4th Generation Billiards

I've noticed a very interesting similarity between 'smart' folks and 'dumb' folks. Both groups of people are completely unsure of the limits of their intelligence. For different reasons, of course, but the end result is the same. There's something about these folks that makes them cling beyond all sense and comprehension to 'certainty' though it is abundantly clear that true certainty is terribly difficult to come by. It seems that by declaring that they are 'certain' about a specific issue, they rid themselves of fear. And that often seems to be their only goal.

The problem with this type of thinking is that eventually you're going to run into a situation that makes you confront an unfounded certainty. Do you then reassess your certainty to account for the new information or do you simply regard that new input as false. Sadly, too many people declare the new information invalid. The dumb people because thier intellect simply doesn't allow for new information. That is not a character flaw. It is an unfortunate circumstance of genetics. The the smart people know better. It is just too often that they have spent too much time and energy and have too much of their indentity wrapped up in being smart or being right. For this reason, I hesistate to get involved when people start throwing certainties around. Most of the time, the proclaimer of Truths has spent very little time working out the implications of any given certainty. This is particularly true of socialism and its ilk. There is hardly a theory or practice that hasn't been attempted. Changing the cosmetics of a falied idea doesn't give it any of a better chance at success.

In another blog, I read a writer comment on how Al Qaida was no longer a threat and really never was based on the fact that the raw number of lives lost in NYC was infinitesimal compared to other battles or war. Well, by the raw number argument, we could also say that people are safer during times of war then they are during times of peace. As one of my professors liked to say, wars are often fought so that the real killing can begin. Take Stalin and the Soviet Machine. Or the Chinese under Mao. In fact, more lives have been lost in time of 'peace' in the 20th century then in all the wars of man put together since the beginning of history. But I don't like this argument. It seems too clever to me.

Let's try this one. Lives lost in a terror attack are very different then those lost in a war or even a natural disaster. After Katrina, people lashed out in anger against the Government (rightly so) because they wasn't a continuing threat. After 9/11, people supported the USGOV because they were scared and didn't know what would come next. NYC made it through 9/11 because of munipal services that better many nations' ability to respond to anything. Also, the threat was continuous (we didn't know who did it) but not pervasive as it would have been in a WMD attack. People can understand a conventional detonation but a nuclear one, with fallout? Or a bio attack? The results would be very different.

There the equation changes again. It is not the loss of lives that cause destruction but the monkey panic that is sure to ensue afterwards. Let's say there was a bioweapons attack on NYC and the USGOV decides that it has to quarantine the whole island. Do anyone realistically think that there be order in Manhattan? What about when folks try to swim to New Jersey and the Coast Guard is forced to gun down unarmed civilians in the Hudson? The civil unrest that will result from this will result in the wholesale revocation of most of our Rights and the Left wing with be the ones screaming for blood the loudest.

Don't like that one? Okay let's keep going. If Al Qaida detonates a nuclear weapon on American soil, we will be forced to retaliate. The people will demand it regardless how shaky the evidence chance. One nuclear exchange in the Middle East and our international oil trade grinds to a halt. No big deal you say? It will be for Japan and Europe and China whose economies will collapse and take ours with them. Think I'm overeacting? Take a look at Bretton Woods 2.

Initiating any one of these scenarios is in Al Qaida's ability. Their belief structure actively works to bring the End of the World. The only reason they haven't been able to act with any efficacy is because their operational ability has been severely degraded by our direct action. But we have to continue. Just like an infection, it will come back stronger if we don't eradicate it fully.

In a lot of ways, the IR game is like pool. Most folks are just trying to get the right color ball into the hole. Some good players will set up 2nd and amaybe 3rd shot. But the pros see the table in its entirety, not taking the first shot until they have some idea of how the game will play out. And yet sometimes, you just have to minimize your losses. But when it comes right down to it, giving up the entire game to make on near term shot is the mark of the rookie. And the IR game is too dangerous to be run by rookies.