Power and Punishment
My first commentary on the post-war Iraq… Inspired by Riverbend (8/25/03).

In a power vacuum, people will vie to fill the void, pursuing their own agendas. They've learned (in Iraq) by example, over the last 30+ years, that intimidation, fear, and oppression will reward them with that power they covet so dearly. This too, shall pass. As much as America is touted as being socially and culturally diverse, we still have the same militants against cultural "blending". Aryan Nation. The KKK. Don't think that they're all WASPs, though. The Black Panthers were black separatists led by a prominent black man who espoused the virtues of "separate, but equal".
Going forward, Iraqis will have to trust their fellow countrymen to do the right thing. They'll make mistakes, they'll betray one another, and they'll cause a great deal of pain and controversy. But in the end, it'll work out... The silent majority will express themselves when it matters most.
Before the war, the media was rife with anti-war rhetoric, but much to their disbelief, polls showed almost three-quarters of the population in support of military action. In this country, the media has the largest influence over popular opinion and they know it. So when popular opinion ran counter to their own, they were beside themselves...visibly so. I remember the day clearly as the anchors would stammer out the poll results, further editorializing the report with their disbelief and dismay. It was a personal victory for me, but that's another rant...

I play hockey, here in the States, about three nights a week. Just like in life, we have rules. And just like in life, people break the rules. Sundays, I play in a league that is notorious for players who break the rules. Time and again, they play in a manner that is unsportsmanlike and never punished. The referees, for whatever reason, don't make the calls and the behavior goes unchecked. That will never correct the behavior. So people get hurt, the game isn't fun, and emotions boil-over. Much like we "Cowboy Americans" do, I occasionally take matters into my own hands. Sunday, one particular player was being especially unruly. I gave him fair warning, which he chose not to heed. "Be careful with how rough you play me, bubba." Two minutes later I watched him put his stick into the back of a fellow player. The referee, watching the play, took no action. That's when I "broke the rules" and attacked him. Now, there was no intent to injure and I wasn't picking a fight, I simply tackled him to the floor. It drew a number of other players in, but the, now engaged, referees quickly separated the fray. As we separated, he challenged me further, drawing me into fisticuffs. Having no interest I simply replied, "What goes around comes around". I'm a firm believer in the Law of Reciprocity and he sat in the penalty box for four minutes thinking about that. I sent a simple message. There are consequences to your actions and if it means breaking the rules to show you that, I'm willing to do that. The take-away message that I'm trying to convey is in the absence of a lawful response, sometimes it's appropriate to break the rules to send a simple message. Some might characterize that as vigilantism. I would agree to a point. The distinction I make is when the “lawful agent” chooses to ignore the indiscretion. ...But that's me... I have a low tolerance for injustice.

Something interesting came from a discussion I had with Riverbend. She mentioned that her salary was comparable to male colleagues in the office, something typically uncommon in Western cultures. One of the most interesting things that I experienced in the Middle East was the natural tendency to negotiate for goods and services. Depending upon the strict social guidelines of the country, women were just as skillful at negotiating as men. Western cultures don't "breed" that trait into their females. It has been my contention for quite some time that "equal pay" for women is in no small part the responsibility of the woman and their aptitude for negotiating. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen it in my position. Furthermore, as a businessman, I'm focused on getting the highest value from my human resource. Does that mean I intentionally take advantage of women's inability to effectively negotiate their salaries? Heavens, no! In fact, the whole point is that they are happy with the salary being offered. In most cases, it doesn't occur to them that they could ask for more... For others, it's simply too distasteful to barter, and would sooner walk away from the table altogether. So...as a capitalist pig (grin), I'm glad our culture is the way it is, because it means more profit for the company! But as women continue to climb into leadership roles, their lack of negotiating skills has a broader, less positive impact. ...What's that...? The bigger picture...? NO! Really!? (snicker)