Software Development

Buridan's ass is a figurative description of a man of indecision. It refers a paradoxical situation wherein an ass, placed exactly in the middle between two stacks of hay of equal size and quality, will starve to death since it cannot make any rational decision to start eating one rather than the other. The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan.

Morton's Fork is an expression that describes a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives (in other words, a dilemma), or two lines of reasoning that lead to the same unpleasant conclusion. It is analogous to the expressions "between the devil and the deep blue sea" or "between a rock and a hard place."

I'd maybe add a little Hobson's choice as far as Bush sees things because he sees withdrawal as no choice at all. You can look that one up for yourself.

In any case, with Buridan's ass, you have many equally appealing options, and because a donkey is so stubborn, it does nothing. In Bush's case, the only difference is that he sees all cases as being unpleasant. With Morton's Fork, all options are indeed unpleasant, but you are forced to choose one. With Bush, he chooses none and stays the course. So this is why I've called it Morton's ass. It's more a combination of both. The term 'ass' had to stay in, so that's why the alternative name Buridan's Fork was not appropriate as it left out a critical property.

Just to expound on these details, here we have yet another and quite similar analogy, but this time compared to the Japanese commander in WWII who would not quit and instead "asked" his generals to resign. Sound familiar? I didn't think two descriptions of Morton's ass could be so poignant. So identical.

I stumbled onto this as well today and I hope this isn't real. That it's some kind of hoax or something. I can't believe this kind of thing would go on in the construction of the US embassy in Iraq.

And to make matters worse, the Sunni block officially withdrew from the Iraqi Government. Oh yeah, one British, four Americans and 70 Iraqis died on that day too. But we've become way too accustomed to this kind of news. This is news that is not only tiresome, but news that we can't disregard. We want to stop hearing about it. And the news media in North America does a damn good job. Yet, this isn't how we want to stop hearing about it.

The last two links come from the same place, but you can find these stories on any news site. The larger news sites may not carry it or may shove it in the background. For example, CNN has a couple lines inside their main Iraq story and state that this news comes from Reuters. I won't link this next one. You can find it on your own. The Shiites now want autonomy. And they're willing to obtain it by force.

So now we have Morton's ass in the middle of a civil war where the government has officially been disbanded and you have corruption in Iraq contracts, most likely at many levels if past mishandling of billions of dollars is any indication. Yet, this is all page 100 news. Not worth anyone's time.

It's not my place to say what should or shouldn't be done. Actually, it is. That's the whole point. It's no longer the US' problem. It's all of our problem now. All countries. The US cannot control it. It'll fall to neighbouring countries to deal with it if it spills over and to outside aid. If the US stays, they'll just be in the way. They have solidified their status as invaders. Invaders are never welcome. And remember that the way you are perceived is not made by Americans, but by the residents of the occupied country. They see Americans as invaders and that's all the opinion that matters concerning that.

What do I think should happen? I think other countries should prepare fallout scenarios in private amongst themselves as the US has shown to not be willing to try alternatives. Shiites, Sunni and Kurds have been there for something like a thousand years. I doubt the US being there or not is going to change that. Right now, the US presence appears to be inconsequential to the future of that country other than negative aspects. In short, the US presence can no longer do any good. And the rest needs to work itself out since the only alternative is for the US to stay indefinitely if they believe to still have some sort of control on the situation.

Japan rebuilt. Vietnam rebuilt. If something were to happen in your city like an earthquake, or say planes into buildings, would you not rebuild and continue? Then why not Iraqis? Are they not humans capable and proud like you? They got running water, power and elected mayors on their own before Americans came in and said that was their job. This is according to some that were there immediately after the invasion. I think Iraqi people can do it again. At least, I think it should be their decision.

With Japan, there was a force the size of two atomic bombs that made the Japanese change course. This time around, just as in the time of Vietnam, there doesn't seem to be anything to precipitate a change of course. Not to use a Bushism, but I hope it doesn't come in the form of a mushroom cloud.