Hillier: CF "still very much on life support systems"

[MarkOttawa]

A long way to go.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-12T212410Z_01_N12294136_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-DEFENSE-CANADA-COL.XML

Canada's overstretched armed forces "are still very much on life support systems" despite recent budget increases, the country's top soldier said on Thursday.

General Rick Hillier's remarks were clearly aimed at former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was cool to the military and presided over sharp cuts in spending during his time in power from 1993 to 2003.

Canada currently has 2,300 troops in Afghanistan and Hillier said they need more armored vehicles immediately.

Chretien was replaced by fellow Liberal Paul Martin, who upped military spending. Canada's new Conservative government, which won power in January in part on a promise to boost the armed forces, says it will spend C$17 billion ($15 billion) on new helicopters, planes, ships and trucks.

Although Hillier is known for being outspoken, his remarks to the Canadian Association of Defense and Security Industries on Thursday were noticeably blunt.

"We are just starting to emerge from a decade of darkness in the Canadian forces, where everything that we did, every day's activity, all of our focus intellectually and physically (was) designed to constrain, reduce, close, get rid of, stop doing or minimize," Hillier said.

The cuts in both funding and personnel were "incredibly demoralizing" and came at the same time as the remaining troops were being asked to work harder...

Last year the Liberals vowed expand the regular armed forces by 5,000 soldiers to 67,000 over five years. The Conservatives plan to increase that total to 75,000.

"Right now in recruiting centers across our country ... we're seeing twice as many applicants show up as we did this time last year," Hillier said.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[battleaxe]

This article expands on the sorry state of personnel and manning that exists in the CF today.
I've been spending the last few days getting used to the site, perusing the different forums, and generally figuring out how to not repeat topics.
A lot of interesting info in here- a lot of stuff comes up again and again- retaining personnel  being one of the repeated concerns.
When speaking of lack of personnel and underborne trades in the CF, I must admit the one thing that has always floored me is the way DMCARM handles some of its releases.
Just when the CF needs all its corporate knowledge and military expertise, simply to train all the supposed recruits that are going to be flooding into the military, DMCARM is making some fairly asinine decisions on medical releases.

Tell me, is this an Atlantic issue, or is everyone aware of the following cases that have been in the media here? 

One guy- had a bout of kidney stones- then wasn't sick again for 6 years - guy never missed a day of work even when he had the stones.  He was medically discharged just recently- quite involuntarily.

Another guy- 23 years in- had resigned for a longer engagement.  Had stomach problems.  Was sick for awhile but hasn't been sick in two years. Has been well and a biopsy could not confirm Chrohn's - yet he was just released for Crohn's.

If the CF is on life support, why get rid of perfectly well and willing and able individuals?

These examples are of men who are healthy and should not even have been considered for release.  But even if soldiers are injured and disabled , the military should be saying to them, " now you won't be going on deployment, but you're going to teach others how to do so and what to expect when they get there...you still owe us for all the training and you will finish your contract " (if they can work, I'm not heartless).

Many of you may already know my stance on employing medically released CF soldiers - from the Human Rights Commission case thread.

What I would like to know from everyone who is currently serving is this; how many of you would accept a disabled soldier in your workplace and how many would just feel resentful that the disabled one was working without being deployable?  How many would feel that they were just covering the ass of that person?

Many of you have stated that the CF should focus on retention- by that do you mean only deployable ones?  Would you end up resenting the disabled ones that are retained?

A great example of what I am getting at is MCpl Paul Frankln.  Inspiring individual- double amputee, yet currently teaching combat medicine in the military. A wonderful follow up on him was recently featured in the Globe and Mail.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be keeping any and all experience that we can- at least until the CF is up and running with adequate personnel numbers again?

 

[blacktriangle]

This article expands on the sorry state of personnel and manning that exists in the CF today.
I've been spending the last few days getting used to the site, perusing the different forums, and generally figuring out how to not repeat topics.
A lot of interesting info in here- a lot of stuff comes up again and again- retaining personnel  being one of the repeated concerns.
When speaking of lack of personnel and underborne trades in the CF, I must admit the one thing that has always floored me is the way DMCARM handles some of its releases.
Just when the CF needs all its corporate knowledge and military expertise, simply to train all the supposed recruits that are going to be flooding into the military, DMCARM is making some fairly asinine decisions on medical releases.

Tell me, is this an Atlantic issue, or is everyone aware of the following cases that have been in the media here? 

One guy- had a bout of kidney stones- then wasn't sick again for 6 years - guy never missed a day of work even when he had the stones.  He was medically discharged just recently- quite involuntarily.

Another guy- 23 years in- had resigned for a longer engagement.  Had stomach problems.  Was sick for awhile but hasn't been sick in two years. Has been well and a biopsy could not confirm Chrohn's - yet he was just released for Crohn's.

If the CF is on life support, why get rid of perfectly well and willing and able individuals?

These examples are of men who are healthy and should not even have been considered for release.  But even if soldiers are injured and disabled , the military should be saying to them, " now you won't be going on deployment, but you're going to teach others how to do so and what to expect when they get there...you still owe us for all the training and you will finish your contract " (if they can work, I'm not heartless).

Many of you may already know my stance on employing medically released CF soldiers - from the Human Rights Commission case thread.

What I would like to know from everyone who is currently serving is this; how many of you would accept a disabled soldier in your workplace and how many would just feel resentful that the disabled one was working without being deployable?  How many would feel that they were just covering the *** of that person?

Many of you have stated that the CF should focus on retention- by that do you mean only deployable ones?  Would you end up resenting the disabled ones that are retained?

A great example of what I am getting at is MCpl Paul Frankln.  Inspiring individual- double amputee, yet currently teaching combat medicine in the military. A wonderful follow up on him was recently featured in the Globe and Mail.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be keeping any and all experience that we can- at least until the CF is up and running with adequate personnel numbers again?

Yep. Thats the one thing holding me back from picking Reg. force combat arms as a career. More then I fear being wounded, I would fear being medically released while I can still contribute in some way. I have seen many people, including teachers, that are disabled but still manage to do their job just fine. Not always, but often.

The last thing we need are people being released and sent on their way -not  after what the've done for Canada, and what they can still do for the CF.

God bless Mcpl Franklin and those like him!

 

[Petard]

I think you're creeping into the validity of the universality principle, ie if you're not deployable, you're not employable"
I have to agree with it.
With respect to the individual cases you mentioned, on the face of it they seem outrageous that the Forces tossed these good men out. But then again I don't know all the reasons why those particular people got dealt such a s****y card, there might be more to the story.
In any case if what happened was wrong, and it sure seems that it is, then it should definitely be redressed, but that does mean we should toss the universality of service principle.
The people who are unfit and being released I believe should be considered for re-hire as DND instructors for military related training. This is happening to a certain extent with driver training, there are a number of others that I can think of that could use this approach. But keeping undeployable people in uniform does burden those that are, you are asking them to go more often than they should. This isn't just about deploying either. There is always a Left Out Of Battle list which limits who can be sent out on a task. By accepting what you're suggesting, keeping the unfit ones in uniform, then you are entrenching a problem even further, the LOB list could never be reduced.
It is very unfortunate to see someone who doesn't want to go being pushed out for medical reasons, but most also accept they don't want someone carrying part of their load either. There are programs to assist them if they are being medically released to retrain them. Not always the best, some want to be retrained to something that the system will not support for instance, but personally all things considered I think it is fair.

 

[armyvern]

Battleaxe,

I can only speak for my trade and my experience but my thoughts are:

Because my trade already has too many undeployable peronnel on PCats employed within it and others awaiting release, the positions those med/deployable unfit personnel fill up can not be staffed by fully fit and deployable soldiers. That is exactly the reason why personnel such as myself who are fit and deployable, have done 3 or 4 tours in the past 5 years. And when I'm not on a tour chances are I'm on a course away from home etc, not to mention that our regular day jobs often require us to be away from home for prolonged time periods on taskings, instructing etc.

Bottom line is that the CF requires fit and deployable personnel. And sure a pers who's suffering a disability etc may be able to perform one of those desk jobs in Canada, but he still can't deploy when his number comes up so I get to go twice, and then he's filling my job when I get back...which is my only break.

And there are trades worse off than mine. I am quite sorry about the circumstances you have detailed in your Human Rights thread, but the CF is the Military..and we need to be able to deploy and perform every function required of us, overseas, in-theatre or at home in Canada.

 

[gaspasser]

Well said Librarian, I see alot of that too in my trade.  Lots of members on release (retirement!) but having to go thru the motions for deployment which they will never see while other ones with personal problems and minor medical cats get to sit down.  I see alot of tours coming out of certain bases and the operators getting burned out while other operators are begging to go and can not because it's not their time or they are on the wrong base.
I know where you're coming from about you going on tour and someone who can't go occupies your position, they get the promotion and you get bumped down (sorry, partial ranting) Your trade and mine are two of the largest in the logistics today, we are also the ones with the oldest members.  All tours need loggies and most of us are getting burnt out and releasing.  We need more "fresh blood" to help take the pressure off.  My trade needs to get rid of the "lets send the experienced ones first" attitute.  You can not learn if you do not do.
I am what you would call a well rounded operator and can get deployed anywhere at anytime.  I've got Desert Sheild/Storm and two other tours below my belt, I am gearing up to go again. Yet I see others who aren't going due to whatever reasons sitting back and laughing. 
(rant off)
GP out

 

[battleaxe]

Battleaxe,

Bottom line is that the CF requires fit and deployable personnel. And sure a pers who's suffering a disability etc may be able to perform one of those desk jobs in Canada, but he still can't deploy when his number comes up so I get to go twice, and then he's filling my job when I get back...which is my only break.

And there are trades worse off than mine. I am quite sorry about the circumstances you have detailed in your Human Rights thread, but the CF is the Military..and we need to be able to deploy and perform every function required of us, overseas, in-theatre or at home in Canada.

Our case is not about having disabled soldiers employed in the CF.  I recognize that we cannot be clogging up the system and causing people like you to be deployed over and over.  That is not the intention.

The current state of affairs is this:  There are many people being released from the CF who can work full time, are highly trained and educated, do not want to go back to school, have proven themselves, and love their jobs.  There are thousands of people across Canada working to assess these disabled soldiers, rehabilitate them, train them to find jobs, re-educate them, and help them to apply for jobs.
Instead of paying a whole slew of people (who have never worked in the military) to find our guys jobs, why don't we just pay our guys to continue working.  In training, in mentoring, in support functions.  It will lighten your loads in garrison (so that you could actually not be stressed out and overworked when you are supposed to be having down time), and the CF could still hire all the newbies that are needed so that you could all take a much deserved break from deployment.

There are those who will need extensive disability services, if their injuries are severe enough.  However, SISIP already does rehab and vocational assistance, and provides financially, for those who are severely disabled. I don't even know what VAC is doing sticking their noses into rehab and vocational retraining.  If a body needs it, SISIP does it.

I'd like firm numbers on the percentage of our released (and highly trained) men and women who, although deemed disabled by CF standards, can and still want to work full time.

Ideally, if there were no unions and politics to cloud the issue, there would be a static and consistent support force - separate from the deployable force (an ideal place to employ disabled military personnel who wish to continue contributing to the military effort)- that would work in support of the deployable ones.  Who would you rather have working for you in Canada, some civilian employee who passed a government test but has never been to basic, or some former soldier who has walked a few in your boots?

The biggest question is-Where will we put them all. First of all, there may not be as many as some might think.  Some will be too hurt to work, some will opt for retirement, some will choose to follow old interests, some will choose the education benefit, some will have job offers waiting for them.  Where will we put them?  In training, most won't even have to move, all trades are hurting.  They'll simply be listed under a different employer so that replacements can still be brought in to refresh the troops.

There has to be some way that we don't lose all the training and expertise that's wrapped up in these men and women.  Any suggestions, I'm all ears (or fingers).  With all the spending scandals in the government today, I think that following good human resources practices and continuing to employ our well trained assets would be a minor one.

I'm not saying I have it all figured out-believe me, I thought I had it figured out before I started talking with you all on this site-now I'm all buggered up again.  I just know that, as is, the system's not working for me...or many others.  And if you were to bust up your knee next month, were released...and could still work full time...you might have issues with it as well.

It's all about where you've been and are coming from.

One last thought on this, however- the ones who are non-deployable and could contribute-isn't that what SPHL is for?  To take a soldier off the trade list so that a new recruit could be hired against the injured one?   Or is SPHL still just a dumping ground before release?
They were really working on emphasizing that a soldier could be on SPHL and still work when I left.  No headway in this area?

 

[Petard]

I don't think that's what SPHL is intended to do, be a "dumping ground". My understanding of it was people were sent there in case there was an outside chance their condition would improve, unfortunately more often than not it doesn't.

I think you're beginning to skew this thread into something you've become so fixated on, that the CF should automatically guarantee a person in the CF employment until the end of their contract, but I think you're not seeing the forest anymore, but you are bumping into a lot of trees. Take a step back. 

WRT hiring pers who have been medically released to assist in training, this is starting to happen now, and it is giving some relief to the PCF cycles of units. No it is not automatic that someone medically released gets hired, the individual cases are far too unique I would say for that to work. They are civie companies that bid for these training contracts, and their terms of refernce for hiring are for the most part making it ideal to hire the very people you're talking about. It is only good business sense to hire ex-military, even those who are medically released but can do the job.

 

[armyvern]

Our case is not about having disabled soldiers employed in the CF.  I recognize that we cannot be clogging up the system and causing people like you to be deployed over and over.  That is not the intention.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what you've proposed below??

Call me crazy, but shouldn't we be keeping any and all experience that we can- at least until the CF is up and running with adequate personnel numbers again?

Again, my answer is no. Precisely because those undeployable soldiers take up positions at home. At home, if the position is staffed (even by an undeployable member), then the trade can not recruit to fill it...as it isn't vacant. We will not get our numbers up to adequate deployable numbers of staff until those undeployable numbers of personnel are removed from the total numbers of positions. Only once they are removed, does a position exist for our trade to recruit fit and deployable personnel into.

Please do not turn this thread into another "guarantee of employment" thread...you already have one running here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html

It'd be appreciated thanks.

 

[GAP]

I got the impression that he was talking about non-deployable people that have been released, but are fully trained in the trade, coming back as contractors. This would free up the CF spot, but actually allow for an increase in personnel.

 

[armyvern]

I got the impression that he was talking about non-deployable people that have been released, but are fully trained in the trade, coming back as contractors. This would free up the CF spot, but actually allow for an increase in personnel.

Positions that contractors fill are CF military or DND public service positions that have been eliminated and contracted out as a "cost-savings" measure. We can't afford any more of that. Instead of eliminating and "contracting out positions" we need to fill them with fully fit and deployable CF members.

 

[284_226]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what you've proposed below??

No, she didn't.  She made a very clear distinction between being employed by the CF, and being employed by DND.

Again, my answer is no. Precisely because those undeployable soldiers take up positions at home. At home, if the position is staffed (even by an undeployable member), then the trade can not recruit to fill it...as it isn't vacant. We will not get our numbers up to adequate deployable numbers of staff until those undeployable numbers of personnel are removed from the total numbers of positions. Only once they are removed, does a position exist for our trade to recruit fit and deployable personnel into.

I don't quite understand your logic.  If the original post in the thread referred to a story which stated we're at 62,000 personnel now, and plan to be at 75,000 five years from now, then wouldn't that imply that we have about 13,000 positions to recruit people into, even if we don't release anyone due to CRA/medical/voluntary reasons?

Please do not turn this thread into another "guarantee of employment" thread...you already have one running here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51761.0.html

It'd be appreciated thanks.

The initial post in the thread dealt with the CF's inability to meet current obligations due to a shortage of manpower, and if you ignore the reference to having twice the applicants as compared to this time last year (which is malarkey), then how much more relevant could it be to keep highly trained people around in whatever capacity possible?

 

[284_226]

Positions that contractors fill are CF military or DND public service positions that have been eliminated and contracted out as a "cost-savings" measure. We can't afford any more of that. Instead of eliminating and "contracting out positions" we need to fill them with fully fit and deployable CF members.

It could be argued that hiring more public service employees (for argument's sake, we'll say CS-1/CS-2 classifications) would free up more "fit and deployable" ATIS/LCIS servicemembers to deploy.  Why have a uniformed person manning a help desk when you can put a civvie in the position at a lower wage, and deploy the servicemember until he/she breaks?  There is a happy medium in there, somewhere... 

 

[armyvern]

It could be argued that hiring more public service employees (for argument's sake, we'll say CS-1/CS-2 classifications) would free up more "fit and deployable" ATIS/LCIS servicemembers to deploy.  Why have a uniformed person manning a help desk when you can put a civvie in the position at a lower wage, and deploy the servicemember until he/she breaks?  There is a happy medium in there, somewhere...   

Well it could also be argued, and is in fact the case, that it is those over-deployed personnel who we are trying to retain who are getting out and taking up the contractor positions. So who really have you freed up to deploy? No-one...now you've just got to up the training and skill level of someone else to take that persons 'intended' position at those force-generators. And recruit more unqualified pers to fill in the vacuum, and the resources training them, and tasking qualified pers out to train them (during their 'supposed breaks' from tours). And the circle continues.

As for your response reference your friend battleaxe's post, all I can say is that we do not have those 13 000 new and promised positions right NOW nor the untrained and unqualified personnel to fill them NOW. We MAY have them 5 or 6 years down the road. The crisis is NOW. The positions that need to be fully fit and deployable are the ones we have right NOW, in this time of deployment. Now a "possible" 13000 troops over the next five years that those fully fit and deployable personnel will be busy training (and training requires going to the field etc so the instructors need to be fully fit) in between their tours and amongst their own personal courses the instructors are required to complete is really going to help in retaining them isn't it? Not likely.

 

[Donut]

With regards to the two specific cases, the kidney stones and Crohn's, my thoughts are on record in the CFHS threads on the topics.  

I'll point out the that systemic shortages (the 13,000) do not necessarily translate into "extra" positions in units that you can put people into. If it says you get 12 Storeswomen (to point to the Librarian), and you're deploying in support of X, and 4 of them are unfit field/deployment/whatever, you really only have 8 to support your establishment when the chips are down.  SO you look outside your establishment, and someone gets sucked out of another position to go.

As well, those 13,000, while there will be SOME growth, is really going to bring a lot of units to proper strength.  Rumint says someone asked to bring them up to wartime strength. That means that the new pers are going to allow a lot of things to run properly, for the first time in a long time.

Also these positions are usual steps on a career path.  Time in a line unit, time at a base, time at a school, time in training/standards/insert position of choice here.  These are all necessary steps to develop the military proffesional we need.  

I THINK, you could replace some support positions, such as SOME administration positions with CR types, and that MAY provide some more stability to the unit administration.  Our Bde Comd, and I suspect a lot of other commanders, have civilian secretaries.  That could possibly be expanded to a lower level, such as Res Orderly Rooms, but as The Librarian pointed out, these are the "Break" (from some things, anyway) portion of a career.  If you knew that your entire career was going to be 6-8 months overseas, 12-14 months at "home", and back overseas again, how inclined would you be to sign the IE?  Some would love it, others, not so much.

The Librarian has just posted a good chunk of what I've said, so +1 to her, too.

DF

Edit: Punctuation

 

[dapaterson]

+1 to ParaMedTech. and +1 to the Librarian.

We need non-deployable positions for military folks to rest between deployments.  Certain support functions can be civilianized, but we must retain military capacity in those roles as well (something we've been very poor at ensuring - we're short of CS and CSS everywhere... they are the real limiting factors right now).

 

[battleaxe]

With regards to the two specific cases, the kidney stones and Crohn's, my thoughts are on record in the CFHS threads on the topics.  

I found it.  Didn't mean to be repetative-I've been doing my best to wade through the 120+ current affairs forums.  Cut the new guys/gals a little slack-it takes time to catch up - you all talk a lot.

Anyway, I'm getting to realize that element plays a big role in perception of these issues.  Army tradespeople, I'm learning, have the biggest problem with what I stand  for. Most of you seem to think I'm out to lunch, actually.
Well, so then are most of the human resources professionals and disability management professionals that I've consulted with over the last two years- who are also appalled at the way CF personnel are treated when injured.
So then are the soldiers/veterans who have already been through the process and agree that it doesn't work so well all of the time.

I must admit, I'm shocked at some of the negative comments I've been getting.  They haven't changed my opinions to any degree...they just shock me. Always good to get a sobering boot in the butt, though.  It focuses me.

Some of you seem so cavalier about the employment of others who don't share your state of "deployability". You seem quite insensitive...but I know that's not it.  Bravado, defense mechanisms, definitely a different mentality that, as a nurse, I've never encountered before.  I've not had many encounters with combat personnel other than in the hospital - and that is why I don't believe your attitudes have anything to do with insensitivity - from those experiences I think that most of you often care too much about everything.
Are you, if injured (knock on wood) willing to accept the fate of your injured comrades?
Are you willing to accept your release, gracefully walk away and not scream that all the expertise and knowledge you sweated so hard for is valuable and could help to save the lives of other soldiers, even if you can't physically be on the ground with them.
Seems to me that you are doing yourself an injustice.  I think you deserve more consideration that you would demand for yourself. I think that you have done things and know things that make you invaluable to the well being of future generations of soldiers.

It's too bad you feel the CF and DND should have the power to simply throw that away.

Anyway, this topic has been discussed quite a bit before.  I've done a bit more searching and have a better handle on what has gone through before.  I'll try not to repeat again. 

I got zealous- perhaps because I've been living this for awhile- and the majority of the people who have contacted me are looking for help because they have difficulties with the system and current employment initiatives.  It's been discussed a lot, but the problem is far from resolved.

Best to you all.

 

[paracowboy]

I'm living it right now. If the Army decides that I can no longer be of Service to it, and tells me to piss off, then that is what I will do.

That's why it's called SERVICE.

And that's why all these HR people, and other flat-faced, dope-smokin', greasy civvies are so appalled. Because we SERVE. We SERVE until we are drained dry and valueless, and the Army kicks us to the curb like the heartless bitch she is. We don't have the same "me first" mentality so prevalent in this disgusting excuse of a society. We don't place our wants before everything else. We place the mission first, THEN our men, then ourselves. And the mission demands fresh, deployable troops right NOW. To be trained up, used up, and thrown aside just like us.

Get over it.

 

[Journeyman]

I recognize that we cannot be clogging up the system and causing people like you to be deployed over and over. That is not the intention.

Regardless, that is the result.

...and if you ignore the reference to having twice the applicants as compared to this time last year (which is malarkey)...

One cannot judge whether or not you are more informed than the CDS, who made that statement; I suspect he may actually have the figures at hand, whereas you have offered nothing. Nonetheless, it's not a really useful discussion technique to say "well, if you just ignore the stuff that I don't believe...."

I must admit, I'm shocked at some of the negative comments I've been getting.  They haven't changed my opinions to any degree...they just shock me.

So you came here, seeking advice, acknowledging that you do not know enough about the system. Admirable. Yet, when you received responses that did not align with your pre-conceived notions, particularly from the army types who speak overwhelmingly from personal experience, you dismiss the input. You try and justify the views as being informed by either callousness or caring too much - - basically judging the source of the message, rather than focussing upon what you are being told.

If you must judge the messengers, perhaps consider them as providing a realistic appraisal based on having to live with the results of unqualified "experts" who, despite being informed otherwise, still claim to speak on our behalf.

While you should be congratulated for your intentions, your refusal to accept input which doesn't reinforce your views seriously diminishes your credibility. Please stop trying to "help."

 

[battleaxe]

While you should be congratulated for your intentions, your refusal to accept input which doesn't reinforce your views seriously diminishes your credibility. Please stop trying to "help."

And that's all I've ever wanted to do.  I'm sorry if I managed to offend in the process-misguided soul that I am.

I have never presumed to speak on anybody's behalf.  All opinions and editorials I've ever written are fully my own, based on experiences I've had personally and with others.
You imply that I am close minded and unwilling to accept your input.  I say that is the only reason that I've come onto this site-to learn and be open minded.  The fact that your input hasn't changed my way of thinking is not something you should find offensive.  They are my opinions and words and the last ime I checked, the battle for freedom of thought was over and won.

Have you all been open-minded enough to read and think about the links that I have posted?  Or have you just dismissed them outright because I'm not one of the regular gang? 

Nobody yet has taken the time to answer my question-What if it was you injured and being released?  What would you expect to happen?  Sorry, I did get one opinion on it from paracowboy-the guy who lives in a "disgusting excuse of a society" and is quite fine with having his butt kicked to the curb. 

Everybody else of a like mind?


OK, then I don't want to see any of you on the street, like the veteran on Princess street in Kingston, standing there with your brain bucket held out for change, holding a sign that says, "I don't have a job, and VAC won't help me, can you spare me some change".

I don't want to see you there, because then I'll feel the need to help again.  And don't kick my ass for wanting to help...What drives you? 

You imply that I am close-minded.

Back at ya.

I'm not block-headed, nor am I a sucker for punishment...and I refuse to continue arguing for the sake of arguing.  I'll back off and stop trying to convince you.  I just ask that you try to accept that not everyone is so ready to accept the current state of things as some of you are.