I know some of you have seen this

[flyguy06]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/

Pay special attention to he last part.

[Hawk200]

Fur flies in the Air Force Auxiliary 

Pay special attention to the last part.

My question why would someone in CAP "plot" to make himself a three star CAP General? It aint that serious is it? Three star General or 1L . The pay is the same. Who cares?

I must be missing something, or something is not showing. Was there a link? Sorry if I missed it, but I'm not seeing something.

[Hawk200]

Oops, seeing it now for some reason....

[Eclipse]

I won't bother reading this article, but I will comment that the idea of making Region CC's, or even Wing CC's stars has been around for a long time.

In fact, it would actually align our commanders better with the RealMilitary®.

Nothing to see here, move on.

[Hawk200]

I won't bother reading this article, but I will comment that the idea of making Region CC's, or even Wing CC's stars has been around for a long time.

I think we need to read stuff like this, for the inevitable circumstance that someone will ask about it. The best answer is usually "I've heard nothing to that effect, please direct your questions to NHQ's public affairs office."

That being said, if even a quarter of the statements are true, we have some problems. And I don't know any way that the general membership can do anything about it.

[Eclipse]

OK, like a moth to a flame, I DID read it - typical NOTF crap.

Gross distortions, hearsay, rumor and inconsequential BS presented as both fact and important.

And for the record, MJ-TP was wearing the new, approved uniform combination at that hearing.  If security is dumb enough not to check out EVERYONE that is their fault, not his.

IMHO, the photo showing some comanders in field uniforms shoudl have been more of an issue than the TPU.

BAH!

[Major Carrales]

I am so sick of this AGENDISTIC drivel!!!

I have never read such a batch of "hogwash" in my life.

We bust our tails doing what CAP was designed to do at SARs, SARexs and for the community and these disgruntled former members, likely people who fell out of favor when their own personal ambitions were crushed, publish this crap!!!



Notice, that this is all directed at higher echelons.  Who on earth points out "pandemic" problems from outside an organization, but uses a disclaimer that "they have no problem" with the Squadrons and Groups?  Obviously someone who was a problem with the leadership.

As a Squadron Commander in a Unit that is built is self from the bottom...I SPIT in the faces of NOTF.  

[flyguy06]

I guess the point of me posting this was to ask a question. But before I ask, I want to say that I dont neccessarily agree with this NOTF stuff. I think its kinda biased against CAP but still the question beckons:

Accoriding to this articel TP promised to make Region CC's Generals in CAP and he hasplotted to make himself a Three star General. Come on guys, this is CAP. Is it really that serious. WHo would go through so much effort and energy to obtain a rank that really means nothing. Wheather three stars or 1LT this is CAP and the pay is the same.

I guess this goes back to my whole point that some folks take CP wayyyyyy to seriously. I mean its good to do the missions and get involvd. ut back stabbong and politicing for rank that has no bearing. WHy> I am a Capt in my unit and there are folks that outrank me, but becaus eof my experience inCAP I have more authority and control than they do.

[Hawk200]

I am so sick of this AGENDISTIC drivel!!!

Being sick of it isn't going to make it go away. Stuff like this has probably been going on since CAP was founded, just more people are aware of it nowadays.

Although, I can honestly tell anyone that asks, that I don't buy it. Someone that would make statements like that is either bulletproof, or really too stupid to make General (even in CAP) in the first place. Even politicians that pull those kind of stunts don't survive.

[Major Carrales]

Accoriding to this articel TP promised to make Region CC's Generals in CAP and he hasplotted to make himself a Three star General. Come on guys, this is CAP. Is it really that serious. WHo would go through so much effort and energy to obtain a rank that really means nothing. Wheather three stars or 1LT this is CAP and the pay is the same.

T'was not to long ago some people on this very forum (and in the Portal) suggested making CAP Region Commander's Brig Generals.

National CC- Major General
Vice-CC/Region Commander- Brig Generals
Wing- Colonel
Group- Lt Col
Squadron: Maj or Capt
Flight- ? 1st Lt?

Did that make those people evil?  I think not...

You are correct, this is a moot point being agendistically played into a MAJOR SIGN of EVIL and SINISTER INTENT.

Please...

[Major Carrales]

Being sick of it isn't going to make it go away. Stuff like this has probably been going on since CAP was founded, just more people are aware of it nowadays.

What would you have me do...ask the Texas Wing IG to issue an injuntion to NEWS of the Force since this represents libel/slander issues?  Class action CAP Officer lawsuit for defamation?

In the end it will the the PAOs, the good ones, that will save us from this DRIVEL!!!!

[Major Carrales]

Oh...and how the heck is CAP a Ponzi Scheme?

[sparks]

The most interesting part of the NOTF piece was the very end. The diatribe about CAP from the former member was just more of the same, seen it before.  There have been disgruntled former CAP members its inception and they will continue to sue and make negative comments forever.

The ending agenda items, in particular the one extending term limits, should be taken  seriously. One of them is factual, extending term limits in on the official agenda, a vote will be taken. I hope longer limits are defeated. We don't need a dictator for life at any level.

[DNall]

Well he's misinformed on several points.

1) CAP-USAF does not oversee the BoG!!! The two are co-equal divisions of govt with the same mission - oversight. CAP is large & complex entity with dual status as a govt agency of the AF & as a separate govt corporation.

a) CAP-USAF is charged with oversight of Dept of the AF controlled funds & operations. There are strict, but sometimes confusing limits as to where that power starts & stops.

b) BoG was created in 2000 to oversee the rest of CAP's activities beyond what CAP-USAF has authority over.

c) The BoG is NOT the national Board. The NB, as we all know, is made up of all Wg/Reg CCs acting roughly as the Legislative branch of CAP governance.

d) CAP-USAF is not the AF element in charge of directing CAP activities. That's the Secretary of the Air Force, as delegated to the Executive Officer, and for which all strategic planning occurs at the Air Staff level at the direction of the A3/SHA. Exactly like any other direct reporting agency of the AF.

e) You look real stupid referring to organizational structure or congressional intent when you don't know what you're talking about. As a former congressional staffer & if I may presume to say on behalf of my former boss, I would encourage the gentleman to talk less & listen more, cause he's very badly out of touch with the pulse of Congress. Since he apparently has a PhD, I have to believe he's versed in the scientific method of research, which is the search for facts regardless if they prove or disprove your currently held beliefs. I would hope the gentleman would more thoroughly examine the public record, and then after his views have been dramatically shifted he might care to waste the time of public officials & their staff in finding out where they really stand.


2) So far as the gentleman's contention that the organization is some sort of pyramid scheme, that's just dumb.

a) Reality: I think he badly misses the point that CAP does not in any way exist to benefit our members. It exists to use them (and I do mean use) in order to accomplish missions defined by Congress. The organization is designed to burn good will & voluntary contributions like fuel in order to accomplish that task, and the members be [darn]ed. Now, certainly the organization's leadership should take steps to better service our members so as to extend and retain their good will, but that is not part of our congressional mission. It has never been about what CAP can do for you, I has always been what can you do for CAP & thru CAP for the country, and when you're used up & burned out then we'll close ranks & carry on.

b) Not a pyramid: The scheme he's referring to requires a large initiation fee up front & then promises great returns down the road that are not commonly delivered. CAP actually charges the same fee every year & promises nothing in return but the opportunity to be subservient to the causes established for us by Congress. People quit for the most part because there is not enough opportunity for them to do that.


3) Misc:
a) The IG reports to the BoG, which The CAP/CC is NOT in charge of, not the NB, which the CAP/CC is also not in charge of as we've seen several of his pet proposals go down in flames, specifically the one to extend his own term.

b) The AF has no authority over CAP general officer grades. That's how it moved to Maj Gen & Vice to Brig Gen in the first place, and the second place. AF does get pissed when that grade is abused by CAP, but they have no authority to stop it.

c) As the published photo shows, Maj Gen Pineda appeared at the congressional hearing in the new corporate alternative service dress, NOT an AF uniform. While I have problems with this uniform, it is currently authorized & was worn correctly. There was no need for a security clearance as it was a public session. If it had proceeded to closed session it still would not have required a clearance, and if it had a simple letter granting temporary clearance would have sufficed. That said, CAP members can & do hold AF security clearances when it is necessary to perform the duties AF or other agencies have tasked them with, that would by necessity include the CAP/CC.


I don't like to lend credence by commenting on stories from this agenda driven anti-CAP group, but virtually every item in the story was so obviously false that I believe it merited pointing out so everyone can once again see the poor credibility & outright lies that flow from this gentleman.

[DNall]

The ending agenda items, in particular the one extending term limits, should be taken  seriously. One of them is factual, extending term limits in on the official agenda, a vote will be taken. I hope longer limits are defeated. We don't need a dictator for life at any level.

Limits for Nat CC/VCC were already shot down at the last NB meeting, that is not on the agenda again. A proposal to allow optional extension for one additional term to Wg/Reg CCs is on the table. It has pros & cons. I could see it passing, but not in the current environment.

[Hawk200]

What would you have me do...

I wouldn't have you do anything, and didn't ask it of you. Just saying that it doesn't hurt to be aware of it. I would recommend that you not react so vigorously if confronted with news of this nature. Kinda falls under the "doth protest too much" concept.

[Smokey]

DNall,

As I recall, the AF does have control over the general rank.   I think it was  shortly after 9/11 either the Sec AF or Chief of staff made the decision to make the Natl CC a major general as it was only a one star prior to that. That was based on the perceived duties that CAP was becoming involved in and a 2 star would be commensurate with those responsibilities.

[DNall]

Maybe I'm wrong, but you're going to have to show me where that rule is. My understanding is the AF does not have control over any CAP grade. There was a point in CAP history where the Nat CC was a Maj Gen slot then it was reduced to Brig Gen when CAP got smaller. Then a CAP/CC decided to increase it of his own accord & we got marron grade slides shortly thereafter (they were blue before that). Here recently the AF was asked their opinion so as not to piss them off & CAP made that change. AF couldn't have stopped them if they'd disapproved, but they could have taken it out on us in other ways.

I've heard nothing about going to three-stars & I don't think that's particularly appropriate based on our combination of size, resource, & mission compared to similiar AF organizations/units, and based on the CC grade of the commands we work for. I think the AF would probably see it the same way.

[MIKE]

5. a. Major General. The grade of major general is reserved for members who serve as National Commander, CAP. Promotion to this grade is concurrent with election to this position by the National Board and concurrence of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. Such appointments are announced in personnel actions published by National Headquarters. Individuals serving in the position of National Commander prior to 1 December 2002 are not eligible for the grade of major general and will retain previous permanent grade of brigadier general.
b. Brigadier General. The grade of brigadier general is a temporary grade reserved for members who serve as National Vice Commander, CAP, after 1 December 2002. Promotion to this grade is concurrent with election to this position by the National Board and concurrence of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. The individual will revert to their previous grade when no longer serving as National Vice Commander unless elected to the position of National Commander. If an individual is elected to the position of National Commander and has not previously served as National Vice Commander in the grade of brigadier general, he/she will be promoted to the grade of brigadier general for 1 year. At the end of this 1-year period, promotion to the grade of major general will be with the concurrence of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force and the National Executive Committee. Such appointments are announced in personnel actions published by National Headquarters.

Emphasis added.

[Smokey]

Thanks Mike,   it means my old noodle has not fermented past the point of being salvaged.

[Major Carrales]

Kinda falls under the "doth protest too much" concept.

No, it comes from someone attacking the organization I feel passionate abou. Most special then they are totally wrong and laced in a "veneer of validity" like NOTF, By that I mean publishing legitmate news along with this anti-CAP agendism.

Why would I "protest too much" in the Shakespearian way about things knocking persons so high above me? I just don't like it when such drivel is published because it reflects on all of us when it is spun-truths, half-truths and bold faced carnards.  Especially when it is incorrect and/or slanted.

[flyguy06]

Accoriding to this articel TP promised to make Region CC's Generals in CAP and he hasplotted to make himself a Three star General. Come on guys, this is CAP. Is it really that serious. WHo would go through so much effort and energy to obtain a rank that really means nothing. Wheather three stars or 1LT this is CAP and the pay is the same.

T'was not to long ago some people on this very forum (and in the Portal) suggested making CAP Region Commander's Brig Generals.

National CC- Major General
Vice-CC/Region Commander- Brig Generals
Wing- Colonel
Group- Lt Col
Squadron: Maj or Capt
Flight- ? 1st Lt?

Did that make those people evil?  I think not...

You are correct, this is a moot point being agendistically played into a MAJOR SIGN of EVIL and SINISTER INTENT.

Please...

Yes, you refer to me. WHat my statement was was that since CAP is aligned withthe USAF why not make the ranks aligned withthew USAF. Meaning in the USAF a Group Commander is a full Colonel and a WIng Commandr is a BG. Oh, I love the rank. I wouldnt mind being a Wing CC oneday (I doubt that happens though)

[DNall]

Not to split hairs, but that's a CAP reg, & as we all know CAP regs don't grant or inhibit AF authority over items, Congress does that.

What that actually says though is CAP will defer to the CSAF as to whether or not a specific individual in that position should have the grade that goes with it. It's basically a vote of confidence or no-confidence (in the parlamentary sense of being an informal recall veto) of that person holding that position.


Far as the idea of promoting Region commanders to Brig Gen... their span of control (people, resources, missions, total responsibility) is that of a Wg CC in the AF & the grade should be tied to that. Personally I'm not entirely sure we need regions, at least not in their current form.

[flyguy06]

I agree somwhat. But if we did that based on span of control states like Deleware and Iowa would always fall short to states like California and New York and that wouldnt be fair.

I think we do need Region Commanders. CAP is set up similar to my fraternity in that we have chapters (squadrons) Districts (wongs) Regions and a National Officer. A person in charge of each echelon and it works pretty well. I wouldnt want to be a National Cpmmandr and have to keep track of 52 people when its much easir to keep trackof 8 people and each of them keeps track of 4 to 5 people.

[Hawk200]

Kinda falls under the "doth protest too much" concept.

No, it comes from someone attacking the organization I feel passionate abou. Most special then they are totally wrong and laced in a "veneer of validity" like NOTF, By that I mean publishing legitmate news along with this anti-CAP agendism.

Why would I "protest too much" in the Shakespearian way about things knocking persons so high above me? I just don't like it when such drivel is published because it reflects on all of us when it is spun-truths, half-truths and bold faced carnards.  Especially when it is incorrect and/or slanted.

My point is that whenever there is any news posted with an anti-Pineda slant, you throw a childish temper tantrum, or blow up like a can of soda that has been in a paint shaker. That doesn't present the professional appearance that you yourself harp on. Just chill a little.

I find it hard to beleive that you don't seem to understand the Shakespeare reference. It's one thing to support your commander. That's simple loyalty. It's another thing to be rabid about it. Sometimes the loudest denial is the biggest indicator of guilt (pay attention to the sometimes part).

You come into this forum with the cyber equivalent of screaming, yelling and hollering that does no one any good. Like I said above, just chill a little. It won't matter if Pineda is guilty or innocent, your pitching a fit really won't make a bit of difference. Any organization with the strength to stand up against unfounded allegations will succeed.

[Lancer]

In the end it will the the PAOs, the good ones, that will save us from this DRIVEL!!!!

That's the the best thing you've said in a while, as a PAO. Meh.

Please, stop feeding Skip Munger's ego by posting your anger. There is not a member of CAP that respects what he, yes, he is doing, and by simply posting your reaction to his 'drivel', your doing just that.

Any member worth his salt realizes the absolute lack of value in his 'cut n'paste' news alerts and slant toward our leadership and knows to simply ignore it. He's a one man operation with no real technical skill in how he presents his 'news' and is transparent as they come.

[Major Carrales]

You know what...you guys are right.

I guess it is that I do not suffer fools well.

[Hawk200]

You know what...you guys are right.

I guess it is that I do not suffer fools well.

What I've found that works pretty well when I encounter this stuff is just a little snicker at the audacity of it. Leaves you appreciating a little humor, rather than churning up an ulcer.

[Major Carrales]

You know what...you guys are right.

I guess it is that I do not suffer fools well.

What I've found that works pretty well when I encounter this stuff is just a little snicker at the audacity of it. Leaves you appreciating a little humor, rather than churning up an ulcer.

I guess you are correct.

[O-Rex]

All:

Don't be rattled-NOTF is proof that there is the occasional feces on the sidewalks of the information super-highway....

I put it all right up there with "Bat-boy" Bigfoot, and Elvis-sightings 

[Lancer]

I say we simply petition Pylon to add 'Discussion's regarding NOTF are not allowed' to the TOS. 

[AlphaSigOU]

I say we simply petition Pylon to add 'Discussion's regarding NOTF are not allowed' to the TOS. 

Or better yet... add 'NOTF' and 'News of the Force' to the word list in the forum's censor-bot! 

[Lancer]

Or better yet... add 'NOTF' and 'News of the Force' to the word list in the forum's censor-bot! 

Good idea, but we'd end up in a debate about what the Censor-bot would replace those keywords with; or we'd end up with the censor-bot censoring itself and crash the forums. 

[MIKE]

I say we simply petition Pylon to add 'Discussion's regarding NOTF are not allowed' to the TOS. 

I've been watching this one closely, since they do have a history of getting locked.

[Psicorp]

In the end it will the the PAOs, the good ones, that will save us from this DRIVEL!!!!

That's the the best thing you've said in a while, as a PAO. Meh.
Please, stop feeding Skip Munger's ego by posting your anger. There is not a member of CAP that respects what he, yes, he is doing, and by simply posting your reaction to his 'drivel', your doing just that.

Any member worth his salt realizes the absolute lack of value in his 'cut n'paste' news alerts and slant toward our leadership and knows to simply ignore it. He's a one man operation with no real technical skill in how he presents his 'news' and is transparent as they come.

I don't have the last remaining scrap of idealism stomped out of me yet  and as such still do place faith in our leadership (BoG and NEC) and in the Air Force to squish impropriety when it arises.   

I truly believe that the people who know what is really going on (way above my pay grade) and those who are charged with oversight don't rely on any so called "news flashes" from NOTF to make decisions or to form opinions.

That being said, I do try to keep up on what the NOTF "reports" about CAP because it does tend to raise questions from within and from outside the squadron.  What I find most amusing is the comparison between what is said on this site (by individuals who *gasp* know how to verify and confirm) versus information from "sources" outside the organization.    The "Aux On/Aux Off" patch, for example, is harmless fun for us because we know that we, as an organization, are a dichotemy of military/government support and a corporation.

Just because you might not have heard it said today, I appreciate all the hard work you all do.

[Lancer]

That being said, I do try to keep up on what the NOTF "reports" about CAP because it does tend to raise questions from within and from outside the squadron.

Ok, well, there's a big difference between keeping tabs on NOTF, and doing your best 'Chicken Little' impersonation because of 'Munger's Drivel'.

[DNall]

I say we simply petition Pylon to add 'Discussion's regarding NOTF are not allowed' to the TOS. 

Or better yet... add 'NOTF' and 'News of the Force' to the word list in the forum's censor-bot! 

Now that's the kind of sneaky I like. Question is what phrase should auto insert when someone posts such prases? 

[CLB]

I hardly ever apologize when saying something like this, but I realize the sad part about it......I laughed my rear off when I read this:


"And when Pineda made his appearance during CAP operations during Hurricane Katrina, sources say, he was actually mistaken for an officer in the Guatemalan air force. I'm a general in the United States Air Force," Pineda is said to have retorted"

I'm sorry, that part about the Guatamelan AF is just too funny.  Joo unnersthand?

[DNall]

 

[NIN]

Maybe I'm wrong, but you're going to have to show me where that rule is. My understanding is the AF does not have control over any CAP grade. There was a point in CAP history where the Nat CC was a Maj Gen slot then it was reduced to Brig Gen when CAP got smaller. Then a CAP/CC decided to increase it of his own accord & we got marron grade slides shortly thereafter (they were blue before that). Here recently the AF was asked their opinion so as not to piss them off & CAP made that change. AF couldn't have stopped them if they'd disapproved, but they could have taken it out on us in other ways.

I've heard nothing about going to three-stars & I don't think that's particularly appropriate based on our combination of size, resource, & mission compared to similiar AF organizations/units, and based on the CC grade of the commands we work for. I think the AF would probably see it the same way.

Wow, I don't know where you got your information...

First, our National Commander has been a two-star in the past (ie. MG Curry, during WWII), but in the history of "volunteer national commanders" (and that change happened WAY before my time in CAP, so I only have anecdotal information and what I can read) only dates to 1975. Prior to that the "volunteer leader" was the "Chairman of the National Board" and the "National Commander" was an Air Force officer.   General Carl Spaatz (who was a retired AF officer at the time) was the Chairman of the National Board from 1948 to 1959, and subsequent Chairmen of the National Board were Colonels on appointment and then BGs. 

So, from 1975 to 1989-ish, the volunteer National Commander was a BG.  Then E.E. Harwell decided that he liked two stars better than one, and got the NB to "promote" him.  And the AF came down on us like 2 tons of bricks with the maroon shoulder marks, etc.   Prior to that, we wore hard grade on the epaulets, instead of jamming shoulder marks made for shirts onto the service coats. Ugh.

The USAF DOES assert control over the appointment of Civil Air Patrol general officers, as was pointed out.  And they certainly control the ability of Civil Air Patrol to decide when the National Commander or others can add a star where one does not currently exist.  You can't just go willy-nilly making the National Commander a 2-star (or 3-star) without some "authorization from above." That's just plain stupid.

I think this NOTF "article" is a load of steaming tripe, but that one particular point was correct:  The USAF does control general officer appointments. 

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

I seldom never read NOTF. Why? Because its crap.  The only time I see it is when someone says "Did you see NOTF?"  So I went there and read the article and immediately regretted doing so as I felt my IQ drop another point and a half.

Meh.  Move on. 

[Hawk200]

So I went there and read the article and immediately regretted doing so as I felt my IQ drop another point and a half.

Nah, you only get the IQ drop if you believe it....

[ZigZag911]

DNall,

As I recall, the AF does have control over the general rank.   I think it was  shortly after 9/11 either the Sec AF or Chief of staff made the decision to make the Natl CC a major general as it was only a one star prior to that. That was based on the perceived duties that CAP was becoming involved in and a 2 star would be commensurate with those responsibilities.

I just checked 35-5, general officer promotion requires the "concurrence of the Chief of Staff USAF" (with the NB election result)

[SAR-EMT1]

T'was not to long ago some people on this very forum (and in the Portal) suggested making CAP Region Commander's Brig Generals.

National CC- Major General
Vice-CC/Region Commander- Brig Generals
Wing- Colonel
Group- Lt Col
Squadron: Maj or Capt
Flight- ? 1st Lt?

Did that make those people evil?  I think not...

You are correct, this is a moot point being agendistically played into a MAJOR SIGN of EVIL and SINISTER INTENT.

Please...

I would actually support something like this. It would bring us more in line with RealMilitary, and if the Sq. CC's are Majors you have alot more room for staff officers in "appropriate grades"  as opposed to 2nd/ 1st Lt CC's with Capt/ Maj/Lt Col.  Staff Officers... JMHO

[DNall]

The problem with that is our Wings can be as small as a couple hundred folks & a 2-4 planes. That's Sq size in the real mil. You put a whole region together & you're still talking about Gp to Wg sized elements as far as people, resources, etc (total responsibility level), so that's till just a LtCol to Col level position.

What makes more sense is calling our local units flights instead of Sqs; small geographic Gps of 3-5 local units become Sqs... then some states can be Gps & some can be Wgs based on the size/resources/membership, responsibility... And regions can be realigned as Wgs over several smaller states.... you'd end up with 12-15 wings, retain your state based unit (for varriables in state law) commanded by a corporate officer. That's the reality of what we actually have on the books, not to mention how much smaller we are in practice. You can't just toss grade around based on symantics.

[flyguy06]

I visited the Rhode Island WIng website some years ago. They three airplanes in the whole wing. Or at least they did a few years ago

[NoNamesPlease]

Oh...and how the heck is CAP a Ponzi Scheme?

That *is* the question, Major.

The argument that this "PhD" makes (I think his PhD is in Divinity Studies.....which is nice, but has no bearing on almost anything involving this matter except showing what an egomaniac the writer is) is ludricious.

For example, if I took out a one year subscription to the New York Times, then threw out each delivery after the first week when I find that it's not to my liking, is the New York Times guilty of running a 'Ponzi Scheme' when they list the number of subscribers they have to their advertisers?

Hardly...yet this writer pontificates this very point, somehow showing an organized criminal scheme to defraud Congress.

That's a bit of stretch, don't ya think? 

I think the editor of this blog-rag needs to get back on his tranquilizers.

[DNall]

The scheme mentioned involves defauding people by charging a high entry fee on the promise of eventual grand returns, when the main business of the venture is attracting peopel to pay the entry fees rather than the supposed business that they are buying into. Clearly fruad.

CAP charges $10 more in the first year then subsequent years, hardly a massive initiation fee, and that pays for books & junk (your great start CD). I think they actually take a hit on first year dues versus renewals. CAP brings in about 4mil from member dues, near as I can figure w/o looking up the numbers, and that may be high. We take in 25mil give or take from the AF, plus what gets spent on actual missions, and plus what they spend on planes, radios, etc. All told, that's about 40mil this year. Then you add the money that comes from states... You're talking about member dues coming in at 6-8% of total annual operating funds. It's important money cause it comes w/o strings on where it needs to be spent, but it's hardly the prime concern of the organization, and very far from defrauding members.

Now the gentleman goes on to say that these inaccurate numbers are used to defraud congress... again a flat lie. Congress is paying for a mission & doesn't care if we have 50k or 500k members. The number of planes, radios, etc are fixed by the square mile, not the number of members. I personally believe NHQ can and should be leaned up & streamlined, but that doesn't meant they don't work hard, and every one of those position one by one is justified to AF & AF makes a determination if it is neccessary in comparison to all the other needs of the AF. They're pretty smart the AF, & they got reservists all the way down to the ground level keeping an eye on things. I'm pretty sure no one is pulling anything over on them. If you have any doubt of that, you should talk to Chief Chiafos or one of the past CAP-USAF CCs or Reg LOs that are running around.

We all know the number CAP uses nationally is far from the number fo ACTIVE members, but categorizing all inactive members as having quit & just riding out the year till they drop from the role is a flat lie. Even if it weren't a lie, it wouldn't matter statistically cause they'd still be calculated in that month in the add/loss column.

You can search around & see me in other threads talking about an idea for units to report attendance on eServices so active versus inactive can be tracked, resources correctly allocated, and troubled units identified early on so help can be sent in before it's too late. From a mgmt perspective, there is great value to knowing who is actively participating at what point, but the gentleman is blending reality with twisted fantasy & calling it fraud. That just ain't so. Any logical person should be able to see that & call it for what it is. And in doing so you should be abel to dismiss most everything else that ever comes out of his mouth.

It's sad really. I hate to give up on people, I really believe you can help most anyone if they're willing to be a better person, but this guy persists in his personal anger over his misunderstanding the rules to taking it out on CAP as a whole. We have our problems, no doubt about it, but we're working for the better of the country while this guy is out of touch with reality & dragging down the interests of the country as expressed by Congress.

[ddelaney103]

Defraud?  That's a stretch.  However, there is something a little deceitful in the presentation of our numbers.

The stock text we plop on the bottom of every PAO press release invariably mentions the "more than 57,000 members nationwide" line.  However, we all know that has little to do with any of the end strength we can apply towards any missions.

The last time I waded into the ops database (some time ago) it listed about 1.5k mission rated pilots.  Even the most generous estimates wouldn't give us more than 10k troops to throw at ES.  We have no desire to clear our rolls of deadweight because of the income from our "ghost members" as well as the numbers we like to throw at Congress and the public.

[SAR-EMT1]

I say we simply petition Pylon to add 'Discussion's regarding NOTF are not allowed' to the TOS. 

Or better yet... add 'NOTF' and 'News of the Force' to the word list in the forum's censor-bot! 

Now that's the kind of sneaky I like. Question is what phrase should auto insert when someone posts such prases? 

Well, I just read Harry Potter  to my 6 year old cousin tonight so Ill go with
" Site-which-shall-not-be-named "

[DogCollar]

The argument that this "PhD" makes (I think his PhD is in Divinity Studies.....which is nice, but has no bearing on almost anything involving this matter except showing what an egomaniac the writer is) is ludricious.
/quote]

Just an FYI!  There really is no such thing as a PhD in Divinity Studies.  It might be a PhD in Theology, Biblical Studies, Religious History, Ethics, etc...

[JohnKachenmeister]

Adding to the list of inconsistencies in the NOTF article, was the comment that TP refered to the Natl CV as a "Dyke" and for that reason sought her removal.

TP supported her with great vigor for the appointment to Natl. CV, even though there was opposition that was based on her membership on the board of directors of an advocacy group pushing for homosexual persons to be permitted to join the military.

[Major_Chuck]

The argument that this "PhD" makes (I think his PhD is in Divinity Studies.....which is nice, but has no bearing on almost anything involving this matter except showing what an egomaniac the writer is) is ludricious.
/quote]

Just an FYI!  There really is no such thing as a PhD in Divinity Studies.  It might be a PhD in Theology, Biblical Studies, Religious History, Ethics, etc...

Wait a minute!  According to the Universal Life Church of Modesto California I can be a Doctor of Divinity if I send them $35.

[NoNamesPlease]

The argument that this "PhD" makes (I think his PhD is in Divinity Studies.....which is nice, but has no bearing on almost anything involving this matter except showing what an egomaniac the writer is) is ludricious.
/quote]

Just an FYI!  There really is no such thing as a PhD in Divinity Studies.  It might be a PhD in Theology, Biblical Studies, Religious History, Ethics, etc...

Wait a minute!  According to the Universal Life Church of Modesto California I can be a Doctor of Divinity if I send them $35.

Well, there you go. Sounds like a scholar and deep-thinker if ever there was one. Is this the 'think tank' behind NOTF?

"I'd like one PhD and two MBA's.....can you break a hundred?"

[Pylon]

The argument that this "PhD" makes (I think his PhD is in Divinity Studies.....which is nice, but has no bearing on almost anything involving this matter except showing what an egomaniac the writer is) is ludricious.
/quote]

Just an FYI!  There really is no such thing as a PhD in Divinity Studies.  It might be a PhD in Theology, Biblical Studies, Religious History, Ethics, etc...

Wait a minute!  According to the Universal Life Church of Modesto California I can be a Doctor of Divinity if I send them $35.

You're right.  There is such as thing as Doctor of Divinity.  That's a D.D.  A number of (real, accredited) institutions (aka: seminaries and the like) award D.D.s

What was said was that it's not a PhD in Divinity.  PhD = Doctor of Philosophy (in ________).  Divinity degrees are not PhDs, they're "D.D."s.  That's all the was being said.

[Eclipse]

Its exactly what the guy wants - 751 views and 50+ replies.

It keeps this nonsense in play.

Every notice, too, how the manifesto guys type in single space HUGE paragraphs?

[Lancer]

From the daily dustbin...

Letters to the Force
    "All of the dedicated and clear-headed members of the Civil Air Patrol are looking forward to the day when Gen. Courter will take the helm away from Tony Pineda, who has plagued CAP with his self-aggrandizing agenda.
    "Pineda has made no secret of his plan to replace Courter when he believes he is in "safe" company. This plan has been in the works for the better part of a year and I hope with all of the fire coming at him now from all directions his plan has been stymied for good.
    "There are many CAP ostriches who still profess that all of the accusations levied against Pineda are false. It would be one heck of a conspiracy from all parts of the country to try to pull this off and the truth is that there is no conspiracy. The facts are simple -- Pineda is not a good man and he is a deplorable leader.
    "There is a blog out there trying to get all bloggers to refrain from mentioning News of the Force "NOTF" by name. They want the moderators to censor any reference made to it. This is just how Pineda works.  Censor any opposing views, because there is no way to debate them with facts.      "I know Pineda is guilty of much, if not all, of what he is being accused of -- and so does he.  Whoever is supporting censorship to protect Pineda is not doing a service to CAP, no matter what they think.
    " It's past time to get rid of this dead weight and move on with the important and worthwhile functions of
what can be a great organization. I am holding on to my membership hoping that day arrives very soon.
    "Signed, Still a Member."

<rant>

I had to chuckle a bit when I read this, since I'm the one who 'proposed' the idea of filtering NOTF in jest.  Namely because they called the forum a blog and because whoever wrote this thinks our CC has somehow communicated to us that we should all 'stick our fingers in our ears' when there are 'opposing views'.

No, sir, it's not the opposing views we don't want to listen to, it's the delivery vehicle that we're tired of.

...and since I'm in a NOTF 'fun poking mood', I was also amused at the statement made at the bottom of this cut and pasted article http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/message/4893

(Ed. Note: If you are on a Navy or Marine Corps base, you can try accessing WND through our Web site at http://newsoftheforce.org .)

As if somehow clicking links from his website will magically allow you to view websites blocked by military internet filters. If the military should block any website, it's News of the Force.

</rant>

[baronet68]

OK, I'm a little late on this one, but thought I'd point out that...

b) The AF has no authority over CAP general officer grades. That's how it moved to Maj Gen & Vice to Brig Gen in the first place, and the second place. AF does get pissed when that grade is abused by CAP, but they have no authority to stop it.

...the above statement isn't completely true.

1.3.1. CAP Grade. CAP uses military style grade for its membership at the discretion and approval of the Air Force. CAP officer or noncommissioned officer grade does not confer commissioned or noncommissioned officer status. CAP personnel have no authority over members of the armed forces.  CAP members who are active, reserve, and retired members of the armed forces will be treated according to their CAP status when acting in a CAP capacity. The Air Force has authority over the CAP grade structure.

Emphasis added.

[Psicorp]

<rant>

I had to chuckle a bit when I read this, since I'm the one who 'proposed' the idea of filtering NOTF in jest.  Namely because they called the forum a blog and because whoever wrote this thinks our CC has somehow communicated to us that we should all 'stick our fingers in our ears' when there are 'opposing views'.

No, sir, it's not the opposing views we don't want to listen to, it's the delivery vehicle that we're tired of.
</rant>

You mean our CC didn't send out the memo I'm now holding and decrypted with my CAP Secret CC Memo Decoder Ring telling us to "pay no attention to the man behind the NOTF curtain"?  


My biggest gripe is that if there is actual physical evidence and witnesses of civil or criminal wrongdoing, then take it through the proper channels.  I know that's a bit of a shock, especially when it means credit may not be given for the "breaking news", but accusations from an "unnamed source" or accusations heard through the grapevine and transmitted via CW through a string between two paper cups mean NOTHING.  

As for "opposing views", the key word there is "views" i.e. opinions.  I have absolutely no problem listening/reading "opposing views" but simply putting ten jig saw pieces together from ten different puzzles doesn't a Picaso make.   If you have an opinion, a true original thought, then stand up and say it.

[DNall]

quote AFI10-2701
1.3.1. CAP Grade. CAP uses military style grade for its membership at the discretion and approval of the Air Force.

Okay, that does seem to indicate AF has authority, but it's directed at AF personnel & explaining we do have permission to wear that.

My biggest gripe is that if there is actual physical evidence and witnesses of civil or criminal wrongdoing, then take it through the proper channels.  I know that's a bit of a shock, especially when it means credit may not be given for the "breaking news", but accusations from an "unnamed source" or accusations heard through the grapevine and transmitted via CW through a string between two paper cups mean NOTHING.