"The thing about Condoleezza Rice is that I don't like Condoleezza but like Susan. Vice versa for you. Sort of funny how our biases effect our judgements of people."

Just to set the record straight. You said you hated Condoleezza. I said that I thought the situation was mishandled and questioned why she hit the media circuit with information that wasn't vetted yet. Just so happens that the info she communicated takes the heat off the administration close to an election and puts the blame on a video director. I'm sure Susan Rice has done some good things, but when looking at this situation she did a poor job. In politics you don't get promoted when you make blunders and I'm sure we have several other very qualified people to fulfill the position.

I'm not proposing go hire a republican for Sec of State. I'm saying she doesn't appear to be the best candidate, so pick someone else. Yes another democrat. Yet you defend all democrats to the bitter end and think they do no wrong. Sort of funny how you see me criticize both parties, but lean more independent/conservative. However I only see you lean left.

@ Tom-
Well, one problem is that it is difficult to separate “Pashtun” from “profoundly ignorant” as a demographic in Afghanistan. Not to say that all Pashtuns are ignorant, of course, but almost all of the ones fighting for the Taliban are. They can’t even read the Quran- they are illiterate, so they get told about the Quran by others. They believe every conspiracy theory and bit of Taliban propaganda that they hear. They are thus very easily manipulated, because they believe in that doctrine that non-Muslims are untrustworthy (and cannot be a witness in a trial, for instance). They believe that we are out to destroy Islam. I guess what I’m saying is that it isn’t really the Pashtuns per se who fight for the Taliban- rather, it is the ignorant who fight for the Taliban, and most Pashtuns fall into that category, and maybe the ones who actually know better then find it hard to act against their fellow tribesmen, etc. This also holds for Nuristanis, who as a group make Pashtuns look well-read.

I have a war story I like to tell-

“The Solution is Prosperity”, remember? So the U.S. had this policy of supporting development, and a popular project was installing micro-hydro plants in remote villages. During my 2007 deployment in Naray (now FOB Bostick) our FOB radio station sent a message to the elders of a remote village near there- I can’t remember the name so I’ll say Shahmasur- that they wanted to talk to them about a micro-hydro plant and discuss any other needs they had. So, over the span of a month or so we had two different groups of men, who were clearly too young to be elders, show up claiming to be the elders from Shahmasur. The first group didn’t even look Nuristani. But, whatever- we showed them around, talked about medical support, and had the development guys give them the spiel on microhydro, gave them a halal meal, and sent them on their way. After doing this twice, finally a group of older grey-bearded Nuristanis showed up claiming to be the REAL elders from Shahmasur. After giving them the dog-and-pony show as well, we asked what the deal was with the prior two groups. They said that the Taliban had told them that the offer of the micro-hydro plant was a trick, and that anyone who showed up to discuss it would be tortured to learn where their women and land and possessions were, then killed so we could go take all of it. So, they first sent a group of Gojers and a group of local troublemakers. If we killed them, no loss.

Follow-up story: So, this made me wonder “what is a Gojer?” I’d never heard of them. I asked our interpreter and he got visibly angry and said that the Gojers had come to Nuristan to steal the land, and that everybody hated them. Which I guess would explain why they sent them first, but, really, “they came to steal the land”? So I googled when I got the chance and found out that the Gojers are descended from a tribe from India that had invaded Afghanistan in the 1200s or something, and the Nuristanis have been nursing that grudge for 800 years or so.

Oh, and another favorite, though it’s from Iraq not Afghanistan: The British got accused of releasing man-eating badgers in Basra to sow panic. Seriously. Most of Iraq still believes it, despite the predictable UK military response: “"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.” There is a strong tradition of believing conspiracy theories throughout the Muslim world, not just in Afghanistan.

But, to get back on track, most of the more ignorant anti-coalition Afghans do believe the propaganda that we came to rape their women, steal their stuff, and take their land. Which is all laughable, of course. 1) I don't want to sound bigoted or condescending or anything, but, I wouldn’t touch the average Pashtun woman on a dare- they tend towards unshaved and malodorous in ways that profoundly conflict with western ideals of femininity. I know- rape isn't about attractiveness. But I'm not a rapist. 2) What that they have could I possibly want? They are too poor to have garbage. Seriously, they are so poor that everything gets used- they line their houses with used cardboard as insulation, for instance. 3) If I owned Hell and Afghanistan, I’d live in Hell and rent out Afghanistan.

So, maybe that does constitute a perception of “invasion.” I dunno- that culture is so alien to me that I hesitate to make assumptions. My impressions could very well be sampling bias, too. Every Pashtun I’ve spoken with seemed rational, but heck if they thought I might set them on fire and rape their mother they might have been feeding me platitudes. FWIW the Dari-speakers as a general rule are better educated, and also tend to support the coalition. Just about everyone but the Pashtuns and Nurstanis support us, as a rule. When we tell THEM that we really just want to squash the Taliban, maybe help increase security a bit, and then LEAVE SKID MARKS on our way out of the country… they get scared. That’s basically everyone who doesn’t live near the Pakistani border (and even a lot who do). My interpreter during my 2011 deployment is a great example- he's from a town that is an island of Dari speakers in a Pashtun sea. Great guy- I sent him a care package of diapers and other trifles for when his wife delivered this summer. If he ever needs a reference to immigrate I'll send him one.

Anyway, even WITH the conflict going on now, he says things are better than they were under the Taliban. He is one of several Afghan who I have heard wishing for the U.S. to stay as long as possible.

So, really, I think it’s MOSTLY about poverty, though their ignorance and belief in the Taliban propaganda potentiates this. As I said, most of those fighting the coalition are desperately poor and are paid to do so, even the ignorant masses who buy into the propaganda. Oh, and to boot they are promised that their families will get even more money if they are killed. Estimates of the number of actual Taliban cadre in the country have never been above the low-hundreds since the initial invasion. The rest are paid fighters or belong to groups only tenuously allied with the Taliban, such as the Haqqani Network. Most of those are just warlords or gang leaders who use the “eject the crusaders” thing to get funds and weapons from the Taliban. We don’t even call these groups Taliban- we call them ACM (Anti-Coalition Militia). Heck, they regularly have fallings-out with the Taliban and proceed to kill one another for a while. (Which is always amusing- their assassination techniques deserve a certain morbid appreciation.)

Rage at perceived civilian casualties? Well, IMO like a lot of rage in the Muslim world I think it's really just a baseline rage, not really rage ABOUT anything. The stifling society of the Muslim world produces a LOT of Angry Young Men, who basically take any excuse to misbehave a bit, up to and including things like lynching those UN workers in RC-North when those bigoted morons at Westboro Baptist were acting up. The Muslim perception of "humiliation"- which is VERY important to them- at being bullied by the western world also contributes. (As does, I am quite certain, simple sexual frustration.) So, similarly, every report of civilian casualties is used as an excuse to hit the streets and blow off steam. Do you think a Hazara goatherd CARES if a Pashtun woman gets blown to bits in a strike on a convoy? Hell no! OTOH, of course, if your cousin or brother get killed that very well might radicalize one. In fact, it starts an immediate blood-feud. (One of the reasons that the U.S. goes to such lengths to avoid such casualties, and to make right in whatever way they can when they do occur.) So, yes, I'm certain that at various points someone has shot at Americans in retaliation, but most of them probably considered themselves as seeking revenge for a killing, not a jihadi. Hell, we've captured people who have flat out told us that they were avenging the death of a relative, sometimes even avenging the deaths of a relative who were killed attacking Americans in the first place. But Badal is a way of life there. Literally- it's a tenet of Pashtunwali.

Nonetheless, I don't think I can answer intelligently if the perception of massive civilian casualties pushes more Pashtuns toward accepting the AK-47 and $300. I think it's more of a source of anger that is unleashed in the Afghan media and political arena than anything else, and the Taliban absolutely play on that, but the culture is so alien to me that I wouldn't trust my impressions very far. I've also had Afghans tell me stuff like "they were stupid- they should know better than to be near there" regarding some incidents of civilian casualties. Eh. Wish I could be more helpful.

Edited by acrosome on 11/19/2012 13:40:22 MST.

"However I only see you lean left"

The main problem right now is the pendulum has gone way right - we have the best government money can buy which is even worse with the Citizens United case, the super rich pay only 15% tax rate, big corporations pay even less, the richest people have a bigger share of the economic pie, fewer people are members of labor unions, federal regulations have been reduced,...

There's more to be critical of on the right

"fewer people are members of labor unions"

I can agree with some of the other things, but fewer unions are a great thing. They serviced a great purpose during the early 1900's, but today they are only a hindrance. We have plenty of regulations to protect workers rights.

Can you show me your source for fewer federal regulations? I show federal employment growing by 13% since Dec 2007 according to USA Today. If we are reducing regulations then I would think we would see a decrease in employment.

Glass Stiegel abolished, only partially re-instated, we will probably have another financial collapse if they don't fix this, we have even more derivatives than during the crash

Fracking is exempt from federal regulations

The regulators were corrupted which contributed to that BP oil spill in the gulf, I don't know if something needs to be fixed

If fewer people are in unions, then middle calss income will be less, which is a bad thing

In the "right to work" states that have fewer unions, the middle class gets paid less, which is a bad thing

if the middle class makes more, then they'll spend more, and the economy will be better. If more income is concentrated in the super rich, then the economy will stagnate - like we got right now.

"This also holds for Nuristanis, who as a group make Pashtuns look well-read."

Ah, the irony of it all. Nuristan means land of light. ;0)

"the Gojers are descended from a tribe from India that had invaded Afghanistan in the 1200s or something, and the Nuristanis have been nursing that grudge for 800 years or so."

Pretty much like West Asia in general. I think it was Santana who said those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it. I also think from time to time that those who cannot forget history are also doomed to repeat it. There must be a middle ground in there somewhere. I sure hope so, because the future is looking pretty grim otherwise.

"If I owned Hell and Afghanistan, I’d live in Hell and rent out Afghanistan."

To whom? ;0]

"Wish I could be more helpful."

For me, you are being quite helpful indeed. I have followed the war in Afghanistan from afar since the beginning, and also spent a couple weeks there back in 1966, but that alone leaves me with precious little in the way of real information to go on. So, I appreciate any first hand information I can get my hands on. While I suspect you are a bit off track in some of your conclusions, others ring true, based on my own first hand experience in Iraq/Iran. In any case, I am far more interested in listening to, and thinking about, what you have to say, than in debating, so I hope you will continue to share your experiences to the extent it is comfortable for you. Thanks for taking the time!

"but we do have something called the first amendment rights that protect his freedom of speech. No matter how vile his message he still has that right."

There is a well established limit to the First Amendment usually expressed as its not applying to crying fire in a crowded movie theater. For obvious reasons. The produce of the movie is an Egyptian Coptic emigrant, who knew perfectly well that the movie would cause rioting in the Muslim world, with predictably deadly consequences. This is not a case of some pimple faced teenagers deciding to make a movie about Muhammad after smoking a few too many doobies in the basement. IMO, he was in clear violation of the above mentioned restriction on free speech. His movie is a text book example of why that limitation on the First Amendment exists, but probably it wouldn't have mattered if it was just a bunch of Muslims that got killed. Funny thing happened on the way to the forum, though: 4 Americans got killed, too, and all of a sudden it matters big time. I wish they'd prosecute him based on violating the restriction on the First Amendment, and establish a precedent that would deter such cynical behavior in the future, no matter who the victims are or where they happen to live.

So no source for reduced regulation as you pointed out. Just your opinion then.

"Glass Stiegel abolished, only partially re-instated, we will probably have another financial collapse if they don't fix this, we have even more derivatives than during the crash"

Democrats and republicans both voted for Glass and I agree it is a problem but don't blame that just on republicans

"If fewer people are in unions, then middle calss income will be less, which is a bad thing"

Proof please.

"In the "right to work" states that have fewer unions, the middle class gets paid less, which is a bad thing"

Couple things:
- Wages might be higher, but how does it compare to cost of living.
- During recent election how many right to work states voted for democrats and unions
- I'm sure right to work states aspire to be Michigan, Illinois, California etc. What do all those states have in common? State budgets that are out of control, pension obligations they can 't fund, high tax rates, etc
- Unions in the private workforce are less than 7% and you sure don't hear people asking for it. They realize that eventually unions will cost them their job.

You do understand when people make more that you have to charge more for the items they make which causes them to pay more for goods. Why don't people understand that concept.

My dad is 71 and a retired teamster truck driver that votes democrat. He agrees that unions no longer serve a purpose and are not good for business

Edited by wufpackfn on 11/19/2012 18:12:30 MST.

@Tom

Just because someone makes a disgusting video that doesn't give the offended party the right to riot or murder someone. That seems very clear to me. This has nothing to do with the fire in the movie theater protection. Look I'm not justifying what he did nor do I approve of it. Last thing we need is the federal government telling us what is acceptable.

Brad

+1. For the obvious.

"So no source for reduced regulation as you pointed out. Just your opinion then"

No, I gave you three examples, not just opinion.

Another example is there's an oil boom in North Dakota. There are no regulations preventing this.

I agree - Glass Stiegal was abolished with support of Democrats including Clinton who signed it. The problem isn't the two parties, it's the people behind the scenes that are bribing both parties. We need to repeal Citizens United and make political bribes illegal.

And it's just obvious that if employees are allowed to band together they can negotiate higher pay than if they negotiate individually.

There were a couple teachers strikes for higher pay recently that didn't make much sense to me, because the government had such financial problems, so I'll agree unions aren't perfect. And working conditions are much better than early 1900s.

I bet if the oil workers on that platform in the gulf had a strong union they wouldn't have allowed the conditions that led to 11 workers being murdered and the huge oil spill - now that's an opinion : )

I seem to recall at some point in the past mentioning that if all you say about your German relatives are true

Dean, I resent that a lot!!! A LOT! You can talk your head off about whatever you read in books, but my mother was there. And I spent many, many hours over many years talking with my grandparents, my great aunt, all my German relatives, and my mother about all this. All of whom were there. Unlike you. Please do not presume to spill doubt on what my family did with the Jewish relatives in the area of Hannover known as Linden, where many pacifists and socialists gathered before and during the war. My mother's best friend was one of those Jews and she lost her best friend to the concentration camps. She talks about it to this day. But you wouldn't know a thing about that. That's all I'm going to say about this.

"This has nothing to do with the fire in the movie theater protection."

I think you could make a pretty good case because the guy knew exactly would happen.

I could just as well say it's OK to holler fire in a movie theater because nobody has to run for the exits. After all, it's just talk and there's no smell of smoke in the air. Or, perhaps a more current example: What do you think happens to your First Amendment rights if you go around saying somebody should kill The President? I think we both know the answer to that one. First Amendment rights are definitely limited, the only question is where the boundary should be drawn, and I happen to think that when someone exercises them in a way he knows full well will lead to mayhem, he should be held accountable.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree. ;0)

@Jerry

"No, I gave you three examples, not just opinion. "

You said reduction in regulations
- Banking regulations have increased
- Saying fracking has no regulations isn't a reduction just lack of
- BP and corrupt regulators is not a reduction in regulations, but a lack of enforcing regulations

Still don't see a reduction in regulations.

"Another example is there's an oil boom in North Dakota. There are no regulations preventing this."

Again not a reduction. Why don't we let the citizens of North Dakota take care of this. It is their state after all. Maybe the citizens are more willing to forego some regulations for jobs to feed their family. BTW good paying jobs.

"And it's just obvious that if employees are allowed to band together they can negotiate higher pay than if they negotiate individually."

See that is the problem with unions. They are focused on higher pay and benefits for employees, but really don't care about the financial stability of the company. Issues:
- employees want company to invest more in pay and benefits, but they are want the opportunity to leave for a better opportunity.
- If employees can band together then you would be ok with companies banding together to set market then
- How many leading companies operate in a union environment? They are some but not many.
- Again you ignore that hire pay result in higher price goods that consumer have to pay. BTW they don't pay the higher price, they buy from China

"I bet if the oil workers on that platform in the gulf had a strong union they wouldn't have allowed the conditions that led to 11 workers being murdered and the huge oil spill - now that's an opinion : )"

Seems like you just make up this stuff. Do you know anything about platform drilling, safety measures, etc? If not how do you make such a comment. Do you have any idea the safety ratings in oil and gas industry? I'm not an O&G guy, but I spent a decade in manufacturing for a non union shop and I can tell you a few things:
- Safety is a top priority
- OSHA and EPA play a big role
- Some industries have regulators in addition
- Companies are penalized for workers compensation claims, so making sure you have minimal claims and experience rating is very important to cost
- All companies have property/casualty and other insurances for protection. Insurance companies place a lot of emphasis on safety to minimize claims.

Honestly you are so anti-business and think businesses are like the businesses of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Stop reading the media and go take some tours of local businesses.

@Tom

So if Michael Moore makes movie that is very critical of Christians. He knows by making the movie that it will offend them and they will protest, riot and cause mayhem. I can then count on you to say the movie should never be shown and he should be arrested for making such a movie?

@tom

I have a very hard time believing any American can actually believe what you write. Freedom of speech, freedom to criticize, disagree with, argue, etc is so basic to what America is. You can write whatever you want regarding any religion, but not Islam, because they will react violently? Are you for real. By doing that you are promoting sharia law in the US. You are playing into the hand of those in the UN who want to make blasphemy of any kind illegal. BTW it is the Islamic states who are pushing for this the most. Where would western society be today if blasphemy never happened? In fact maybe much more should be done to elicit those reactions. Maybe the reactions will then become muted with repetition. People with that view scare the heck out of me. Maybe I am being a bit harsh, but I want future generations to enjoy the same freedoms we take so much for granted. Maybe that is the problem. We take them so much for granted that we do not realize how they were attained in the first place.

"I can agree with some of the other things, but fewer unions are a great thing. They serviced a great purpose during the early 1900's, but today they are only a hindrance. We have plenty of regulations to protect workers rights."

One might counter that the primary motivation of business, any business, is profit. That notion alone can lead to unethical treatment of employees. I don't know if you've ever studied corporate social responsibility before but it completely changed my mind about business. If you think federal regulation is enough to protect employees nowadays, I must respectfully disagree. The ethics (or lack of) displayed some business' is truly appalling. Walmart is a great example. I recommend you watch a documentary called "Walmart: The high cost of low prices". It's on Netflix if you have that option.


"Can you show me your source for fewer federal regulations? I show federal employment growing by 13% since Dec 2007 according to USA Today. If we are reducing regulations then I would think we would see a decrease in employment."

Not a great example:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/30/regulatory-reform-progress

At least they're working on it?

There might be a correlation between federal employment and the number of regulations, I don't know, but I could just as easily interpret those numbers as additional enforcement of existing regulations. Anecdotally, when I graduated from college in 2009, that was the case. The government was pretty much the only employer hiring at the time. I was hired by home state because they were ramping up revenue generating agencies, not because of new regulations. Also, they had already laid off a number of employees that were being paid "too well", I got hired as a replacement with much reduced benefits and pay in comparison.

"One might counter that the primary motivation of business, any business, is profit. That notion alone can lead to unethical treatment of employees. "

Yes the primary motive of business is to make a profit. That is not a bad thing. Without a profit we have no businesses. Owners invest capital into business and they expect a return on their investment. Employees are resources the company needs to run their business. The relationship is no more than that because employees want the opportunity to move in the marketplace at will. However companies realize that it is in their best interest to treat employees well.

Don't confuse the we have corrupt people or practices in business with unethical treatment of employees. People like to mix the two together. We surely have people that do shady/corrupt things, but that is present throughout society in all walks, not just corporate America. However I would challenge you to prove that the unethical treatment of employees has gotten worse since WWII.

I would suggest instead of looking at corporate propaganda like high price of low cost, that you visit and tour companies in your area. Ask a small business owner to explain his business to you. Join local business organizations to learn more about what is happening in the business world. Get you knowledge first hand instead of from media outlets. If you are ever in my area I would meet with you for a hour and discuss my business.

I basis my comments on my experience:
- Controller for 10 years in a manufacturing company
- 6 years of consulting for another company. I spent my time implementing ERP systems in companies and hospitals
- Last 10 years I have owned my own consulting company and we implement software solution for businesses. I deal with the largest companies in the world as well as mid size companies.

I can tell you that colleges and the media often time paint businesses as the evil enemy. I have spent the last 10 years alone in over 500 companies and can tell you that is not the case. Sure I see companies that have bad cultures and don't treat their employees well. Those are also the companies that are constantly hiring new people because employees move on. However 9 out of 10 times I see very good employee/employer relationships with both parties being valued and respected. However that is not news, so the media has to promote something else that attracts viewers.

Hell, Miguel, I hope you know me well enough to know I wasn't trying to cast asparagements on your family. This also may be the first time I've annoyed someone by calling their relatives "laudable." But since I've never spoken with them myself I kind of have to equivocate in my statements. And I also know for instance that truly miraculous numbers of Frenchmen showed up after liberation claiming to have been in the Resistance- so again I have to equivocate.

If your feelings were hurt you have my sincere apologies, but I'm not going to retract that. I'll merely assure you that you read a LOT more into that phraseology than I had meant for it. In fact I initially suspected that you were just acting indignant to avoid responding to my points, but then remembered that I've gotten you agitated on this issue before, though on a slightly different point. Clearly it's a hot-button issue for you, so I should have been more careful. But, step back from the ledge, Brother!

And I meant what I said- your relatives sound like a noble exception. But EXCEPTION nonetheless, and not the only exception but certainly among RARE exceptions. Even those nests of socialists you mention never performed any useful acts of organized resistance to my knowledge- if you know of any please fill me in- though I just realized that we may have different definitions of "resistance." I'm sort of implying "active" resistance. But to rebut one point you're trying to make: all of the people who were THERE disagree as well- the Germans can't even agree on this issue. Being THERE does not necessarily make one the world expert on something. I was THERE during Desert Storm but that isn't what makes me any kind of authority on broad trends during that conflict. That's what academics are for. Small scale, sure, I'm a primary source.

Not to mention, I must point out that you weren't THERE either, Miguel. You're getting your information second-hand, too.

Anyway, as I said we've argued about this before. But maybe I have to accept that other people are more (for lack of a better word) sensitive on some issues than I, because bringing up the Native American genocide or Japanese-American internment camps wouldn't anger me though I have ancestors who played parts in both of those. (I think...) Hell, both my wife and I have relatives who fought for Germany in the war, though all of mine that I could find are dead, and I even think one was in the Waffen SS. (This is all my father's side, which were more recent immigrants. Also, with a common name like Faust it's kind of hard to trace my maternal side.) And one of my wife's relatives was expelled from Czeckoslovakia and went back to her family in Schwabia- I suspect in the forced migrations you mentioned. I stopped trying to ask her about it because every time I did she'd get an anguished look on her face and stop talking.

So I have relatives who actually did BAD things, as opposed to the GOOD things that you ascribe to your family. And I also have relatives who have suffered. None of us are special in that regard, unfortunately.

But frankly since you live there I'm more interested in your take on the Japanese, in particular my impression that views of the war are finally starting to change, at least among the youth. (I'm much less educated on the Japanese than the Germans.) When the government started relieving people like Toshio Tamogami I think that was a tipping point, too.

Edited by acrosome on 11/20/2012 16:00:19 MST.

Brad

I think the question is, are regulations hurting the economy?

Getting rid of Glass Stiegel was one of the main reasons we had the biggest recession since the 1930s. So that regulation helped the economy, didn't hurt it, and we got rid of it.

I agree that what we replaced it with is more complicated. It's a political compromise. Because there is so much money in politics and all the contributors have to be satisfied. It would be better to just re-instate Glass-Stiegel. We need to get rid of Citizens United.

I agree - BP is unforcement not elimination. But I see little difference between elimination of a regulation and just not enforcing it anymore. If we did away with regulations we would have more oil spills which would be bad for economy.

They specifically exempted fracking from EPA regulations. Again, regulations are not hurting this economic activity.

North Dakota - huge oil boom - no regulations hurting this.

"Seems like you just make up this stuff. Do you know anything about platform drilling, safety measures, etc?..."

I didn't make up the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. If you've looked at the accounts of what happened, there were anomalies that they ignored. If they were so concerned with safety they wouldn't have. They were behind schedule so they just bulled ahead.

"See that is the problem with unions. They are focused on higher pay and benefits for employees, but really don't care about the financial stability of the company."

You have a one sided view. Unions are well aware that if they are given too much the business will go bankrupt.

There are cases where unions made unreasonable demands, and other cases where management made unreasonable demands.

I think the norm is businesses getting along with unions.

If a business and union have a war with each other there's probably blame on both sides.

There's an assymetry between the employer and the employees - there's one employer and many employees. The employer can play the employees off against each other. If the employees band together it evens things out.

If you let many employers band together, then you should also let all their employees band together - but I think that's a bad idea - you want companies to compete with each other.