John Howard’s body language worries me. I want a leader, a statesmen to lead Australia, not a lapdog.

Some years ago, the ABC had vision of Howard greeting some visiting American dignitaries — I think Colin Powell was one of them. Anyway, as people got out of limos and approached each other the US visitors strode forward, calm and confident. Meanwhile Howard hunched down and cautiously extended his hand in a classic primate gesture of submission.

It was like a small-time shopkeeper receiving a visit from The Big City Bank Manager. It was embarrassing.

On the weekend, Howard was still behaving like a puppy-dog to George W Bush, as I think the photo (right) from the Sydney Morning Herald shows. OK, it’s only one frame, but I think it shows a nervous John Howard anxiously looking for approval from The Boss. What do you think?

But hey, have a look at the rest of the photos. At least Hyacinth is in her element. A shame Laura couldn’t make it, eh love?

It’s a good thing John Howard’s very bestest of best friends George W Bush left APEC a day early. Howard could avoid talking about yet another fall in the opinion polls.

On the cover of the recent Howard biography (left), the Man of Steel looks stern and concerned. Apt. If those poll figures are repeated on election day, even with the usual minor swing back to stability, it won’t just be a Labor victory. It’ll be a complete rout of the Liberal/National Coalition.

APEC won’t be the poll boost Howard was looking for. John’s Bestest Best Friend stumbled through his speech like a village idiot — you choose good friends, John! Kevin Rudd looked like a 21st century statesman, cracking jokes in Mandarin with the Chinese president.

Pretty much everybody is saying it’s time for Howard to go — as Annabel Crabb’s witty poem makes clear. But the Man of Steel is in his bunker, fighting to the end.

I do intend to contest [the election], I intend to contest it as leader. That question was settled last year.

In the SMH today, Peter Hartcher says the Coalition would be mad to switch leaders now. I disagree.

Hartcher says the voters dislike Peter Costello even more than Howard, which is doubtless true. But Costello isn’t the only option — and anyway he didn’t wait all this time to become PM only to lose an election a month later. Peter Coorey says Malcolm Turnbull or anyone else at this stage would guarantee disaster. Again I disagree.

This is a disaster already. Pretty much every commentator — apart from Howard’s troglodyte bunker-mates — agree the Coalition will almost certainly lose. It’s now not about winning the election but of salvaging what you can from defeat. And maybe, with a higher-risk approach, the Coalition can still snatch a victory.

If the election is, as Christian Kerr says, a battle between good economic management and the It’s Time factor, if the voters think Howard is yesterday’s man with yesterday’s vision, then they need to change that perception now.

Costello’s out. The poisonous Tony Abbott wouldn’t exactly woo the punters. Brendon Nelson just spent $6 billion on un-needed military aircraft which should have someone phoning to check with the Australian Commission Against Corruption — oh hang on, we don’t have one.

I never thought I’d ever say this. Malcolm Turnbull looks the best choice. I guess that just goes to show how completely screwed the Coalition is.

’Pong has just posted some images of yesterday’s APEC (in)action, including the 21-bum salute to George W Bush. As always, click through for the full-sized beauty. He’s just left to see what’s what with the “main” protest today.

Look, I know Facebook is American, and America is (a) a Puritan nation at heart and (b) pig-ignorant of the fact that the other 96% of the world’s population might think differently. I mean, their own president can’t tell the difference between APEC and OPEC, between Austria and Australia. When he’s standing in it. But quite frankly, a society which thinks photos of mothers feeding their children are “obscene” has deep, deep problems.

And not just that your president is dumb as a stump-post.

The protest group Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!(Official petition to Facebook) has almost 8000 members already. And while I generally don’t pay much attention to the needs of the breeders, this one I’ve joined.

Newsreader: You couldn’t hide the warmth between the two men…

Reporter: It was almost “get a room” time.

Now there’s an image!