Thursday, March 09, 2006

Prisoner's dilemma

Who uses it: Mathematicians and logicians
What it means: A situation in which two adversaries try to gain benefits by betraying each other. In the prisoner's dilemma, A and B face the same set of charges. If both A and B remain silent, both go free. If A rats out B (while B stays silent), he goes free while B serves a full prison term. If B rats out A (while A is silent), he goes free while A serves the full term. If A and B rat out each other, both serve shorter prison terms. In game theory exercises, players generally start by betraying each other, but quickly learn to cooperate.
How you can use it: When you win by trusting your partner.

The U.N. Security Council meets today to discuss Iran's nuclear program, and I don't understand why the American press isn't paying more attention to this. Today's New York Times leads with Congressional opposition to the Dubai ports management deal; the Washington Post reports on its own poll about American perceptions of Islam; and Drudge is shrieking about National Guard troops at the Arizona border.

Have I lost my mind? Am I overreacting? Can I really be the only one who sees World War III about to start in earnest, or have I lost all touch with reality?

Even if I have lost all touch with reality (quite likely), this is more important than partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill or Tom DeLay's primary victory, as horrifying as that might be. Yes, it's even more important than David Hasselhoff's domestic violence charges or Barry Bonds' shamelessness in spring training.

Since I do not rule the world and cannot protect myself against nuclear attack, ranting about it here is as much as I can do. I can also ask anyone who might be in the Augusta area this weekend to consider attending Gaslight Theater's winter fundraising event, "Omar Ricardo and His Many, Many Women," playing tomorrow night at 7:30 at Hallowell City Hall and as dinner theater on Saturday, at 6:30, at Maple Hill Farm. Thank you for your support. (Tomorrow's term: non sequitur...)


Anonymous said...


It could very well be [t]hat the "American Press" is at logger-heads with their long suffering agenda. This puts them at odds with their own views.

Alas, it is very possible that (at least in this arena) you are NOT loosing your mind -and that- WWIII is already underway. All you have seen over the last five years are "feints" and "opening-salvos". Any worthwhile commander will probe the enemy's defenses and resolve. So far, there is a link between both of your questions and it might be said... the enemy is NOT discouraged from further embolden moves - would you say?

AnswerGirl said...

I can't pretend to understand your comment, but I'm taking cold medicine, so perhaps it's just me.

That said, I'm willing to consider the possibility that WWIII is already underway.

Anonymous said...


Hmmm, I too pretend not to understand information laid between the lines especially if I don't think I want to hear or know what I am being told.

WWIII has been declared, but PC will not let you even consider that fact.

PS - On a more important level... good luck and take care of your cold - I hope it isn't the version with the cough that lasts six weeks!

AnswerGirl said...

It's not your views that confuse me, it's your prose.

(Dad, if that comment's from you, sorry -- but please sign your comments!)

Anonymous said...


Sorry about the prose..., you are correct.

No, I am not your dad, but since you brought him up - thank him (and thanx to your family as well) for his years of service. He cannot ever be repaid for his (and your family's) sacrifices.

David-from America's Heartland

Anonymous said...


This is something your dad will reinforce, given his extensive military experience(s):

Not to befuddle you [as it] pertains to your question regarding WWIII already starting (and given my meandering "prose") - I will quote, (with some annotation) from New York Times best seller book by Robert Spencer:

"PC Myth: Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists---

This of course is the mother of all PC myths about Islam... persistent and resiliant... in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, by Islamic theology and TODAY's NEWSPAPERS - this is not simply due to naive multiculturalism and cynical duplicity. Even Sayyid Qutb - 20th century's foremost advocate of violent jihad - taught: Islam is a religion of peace..."

He has a very specific kind of peace in mind. Not, a superficial peace where Muslims can worship in their part of the world unmolested, but the kind of peace that will come when EVERYONE is Muslim or a dhimmi to the Islamic State. And to establish that peace, Muslims MUST WAGE WAR.

The only thing that has created the fractionalized agression against Western interests has been the lack of an overall Islamic coordinator as-it-were... a Caliph. The last one was outlawed in the early 1900's and the fractional in-fighting sects are the result you see today. That is changing, the attempts to create a militarized "home state" and re-establish the Caliph--- failed in Afganistan and Iraq --- a nuclear Iran won't.

You choose if you are loosing your mind -or- are intuitively sensing it already...

David FAH