Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military patriotism and dissidence

Um, it doesn't fall under any branch of government. According to the Second Amendment, the responsibility for the security of a free state falls to a well-regulated militia, which is composed of the people, not the government. Defense of freedom isn't a government function at all. As a matter of fact, given that the government is one of the chief threats to liberty against which the Founding Fathers wanted to guard, isn't it a conflict of interest, on the order of hiring the fox to guard the henhouse, to delegate the defense of freedom to it?

Exactly! Spot on! Excellent answer. You're so smart.

Here is another reason.

Semper Fi
CNN live interview with Martin Savidge on Sunday, 30 March 2003:

Martin Savidge of CNN, embedded with the 1st Marine battalion, 1st Marine Division, was talking with 4 young Marines near his foxhole this morning live on CNN. He had been telling the story of how well the Marines had been looking out for and taking care of him since the war started. He went on to tell about the many hardships the Marines had endured since the war began
and how they all look after one another.

He turned to the four and said he had cleared it with their commanders and they could use his video phone to call home. None of these Marines had been able to talk with their families for many weeks. The 19 year old Marine next to him asked Martin if he would allow his platoon sergeant to use his call to call his pregnant wife back home whom he had not been able to talk to in over a month. A stunned Savidge, who was visibly moved by the request, nodded his head - yes. The young Marine ran off to get the sergeant.

Savidge recovered after a few seconds and turned back to the three young Marines still sitting with him. He asked which one of them would like to call home first? The Marine closest to him responded with out a moments hesitation, "Sir, if is all the same to you we would like to call the parents of a buddy of ours. Lance Cpl Brian Buesing of Cedar Key, Florida, who was killed on the 23rd of March near Nasiriya. We would like to see how
his folks are doing and let them know their son died bravely."

At that Martin Savidge totally broke down and was unable to speak. All he could get out before signing off was, "Where do they get young men like this?"

I'm afraid I still don't understand. (Feel free to take this private, if you'd rather.) You're implying that the folks in the military don't get a paycheck? As I said, I've never been in the military, but it was my impression that they did get paychecks.

Also, isn't part of the definition of being a professional being able to do your job and do it well in spite of outside issues and distractions?


Really? You figure Saddam and his buddies lurk here on 24HourCampfire? If not, in what way would any lack of support here make them bolder?

Barak, I can't go here anymore, public or private, I am out of gas. Ask me in a couple of months, OK?

Barak

You said
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore, people who do value their work must find ways other than the free market to express their support if the troops are to comprehend it.

Is that what you meant to say?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sort of


I agree with you, there is no such thing as "free market" financial support for the members of the armed services. Yep, it is confiscated tax money that pays for them. "Supporters" and "Non Supporters" pay equally (no, dont give me the lecture of there is no such thing as "equal" taxation, I agree but that is not germaine to this post.) to the same fund that pays their wages.

Therefor neither support or not-support is tied to financial income. So what is support ? One does not see a sagging timber in a mine and say "I hope you dont break" and call that support. No, Big John Henry (gads, I hope I have the right folk legend) gets up under the timber and holds it while everyone else gets out. JH ACTED, he did something to aid the timber, he did something that aided the rescue of the trapped miners.


You said

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we partially disagree. No soldier in Iraq is defending your freedom with his life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could get picky and argue the point that by attacking Saddam and Iraq that those soldiers are removing a future threat to the citizens of the United States. I do believe this but it is not the point. I think you may mis understand my position. Any and all members of the United States military to include the Coast Guard do protect my life and freedom each and every day. They are the ones that stand in the front line of my defense. How many countries in the world have said somethig to the effect of "I really hate them thar Muricans but dang nabbit them pesky ole Marines would eat my lunch ifn I attack em. Guess it aint the right thing to do today." Those Soldiers, sailors, marines, airman, and coast guardsmen stand ready to die each and every day.



You said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be perfectly honest and politically incorrect, actually, it is really I (as a member of the citizen militia)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may or may not agree with the point you made in the quoted sentance. In some ways I really do. However, you made the analogy in your prior post about supporting you as a software engineer and support as I apply it to the troops. You have changed from apples to oranges to apples to grapefruit.
My reply was based on your comparison between Software engineer and soldier.


You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's all I can conscientiously mean by it. I'm sorry if you're not satisfied.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot condemn you for your position as you are not wishing bad things upon the troops. I can say that FOR ME PERSONALLY, I could never say that "I hope you do not die and wish for a speedy return" would fullfil a statement of "I support the Troops".


To me, there are three positions to take, negative, nuetral,and positive. Yours is not negative.
I assess yours as neutral.
I assess yours as not-positive.

You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was simply asking why it seems to be universally accepted that one of those required supplies is gifts and compliments from the general public for professionals who are soldiers, but not for professionals who are...well, pretty much anything else

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not required that a person that holds a negative position give gifts or compliments. It is not required that a person that holds a neutral position give gifts or compliments. I do believe tho that a person who professes to be a supporter (positive) should do more than just speak the words "I support the troops.".

I sent to Montana marine a letter expressing my thanks for his service to our country. That is the phrase that I use and it is as succinct a message as I can come up with. I appreciate all members of the service during times of war and times that conflict is not readily on us. I sent a small joke hopefully to give him a laugh in his time of trevail. I sent to him a brand new 2002 silver dollar with the instructions for him to give it to a young trooper that was away from home for the first time, and may not have a large family. ( I have in my pocket now as I type this a 1885 silver dollar originally issued as U.S. currency, a beat up 2001 silver dollar, and a 2002 silver dollar in a little plastic carrier. I keep the 1885 dollar in my pocket almost constantly as my good luck charm and also as a reminder of the country that I live in. ).

I told MM to tell whoever he gives the Silver Dollar to that there is someone here in the states that thinks of him daily.

Maybe, just maybe, that young marine will someday stick his hand in his pocket absentmindedly and feel that dollar and be comfited.


I do not ask that people send expensive gifts, nor do I expect volumes of speech. But a simple letter to a person or a small gift to a person is greatly greatly appreciated by those service men and women half a world away. I know, I was one of them once. No, I did not serve in VietNam, I served in Germany.


Jim B.

Well, Jim_B, I think we mostly understand each other. We probably don't agree with each other yet, but I think that with one exception the misunderstandings are pretty much gone. Hopefully, while each of us thinks the other is a little misguided, there's no reason for us to get into a barroom brawl with each other.

Let me try to clear up that one remaining misunderstanding. I didn't intend to appear as though I was trying to qualify for your support by claiming to be part of the citizen militia. I was using your lack of tangible support for me as an example only in the capacity in which I'm a professional--and that is certainly not my capacity as a militia member. Not only don't I know any professional militia members, I don't know of any professional militia members.

My comment about not caring about your support or lack of it in my capacity as a militia member had two geneses: on the one hand, I was using my experience as a militia member (which is the closest thing I have to military experience) to try to understand the military's need for popular support. On the other hand, I was making the assumption that professionals should need less popular support in their job than amateurs, and applying that assumption to make the point that if amateur militia members didn't care about public support, it was a little puzzling that professional military personnel would.

Since then, I've thought about my statement a little more, and I don't think I still stand by it. It seems unlikely that the militia will ever realistically be employed in foreign warfare, for a number of reasons; that means that its most likely use will probably be in guerrilla warfare on our own soil against occupation forces of some government--whether it be our own or a foreign one. And in such a situation, popular support would be very important indeed--not for the morale of the militia, but for the continued existence of the militia. We'll depend for many of our more mundane supplies on the generosity of the populace, and our operational security will depend on ordinary folks who happen to see us not running straight to the garrison commanders and reporting. We'll probably also find strategic, tactical, and operational intelligence from the people helpful.

That is to say, in other words, we will be a service of the free market. If the free market does not value us or see a need for us, we will go the way of the Betamax standard, and for the same reasons.

As well we should.

Barak,

I would like to respond to your post of 4/1/03 at 10:15p.m. In it you stated,

"I've never been in the standing military, only in the militia. Can somebody who has been in the standing military explain to me what the big deal is about supporting the troops? I mean, they're professionals with a job to do, right? I don't mean to offend anybody, but if they are professionals, should our support really matter to them?"

First of all I believe that we have a lot in common, you and I. That might include the belief that with all its shortcomings, this country is about as good as it gets on this planet as far as individual liberties and standard of living go. Then there is a presumed mutual love of the outdoors (I derived this from your description of your location). Oh, and then there's the interest in firearms or at least politics as it applies to their possession by an individual. I'm new here so bear with me. You seem patriotic, if not supportive. You have the nuts to post your picture and your e-mail address along with your opinions. I can respect that. A lot of people like to take pot shots at others under a pseudonym and that takes so little courage. If I say anything that may tend to offend you, it's not personal. I wouldn't know you from Adam. We're both firearms enthusiasts, presumably with no criminal convictions, we pay our taxes and we're Americans. Any perceived animosity you may infer from my insinuation is simply that: perceived.

I served 20 years in the regular US Army and then retired as a Staff Sergeant. I remained an Infantry Soldier for the entire time, although I was at times assigned to non-Infantry-related duties, (Recruiter, Range NCOIC, G3 Plans NCOIC). Mostly though, my assignments were to Infantry battalions where I served in various leadership positions including Platoon Sergeant. I would still be there if they had let me stay. Unfortunately when you reach 20 years and you are not an SFC or better, you're done.

In reading your comments I can ascertain that you are indeed an intelligent person. So when I tell you that you can't pay a soldier enough to live the lifestyle we did, I expect you not to try to counter that by saying that soldiers don't have any problem with cashing their paychecks or benefiting from any other niceties they are afforded. Rather, I would expect that you could appreciate the sense of patriotic duty driving our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. I believe I detect a note of cynicism in your question pertaining to the value of the moral support of the nation as it benefits the "Professional Soldiers". These troops indeed discharge their duties in a most professional manner. This does not make them professionals, however. Most of them do not make the military a career.

The lifestyle is HARSH. I don't want to go into a lot of detail because I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I am for one instant complaining. For your benefit though, I will attempt to quickly elucidate some of the features of military life that would likely cause a person with your attitude to quit. Abject subordination to authority is part of the military culture. Family separation borders on the surreal. Sleep deprivation is the norm. Food palatability is poor. Responsibility and accountability are WELL BEYOND that required of civilian counterparts. Physical fitness is a fact of life: we do physical training even while deployed to field training. Pay is low. I don't care how much we save by dint of the vaunted military benefits. Servicemembers and their families enjoy a razor-thin margin of error when managing the family budget. When these folks qualify for food stamps, I believe it is a black eye for our nation. Wow.

Overtime pay, holiday pay, etc. is non-existent. Compensatory time is the standard. When I think back on all the days "off" the US Army still owes me per their very own policies, I can only laugh. I have long since let them off the hook for that. I served with a sense of dignity and with a sense of pride befitting a soldier of this great nation. Going the extra mile without direct, tangible benefit was simply part of the culture.

From your picture, you don't appear to have missed too many meals. Don't take this as an insult because I don't mean it that way. But I will tell you that as a soldier I have gone hungry more times than you would be willing to believe in order to effectively discharge my duties out of a sense of commitment, of pride and of professionalism. In fact, we conduct leadership courses that are guaranteed to take about 40 to 50 pounds off of a youngster in who is in good shape to begin with.

The chance that you will sustain injuries during training is good. We manage risks with assessment programs, safety policies, standard operating procedures, organic medical support, etc. and yet we still kill each other through accident, mechanical failure and numerous other methods. Ever see someone burn-in from 1250 feet in the air because his parachutes failed? Yeah, I know that's why Data Programmers are smarter than Soldiers are. Anyway we regroup and drive on. Sometimes we are even called upon to fight wars.

Now, this brings us to your questions. What is the big deal about supporting the troops? If they are professionals should our support really matter to them? These are no ordinary people. They willingly bear nearly any burden in the effort to keep what we as a nation hold most dearly from becoming a distant memory. That would be among other things, our individual liberties, our beloved family members, and our lifestyle as Americans. The troops are at a minimum deserving of our gratitude. Even one so callous as you to their contribution should be able to understand that without their daily sacrifice, America's business conglomeration would be unable to carry out its day-to-day operations.

Trade dwindles in unstable locales. Your hometown could become one of them were it not for our military forces. Naturally, that would only be the first symptom. A robust capability for national security is the bedrock foundation upon which business, such as yours, is built. You see right now Barak, no one has the combat power to wage war with us in a manner that would result in the supremacy of the instigator. Sure, there will always be terrorism just like there will always be crime. It could be a lot worse though if there were no one to strike at the center of gravity of terror organizations like we do. I can't do it by myself. You can't. The police can't. That leaves the military forces.

The big deal about supporting them lies in the fact that these people are our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. All of them have families and none of them want to die. Each of them pines for their loved ones back home and none are guaranteed to return. I have known this feeling often over the years, yet it did not stop me from doing what I knew to be right. Often our troops die in aircraft crashes, they drown or maybe they were just sleeping on the ground when an armored vehicle from their own unit was accidentally backed over several of them, ending their precious lives. How nice it must have been sitting back here in the rear with the beer, writing computer programs under the umbrella of protection afforded you by the most lethal military force ever to range the face of this Earth.

I can't let you get away without telling you this story. In 1989 I reported to my unit in Korea. Along with me was a young NCO whose first name was Robert. Both of us were slated as squad leaders. We became friends. I was married and had a daughter, almost two years old. Robert was married and had two children a little older. Over the next year we suffered through some truly challenging weather conditions, leadership situations, conducting live ambush patrols in the DMZ, etc. One day during the Operation Desert Shield buildup I received orders to report to Fort Ord, CA. Since Robert arrived the same day I did, I kind of felt bad for him when he had to go back to the field while I processed out of the unit and headed home on leave. I was walking down a street at Fort Ord one day several months later and happened upon a soldier I recognized from my unit in Korea. As he brought me up to speed on what happened after I left the unit, I learned of Robert's death. His squad was participating in a company level deliberate attack on a live fire range supported by Abrams tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles. It being nighttime and the objective being covered in smoke, Robert understandably became a little disoriented. His squad emerged from some covering terrain at the wrong location. Robert took a 7.62mm slug from a tank-mounted coaxial machine gun in the back of the head. It blew his face off and he died a tragic, needless and unglamorous death right there. His team leader, who lived, took one in the back. It came out through his chest and fortunately only collapsed a lung.

Sadly, that is part of the cost of freedom. Yeah, I'm glad it wasn't me. I feel for his young family. I know they loved him. I saw their pictures in his barracks room. He was a real nice guy. He wasn't fighting in a war. He was just serving; just maintaining the protective barrier around you. You asked, If they are professionals should our support really matter to them? Yes, it mattered to Robert and it mattered to me, too. I can't believe he and I were too much different from any other soldier, commissioned, non-commissioned or otherwise. We don't bear these burdens for an ungrateful nation. In our hearts we know our fellow countrymen appreciate our efforts and our sacrifices. Who are our fellow countrymen? Why, they're our families, friends and neighbors. Maybe you don't personally know a servicemember but that's no reason to discount their contributions to life as you know it.

Support a Data Programmer? Sure, no problem. But I think you have a bit to learn about selfless service, gratitude and loyalty to your nation just the same. Oh, and as far as the military coming after you, they'll do as duly elected officials tell them. Boy am I glad Al Gore isn't President.

Paul

Very good Sgt. I know of what you speak, I was one of those "Baby Killers" of RSVN and it really smarted when someone would throw that out. Especially since I had never done so.

Then there were the folks I worked with after getting out, many of the younger ones just could not understand why I would work a little overtime to finish a case or an arrest when I could have waited till next shift. They did not understand it was just the right thing to do so the job was done. Didn't get a lot of appreciation for that either, but, I like you seem to have, got the self satisfaction of doing my best no matter what it took. And the rare thanks from a co-worker, supervisor or victim I had helped made it so much sweeter. It's not about pay, it is about knowing that someone, somewhere does appreciate what you are doing. That is all, nothing more or less.

Some places in this country, yes. Other places, not so much. But you're right: about the only place I've seriously thought about going if I get chased out of this country is Costa Rica. Technically, they have a socialist government; but pragmatically, it's a fair bit less intrusive than the so-called "republic" we have here. But realistically, I think I'll probably be in prison or dead long before I have a chance to get there.


Yes, yes, and yes. If "America" is defined as the vision of individual liberty and responsibility collectively held by our founders, then I love America. If "America" is our current government, politicians, and body of law, then I hate, fear, and despise it. I tend to choose the former definition.


Ah--our first point of disagreement. That picture's not me--it's just a guy I wouldn't entirely mind looking like if I were his age. I don't know him, and he doesn't know me, although I do know that the two of us are diametrically opposed on a number of important issues. But I can be reached at that e-mail address.


I don't begrudge soldiers their salary. I do think that the US military is far too big and powerful, and as such it acts as an irresistible temptation to politicians to engage in the sort of adventurism we've seen lately. I'm not completely sure that the military belongs in the hands of the government in the first place, but if it does, I'd like to see a very, very small force that couldn't possibly invade other countries without leaving our own dangerously unprotected. But I do believe that the laborer is worthy of his hire.


It also appears as though we disagree about the meaning of the word "professional." From where I sit, if you take money in exchange for doing something, then you're a professional somethinger, at least at that moment, regardless of what your career plans are.


I understand about the harsh lifestyle. Is it your argument that the harsh lifestyle is what makes the public support crucial?


Mmm...a hot button of some sort? Sorry.


Some fairly significant disagreements here. I hafta scram, so I can't answer with my usual loquacity.

First: should a worker be compensated according to the value he places on his work, or according to the value those who pay him place on his work?

Second: American troops have been able to do little or nothing to prevent our individual liberties and American lifestyle from becoming a distant memory. To do that, they would need an invader to repulse. The traditional function of modern American troops is to be sent into other countries in order to make distant memories of other people's individual liberties and former lifestyle.

Third: please explain what the adventurous, verging on imperialist, American foreign policy has to do with free-market business; I don't understand.

Gotta go; if I have some time I'll answer the rest of your post later.

Shalom,
Barak

We don't agree on this point; it might be interesting to argue it further, perhaps in another thread. I think I can demonstrate pretty vividly that coercive government forces always screw up everything they attempt--even when it's well-intentioned--when compared with the way that free-market forces would deal with the same problem, including national security.


Again, we disagree.

First, the reason international terrorists are angry with us in the first place is because of the international adventurist meddling that our politicians have been able to accomplish using the direct or indirect threat of our huge military. The free market would find other, non-coercive, cheaper, less offensive ways to accomplish its goals.

Second, the military forces have not exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to "striking at the center of gravity of terror organizations." Osama bin Laden is still at large, and the Afghans are claiming they want the Taliban back. Nobody can say for sure that Saddam Hussein is dead or in custody, and the Iraqis are getting pretty fed up with their new Pax Americana, what with all the looting, violence, and weapons confiscations.

Third, the reason the military has been unsuccessful is not that our soldiers are incompetent or immoral, but simply because they have been grievously misused. International terrorism is not the sort of centralized threat against which a military force is useful. It--unlike Naziism, for example--does not spring from a leader, or from a party: it springs from a cause. You can't assassinate or conquer a cause with military force; if you remove one leader, another will spring up in his place. The way to deal with a diffuse threat like international terrorism (assuming you've already been too stupid to avoid provoking it by providing the cause in the first place) is with a diffuse defense like an armed and independent citizenry. (Do you hear of terrorist attacks on Switzerland? No? Me neither. There are two reasons for that: first, they don't go around sticking their noses in other people's business and pi$$ing them off; second, they all have guns.) We are in something of a jam in this country, because we A) have already pi$$ed off the bad guys, and B) we have a mostly-disarmed citizenry that is heavily dependent on a burgeoning government. However, sending the military out to make even more folks angry enough to sponsor or join the terrorists isn't the answer.

It's interesting to watch the Bush administration at work, because governments learn very, very slowly, if at all, and it's likely that the sort of grand strategy the US military uses against international terrorism in foreign countries will be roughly the same as that it will use against citizen militias in this country when the time comes. One can watch and learn. Tanks and artillery and aircraft aren't much use against them, but a persistent and well-connected network of "pockets of resistance" can really harsh their mellow.


We have very different perspectives. In its current incarnation and employment, I think the US military endangers me much more than it protects me. I've said it before: my individual liberties are in much more danger from Baby Bush than from Saddam Hussein. Hussein has never so much as tickled a single one of my liberties; Bush, on the other hand, created the Department of Homeland Security and signed the USA PATRIOT Act--and started the biggest unprovoked war of naked aggression since Abraham Lincoln. And now he's effectively colonized a Middle Eastern country full of angry Muslims.

Does that make you feel safe?


Yup--different perspectives. I don't believe I exist to serve my government; I believe the government exists to serve me--that is, to secure my unalienable rights, deriving its just powers only from my consent. (Pop quiz: do you know where those words come from?) And it's been doing a pi$$-poor job of that lately, while extorting from me enough money every year to buy a nice car or a large safe full of guns. So if I owe any gratitude or loyalty to the US government, then yes: I guess I do have a lot to learn about gratitude and loyalty.


Just as the Gestapo and the Schuetzstaffel did, you mean? I know: that's what I figured.

Much as I hate to agree with Barak, I think you're way off the mark when you say;



Last time I checked, everyone in the military takes an oath "to defend and protect the Constution of the United States against all ememies, foreign and domestic." Any order that violates the Constitution violates that oath. Therefore it's an illegal order and need not be obeyed. Just because someone is a "duly elected official" doesn't mean that they're not a domestic enemy and therefore can't be in violation of the Constitution. Just how far do you think Al Gore, Chuck Shumer and Diane Feinstein will go to protect your rights. They all are or have been "duly elected officals" and none of them give violating the Constitution a second thought. These days our own Congress is our worst enemy. The current practice in Congress these days is to vote for any bill you support, no matter how shaky the constituional ground that supports that bill and letting the courts sort out whether or not it passed constitutional muster, rather than determining whether or not a bill is constitutional before the vote and refusing to vote for any bill that violates the Constitution no matter how strongly you believe in the cause that supports the bill. But I digress. Bottom line is that any order that would attempt to use the U.S. military forces to subjugate the civillian population of the United States in any way would be an illegal order and every member of the U. S. military would have the right, and the duty, to disobey it. Anything less would be a violation of the oath you swore and the Constitution of the United States. And don't start thinking I don't know what I'm talking about. I took that oath 30 some years ago, and although I may have been released from active service, nothing can release me from that oath.

As far as the rest of your post to Barak goes, give it a rest. He doesn't get it and he'll never get it. If he wants to remain ignorant and selfish in the belief that he and his rights are more important than anyone else's that's his right, and he has as much right to believe that as I have to have to my opinion. He seems to think that he is some sort of intellectual bringing enlightenment to the uneducated masses. That's fine. That's his right. He doesn't have to agree with you or me or anyone else. If you don't understand why he feels that way that's fine too. If you have a problem with it then you need to give some serious thought to what you were serving for all those years and the oath that you took.

Barak,

You seem to have all the answers. Good luck with it. Nothing further. Out.

Paul

Maybe not, but maybe so. I'm not completely close-minded. I am susceptible to reasoned, rational arguments--and I hold up as evidence of that statement the fact that I was once a conservative and am now a libertarian. I became a libertarian specifically because of reasoned, rational arguments--namely, the ones that are quite common in the libertarian camp and somewhat rarer in the conservative camp--at least, in the areas where the two camps disagree.

But barefaced, unsupported assertions ("For my money, the time for dissidence is past") don't impress me. Neither do appeals to emotion ("These are no ordinary people. They willingly bear nearly any burden in the effort to keep what we as a nation hold most dearly from becoming a distant memory"). Or government-generated, media-approved propaganda ("By attacking Saddam and Iraq...those soldiers are removing a future threat to the citizens of the United States"). Given that I'm autistic, sarcasm ("Yeah, I know that's why Data Programmers are smarter than Soldiers are") is also largely lost on me. And I'm not intimidated by ad hominem ("Even one so callous as you to their contribution should be able to understand...") work.

If you've got something I can sink my teeth into, I'll be glad to take a look at it. But if you don't, then my stubborn refusal to "convert to your religion" may very well be at least as much due to your inability to provide "it" as to my inability to get "it."

Barak, I ain't makeing a fight here, OK. A simple question, how would you feel if all you got from your job was a paycheck? No well done or nice work, just once in awhile? The military is not like a civilian job, you can't just quit and move on if you feel unappreciated, underpaid, over worked, ET AL. It is a contractual position with few options. What is wrong with a little support or pat on the back once in awhile? What does it cost?

This I do not understand. If all I got out of my career path was a paycheck and no satisfaction or appreciation of my efforts, I would have changed career paths rather rapidly given the option. Civy side we have that option, in the Military you have to fulfill you contract or even civilian employment will forever be screwed after you get out.

For the benefit of those who don't understand or are not familiar with that small word that has a large meaning:

autism, self-absorption, especially extreme withdrawal into fantasy, autistic

I think that Barak has just explained a lot and has also given us the bottom line as far as he is concerned.

I don't think I could fight with you, my friend. I hope they never send you after my guns, because it'd be awfully tough for me to refuse you.


What a strangely apropos question. That's exactly the situation in which I find myself at the moment--and not only that, but I'm being used to do lots of work which is professionally beneath me: somebody being paid a quarter of what I make could do it just as well as I can.

And here's my answer--a quote from Mr. Horse of the Ren & Stimpy Show: "Nosir, I dooooon't like it."

But I do it anyway, and I do it well, because I'm a professional. Suppose I were to do a sloppy job, and defend myself when called on it by saying, "Well, I couldn't really be expected to do any better, because I wasn't getting any recognition or appreciation or emotional support!" I can't say for sure, because I've never tried that, but my suspicion is that I wouldn't stay employed very long.


It has occurred to me, believe me. If the job market were a little better for digitheads, I would undoubtedly be somewhere else by now. I wouldn't even mind being in a completely different field, except that I have a family to feed and I'm worth several times more as a software developer as I am as anything else.

Hey--I have kind of a big nose, too. Got any big-nose jokes? And I wear glasses, and baseball caps are really goofy-looking on me. How about it--can you do anything with that?

Or is this just Anything To Avoid a Rational Argument Day in your town?

Thats the easy one, I am one of those folks that WOULD NOT Follow That Order!

As to the rest, I guess we all live by different standards. I am the kind that will get real stupid over principle, I sometimes even fail to give (actually in the past, no longer) a darn where the next paycheck is coming from. I am more interested in the job than the money. And no I am not independently wealthy, I am of rather meger means actually. This by no means says you are wrong in you reasons. I just tend to take action, sometimes without much forethought I am afraid. Thus the differing views on this subject.

Be Well my friend.

Of course you are. I know that. I was just teasing you a little.


I've been known on occasion to do the same sort of thing, but having a job where I get paid ridiculous amounts of money to do dumb makework stuff that nobody really needs or wants, simply to keep me on the payroll in case something they need me for comes along--that's not against my principles. Against my preferences, certainly; but not against my principles.
If the job involved doing something unethical or immoral, then principle would come into play.


Yah, I guess I'm not a particularly impulsive guy, just by nature. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for my wife, I'd be positively boring. (Even more than I am already, I mean.)