Our world leaders seem to be showing a distinct lack of leadership lately, eh? Europe’s leaders are bound and determined to ensure their own irrelevance on the world stage. Their eagerness to puff up reports of Iraq’s transparent stalling tactics as hopeful developments just baffles me. My only explanation is that they are pandering to anti-American elements at home by giving Saddam a handjob, a truly sickening thought.

Whatever the reason, I think their soft-peddling , in the short term, greatly diminishes their influence over how things proceed with Iraq. If they took a hard line, a line consistent with their earlier, unanimous apporoval of the UN resolution demanding the resumption of inspections, then they might be in a position to argue that inspections should continue. They should be holding Iraq’s balls to the fire, instead, they sound a hopeful tone over reports of the same old Iraqi bullshit. They have proven that they lack the courage of their own convictions, leaving the US and Britan no choice but to go it more or less alone.

For good or ill, going it alone probably means going to war, especially since the UNs wishy-washyness is going to embolden Saddam Hussien further. Which, of course, brings us to George W. Bush’s own questionable leadership on the world stage, or it would, if I had the energy to write about it.

Let it suffice to say, I, like much of the rest of the world, don’t trust him.

Together, they are making the world a more dangerous place.

DJ FORMAT
Furry mascots perform in a hip-hop video. This says something about LA, but I am not sure what.

Astronauts – Why they shouldn’t be heroes. By Chris Suellentrop

That’s right, part of training to become an astronaut involves watching your own ass on television.

“Recruitment” – Will an Iraq war make our al-Qaida problem worse? Not likely. By Christopher Hitchens

There is a parody of the old Uncle Sam “I Want YOU” recruiting poster in circulation. It shows Osama Bin Laden in the Uncle Sam finger-pointing pose, proclaiming that he wants us to invade Iraq and thus generate massive infusions of young and eager talent to his ranks. In different verbal and cartoon forms, this thought has become part of the standard repertoire of those who take the regime-preservation or regime-prolongation view of Iraq.

Before examining the argument—if it is an argument—one might observe that these are often the same people who scoff at any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and who furthermore are the most critical of the war on al-Qaida and the Taliban. So, it might be noted that for this purpose at least, they take as a given what they otherwise doubt.

Now why didn’t I think of that! Oh, wait…

It occured to me today, that people arguing against escalating tensions with Iraq on the basis that it will invite increaced risk of terrorist attacks are basically accepting either that Iraq sponsors terrorism, or that they are in de facto aliances with terrorists. Otherwise, their argument doesn’t make much sense.

satisfice

vb to obtain an outcome that is good enough. Satisficing action can be contrasted with maximising action, which seeks the biggest, or with optimising action, which seeks the best.
In recent decades doubts have arise about the view that in all rational decision-making the agent seeks the best result. Instead, it is argued, it is often rational to seek to satisfice i.e. to get a good result that is good enough although not necessarily the best.
The term was introduced by Herbert A. Simon in his Models of Man 1957