The Newdle

For those who don't already know, Tina and I are expecting our latest and final addition to the Sullivan roster in early May. For now, we call it "The Newdle" - as in noodle but "new". We needed to give it a nickname and this seemed like as good a nickname as any for a fetus. We won't be finding out the sex ahead of time, but we think it will be a boy. Tina and I can't agree on a boy name - she likes nouveau names and I like more traditional names. If anyone has any suggestions, please make them. I will likely hate whatever you have to offer, but Tina might like it. Hey, I am just being honest...

Andrew's Birthday

Today was Andrew Carr Sullivan's 4th birthday. We celebrated in the most authentically American way possible: stuffing ourselves at Disney World. At the (not-so)Contemporary Hotel they have something called a "Character Breakfast" - an all-you-care-to-eat buffet with some pretty decent food and Disney characters walking around and interacting with the kids and even the adults. Its quite a bit of fun, actually, and Andrew was really excited to see Mickey, Pluto, and Goofey most of all. Chip stopped by and offered a fuzzy hand. I told Andrew that this fuzziness was noteworthy - not because it actually was, but because I had nothing else to offer. Chip left, and some time later Dale came by. I realized just how easily the two characters could be confused, so I assured Andrew that when dealing with Dale, what is most important is to not confuse her with Chip. It was at this moment that I was able to penetrate the costume to the character actor beneath - we understood each other for that moment and shared a very special bond: a bond forged in the human-to-human ether wafting through Dale's poorly ventilated costume. Andrew could sense the very real Disney magic taking place at that very moment, and let us know it by saying what was on everybody's mind: "I want more waffles".

We did more things today to celebrate Andrew's fourth birthday. Technically his fifth, but you know what I mean. He got a 16" bike, floam, moon sand, many things super-hero related, and of course clothing that he really could care any less about if he tried. He also got to ride the monorail at Disney, go to school (which doesn't sound great, but trust me, he loves it), and go to his grandparents house. Overall he had a lot of fun and was in a wonderful mood all day.

Prisoners' Dilemma and Foreign Policy

I am very slowly getting through a book entitled "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's been a labor endeavored on and off for the last decade, as has Immanual Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals". But oddly, through these two books, I am finding some clarity to the question of Pre-emption, the Bush Doctrine, and Foreign Policy in general.

Dawkins goes into the Prisoners' Dilemma as a vehicle for exploring altruism, cooperation, and competition among individual members of a given species. For those unfamiliar with Prisoners' Dilemma, please read some of this to become acquainted. The prisoners' dilemma also seems to port well to our own national security and how we ought to handle other emerging threats.

What we find with the PD "game" is that the best strategy is what's known as "Tit for Tat with some forgiveness". To summarize, the best strategy is the assumption of cooperation on the part of your "opponent". If that opponent takes advantage of your altruism, you immediately strike back, just once, and immediately forget the incident. To avoid getting caught in a loop, every now and again - say once in ten turns - Tit for Tat with Forgiveness dictates that you forgive your opponent and on the next move the strategy dictates a cooperative move.

I think this sort of strategy speaks against Pre-emptive strikes like the one we have involved ourselves in Iraq. We must consider that N. Korea now has nuclear weapons, as does India, Pakistan, and soon Iran will have them. It's time to ask ourselves what our strategy will be going forward. In the PD analogy, we have been playing the competetion "hand". In doing so we are stating our assumption that our opponents will play the "competition hand", thereby resulting in the best outcome for us. In other words, we had assumed Iraq had WMD and would use them. I for one believe Iraq has proven that presuming another country's action is foolish. If we were to play International PD with our foreign policy, then we would have waited for Iraq to attack us before invading their country. Admittedly, one could make the argument that the US did indeed engage in Tit for Tat with forgiveness when viewed in the context of Iraq's Kuwait invasion in 1990 and then subsequent violations of UN resolutions.

But for all of Tit for Tat's alluring elegant simplicity and positive "lab" results, I have to wonder what it's efficacy would be if put into practice. What about historical incidents that demonstrate Tit for Tat's lack of feasibility? Are there any? How would a country "Tit" Hitler's "Tat" of invading the Rhineland - or say Poland? How about 9/11 - would the appropriate response have been destroying buildings and planes in Saudi Arabia until the death toll reached about what ours was? What about Kuwait in the '90's? Do we invade them? Actually, do we even get involved since technically the "Tat" was not against us in either situation? What do we do about countries who cannot effect an equal "Tit" against a country who "Tat's" them? Furthermore, what if the two sides can't even agree on the severity of their Tits and Tats and what even constitutes one or the other?

I had set out writing this particular entry thinking that if we just were to look at PD and its most effective solution, we could come to some insight into a more stable foreign policy. While writing I realized its many practical flaws. I still think it has merit. Maybe the lesson here is that if we are not being attacked, why attack at all?

As always, please post comments or just email them. I really would love to know what any of you think about this.

The Fund

Well, I finally did it: I took the leap and I accepted a position with a company called "Attorney's Title Insurance Fund". They typically go by the name "The Fund".

Some have asked what I will be doing at The Fund. I have responded as best I can: that I would be doing systems administration, specifically Windows 2003, SAN, cluster server, and VMWare. It will be a challenge because I have been focusing on the network aspect these last couple years.

Anyhow, I am looking forward to the change. Thanks again to Steve and Bob for helping me with my resume. It made a big difference.

Better said...

There was no sense of self-irony when I entitled my last entry "Well Said..." and then proceeded to say basically nothing other than "read this because I can't explain it" Socrates or Muhammad? is the name of the article I could only fumble over in the previous post.The article's main thrust is an attempt to correctly frame the speech given to the University of Regensburg where Ratzinger quoted Paleologus as essentially saying that Muhammad has brought nothing new (emphasis added) to the table other than conversions by way of violent coercion. And so it is understandable that Muslims around the world are quite upset that he forgot to mention the crushing oppression of women, instant subjugation and taxation of non-followers (collecting jizha from dhimi), and unwavering, unabashed anti-Semitism.

The author of the article then goes on to state that atheists and agnostics believe all religion is fantasy, they don’t really see the distinction between Islam and other religions. For one thing, why would atheists bother to even look into it? And for those that have it would appear most don’t come down on the “side” of any particular religion. What the author suggests is that most other religions are able to be secularized. Islam is not one of them, and it is the fastest growing in the world.

Islam, in as much as I understand its history and origins, came to be in part because Muhammad didn’t like the existing secularization in Jewish and Christian practice. Even though The Church certainly had their hands in everything, that wasn’t enough in Muhammad’s opinion. There existed faith “loopholes” that resulted because of the existence of Man’s law and God’s law. So in Islam we have a secularization-resistant strain of religion. It dictates that Man’s law never should supersede God’s law. And so it only follows then that Sharia must also be the law of the land.

Atheists, secularists, anyone really, ought to find this disconcerting. I don’t think a lot of people do because they don’t really understand what Sharia is all about. Head scarves, beard-length, bans on music – these are all a part, yes. And no, these are not the “extreme” views, it’s in black-and-white in the Quran and the Hadith. These particular rules are not what really disturb me the most though. What I find so disdainful is the remedy for leaving the faith of Islam: beheading. There is no equivalent in the Christian or Jewish faith. I don’t think there is any like it in any of the other major religions either.

So atheists and agnostics ought to be aware: you do have a “horse” in this race. If Islam gets a foothold in your country your choices will be few:
1) Convert
2) Pretend to be Christian and pay the Jizha, all while being treated as Dhimi.
3) Die
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but hey, I didn’t make this religion up. And to be sure, I don’t idly support it by pretending it is not a grave threat to all that was achieved during the Enlightenment and the Renaissance (aka, the West).

For anyone who has read this far to comment on: if you agree that the spread of Islam is a problem, what is the remedy? Any ideas or suggestions are welcome. Furthermore, if you don’t agree that spreading Islam is a problem, then please comment why you think this.

Well said...

I am trying to find a good introduction to this article and I can't seem to find the words. All I know is it delves into the core... core what? core arguments? core situation? core philosophical distinctions? I don't know. But its quite perfect. One of the best things to come out of the Daily Standard in a while. And it is certainly more informative and thereby entertaining than watching Fox News (that was for you, Dan). Anyhow, here it is: Article

First entry

All my wife Tina asks is that I not embarrass her. She asked what in the world I wanted to blog about. Stuff that interests me: work, techy stuff, political stuff, philosophical waxings... And it was with this last point (she knew immediately it was the primary reason) that she averted her eyes and licked her lips. This was the unspoken equivalent of "don't embarrass me, please."

I'll do my best.

Odd - I just did a spell check and had to add the word "blog" to my personal blogspot.com dictionary.