Political Commentary

Let’s Have A Contest

I’m certainly no fan of Gonzales, but this is pretty funny. But we can all play this game. What other amendments could we add to this resolution?

  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of Speaker Pelosi to conduct negotiations with the enemy.
  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of Congressman Murtha to plan troop redeployment strategy.
  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of the Congress to micromanage a war, particularly without doing it in such a way as to give hope to the enemy.
  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of the Congress to write legislation that will effectively secure the borders.
  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of Congress to competently stipulate the optimal efficiency of clothes washers, or toilet tank size, or the correct national speed limit, or average fuel efficiency for automobiles.
  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of the Congress to know what the single correct “minimum wage” should be to apply to all fifty states, both rural and city.
  • The Congress expresses no confidence in the ability of the Congress to even know what the content is of the legislation that it passes.

So easy, a caveman can do it! Errrr…unless the caveman is a Congressman…

War Commentary

The Evolution Of Cooperation

Bill Whittle’s latest essay reminds me of this post that I wrote a couple years ago on the pacification of Iraq:

One of the interesting things about [Tit for Tat] is that the more similar algorithms it has to deal with, the better it does. Put in an environment of non-cooperators, it has a much harder time, but it can still be more successful than them, and if it has a few others to cooperate with, it can survive even in a sea of non-cooperators.

Non-cooperators, on the other hand, don’t do well in a cooperative society. A non-nice strategy (one that always, or occasionally, or randomly defects unprovoked) won’t do well in a world of TFTs, because after the first time they get screwed by it, they will not cooperate with it again, at least until it changes its ways. So while it gets a big payoff the first time, it gets a much smaller one in subsequent exchanges, whereas the TFTs interacting with each other always get the medium benefit.

Thus, it’s possible for a small group of cooperators to “colonize” a larger group of non-cooperators, and eventually take it over, whereas a group of non-cooperators invading a larger group of cooperators will not thrive, and will eventually die out. This is the basis for Axelrod’s (and others’) claim that there is evolutionary pressure for cooperation to evolve.

This may hold the key to fixing Iraq, and ultimately the Middle East. While there’s a lot of bad news coming from that country right now, the fact remains that much of it is calm and at peace–that part doesn’t make the news. It may be that nationwide elections won’t be possible in January, but certainly it should be for some regions (particularly the Kurdish region).

In fact, there were national elections in January. But this provides a possible key to a metric of success. Instead of counting suicide bombings and violence levels (which the terrorists can maintain at an almost arbitrary level as long as there are a few of them around, due to entropy), as the media does (because if it bleeds it leads), it would be more useful to measure how small an area they appear in, and how large a one is relatively peaceful, as Anbar now seems to be, based on Michael Yon’s reports of boredom there.

[Update a few minutes later]

Hmmmm…just one more thought. Is the Anglosphere a “tit for tat” culture and legal system? I wonder if it’s ever been discussed over here?

Weird

Got Milk?

Thinking back over the years, I can think of some, in fact many women of which this would be a suitable condition of co-working with them. But not all of them, no, not all.

Just in case you thought that some tenets of Islam weren’t wacky enough. I should note though, that the story indicates that it’s a controversial issue, even within Islam.

[Via tracker of all weird things Islamic]

[Update a minutes later]

Only semi-related, but LGF also has the story on the effects of Nancy’s excellent Damascus adventure on Syrian dissidents. Hint: it ain’t pretty:

Mr. al-Bunni is a slight, nervous-looking man, a tireless polymath who, aside from his work defending scores of political prisoners, has helped to found a center offering training in human rights, and has drafted a new constitution for Syria. Last year, he invited a handful of foreign reporters to his home to show them his proposed new constitution, and waved his hands excitedly as he outlined his ideas about what a democratic transition in Syria might look like, how potential power-sharing arguments among Syria

War Commentary

A Sensible Democrat

It’s not just Joe Lieberman any more. Bob Kerrey:

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically “yes.”

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified–though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

My only dispute with that it that I remain unconvinced that bin Laden is still alive. But his movement certainly lives on, and it would remain a victory for it.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!