P.S. I agree it was a poor choice of words.
Ahh, another one of them geniouses! 
I have to agree with Gerble, IQ, schmIQ. Tyler writes very well, and has excellent spelling for someone his age, which is more than can be said for many of us.
But you’re only 11, Tyler, and you’re not in Iraq. Nor have you served in the military. Sometimes it’s better to offer one’s opinions lightly, rather than kind of telling them.
I haven’t been to Iraq either (and will avoid the place for at least the next few years), nor have I served in the military. I will listen to, and respece the opinions of, the guy who is there.
Bombsquad, don’t forget I owe you a beer. My wife and I go to Las Vegas often. We’ll be there Memorial Day weekend in fact, which is sadly probably too soon for you. Not “sadly” in the sense that you should be home, just in the sense that your wife’s there and you’re not. You know what I mean.
Brainwashing:
It’s a harsh word, but going through basic training, in probably any military force in the world, certainly involves some indoctrination that could crudely be called brainwashing. You are trained to follow orders. Fast. Without thinking. This is to keep you alive. It is a re-training of your thought processes, and is intended to diminish the self, at least to the extent of being able to follow the chain of command. This is necessary to make a good soldier. Later on the self is built back up, with skills and confidence.
Again, I have not served in the military. But I read, talk to people, and watch movies. And I know movies are fiction.
To my knowledge, the military does not make it a practice to promote the current administration. You support your president because he is your commander-in-chief. It’s part of your job. Even if you don’t agree with everything he does. A good citizen should support their president as well, even if they disagree with things, and even if they go to protest marches.
Also, being in the military is, in many ways, a job. You work for a big company, and that company’s duty is to protect the country where your friends and family live. You don’t make policy, you enforce it. Naturally you want to be successful. Going home while the job is undone would not be successful.
All of that is the obvious part, without even looking at the bigger picture. A soldier doesn’t need to look at the bigger picture. Knowing what it is, or having an opinion on it, will not change his immediate situation. He’s still in the middle of things, and compelled to follow orders regardless of his opinion.
I believe what Bombsquad tells us about Iraq more than the non-news I see on TV or hear on the radio. Even though Bombsquad only sees whatever tiny parts of the country he’s in, he undoubtedly hears things from people coming and going all the time. He probably gets many chances to interact with Iraqui citizens. Hopefully not any dangerous ones.
Is he brainwashed? Maybe a little. But we all are. We are brainwashed by the way we were raised, what TV shows we watch, our parents, our churches, and our chosen online forums. But our opinions are still our own.
I think ricmbenson’s use of “modern thinking” comes from some definition of severe liberalism. What a crappy name. The stuff he describes is nothing new. Being anti-war, while the huns are ransacking your house: old. Same for the rest of it. Being liberal is not evil. Being closed-minded is. Being intolerant is. Being racist is. None of those are new either. And I am not saying ricmbenson is any of those things.
Breakdown of the American family is Tyler’s fault? Interesting. 
Tyler said something about labor unions, like every business should have them. You have a bit to learn there. Labor unions are good for workers, but generally bad for business and consumers. My wife’s industry is currently being threatened by unionization. It would raise her costs, and lower her employees’ salaries and benefits. Her employees are against it. Who’s for it? A few bigwigs and politicos who will get rich in the process.
Sorry, that was off-topic. But if anyone wants to argue about that, please start up a thread about it.
To all who think we should “pull our troops out of Iraq ASAP.” What will be the long-term consequences of this? I’m not asking anyone else, just the ones who are still trying to “stop the war.”
That was a good post. I was a little angry when I wrote my main one. I apoligize for its meanness yet again.
a’ight, everybody for a teenage, parentally brainwashed opinion? Goody, let’s go!
I think that there is an EXTREMELY important thing that almost all americans are failing completely to think about: The mentality of a terrorist.
The analogy of the revolutionaries in our very own U.S.A is one I haven’t heard before. I would also say is is a good one, though on the surface it seems flawed. No, washington did not blow up a bus full of little kids. However, for point one, neither did Bin Laden, who seems to be the leader of this rebellion. His soldiers probably committed some horrific acts, though. (don’t forget, the winners get to right the history books) Also, the revolutionary war was a differant era. Modern terrorism hadn’t even been thought up yet, or you could bet we would try to use all the tactics we thought necessary. We were fighting for our very freedom, the closest thing we hold dear, after all. Finally, I believe that an American revolutionary and an iraqi insurgent probably would have the same mindset, if you could do a comparison.
Would YOU blow yourself and a bunch of kids up for a trivial cause? I sincerely doubt it. You would only do it if you thought you would make a difference in the world, make a statement that many people would hear/see/feel. Most terrorists are probably not evil people. There are a few who are, and Osama is probably one of them. But, there are evil people everywhere, there are all kinds of cold blooded murderers right here.
So, for some reason there are people who are pissed off enough at the world/us/whatever that they will blow themselves up. I think the major thing that needs to happen in the war on terror is to have a war on mental terrors, such as global poverty and such. there has to be something we can do with our huge amounts of money that we as americans have. We’re the wealthiest and most influential country in the world, so it stands to reason that there’s something we can do. I suppose I have to say one option for aiding people is war, but, as the second grade saying everyone knows by heart goes, violence never solves anything. War is most definitely not the best way to help people, all war does is kill some people who need it, and a bunch more who don’t.
Maybe this whole issue is impossible, because there are simply SO many people in the world, and if everyone alive was living under some sort of (perfect) socialist system where everyone had the same amount of wealth, property, whatever, everyone would be below the poverty line. As far as I can tell, most or all of the major world problems (starvation, running out of oil, people incredibly pissed at the global elite, aka the U.S. and Europe) are caused by overpopulation. In this case, there’s not much of a solution except stop having babies, and NOBODY wants to do that.
EDIT: wow… a 500 word essay. I want some good arguments on this one, It’s gotta be worth my while.
John,
Only an idiot would start an argument given such a lack of specifics including what your wife’s industry is and whether her employees are against the union because they told her so or because they have already voted against it.
That said, I’d take issue with the statement that unions are “generally…bad for…consumers” but am just wondering if you are anti-union generally, look at them in relation to each industry/circumstance and judge, or just against them in the case of your wife’s situation?
I found it kind of funny when Bush came to Halifax. I was surprised about where he picked up on the John Putine (sp?) joke made by Rick Mercer a few years back and a couple of other things.
It was an interesting change of pace to the normal questions and ideals.
Other then that, not really much else to say.
I’m willing to comment on this one. Are you suggesting that if wealth were evenly distributed, it would solve a great many of the world’s problems?
But people are not equal. Some people are smart and hard-working, while others are dumb and lazy (assuming the same schooling and culture). Do they deserve to have the same product of their labors? I guess we’re getting away from Bush Sucks because he’s definitely not for anything like that…
Sorry about lack of specifics. I’m simply not an expert on the subject. The idea was to see if other people had comments to make.
My wife’s employees would be anti-union (no vote yet) because they would be almost guaranteed to get reduced salary, and definitely reduced benefits. So though a union in this business might benefit employees of some of my wife’s competitors, it would ad a level of administration and other issues that might easier be handled by an environment where employees can have a choice in where they work. With a union you still have a choice, but unionization may make all locations more the same.
Again I’m far from an expert, but what I often hear about labor unions is when they want more money for same work (often justified), more money for less work (not necessarily justified), complicated regulations such as the “turning off the electricity guy” in Ghostbusters, that are designed to require more hours of labor (more salaries) without increased productivity for the companies. More employees, if not needed, are good for the union but not good for business.
As for the Ghostbusters example, that’s a fictional situation, but it’s based on an all-too-common situationn that comes up in municipal or other strongly-union situations. As you live in NJ, I’m sure you’ve seen or heard of many similar examples.
I grew up around the United Auto Workers. This union was created during a time when it was needed really badly (1930s?). Henry Ford and his contemporaries were not the greatest guys to work for. But during the 70s, as the American auto industry suffered from pressures from foreigh competition (which did not previously exist) and the need to use less fuel, the union consistently resisted changes the companies wanted to make, which were in many cases intended to make the company more competitive to survive in an increasingly global marketplace.
So I guess I’m saying a labor union is a double-edged sword. Looking out for the interests of the workers is a good thing. But when a union grows fat, and set in its ways, it sometimes continues to make demands that can be a detriment to the success of the business that pays their workers’ salaries.
Currently there is a fight in California between the teachers unions and the Governor. The Governor wants to set up a system of merit-based pay, while the unions resist loudly. Compensating teachers based on performance would seem to be the best way to attract better-quality teachers, and have a more efficient educational process. Perpetuating the old system of tenure-based advancement, regardless of performance, can only cost our schools more. Not to mention the students.
Surely I do not know every aspect of the situation.
Some businesses need unions, some don’t. The situation in Jacquie’s industry (www.stepsite.com) may be different from your average union situation. They want to set up something called “Work Force Service Centers,” and all of Jacqie’s employees would actually be employees of that. As would all other employees in her industry. This would remove her from the process of setting standards for the quality of services her people deliver, and would almost surely end in a lowest-common-denominator level of service, over which she would have little control. She wants to have direct input to her employees, and “own” the skills and techniques they develop; not to lose them to being switched at random to other companies that don’t have her company’s know-how.
In her case, system is not broken. The only people who think it is are the Work Force Service Center people, who would be the ones to profit, and their lobby.
John, nothing you’ve said merits me getting my panties in a bunch so I’ll just say, thanks for providing some details. 
No, it’s safe to say that re-distribution of wealth is not a big priority for W, unless it’s the re-distribution of his grandaddy’s and daddy’s wealth down to him.
JJuggle, those panties are quite appropriate (and becoming…).
They should feel ashamed.
Well, okay, but only when I’m doing my Janis Joplin impersonation.
Yes, John,
That’s why the CEO fo some companies makes in 1 hour what his employees makes in a full year.