Derek 2.0

Of course you'd create a third person civilian organization, that it would be powerless and have no jurisdiction over serving members, as already pointed out to you, doesn't appear to mater........just as long as something appears to happen, that nothing will result of it doesn't mater....

Perhaps, but maintaining numerous brands beyond profitability didn't help the bottom line, regardless of the unions. Likewise the introduction of numerous sub-par models and poor build standards. Furthermore, GM and Mopar both ceded ground in various categories, be it through poor marketing, over capacity in plants resulting in loss leaders etc and failure to keep ahead of the styling trend......

Indeed, TDPS is not one to run afoul with, much like the iconic Rangers before them...likewise the Dallas county Sheriffs. Going forward, any soon to be known acquaintances had best leave the State yesterday.......Texans love manhunts just as much as they love Jesus and Friday, Saturday and Sunday Football...

Indeed.......one of the most iconic in Texas:

Odd that........namely since Colion Noir is one of the NRA's most popular spokesperson (along with Julie Golob), only eclipsed by Heston and perhaps Selleck...........

Far be it for me to defend unions, likewise, I've owned GM products exclusively since the later 1970s, but anyone who does not believe the Big Three's management didn't make poor choices for the last several decades, resulting in the companies poor state and later bankruptcy, is delusional.......

You stated: As I said, your statement is unfounded, and is akin to if I stated 17.8% of teachers abuse their First Nations students, likewise that instances of teacher abuse of FN students has not decreased for several generations........I wouldn't have to prove anything, but most would understand when I was asked to, and I refused, that I'd likely be talking out of my arse.... I believe 1/5th of male teachers continue to abuse First Nations students.......I can't prove it, nor do I have anything to base my claim on, other then what I've heard a few retired teachers say at a pub, but there you go. Fair enough I little fast and lose with the actual story there: I personally find it rather slimy to imply, using Goddard's quote out of context, that said alleged crimes happened among Canadians (which they didn't)........

And perhaps you should cite the source of those figures........as they were first suggested by Macleans, but not exactly cited, and later not confirmed by the Deschamps investigation. Likewise, you refer to the incidents as "sexual assaults", when such figures also included "sexual misconduct", which is also defined by Military law as sexual relationships between differing ranks or relations with a married member and sexual "harassment" which is also inclusive of someone being called a nasty name, or someone hearing someone else called a nasty name....... Since you've decided to get personal, by all means explain how my attitudes are faulty, contrasted when you use unfounded figures and proclaim unfounded opinions as fact........you suggest changes never happen, prove it.....What were the figures associated to the Forces pre 1988, the year the Forces first introduced policies surrounding harassment, versus additional measures included and further defined in 1993, 1995 and 2000........ If you actually feel the corporate climate of the Canadian Forces was not changed after the Somalia inquiry, by all means prove it! Why would the Government be critical of Lawson? Lawson commissioned the inquiry into his Department..... Again, Lawson commissioned the inquiry into his own department..........how is that not doing his job?

Segregation based on sex (or sexual orientation), race, religion or creed has not and is not the solution....Properly instilled cohesiveness from the onset, combined with clearly outlined guidelines and enforcement is the only way forward. There are already channels for victims of abuse (like any modern workplace) and misconduct which should be further advertised among joining members at CFLRS and enforced. Clearly there is no place for such behavior in a modern military, likewise any of those in unit leadership roles that quite such misconduct up in house or ship trouble makers off to another unit (This was learned with the Canadian Airborne Regiment) in the hopes of others "sorting out" bad behavior types.......nowadays, grave misconduct of any kind is a sure fire way to have ones career given the Stop, Drop and Boot treatment......and criminal charges if need be. Inversely to that though, problems can't be addressed if they're not reported through the chain of command. Likewise, as mentioned, some portion of said misconduct can also be frivolous.......foul language and dark humor are a job requirement and should not be treated as misconduct, fore if a person's tolerance level to such things is low to the point that they feel abused, a career choice in which one could get seriously hurt or killed isn't for them...... The Canadian Forces does not require bad apples nor delicate flowers...... The picture you're painting is not apt in a modern military, one likely gleamed from the movies or tv, as any effective force requires discipline......without it, all you have is a well armed mob.

No, in the OP, he's accepted the majority on principle. For example, many of the recommendations won't only involve current CF policy regarding harassment, but also the Criminal Code and the National Defense Act, all roadblocks facing an outside agency. For example, someone going outside of the Chain of Command to a third party civilian group complaining about crude language could be brought up charges under the National Defence Act. Likewise the varying requirements to discharge a military member versus a civilian employee, with it currently being easier to discharge a Bde Commander versus a civilian clerk. Also, there are valid concerns over allowing a third party process devoid of filing a formal compliant (with all the ensuing legal ramifications), ala Trudeau's recent booting of two Liberal MP sans the ability to mount a legal defense. Then what you've seen and heard is very limited, as it is not a valid characterization of the Canadian Forces as whole and is akin to painting the entire CBC with a wide brush over the alleged actions of Jian Ghomeshi and the inaction of several of his superiors........ You may find lingering attitudes akin to what you describe from within the Combat Arms in the Army, but Forces wide, not a chance........... Jingoistic perhaps, but far from misogynistic.........I feel, and have said before when the topic has arisen, the lowering of some entry standards, both physical and mental, have resulted in a great disservice to the Forces as a whole. That is not to condone actual sexual assault or abuse (including verbal), of which such offenses are not tolerated (when reported), but I question how many instances of the reported "misconduct" are the use of foul language and off colour humor, no different then what is found in a locker room or construction site....... In essence, how many of these cases of "misconduct" could have been prevented if the Canadian Forces returned standards to what discouraged the "faint of Heart" and skiddish.......Man or Women.

You mean in the same force with a Black chief of police and a Black Mayor, on the outskirts of Washington DC where the Black President lives?

From your link:

Just where exactly did I condone (or condemn) the actions (or inactions) of these members of the Baltimore Police Department? My condemnation in this thread was reserved for those that suggest the riots are a precursor to change and that the monolithic State was losing control of the populace........ Sure.....what of it? In this example, State actors have broken the contract, as a result the State has charged those involved........ What is stupid, is those that feel this will result in diminished powers afforded to the State by Society.......So stupid in fact, that most will tune your arguments out (even though you might make some valid points) or find them exceedingly banal to the point of vapid........Remember when the "youth" were going to bring forth change by "Occupying" city parks? How did that work out?

Why do you consider relaying themes form Leviathan to be "all over the place"? Hobbes's England had a division of powers, of which a civil war was fought to maintain, with Hobbes himself siding with Cromwell and Parliament.....hence, 17th century England had a division of power, like the United States does today.........Hobbes is hardly antithetical to the US Constitution, as the drafters of such applied the political philosophies of the day in its creation, of which Hobbes was key.......look no further than Hobbes writings on the Rights of the individual and the requirement of a social contract between the ruler and the ruled. ----- To return to the point, civil society sacrifices individual liberties to the State in exchange for protection from anarchy, hence society fears more their fellow man than a controlling State........if or when this is no longer the case, society replaces the State, like the English did with Charles I, then the United States did with George the III etc........inversely, a small minority of Baltimore "liberating" Malt Liquor and Kools from the local corner stores does not translate into society's overthrow of the State.....

As to the logo itself, it (vaguely) reminds me of the Centennial logo:

Or they're doing what the Department has been doing for decades, running a contest aimed at Canada's youth with a monetary reward, with the aim of promoting Canadian culture......

The Government "made up the meaning" after the fact? Going forward, should I wear my ALCAN hat?

I never suggested that we did.........But (to steer this slightly back on topic), the framers of the United States Constitution based the then new nations legal system on English Common Law, the "division" of the Crown, Parliament and Justices, as a result of the English Civil War.......a civil war fought unto the division of power away from a solitary Monarch.....or President.

The same asked of the 150 fund, could be asked of everything else the Department of Canadian Heritage funds.....the Arts, sports and the promotion of our values around the World etc... I suppose the department could be cut (or axed), but the political backlash isn't worth it for any Government......

Ahhh....no:

What of them? They lost the contest.........

Ahhhh.....no, perhaps you should read it, in this, case Book II, chapters 16-20......of which, Hobbes describes the relationship social contract between the Sovereign and the Commonwealth......funny enough, his description still survives today:

The art student that won the design contest received $5000..........If the Government had given a private design firm a contract, people would be bitching & moaning about that....... I'm sure the young lady that did win, and her family, are very proud.....

What are you talking about? Hobbes' theories transposed English Restoration, with Hobbes in the Roundhead/Cromwell camp, a period of time when England very much so had a "division of powers".....Of course Ole King Chuck the 1st thought different and lost his head over the misunderstanding. .

Ad Hominem? Red Herring? Then what is this: ? I don't know that your "argument" is really that, but rather an irrational fallacy drenched in illogical fear........ What sections of the USC are at odds with "Hobbesian theory"? I'm interested in your views, as both my understanding of Hobbes and the US Constitution is rather contrary to your belief: Reads like Hobbes.......... More violent and more frequent? Thats subjective, as the late 1960s and early 1970s run counter to your narrative.......