Saturday, August 11, 2007

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.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

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.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Athletic indifference: Iraqi soccer feels the pain

On Aug. 4, the Iraqi soccer team returned home to Baghdad as winners of the Asian Soccer Cup -- an impressive feat given their lack of a stable training environment.

According to news reports, the Iraqi team hasn't played a home game in 17 years, basically since the first Gulf War.

Not on hand were three stars: Team Captain Younis Mahmoud, Nashat Akram and Hawar Mulla Mohammed. Each were undoubtedly fearful for their lives should they partake in the celebrations back home. It's a twist to other sports culture around the world where the losers may receive death threats or be the target of violence in other ways.

Since the Iraqi political situation remains impotent, however, even winning the Asian Cup couldn't ensure political foes would put their petty bickering aside to enjoy the moment. Instead, fans and the average Iraqi alike felt obliged to forgo the "party" as they assumed such a gathering would be targeted by, you guessed it, another suicide bomber.

The fact is, it may take a withdraw of U.S. troops before political heavyweights in Baghdad feel the need to step up and take control. It's also clear that once they do, they won't be playing by the same rules concerning civil rights that the U.S. tries to adhere to -- they will, for a time, return to stomping out violence by any means necessary. But then again, sometimes you have to step back a few yards to ultimately gain a mile. And maybe, just maybe, the end will justify the means.

© Blogger Templates | Webtalks