MILITARY ATTRACTS VIOLENT LOUTS
- Thread starter Teddy Ruxpin
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
That kinda defeats the entire accusation, doesn't it? The CF may a attract â Å“loutsâ ?, the fact that the CF has standards that need to be met negates the association of â Å“loutsâ ? with CF personnel.
When recruits â ?look after their own self-interestâ ?, that's called â ?being a bladeâ ?, isn't it? Wonder what happens to blades on course?
Sounds to me those who ran the study were right on the money.
My memory of the CF is quite consistent with their results.
I remember our Sgt's at Wainwright BSL asking us why we joined. My answer was.....
The brochures looked cool.
I also remember that many disagreements while I was in were settled with fists rather than words.
5 nights a week in Winnipeg were spent drinking at the Grant Hotel and teaching flat faced civvie types why they shouldn't have a go at us, while we spent 6 nights a week at Sassies in Pet doing the same. ( Sunday night was movie night in the army of the 80's/early 90's.)
Don't shoot the messenger guys.
Matt.
My memory of the CF is quite consistent with their results.
I remember our Sgt's at Wainwright BSL asking us why we joined. My answer was.....
The brochures looked cool.
I also remember that many disagreements while I was in were settled with fists rather than words.
5 nights a week in Winnipeg were spent drinking at the Grant Hotel and teaching flat faced civvie types why they shouldn't have a go at us, while we spent 6 nights a week at Sassies in Pet doing the same. ( Sunday night was movie night in the army of the 80's/early 90's.)
Don't shoot the messenger guys.
Matt.
O.K., O.K., I'll head you off. You can shoot the messenger. The questions those clowns ran were misleading. To an extent anyway. I hate psychologists, and I can't imagine anything more deluded than one who wears bars on his shoulders.
Still, their results aren't perfect, but they do have a point. Most troopies are fairly right wing, oppose nonsense like "Affirmative Action", have a decent and well earned hate on for the mumblies they deal with in the Third World, and are more prone to violence than their civillian peers.
Still, that doesn't mean the average Canadian soldier is reading "Der Sturmer" regardless of what the overeducated verbose mofos who receive goverment grants to be verbose happen to think.
We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence upon those who would do us harm."
Still, their results aren't perfect, but they do have a point. Most troopies are fairly right wing, oppose nonsense like "Affirmative Action", have a decent and well earned hate on for the mumblies they deal with in the Third World, and are more prone to violence than their civillian peers.
Still, that doesn't mean the average Canadian soldier is reading "Der Sturmer" regardless of what the overeducated verbose mofos who receive goverment grants to be verbose happen to think.
We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence upon those who would do us harm."
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
From another thread, but relevant here, I think:
I actually thought, without being too sure why, that 28% was a not bad rate.
I googled â Å“polling response rates" and came up with a few useful hits, including:
From the Pew Research Centre at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=211
And; from the Illinois State Bar Association at: http://www.isba.org/Association/11-15b.htm
I know we would have hoped that our own (disciplined) members would have responded at a higher rate to a 'closed' and internal survey but, it appears to me, they may have been acting just about like everyone else who receives an invitation to comment.
pbi said:
I actually thought, without being too sure why, that 28% was a not bad rate.
I googled â Å“polling response rates" and came up with a few useful hits, including:
From the Pew Research Centre at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=211
And; from the Illinois State Bar Association at: http://www.isba.org/Association/11-15b.htm
I know we would have hoped that our own (disciplined) members would have responded at a higher rate to a 'closed' and internal survey but, it appears to me, they may have been acting just about like everyone else who receives an invitation to comment.
- Reaction score
- 7,389
- Points
- 1,160
The company that supplied the polling data, CROP, is owned by the chap that wrote Fire and Ice. A book that highlights differences between Canada and the US.
This study is much of a sameness.
It seems that the role this company has carved for itself is to find difference. Probably the reason it gets paid. Not much "value" in declaring everything is as you thought it was and these are normal folks doing normal things and thinking just like everybody else.
Looking at the diagrammes, and disadvantaged because no numerical scale is included and no definition of where the crosshairs lie, the most interesting observation to me was in discussing regional differences.
The author went to lengths to point up the differences between regions and yet LFCA, LFAA, LFWA and the Force at large are pretty tightly grouped around the crosshairs and even SQFT, although an outlier, in the absence of numeric indicators may not be as far removed as it seems.
It is possible that differences exist, perhaps even likely. It is also possible that significant statistical differences exist, although that is not evident from the paper. However it is also possible to make too much of minor differences and blow them up resulting in unnecessary schisms.
The one issue I found interesting was the analysis of the recruit pool and its difference to the Force Means. Having said that there is no indication as to how these young prospects differ from their uninterested peers nor is there adequate testing of how they differ from accepted recruits on day one, after a year, after 3 years.... Unless you follow a cohort through the system it is difficult to make inferences on either the raw material or the impact of the system on the raw material and how that influences outcomes.
I also found interesting the use of untested words to describe conclusions on values. For example, "maturity". The authors seem to agree that "maturity" is a good thing but it is undefined. It was not a "value" that was tested in a "values" survey and yet the authors speculate that a lack of it may explain the attitudes of youngsters inside and outside the forces and that as they become more "mature" they will likely become more "tolerant". I am not sure that follows.
On the issue of discipline in LFWA it states that because more LFWA members report more incidences of indiscipline therefore there are more discipline issues in LFWA. Something of a logical circuit there. The inference is that LFWA is less disciplined. It could as easily be argued, from this data, that LFWA is less tolerant of indiscipline and thus less of a discipline problem. That would seem to mesh with the notion of them and the SQFT and the LFAA being intolerant compared to those paragons of tolerance in "Toronto's Army" ;D.
I think the study is a useful exercise and can supply some interesting discussion points but, as usual, it doesn't warrant getting knickers in a twist over some headline writer's desire to sell papers by generating a sensational headline.
Cheers.
This study is much of a sameness.
It seems that the role this company has carved for itself is to find difference. Probably the reason it gets paid. Not much "value" in declaring everything is as you thought it was and these are normal folks doing normal things and thinking just like everybody else.
Looking at the diagrammes, and disadvantaged because no numerical scale is included and no definition of where the crosshairs lie, the most interesting observation to me was in discussing regional differences.
The author went to lengths to point up the differences between regions and yet LFCA, LFAA, LFWA and the Force at large are pretty tightly grouped around the crosshairs and even SQFT, although an outlier, in the absence of numeric indicators may not be as far removed as it seems.
It is possible that differences exist, perhaps even likely. It is also possible that significant statistical differences exist, although that is not evident from the paper. However it is also possible to make too much of minor differences and blow them up resulting in unnecessary schisms.
The one issue I found interesting was the analysis of the recruit pool and its difference to the Force Means. Having said that there is no indication as to how these young prospects differ from their uninterested peers nor is there adequate testing of how they differ from accepted recruits on day one, after a year, after 3 years.... Unless you follow a cohort through the system it is difficult to make inferences on either the raw material or the impact of the system on the raw material and how that influences outcomes.
I also found interesting the use of untested words to describe conclusions on values. For example, "maturity". The authors seem to agree that "maturity" is a good thing but it is undefined. It was not a "value" that was tested in a "values" survey and yet the authors speculate that a lack of it may explain the attitudes of youngsters inside and outside the forces and that as they become more "mature" they will likely become more "tolerant". I am not sure that follows.
On the issue of discipline in LFWA it states that because more LFWA members report more incidences of indiscipline therefore there are more discipline issues in LFWA. Something of a logical circuit there. The inference is that LFWA is less disciplined. It could as easily be argued, from this data, that LFWA is less tolerant of indiscipline and thus less of a discipline problem. That would seem to mesh with the notion of them and the SQFT and the LFAA being intolerant compared to those paragons of tolerance in "Toronto's Army" ;D.
I think the study is a useful exercise and can supply some interesting discussion points but, as usual, it doesn't warrant getting knickers in a twist over some headline writer's desire to sell papers by generating a sensational headline.
Cheers.
Kirkhill said:
The thing is, I've read part of Fire and Ice and I like the book. There are cultural differences. However, some Canadians just want their own country...suggesting all Canadians are pacifists and all Quebeckers are more pacifist than those in other parts of Canada makes me think it is possible to read too much into survey data. In a democracy there are varying opinions.
Canadians shouldn't have to prove they are different from the U.S. to justify Canada's existence.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I guess I'm more violent then the average Canadian, I want to punch the person who wrote that report in the face ;D
But seriously though, alot of that report made it sound like they want the military to only hire a bunch of liberal nutcases. I take it from the fact they criticize soldiers for not being liberal enough, ex. opposing affirmative action, traditionalists, etc.
But seriously though, alot of that report made it sound like they want the military to only hire a bunch of liberal nutcases. I take it from the fact they criticize soldiers for not being liberal enough, ex. opposing affirmative action, traditionalists, etc.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I wonder whether its the company doing the survey at all....After all no one has yet to see the actual survey...And if I remember correctly, when I was in any survey or request for information that was handed out to the troopies was usually thrown away or completed half-heartedly with the intention of denying information in the hopes of avoiding this very situation...The "boys" know what the media do with this kind of thing!
As for the press...I have little doubt that there are just a few bad apples who make the lot of them look like they are out for the CF. But those "few" in the media have truely taken statistical information and turned it into another slag of the Armed Forces. Its not going to accomplish anything except to stir controversy...Which is excactly what the "few" in the media want!
They should feel ashamed of course, but that's like asking career criminals to suddenly mend their evil ways and go into flower arranging. Probably not going to happen in this lifetime.
Feeling truely disgusted with the media (as usual)
Slim
As for the press...I have little doubt that there are just a few bad apples who make the lot of them look like they are out for the CF. But those "few" in the media have truely taken statistical information and turned it into another slag of the Armed Forces. Its not going to accomplish anything except to stir controversy...Which is excactly what the "few" in the media want!
They should feel ashamed of course, but that's like asking career criminals to suddenly mend their evil ways and go into flower arranging. Probably not going to happen in this lifetime.
Feeling truely disgusted with the media (as usual)
Slim
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm usually not a huge fan of "the media" because i dont agree with some of their practises, but in their defense, if the public didnt want to read it, they wouldnt print it. Public interest drives the media to do the stories they do. If you want better stories or stories about certain things, hound a reporter for awhile, or else write your own stuff and try to get it published. I think this study is crap and if i was a reporter i would have refused to write a story on it, but it is public information and somewhere out there someone wants to know this information.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
mdh said:
I think you'll find that if you were to give something like this the dignity of a response it would only aid the other side in drawing attention to the survey in question...Possibly opening the door for more of the same.
We have a PAFO on site here and what they say is that the best thing to do is to just ride it out, instead of trying to justify or defend yourself. Remember that the media control whjat gets printed and if the CF jumped into that can of worms there would be no end to the whole mess.
Short answer; the CF treats this sort of thing with exactly what it deserves...Which is not to even condnsider it important or serious enough to respond to.
Slim
mdh
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Slim/Kirkhill
You raise some good points, but I would argue that it is important to respond - reputations can die the death of a thousand cuts, and I fear that's especially true for the CF these days.
In the battle for public opinion we need to challenge every story that distorts the CF's record and gives inaccurate or misleading information. (The CP piece in question ran all over the country since CP is a national wire service - which often serves small communities as well.)
It may seem that the media doesn't want to consider other viewpoints, but by writing a letter to the editor or (even better) having a PAFFO from NDHQ call and challenge the reporter's accuracy does make a difference over the long run (IMHO).
It could also have been refuted on the CF website, (which right now is little more than a piffle sheet.)
And although I don't like to use too many comparisons to the US, the Pentagon does a very good job in challenging reporters all the time - do they always succeed? No. But they don't always fail either and that's why I would argue that no response - in the public's eye - can often be seen as a validation of the story, ie the reporter must be right because the CF didn't do or say anything.
A strategy of no response may seem to work - this time - but next time it may easily turn into a bigger (and ugilier) story. I think the Navy learned that lesson when it was accused of a coverup in the HMCS Chicoutimi investigation, and it let the story slide for over a week before they finally did something about it - and when they did put out their version of events, the story died.
The only mitigating factor in all this - (which I've noted in my previous rants on the subject
) - is that there may be a lot of internal politics at work that makes it tough for a more proactive response.cheers, mdh
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
hahaha Louts,
I love old words that are being reintroduced again, I give kudos to the paper for that....
Hmm God forbid a natural trait ingrained in our very being. That has existed since we lived in caves and painted on the walls. Maybe the expectation is to have a bunch of loner individuals, void of all feeling and towing the party line.
And this quality is not demonstrated by any other citizen, I suppose. If they were to have us believe that, then the whole nation would be serving members of our military.
Hehehe yes, and it is a good thing that we do not have billboards, trademark symbols, and malls full of army gear! Otherwise we would have an even more greater influence on the youth of today.
oi vey,
tess
I love old words that are being reintroduced again, I give kudos to the paper for that....
Hmm God forbid a natural trait ingrained in our very being. That has existed since we lived in caves and painted on the walls. Maybe the expectation is to have a bunch of loner individuals, void of all feeling and towing the party line.
And this quality is not demonstrated by any other citizen, I suppose. If they were to have us believe that, then the whole nation would be serving members of our military.
Hehehe yes, and it is a good thing that we do not have billboards, trademark symbols, and malls full of army gear! Otherwise we would have an even more greater influence on the youth of today.
oi vey,
tess
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Thank the gods! The military is still doing it right! Even in our kinder, gentler age we are starting with:
OTTAWA -- Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years.
Yes, we should screen, and keep as many of these as we can find. The army has been turning agressive young men (and women) with the desire to make something of themselves, and be part of something greater than themselves into the finest soldiers in the world, for longer than any of us has been alive. That the soldiers outside of Quebec felt that the highest calling was to fight to defend Canada indicates that however weak in manpower, however poor in equipment, Canada retains an army that recalls its purpose is to fight in defence of the nation that birthed them. Violence to acheive ends, the use of deadly force in the pursuance of foreign policy as mandated by our civilian leadership. Tell us where to stand, who to fight, then get the hell out of the way.
I am dissapointed, but unsurprised that the Quebecois still are as insular as ever, and that the Franco troops on the whole placed warfighting so low on their priority list. I served in the Line troops with many fine Quebecois linemen, and they, individually were as gung-ho as any of us, its just sad to see that they were the exception.
OTTAWA -- Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years.
Yes, we should screen, and keep as many of these as we can find. The army has been turning agressive young men (and women) with the desire to make something of themselves, and be part of something greater than themselves into the finest soldiers in the world, for longer than any of us has been alive. That the soldiers outside of Quebec felt that the highest calling was to fight to defend Canada indicates that however weak in manpower, however poor in equipment, Canada retains an army that recalls its purpose is to fight in defence of the nation that birthed them. Violence to acheive ends, the use of deadly force in the pursuance of foreign policy as mandated by our civilian leadership. Tell us where to stand, who to fight, then get the hell out of the way.
I am dissapointed, but unsurprised that the Quebecois still are as insular as ever, and that the Franco troops on the whole placed warfighting so low on their priority list. I served in the Line troops with many fine Quebecois linemen, and they, individually were as gung-ho as any of us, its just sad to see that they were the exception.
And what part of the article do you want them to refute? From all the articles I read on this issue (aside from the piece from Scott Taylor that I read this morning) all the information came directly from the survey. So what exactly is it that you want DND to say about it? I just don't understand why this article is so upsetting to you.
Similar threads
