Tuesday, April 11, 2006

War or No War

If you've been unfortunate enough to watch television with me recently...and cursed enough for Deal or No Deal to be on, you've probably heard me blurt out, on more than one occasion, "Damn, this is the best show on television." And although it's produced by the Dutch and has been all around the world in local varieties before arriving in the US, it seems an inherently American show. And maybe it's just the zeitgeist of the time, but the values that DOND espouses seem like those of the country at large. Or at least all of those millions of Americans who still fall in line when called on and blurt out: "I support the president."



I've mentioned the way the game is played previously, and how the contestants usually balk in the face of statistical good deals to try for a bigger cash prize. But I'd like to focus on the first decision in the game -- picking a case. There are 26 suitcases and the contestant picks one -- it becomes "theirs". Of course, they can "sell it" to the Banker for fraction of it's potential value, but the show is based around the possibility that "your" suitcase contains $1 million dollars.

The surprising part is how quickly people buy into this fantasy. "Yep -- I picked it, I'm going to the end with it." Even though (statistically) they should sell off their suitcase and get out of the game with the money offered, they keep playing, hoping for that huge pay-out -- as if their first decision was the most important one. Since they "own" that case now, it must be the right one. Hope springs eternal that the result you can't see locked in the case is the result you want. The more illogical and ridiculous iterations of this game show I watch, the more it starts to seem like Iraq.

The White House picked it's battle plan, and it's staying with it until it reveals their expected Million Dollar Pay-out (which, I suppose in this analogy is something like democracy+oil+permanent base). Yes, we're going to have to go through the painful process of opening all the other cases, but in the end, we're damn sure that $1,000,000 will be there. Even though, time and again, logical ways were presented to get out -- take the lesser amount and run, accept something less than the total victory while obviating the possibility of total defeat -- the administration has been steadfast. No cutting and running here. It's the American way -- we're not going to waffle. The decision was made and we're sticking with it. We're going to see what's in that suitcase we picked in 2003. The problem is, it might be one penny.

4 Comments:

  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger Brianna said…

    Shouldn't $1,000,000="greeted as liberators"? I think that case is already off the table -- we're down to the penny or the $10,000 retreat package being offered by the banker.

     
  • At 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Although it's cute, isn't your analogy inherently flawed? No matter how many ridiculously poor decisions the players might make there can never be a negative outcome. There is no "lose your home" suitcase or a "your wife is gonna start screwing the gardner" suitcase. The contestants always walk out with more than they came in with, even if it is only that penny.

    In the Iraq war version of DOND we could end up with the "supreme court rules protection of privacy not afforded by the constitution" suitcase or the "go so far into debt as a country that the EU will still be supporting us into the 31st century" suitcase.

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Geoff G. said…

    "Isn't your analogy flawed?" you ask. I'm comparing a major international military conflict to a primetime game show. Of course it's flawed!

     
  • At 4:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh, how silly of me! Sometimes I forget that war/game show law of parallelism.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home