A generation of brats

I can't help but notice we're being inundated with news coverage concerning the youth of America going off the deep end; those unable to handle the rigors of day-to-day adult life who end up taking it out on innocent men, women and children.

I'm talking about the rise in mall, university and neighborhood shootings resulting from one person's perception of being disenfranchised -- not "loved" enough.

And I can't help but think this is the back end of a decades' long policy to ensure "everyone is equal and accepted." That everyone showing up for class gets a passing grade; that everyone showing up for baseball tryouts makes the team; that everyone is good at everything.

That is, until "everyone" joins the adult world and realizes 95 percent of the population couldn't give a rat's ass about them. It's a shock to a system weened on making every team, getting a trophy just for having a heartbeat, and receiving good grades for showing up. The shock of suddenly being compared to others and, falling short more than not, is too much for many to handle apparently.

Now, had they learned how to compete and lose with grace earlier in life, they'd be better prepared to suffer through life's harsh realities. But that's not the case; instead of a backhand upside the head, it's been a "timeout." Zero discipline has lead to a generation or more that assumes they're entitled to success and don't have to work for it. That it should come without falling square on your face along the way.

The truth is, learning to lose and move on at an early age isn't as harsh, nor as sad as it is to a 20-something who learns much too late about the rules of engagement in the real-world.

Parents aren't doing their children any favors by pampering them ... it leaves them unprepared to enter the civilian workforce or to handle a society that, in all likelihood, couldn't care less if they succeeded or not.

An Eye-Opening Perspective of the War in Iraq

If you're looking for an eye-opening, independent view of the ground war in Iraq, check out http://www.michaelyon-online.com/; a freelance journalist, Michael Yon has taken to the frontlines of the war, camera in hand, offering a perspective he articulates via print as well as anyone I've read recently.

Not lacking a healthy set of gonads, Yon walks the walk along with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers risking life and limb. He captures firefights in progress -- occasionally trying to jump in to help -- and details each story from beginning to end. Yon, who includes a large dose of common sense in his articles, brings a humanistic side to the conflict from both Iraqi and American viewpoints.

In many instances the clarity with which he reports puts you in the battle -- your sphincter puckering, and your respect for those doing the dirty work climbing as you read the passages. He paints a picture of courage, evil, devastation and of political change in country that much of the U.S. population doesn't hear about.

Short of being on the ground yourself, his work will have you questioning your own manhood -- I know I felt like a pussy afterward reading a few installments. If your stomach can handle the "truth," give his site the once over. I specifically encourage you to read his report entitled "Gates of Fire."

Yon, by the way, is not sponsored by any news, political or social entity -- relying solely on the support of readers via sales of photography and donations.

Freakonomics Author Sticks Foot in Mouth

Steven D. Levitt, author of the best seller "Freakonomics," took freedom of speech down a road similar to those who have felt obliged to burn the American flag in the past; apparently he's the type to use outrageous actions or discourse to draw attention to his cause.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what his cause is, nor do I think he has a firm grasp on it. Mr. Levitt, of course, asked in his blog recently (found on the N.Y. Times web site under Freakonomics) for readers to respond with possible acts of terror that would, no doubt, insight terror throughout the U.S. population. He provided a scenario of resources that these supposed terrorists would have at their disposal and then asked the average reader to come up with creative ways of using them.

The backlash was inevitable with most readers wondering why he should pose such a question; "was he out of his mind?" Steve's attempt at crisis management was weak at best, somehow trying to play it off as an educational process for our national security folks.

The fact is, I'm more than certain terrorists can come up with their own creative ideas for spreading fear if given the chance -- they don't need Steve's or anyone else's help. And to infer his blog was done to help our homeland security heads prevent such attacks was just plain ignorant. I don't know who believed him, other than the handful of folks who believed Clinton put the joint to his mouth but never inhaled.

Mr. Levitt is first and foremost an economist and, given his book's stint on the best seller list, I gather a pretty good one. As for me, I tend to think six economists in a room will have seven theories as to where the economy is headed when they're finished chitchatting. So I see no reason for Steve to venture into the world of terrorism -- fictional or otherwise.

Next he'll be asking readers to suggest ways for terrorists to raise money for attacks. A scary thought given his background.

U.S.: Chose your friends wisely

In recent decades the U.S. has put together a pretty impressive record of backing the wrong horse in international affairs; the backlash of which it may now be suffering through.

There was the Shaw of Iran throughout the 40s-70s; Saddam Hussein of the late 70s and 80s; Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines; Panama's Noriega and the list goes on. Unfortunately, each of these men were well known for their abuse of power, if not outright disregard for human rights.

And as is the case on the local political stage, if you back the wrong people, there's a price to pay. This is especially the case in the Middle East were memories of wrongdoing or perceived wrongs, go back centuries. Not only does the U.S., apparently, not understand the dynamics involved (as the British were guilty of during their colonial days), but it seems unwilling to adjust tactics. This arrogance, of course, will make it difficult to foster better ties in the region.

It may be beneficial to forgo the big-brother stance for a more respectful approach for national sovereignty -- and negotiate with national counterparts instead of at them. The next few years will tell the tale.