So, I am writing a dissertation on "corruption inside Civil Air Patrol". To calm some fears right off the bat, this will not be an "anti-cap" paper or harbor "anti-cap" messages.
I wanted to get your alls opinion on how CAP in particular (not outside agencies like we tend to discuss here...I.E. USAF and USCGA) becomes corrupt. What a better source than those that live CAP?
Things like at what level does it start, what level can it be controlled. What is corruption versus what is "natural selection" of good leaders. Your opinions on fairness inside CAP at all levels, your opinions on if corruption can ever be eradicated from our organization, and how to go about doing it. (not limited to those things of course) How the scope of corruption effects CAP (I.E. the Pineda incident V the berry boards incident). Maybe even some (censored) personal stories. Anything you are willing to put out there will help me.
Like I said, anything you want to put will be a big help to me. I would not mind a little debate to add opposing opinions to the mix.
Thanks in advance to anyone who posts.
I think that we can only point to a few cases of actual "corruption" that have occurred in CAP. I don't think that we should confuse power struggles, politiking, and empire building with corruption. HWSRN was corrupt.
A local squadron commander who is strong headed, creates some policies that people don't like and drives a unit into the ground isn't necessarily corrupt, just a lousy leader.
The finance officer cooking the books to hide that he took the unit's funds is corrupt.
So, I suppose I'm looking for what your definition of corrupt is, because I don't see much, if any, true corruption in CAP. There are a lot of lousy leaders, but in fairness, not corruption.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 29, 2012, 04:16:19 AM
I think that we can only point to a few cases of actual "corruption" that have occurred in CAP. I don't think that we should confuse power struggles, politiking, and empire building with corruption. HWSRN was corrupt.
A local squadron commander who is strong headed, creates some policies that people don't like and drives a unit into the ground isn't necessarily corrupt, just a lousy leader.
The finance officer cooking the books to hide that he took the unit's funds is corrupt.
So, I suppose I'm looking for what your definition of corrupt is, because I don't see much, if any, true corruption in CAP. There are a lot of lousy leaders, but in fairness, not corruption.
Well, I would consider "corruption" to be cronyism as well. Lets say a wing commander appoints a classic CAP "good ol boy" club inside his/her wing I would consider that a form of "corruption" more or less, So, to each their own.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 04:22:34 AMWell, I would consider "corruption" to be cronyism as well. Lets say a wing commander appoints a classic CAP "good ol boy" club inside his/her wing I would consider that a form of "corruption" more or less, So, to each their own.
Except that's not what the definition of corruption is. Corruption is the abuse of power, usually to personal gain.
Cronyism might be considered poor leadership, but it's not necessarily corrupt, and if the mission is being accomplished, then
it isn't likely to even be challenged, because the only ones with an issue will be those who aren't included. Again, frustrating, but not corruption.
I have encountered plenty of poor leadership, and plans based more on random decisions than good management, but have never personally had any contact with anyone who was "corrupt".
You clearly have an agenda here, and I don't see how a thesis with the stated title can be anything but negative.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2012, 04:26:38 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 04:22:34 AMWell, I would consider "corruption" to be cronyism as well. Lets say a wing commander appoints a classic CAP "good ol boy" club inside his/her wing I would consider that a form of "corruption" more or less, So, to each their own.
Except that's not what the definition of corruption is.
Cronyism might be considered poor leadership, but it's not necessarily corrupt.
You clearly have an agenda here, and I don't see how a thesis with the stated title can be anything but negative.
I have encountered plenty of poor leadership, and plans based more on random decisions than good management, but have never personally had any contact with anyone who was "corrupt".
I do not have an agenda, just to write my paper with a little help from people that do CAP. It will not be negative that I promise. I did say "to each their own" eclipse, as I am sure we all have differing opinions on what constitutes corruption.
You could just as easily write a paper which explores the leadership dynamic in a volunteer environment without having to mention
any organization, specifically.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2012, 04:33:14 AM
You could just as easily write a paper which explores the leadership dynamic in a volunteer environment without having to mention
any organization, specifically.
I could have, but chose not to, since I belong to CAP and CAP alone in organizations. Eclipse, no one is forcing you to read this, if you do not want to contribute than don't. Thank you for your time anyway.
Don't confuse the rethoric people use around places like this as signs of anything signaling true "corruption." One problem with modern language use is that people don't know which words to use and use terms like "corruption" to describe things that a lesser or different word would use. Add the passion that comes with not caring for a decision and we can visit a quote by ole Ben Franklin...."Passion Governs, and she never govern's wisely."
For a positive example of the importance of language. I was listening to the Supreme Court today via CSPAN and I took note of several attempts at "adgendistic" rethoric, the Supreme Court Justices would counter the political commentary and agenda (including Justice Scalia who made a point by pointing out that States opposed to a certain topic had a Governor of a certain party and the reverse) with an attempt to bring it back to topicality. That is not to say that the Supremes did not have their own political bias out of it, but I felt they were actually trying to stay within the CONSITUTION, and not beyond it. The key is to focus on the language. We often fault lawyers for their use of language, however, when it counts...the one who best uses language and defines the terms wins the case.
I have seen many an over-inflated rant on CAPTALK use a lot of language and "says" nothing, aside from "I hate this person and anyone associated with them is EVIL or some enbodiment of a SATANIC SPAWN and every and all things tried or implemented by this person (be they good or bad) must be purged in accordance with the [darn]ATION it WARRANTS!!!."
You would be serve the intent of the thesis your are writing by narrowing the subject to a clear and concise set definitions and work within the confines of the topic.
I have to admit that I find your intent "suspect." Elaborate please...
Well....if you want to write a paper on cronyism....and talk about its positive and negitive affects it has on an organisation....with out defining it as corruption....then I would support that.
But Corruption is a negitive term. You can't talk about the corruption in CAP with out it being negitive to CAP.
Corruption is when someone uses the system in such a way that it violate the law, the core values of the organisation, or interferes with the mission of the organisation.
Bending a regulation is a form of corruption. But appointing your buddies to wing staff is not in and of itself corruption.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 29, 2012, 04:37:54 AM
I have to admit that I find your intent "suspect." Elaborate please...
I am not trying to "suspect". I just believe that CAP contains certain corrupt or corrupted (in the past) portions. My paper would be about how it comes/came to pass. How to stop it in the future or eradicate it now if it exists. Nothing sinister. If you don't want to post anything than do not post. Simple I think.
BTW Corruption: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption)
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 04:44:48 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 29, 2012, 04:37:54 AM
I have to admit that I find your intent "suspect." Elaborate please...
I am not trying to "suspect". I just believe that CAP contains certain corrupt or corrupted (in the past) portions. My paper would be about how it comes/came to pass. How to stop it in the future or eradicate it now if it exists. Nothing sinister. If you don’t want to post anything than do not post. Simple I think.
See, when I say "suspect" I do not mean you have any suspicions about any specific agency within CAP, but rather that your intent may have, or be seen to have, some alternate agenda or intent. Historically, when people here deal with concepts like corrputions it is later discoved that there was some issue.
There is also assumption...it is not illogical to assume from these actions that you entertain the fact that CORRPUTION is a culture in CAP. That, at any given ambient state...and any give time in CAP that there will be corruption.
Will there always be those that fall into corruption?...yes. In as much as corrpution can be found in any undertaking that humans involve ourselves in.
Soultion? I actually have one in the form of this suggestion.
Tackle the concept of CORRPUTION instead of "CORRPUTION in CAP." Use CAP examples if you wish, but take a look at what makes up corrpution in HUMANITY. Then we can apply those lessons to CAP.
Otherwise, I think your thesis will smack of anti-CAP rethoric and instantly be dismissed as such by anyone who would read it before they actually read it. Such prejudice defeats the purpose of your work. A thesis, like any academic paper, is written to be read...so telling Eclipse he "doesn't have to read it" is the antithesis of what I think you really want to do. You cannot change minds, educate and inform of people never read your works.
To hell with it then...thanks for all the "help" ::)
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 05:02:00 AM
To hell with it then...thanks for all the "help" ::)
I am helping you. You seem to care about the article you want to write, but your approach is ascerbic and will bias the people you want help from against you. My advice was to attack the true ISSUE...corruption itself. Objectivity is the Mother of all true solutions and ideas. Many of our current politicans on both sides of the isle lack that...steeped in their own agendas. The result, the cart gets before the horse and these issues are never resolved (ever wonder what caused the gridlock and why thing that seems so basic are never solved?).
Don't give up so easily. Unlike "dogpiles" I have endured in forums (which were just a bash), I offered you a solution I feel would further your position. Would an enemy do that?
Clearly, there is a reticence on the part of the members to have actual instances of corruption in CAP committed to ink. CAP has certainly seen official corruption ( although you will have to excuse Eclipse, since he hails from parts where that's business as usual!)
Limiting the discussion of corruption and the remedies for corruption solely to CAP, would probably be useless from the standpoint of a discussion in organizational dynamics, since the sample is too small. A thorough examination of instances of corruption from a historical perspective could be of great value, but since you will never gain access to official records, everything you would find would have to be second-hand or even more far removed than that, so the value as cautionary tales would be minimal. My suggestion would be to find a really good example of a single, actual, case of corruption within CAP, and obtain as many viewpoints as possible from those with direct knowledge and involvement in that particular scandal. Then, if the "perpetrators" were involved in second instances, an exploration of the systemic failure would be more warranted.
My own view on why we have corruption in CAP? ( or anywhere else for that matter) Man is sinful, corrupt, wicked, murderous, and larcenous by nature, and his base nature is just barely held in check by the thin veneer of society. On the other hand, its great job security....
Major Lord
Well, here is the thing. If I open the paper up to "corruption" in general, than I will get dinged for not having sources of stories or ideas from outside CAP. I wanted to do it on something I love, CAP.
If you look at the definition of corruption that I linked, CAP does in fact have a level of it. If you call it the "good ol boy club" or cronyism is immaterial, it's all a form of corruption according to the definition. So, thanks for the help, I will just go on like this thread never happened.
In my opinion, you are getting good advice from me and others, Major Lord's points in the above post are excellent.
Corrpution is on of the UNIVERSAL constants...taking a good look at it objectively would go along way to making people aware of it. A step in mitigating what Major Lord wrote about and "thickening the skin" of that "thin veneer of society."
However, if it comes off as "CAP BASHING" then you lose all hope of making that difference.
Now, if you anticipated that this would be come a listing of incidents from Around the Nation to draw from, that would be something that, especially without some regulation, would become a "free for all' and display infromation and misinformation for the world to see. That would not be a good idea.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
Well, here is the thing. If I open the paper up to "corruption" in general, than I will get dinged for not having sources of stories or ideas from outside CAP. I wanted to do it on something I love, CAP.
If you look at the definition of corruption that I linked, CAP does in fact have a level of it. If you call it the "good ol boy club" or cronyism is immaterial, it's all a form of corruption according to the definition. So, thanks for the help, I will just go on like this thread never happened.
I just don't see how you can right a paper on corruption and it not be negetive.
If as you state you are wrinting a paper and want to use CAP's brushes with corruption....okay.....let's go. What exactly do you need?
Do you want examples of corruption in CAP?
Do you want examples of how nepitism negetively affect CAP and its mission?
Go back and reread you thread.....you never really asked us for any specific inputs.
We are only stateing our positions on them....and you are going to need that to bench mark your sources for your paper.
Just accept his premise that corruption = cronyism and help the poor guy!
I think promoting you friends to positions CAN be corrupt, but look at it this way, you know your friends, correct? So you would already have an idea of what they can do. If I need X done for a job, I turn to a friend I know that can do X and they do it. Wham bam.
Taking your premise to the logical extreme, I'd need new people for every time I move up to group, wing, etc. Why? Lt. Col. Oldguy can do the job of DCP, so why do I need Capt newguy? I haven't met him, so maybe we'll have a personality conflict. But I have met Oldguy, and know he can do a killer job. Just because my friend takes the position doesn't automatically mean he stinks at it, maybe he was a kick@$$ CP officer at your squadron?
That said, IMHO, cronyism (corruption if I am accepting your premise) isn't good. But it CAN have a place, and sometimes the evil you do know is better than the evil you don't know.
What is this paper for? Maybe I could help you dig up some stuff in psych databases about cronyism?
Again, topicality. Cronyism would make a fine paper of it's own, as would nepotism. If it is his intention to write a paper on solely cronyism, then that is what he should do. But the idea of corruption...it's lapse in ethics and disregard/disrespect to the system established via law or society is a GREATER issue than any of it's individual parts.
WHat is a "working" definition of corrpution? What is organizational corruption? What causes corrpution? What makes a person think they can circumnavigate the established system for person gain? Why is that wrong and how does it harm the greater organization? It is based in a "cult of the leader?"
These are the organization shaking questions that he should address.
Cronyism and nepotism are symptoms of corrpution, in my understanding and opinion, corrpution is the disease.
Let us use a far better definition that is defined in accordance with a "legal" context, which defines a more organization relevent tone than simply to "decay"...
QuoteCORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. Merl. Rep. h.t.
2. By corruption, sometimes, is understood something against law; as, a contract by which the borrower agreed to pay the lender usurious interest. It is said, in such case, that it was corruptly agreed, &c.
From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corruption (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corruption)
QuoteCronyism(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the practice of appointing friends to high-level, esp political, posts regardless of their suitability
From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cronyism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cronyism)
Appointing friends to positions of authority is, by this definition, not cronyism if they are qualified or suitable. So, if a CAP officer occupies a position at Wing, even if it was for years in a long learned position, and a new Wing Commander appoints a new person to that staff position who has more experience, knowledge and skill, it could be looked at as cronyism...however, it is infact, not.
Now, a clearing of the house to make room for unqualified friends? That would be.
I have known many commanders that prefer to, when taking command, have people they know from years of service in CAP with them in that they are proven solid officers. They may favor them in their initial descision en re staff because there are certain things that are critical in the first stages of a Command and these people may be what is needed to establish that certain thing.
That would not even be corruption by the above definition because it is in line with official duty, within established policy and is not meant to gather some personal advancement (to add your definition to it) Some might see that as "unfair," however, if we assume a commander selects a staff for its ability to accomlish the misison...well? How would keeping a lesser qualified officer in position contribute to that, a removal to an assistant position then seems more fair to the more experienced person.
Now, appointing people who are friends and promoting them to some position they are not ready for or capable of doing simply to be surrounded by yes people for furtherance of one's personal agenda? That is another story.
I'm seeing a hint of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts".
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 29, 2012, 05:59:05 AM
Again, topicality. Cronyism would make a fine paper of it's own, as would nepotism. If it is his intention to write a paper on solely cronyism, then that is what he should do. But the idea of corruption...it's lapse in ethics and disregard/disrespect to the system established via law or society is a GREATER issue than any of it's individual parts.
WHat is a "working" definition of corrpution? What is organizational corruption? What causes corrpution? What makes a person think they can circumnavigate the established system for person gain? Why is that wrong and how does it harm the greater organization? It is based in a "cult of the leader?"
These are the organization shaking questions that he should address.
Cronyism and nepotism are symptoms of corrpution, in my understanding and opinion, corrpution is the disease.
Let us use a far better definition that is defined in accordance with a "legal" context, which defines a more organization relevent tone than simply to "decay"...
QuoteCORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. Merl. Rep. h.t.
2. By corruption, sometimes, is understood something against law; as, a contract by which the borrower agreed to pay the lender usurious interest. It is said, in such case, that it was corruptly agreed, &c.
From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corruption (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corruption)
QuoteCronyism(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the practice of appointing friends to high-level, esp political, posts regardless of their suitability
From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cronyism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cronyism)
Appointing friends to positions of authority is, by this definition, not cronyism if they are qualified or suitable. So, if a CAP officer occupies a position at Wing, even if it was for years in a long learned position, and a new Wing Commander appoints a new person to that staff position who has more experience, knowledge and skill, it could be looked at as cronyism...however, it is infact, not.
Now, a clearing of the house to make room for unqualified friends? That would be.
I have known many commanders that prefer to, when taking command, have people they know from years of service in CAP each them in that they are proven. They may favor them in their initial descision en re staff because there are certain things that are critical in the first stages of a Command and these people may be what is needed to establish that certain thing.
That would not even be corruption by the above definition because it is in line with official duty, within established policy and is not meant to gather some personal advancement (to add your definition to it) Some might see that as "unfair," however, if we assume a commander selects a staff for its ability to accomlish the misison...well? How would keeping a lesser qualified officer in position contribute to that, a removal to an assistant position then seems more fair to the more experienced person.
Now, appointing people who are friends and promoting them to some position they are not ready for or capable of doing simply to be surrounded by yes people for furtherance of one's personal agenda? That is another story.
Sir,
Don't be a troll, bro. Just help the man, instead of attacking his topic and basic premise. It really isn't helping or being productive, it really is a hrr move. It doesn't help CT as a community, and creates a negative enviroment. I don't know what your college background is, but on papers you pass a point of no return were you can't change your topic or subject. You gotta live with it, and perhaps he is struggling for content, and we'd be able to help him if we weren't trolling his simple post asking for help.
And please add a TL;DR to your page long posts.
I'd refute you now, but I don't like doing research on my phone, and I'd do it tomorrow, but someome will probably do it.
NCR, can you either post a copy or PM me a copy?(when it is finished) I'm intrigued.
A good corruption thesis would have been the public education system in America.
i.e. A Community College president earns a higher salary than the President of the United States? :o
Excuse me? Troll? Are you even critically reading my posts or seeing them for what they are?
I am providing him with a wealth of information on the subject matter he is addressing. I provided a more suitable definition for him to use, add or adapt; made some clear distinctions on certain points he and others made. I've made suggestions on how he might better approach the topic in a way that would provide a channel for his ideas to get by the usual "veil of bias" that often obscures the ideas and premise the author makes.
He asked for a challenge, debate and the like. It is from contention that ideas are tempered. I have asked that of CAPTALK many times on my own account, i.e. bringing forth an idea and letting it "run the course." It is a process that allows the wealth of knowledge here to improve the idea for "faith untested is no faith at all."
There is nothing negative in anything I wrote, whereas your post had 1) name calling (the troll reference), 2) presumption (presuming my intent is some sort of aggresive one despite addressing the issues I actually wrote which were offered as help), 3) insulting or otherwise challenging my education (an ad hominem attack) and 4) failed to refute? (what refutation is necessary; there is nothing to refute, I've made my position clear, stated examples and offered my opinion in a friendly manner)
I don't think he was making this as a report for any sort of class, but rather (as I see it) as a sort of tool for the good of the organization. I was also, not alone is suggesting he change his focus to either the more topical concept of CORRUPTION or focus on Cronyism or Nepotism if that is his interest.
I will admit that I questioned his intent, but that was to show that his approach contained elements that would "turn off" the very readers he wants to reach. Turning off these readers in that way would make his whole effort moot.
Quote from: Major Lord on March 29, 2012, 05:21:39 AM
Clearly, there is a reticence on the part of the members to have actual instances of corruption in CAP committed to ink. CAP has certainly seen official corruption (although you will have to excuse Eclipse, since he hails from parts where that's business as usual!)
Limiting the discussion of corruption and the remedies for corruption solely to CAP, would probably be useless from the standpoint of a discussion in organizational dynamics, since the sample is too small. A thorough examination of instances of corruption from a historical perspective could be of great value, but since you will never gain access to official records, everything you would find would have to be second-hand or even more far removed than that, so the value as cautionary tales would be minimal. My suggestion would be to find a really good example of a single, actual, case of corruption within CAP, and obtain as many viewpoints as possible from those with direct knowledge and involvement in that particular scandal. Then, if the "perpetrators" were involved in second instances, an exploration of the systemic failure would be more warranted.
My own view on why we have corruption in CAP? ( or anywhere else for that matter) Man is sinful, corrupt, wicked, murderous, and larcenous by nature, and his base nature is just barely held in check by the thin veneer of society. On the other hand, its great job security....
Major Lord
All excellent points. Writing a paper on corruption using CAP as your only example has limited merit. If you look at the recently published AF IG report to the SECAF, you may be able to find "corruption" examples however, you need to look very hard and, have some idea how to "read between the lines". Even so, how does this coincide with the successful work of the members?
Disreguard of the rules for self interest, cover ups and, abuse of power seems to be the new normal everywhere; not just in CAP.
I would suggest you seriously take Major Carrales's advice to widen your scope and, get a better understanding of what you wish to write on.
So perhaps a pursuing that topic would be helpful for the OP - how did the situation related to the AF IG investigation come about.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 06:52:29 AMSir, Don't be a troll, bro.
Cadet, you seriously owe an apology to Major Carrales.
NCR - I believe that what is perceived as corruption in many organizations is the manifestation of "an unhealthy ownership in a public trust" any time leaders lose sight of the true purpose of an organization, or the trust that is placed upon them by the members and citizens they get in trouble. We often focus to closely on personal gain, or the "ownership" of something that we lose our ability to improve.
John
A Question: Is it accepted policy on Captalk to label anyone with a dissenting opinion (especially one that makes sense) a troll? Seems to happen somewhat frequently.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 29, 2012, 05:59:05 AM
Again, topicality. Cronyism would make a fine paper of it's own, as would nepotism. If it is his intention to write a paper on solely cronyism, then that is what he should do. But the idea of corruption...it's lapse in ethics and disregard/disrespect to the system established via law or society is a GREATER issue than any of it's individual parts.
WHat is a "working" definition of corrpution? What is organizational corruption? What causes corrpution? What makes a person think they can circumnavigate the established system for person gain? Why is that wrong and how does it harm the greater organization? It is based in a "cult of the leader?"
These are the organization shaking questions that he should address.
Cronyism and nepotism are symptoms of corrpution, in my understanding and opinion, corrpution is the disease.
Let us use a far better definition that is defined in accordance with a "legal" context, which defines a more organization relevent tone than simply to "decay"...
QuoteCORRUPTION. An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. It includes bribery, but is more comprehensive; because an act may be corruptly done, though the advantage to be derived from it be not offered by another. Merl. Rep. h.t.
2. By corruption, sometimes, is understood something against law; as, a contract by which the borrower agreed to pay the lender usurious interest. It is said, in such case, that it was corruptly agreed, &c.
From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corruption (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corruption)
QuoteCronyism(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the practice of appointing friends to high-level, esp political, posts regardless of their suitability
From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cronyism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cronyism)
Appointing friends to positions of authority is, by this definition, not cronyism if they are qualified or suitable. So, if a CAP officer occupies a position at Wing, even if it was for years in a long learned position, and a new Wing Commander appoints a new person to that staff position who has more experience, knowledge and skill, it could be looked at as cronyism...however, it is infact, not.
Now, a clearing of the house to make room for unqualified friends? That would be.
I have known many commanders that prefer to, when taking command, have people they know from years of service in CAP each them in that they are proven. They may favor them in their initial descision en re staff because there are certain things that are critical in the first stages of a Command and these people may be what is needed to establish that certain thing.
That would not even be corruption by the above definition because it is in line with official duty, within established policy and is not meant to gather some personal advancement (to add your definition to it) Some might see that as "unfair," however, if we assume a commander selects a staff for its ability to accomlish the misison...well? How would keeping a lesser qualified officer in position contribute to that, a removal to an assistant position then seems more fair to the more experienced person.
Now, appointing people who are friends and promoting them to some position they are not ready for or capable of doing simply to be surrounded by yes people for furtherance of one's personal agenda? That is another story.
Sir,
Don't be a troll, bro. Just help the man, instead of attacking his topic and basic premise. It really isn't helping or being productive, it really is a hrr move. It doesn't help CT as a community, and creates a negative enviroment. I don't know what your college background is, but on papers you pass a point of no return were you can't change your topic or subject. You gotta live with it, and perhaps he is struggling for content, and we'd be able to help him if we weren't trolling his simple post asking for help.
And please add a TL;DR to your page long posts.
I'd refute you now, but I don't like doing research on my phone, and I'd do it tomorrow, but someome will probably do it.
NCR, can you either post a copy or PM me a copy?(when it is finished) I'm intrigued.
Carrales got called a Troll? I dont know what his college background is either, but I imagine its at least the minimum to be a school teacher ;D
Quote from: isuhawkeye on March 29, 2012, 12:24:55 PM
NCR - I believe that what is perceived as corruption in many organizations is the manifestation of "an unhealthy ownership in a public trust" any time leaders lose sight of the true purpose of an organization, or the trust that is placed upon them by the members and citizens they get in trouble. We often focus to closely on personal gain, or the "ownership" of something that we lose our ability to improve.
John
An interesting idea. Certainly in CAP there are individuals who are strongly invested in the organization. There are a large number of people who have forgotten that purpose of the (senior) organization is not seeking promotion, providing training to members or even practicing leadership - it is to serve our communities using our unique skils as pilots. Or at least that's what it used to be.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
Don't be a troll, bro.
First off, you're calling possibly one of the most level-headed CAPTalk posters a troll, seriously kid?
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
Just help the man, instead of attacking his topic and basic premise.
If a basic premise can't stand against simple scrutiny, it is unlikely that the paper will stand. Joe and the others are simply pointing out some basic items that should be clarified before the paper is set, and before anyone can really give
good critical input.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
I don't know what your college background is, but on papers you pass a point of no return were you can't change your topic or subject. You gotta live with it, and perhaps he is struggling for content, and we'd be able to help him if we weren't trolling his simple post asking for help.
This is the part that made me actually reply to your post after FP pointed it out. I don't know what
your education background is, but having written and re-written a number of papers, there is never a point at which you cannot dump the whole thing and start fresh. That's all a part of critical thinking and writing and is something you would do well to learn sooner rather than later.
Quote
And please add a TL;DR to your page long posts.
I know I'm not the most internet savvy person there is, so, come again?
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
An interesting idea. Certainly in CAP there are individuals who are strongly invested in the organization. There are a large number of people who have forgotten that purpose of the (senior) organization is not seeking promotion, providing training to members or even practicing leadership - it is to serve our communities using our unique skils as pilots. Or at least that's what it used to be.
No. That is not our sole purpose, and it never has. As a matter of fact, were are specifically called to "provide training to members [and] even practicing leadership," as you put it, through our Aerospace Education and Cadet Programs missions.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
it is to serve our communities using our unique skils as pilots.
Oh darn. I'm not a pilot, I guess I'm not fulfilling CAP's goals then ::). I agreed with your post all the way up to "as".
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 29, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
it is to serve our communities using our unique skils as pilots.
Oh darn. I'm not a pilot, I guess I'm not fulfilling CAP's goals then ::). I agreed with your post all the way up to "as".
Am I back in my old
flying club senior squadron, where there were two kinds of members: "pilots" and "baggage?"
As far as "corruption"...I've seen a lot of self-centred jerks in CAP, who appoint like-minded self-centred jerks to be around them, and award them chest candy for being sycophants.
Unfortunately, institutionalised corruption and being a self-centred jerk are not necessarily synonymous, though it follows that to
be corrupt, one probably should be a self-centred jerk.
In my 10+ years of CAP experience, I have yet to come across corruption. I have seen some great leadership and some not-so-great leadership. The not-so-great leadership which included some ethical lapses, although unfortunate, did not rise to the level of corruption.
Having said that, I can't imagine a thesis pertaining to corruption not being negative.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 29, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
In my 10+ years of CAP experience, I have yet to come across corruption. I have seen some great leadership and some not-so-great leadership. The not-so-great leadership which included some ethical lapses, although unfortunate, did not rise to the level of corruption.
Having said that, I can't imagine a thesis pertaining to corruption not being negative.
Exactly.
Equating "Cronyism" with "Corruption" is something that would concern me as well. What one person calls "cronyism", another could call a leader selecting those he trusts to advise him.
NCR, here's my suggestion, based on the points brought up in this thread.
Write a paper evaulating IF, not THAT, CAP has experienced corruption. I think a lot of the backlash you're getting is on your somewhat stubborn stance that CAP has unquestionably experienced corruption at some level, and it's only a matter of finding out where it happened. That's not a particularly balanced statement, and certainly not one that demonstrates an objective stance like you claim to hold. The backlash shouldn't be unexpected.
It's as if you said, "Hey, I'm writing a paper demonstrating that Obama's birth certificate is fake", and then you get upset when some people don't accept the premise.
What you CAN demonstrate (factually) are the actions of certain members and groups within CAP that have been considered questionable by the membership. Your next logical step, then, is to explore whether certain actions are corruption. If you believe they are, then provide arguments which counter the assertions made by those opposed to the idea that corruption has occured. And now you have a paper topic which allows you to cite sources and talk about what you PERCEIVE to be corruption, while also ensuring your academic honesty by making clear that the assertions you provide are evaluations, not statements of fact.
In fact, I just gave a moral leadership class to cadets over this, the "FAPS" system: F=Facts, A=Assumptions, P=Problems, S=Solutions. Go through the steps, and you'll figure out why people are a little irritated...
Quote from: JeffDG on March 29, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 29, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
In my 10+ years of CAP experience, I have yet to come across corruption. I have seen some great leadership and some not-so-great leadership. The not-so-great leadership which included some ethical lapses, although unfortunate, did not rise to the level of corruption.
Having said that, I can't imagine a thesis pertaining to corruption not being negative.
Exactly.
Equating "Cronyism" with "Corruption" is something that would concern me as well. What one person calls "cronyism", another could call a leader selecting those he trusts to advise him.
I agree. At the squadron level, the pool of people to draw from for an assignment is quite small. I would hope that everyone in that pool is at least friendly, if not friends. Therefore, assignments will always go to friends. Is this cronyism?
Even most wings are small enough for the senior leaders to become familiar with most of the active/effective participants.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 29, 2012, 03:34:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 29, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 29, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
In my 10+ years of CAP experience, I have yet to come across corruption. I have seen some great leadership and some not-so-great leadership. The not-so-great leadership which included some ethical lapses, although unfortunate, did not rise to the level of corruption.
Having said that, I can't imagine a thesis pertaining to corruption not being negative.
Exactly.
Equating "Cronyism" with "Corruption" is something that would concern me as well. What one person calls "cronyism", another could call a leader selecting those he trusts to advise him.
I agree. At the squadron level, the pool of people to draw from for an assignment is quite small. I would hope that everyone in that pool is at least friendly, if not friends. Therefore, assignments will always go to friends. Is this cronyism?
Even most wings are small enough for the senior leaders to become familiar with most of the active/effective participants.
The other half of cronyism is that they're appointed regardless of their qualifications (as defined by Maj. Carrales above). It would be like the Wing King appointing me to be the legislative squadron commander/government relations advisor because he thought I should be a Lt. Col., even though I have absolutely no skill liasing with legislators and would do a horrible job at it.
Appointing a qualified individual who happens to be your friend isn't necessarily cronyism.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 29, 2012, 03:37:52 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 29, 2012, 03:34:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 29, 2012, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on March 29, 2012, 03:09:54 PM
In my 10+ years of CAP experience, I have yet to come across corruption. I have seen some great leadership and some not-so-great leadership. The not-so-great leadership which included some ethical lapses, although unfortunate, did not rise to the level of corruption.
Having said that, I can't imagine a thesis pertaining to corruption not being negative.
Exactly.
Equating "Cronyism" with "Corruption" is something that would concern me as well. What one person calls "cronyism", another could call a leader selecting those he trusts to advise him.
I agree. At the squadron level, the pool of people to draw from for an assignment is quite small. I would hope that everyone in that pool is at least friendly, if not friends. Therefore, assignments will always go to friends. Is this cronyism?
Even most wings are small enough for the senior leaders to become familiar with most of the active/effective participants.
The other half of cronyism is that they're appointed regardless of their qualifications (as defined by Maj. Carrales above). It would be like the Wing King appointing me to be the legislative squadron commander/government relations advisor because he thought I should be a Lt. Col., even though I have absolutely no skill liasing with legislators and would do a horrible job at it.
Appointing a qualified individual who happens to be your friend isn't necessarily cronyism.
I agree wholeheartedly that that would be a perfect example of poor leadership and cronyism. I am not sure that it would rise to "corruption" in my mind, though.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 06:52:29 AM
I don't know what your college background is, but on papers you pass a point of no return were you can't change your topic or subject. You gotta live with it, and perhaps he is struggling for content, and we'd be able to help him if we weren't trolling his simple post asking for help.
NCR picking a flawed premise, and then expecting us to support it because he can't change it, wouldn't make it any more valid.
"I've had personal issues in CAP, so I it's CAP is corrupt, but can't haven't got any actual evidence, so give me examples, but only those that support my personal, flawed, interpretation of of the word, and if you don't provide examples, or disagree with my personal, flawed, definition of the word, then just stop reading, because I'm more concerned with making some political statement then the fallout of having "CAP" and "corruption" indexed for all time on the interweb."And you call Sparky a troll?
I must say, I haven't noticed any corruption in CAP. Maybe I haven't been looking for it, or there just hasn't been any around me. Or maybe that is because CAP has a regulation that helps keep it down, and methods to keep those who have a tendency to be corrup away from our organization.
CAP members who hold rank have no monetary gain, so they don't have much reason to be corrupt. If no one is paid then there is little purpose for corruption to gain rank and if they were paid they would try to corrupt the system to gain the rank and pay.
The way CAP keeps those who are prone to corruption is another regulation requiring any potential member to undergo a thorough background check. If they make it through the background check, there are regulations setup that can allow other members to bring up possible or potential occurrences of corruption so they can be reviewed by higher command.
The biggest to me is the ownership of CAP that is given to members, not that we actually own CAP, but that we can give such a contribution to CAP and to our community that there is little motivation, if any at all, to be corrupt. It just isn't gainful in CAP. Personally I think the chances of being caught being corrupt in CAP is so HUGE that corruption is just discouraged in every members mind from the start.
Please do just remember, these are my personal opinions, and interpretations of regulations and the foundations of membership in CAP, and I am not stating that any of this is set fact, just my personal opinion. I hope this helps a bit.
After reading three pages of this thread, I have a suggestion: have the OP write the paper as he sees it, with his experiences and his opinions. When finished, have him PM copies to those who request them and get others evaluations of his work. That takes it out of the public domain of CT, where members seem Hell-bent on demeaning and insulting the OP and various others. All of this serves absolutely no good. How many differing definitions of the word "cortuption" can there be: sort of like asking 10 lawyers a question and getting 11 answers?
Most of what I have seen in these three pages are CT members arguing about defining corruption and insulting each other on their definitions.
Very poor performance on the parts of a number of people who should know better.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 29, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 01:52:22 PM
it is to serve our communities using our unique skils as pilots.
Oh darn. I'm not a pilot, I guess I'm not fulfilling CAP's goals then ::). I agreed with your post all the way up to "as".
Yes, yes, I always forget that there are people in CAP who never fly. I wrote pilots, but that isn't what my brain was thinking, i twas more about aircrews.
Yes, we need to train our members on aerospace topics so they can be proficient in the air. The rest of it - the ranks, the leadership training, inspections, reviews etc, etc, etc...we do that to ourselves.
How many volunteer hours are used to get an airplane in air for an hour? It has to be huge.
Back on topic - there factually has been corruption in CAP - the IG incident is one example. If people don't want that talked about and don't want to talk about how it happened and why, then as I see it, we are just lying to ourselves. Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.
But of course, there are already people getting upset.
So, how the whole IG thing happen?
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PMIntegrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.
It means nothing of the sort.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
Yes, yes, I always forget that there are people in CAP who never fly. I wrote pilots, but that isn't what my brain was thinking, i twas more about aircrews.
That doesn't make your statement any more valid. Aircrews are a small percentage of the ES force, and ES is only 1/3 of our stated mission.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
Back on topic - there factually has been corruption in CAP - the IG incident is one example. If people don't want that talked about and don't want to talk about how it happened and why, then as I see it, we are just lying to ourselves.
But of course, there are already people getting upset.
So, how the whole IG thing happen?
If you're referring to the recently released USAF IG report, that was not an "incident" that was the proper response to a member complaint. The report
indicates that in the opinion of the investigator, CAP has governance issues which could lead to corruption, but no actual corruption was indicated (at least publicly).
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.
No, it doesn't.
QuoteIn Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
Attacking his premise is a troll post.
WNFTT
No, it isn't.
In the context of this board, and considering some of the more pointed statements made by NCR in the past about his local CAP experience,
the OP was much more of a troll than any of the responses.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 29, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
QuoteIn Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
Attacking his premise is a troll post.
WNFTT
No, no it is not.
As I already said, if someone posted a topic saying, "So we all know that Obama's birth certificate is fake, so help me find the evidence", it is not trolling for someone to reject the premise that the birth certificate is, in fact, fake. More often than not, trolling is actually the act of advancing a premise designed deliberately to incite anger and controversy.
So, for instance, I might posit that asserting that CAP is undoubtedly corrupt to a message board solely dedicated to members of CAP is the act of a troll, because it is a premise that without question would ignite angry debate and hurt feelings. I don't believe that it was the INTENTION of the OP to cause this effect, which is why I don't believe he is a troll at all, but the response to his rather inflammatory premise isn't considered "trolling" simply because it doesn't accept what might be considered a rather trollish assertion.
I consider anyone operating the program outside the REG's to be corrupt. Example, Squadron Commanders that allow cadet officer promotions with out requiring said cadets to complete SDA requirements, including the written portion.. JMHO, as usual..
^ The only way that would be "corruption" is if there was personal gain by doing so beyond just not wanting to be bothered.
Your statement assumes the commander is even aware that a given reg exists.
What you're describing is just being a bad commander, not corruption.
Negligence, in and of itself is not "corruption".
In most cases even fraud, in and of itself, isn't necessarily corruption.
If breaking a regulation(s) was "corruption", there isn't anyone on this board who isn't "corrupt", especially in our universe of
conflicting, outdated, and open to interpretation regulatory culture. In the case of the OP, the assertion is a systemic corruption, ala Nucky Thompson, which categorically has never existed in CAP.
Ever.
I guess, in the widest sense, corruption could be defined as any action which deviates from accepted practice to the point where there is a break in ethical standards. Making false accusations to advance your point of view, holding pre conluded investigations to "prove a point", witholding vital informtion for personal gain, making up "evdidence" and, other such actions are examples of corruption. Does the knowledge gained from knowing this may exist in CAP matter?
We all act in self interest. However, IMHO, acting in self interest without regard to moral or ethical standards can be viewed as corruption. Fraud my not be corruption, however, the environment we set up to let the fraud happen, is.
At what "academic level" is this paper? The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation. The OP also referred to the paper as a "thesis" which is typically the final culminating work towards a master's degree. Both of these graduate level works also tend to be expected to be based upon either a lot of published research or a significant level of primary (scientific) research. I don't see how this scope of topic comes close to that. Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?
Quote from: Pylon on March 29, 2012, 05:48:12 PM
At what "academic level" is this paper? The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation. Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?
I had the same kind of question. I wasn't assuming that any doctorate-level program would care much about the alleged corruption within a volunteer organization. I just took it to mean some sort of research paper. Which, of course, I would still hold to the same standards that any academic work should meet in terms of supporting arguments (ie, that CAP is actually corrupt in the first place).
Quote from: Nathan on March 29, 2012, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: Pylon on March 29, 2012, 05:48:12 PM
At what "academic level" is this paper? The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation. Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?
I had the same kind of question. I wasn't assuming that any doctorate-level program would care much about the alleged corruption within a volunteer organization. I just took it to mean some sort of research paper. Which, of course, I would still hold to the same standards that any academic work should meet in terms of supporting arguments (ie, that CAP is actually corrupt in the first place).
I took it as a term paper...
Quote from: Pylon on March 29, 2012, 05:48:12 PM
At what "academic level" is this paper? The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation. Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?
A dissertation would require a lot of archival work to support the proposed "thesis statement." Speculations for an on line board would not fly in academic settings and would likely require a rewrite with more substantial evidence and support.
To do a true scholarly work, the author would have to solicit records and interviews from CAPNHQ and from the persons involved.
For example, I once had a chat with Gen Anderson about the Maroon Rank Sleeves...it was just a chat. I could not use that as a reference in an official/authoritative scholarly work unless I did it as an official interview under certain circumstances. In fact, I would suggest in regards to such matters, one send an official corespondence the office of the persons involved. Gen Anderson, for example, is a Delegate in the Commonwealth of Virginia so the request should, or would have to be for an official purpose and not merely for a CAPTALK post.
Still, if it was a scholarly work I don't see a problem with it and it might be beneficial.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2012, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
Yes, yes, I always forget that there are people in CAP who never fly. I wrote pilots, but that isn't what my brain was thinking, i twas more about aircrews.
That doesn't make your statement any more valid. Aircrews are a small percentage of the ES force, and ES is only 1/3 of our stated mission.
Actually, I was covering ES and AE - we educate civilians as well, but training is especially for our members. If you want to get technical about it, Congress stated five purposes for CAP. Cadet programs are not specifically called for by Congress, except as an observation that we would have cadet members.
So, that leaves my original intended thought to be restated again that what we're instructed to do by Congress is a small part of the organization that CAP has become. We force a lot of extra organization on top of what our main missions are.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2012, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PM
Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.
No, it doesn't.
You don't think so? I think integrity also means that we don't do things for our personal gain and we don't intentionally do things that harm others. If you assume that members have integrity, then this isn't a personal battle against any particular person or group. Or turned around, if you assume that there is a personal agenda with an intent to cause harm, then you must conclude that those with the personal agendas aren't practicing integrity.
I choose to believe the best about people, I've found that it usually gives the best results.
So, I stand by my assertion that if we as an organization have integrity, then there is no concern of having an open and honest dialog. And turning that same statement around, if we cannot have an open and honest dialog because we don't respect others or we believe they don't have the integrity to place the organization before themselves, then honest dialog isn't possible.
So, I'll go back to my suggestion that rather than talking about the semantics, let's have a good converstaion about our organization.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 04:04:33 AM
So, I am writing a dissertation on "corruption inside Civil Air Patrol". To calm some fears right off the bat, this will not be an "anti-cap" paper or harbor "anti-cap" messages.
I wanted to get your alls opinion on how CAP in particular (not outside agencies like we tend to discuss here...I.E. USAF and USCGA) becomes corrupt. What a better source than those that live CAP?
Things like at what level does it start, what level can it be controlled. What is corruption versus what is "natural selection" of good leaders. Your opinions on fairness inside CAP at all levels, your opinions on if corruption can ever be eradicated from our organization, and how to go about doing it. (not limited to those things of course) How the scope of corruption effects CAP (I.E. the Pineda incident V the berry boards incident). Maybe even some (censored) personal stories. Anything you are willing to put out there will help me.
Like I said, anything you want to put will be a big help to me. I would not mind a little debate to add opposing opinions to the mix.
Thanks in advance to anyone who posts.
When in doubt, reexamine the initial post. First, I question the use of the term "dissertation", arising from the Latin word for "discourse". Generally, this applies to a formal written presentation compiling a body of work intended to be submitted and defended in the award of a Doctoral degree. So perhaps a better title for your paper would be "Treatise" . Second, I believe that CAP undeniably has had instances of
Official Corruption, but that things like the maroon epaulette uniform changes, or simple cronyism, don't plausibly reach that threshold, although no one would argue these are "bad" things, I think few could successfully articulate how they reach the commonly held, or legal, definitions of corruption, so no Doctoral adviser would ever let you start a Dissertation with an unsupportable title. Your assurances that the paper will not be anti-CAP cannot be made in good faith, since it calls for a conclusion without first benefit of evidence and argument, so I set this aside, to be reviewed again later to see if you had pre-formed conclusions to defend, consciously, or unconsciously.
Intrinsic to your theory is the idea that CAP has had acts of corruption, and that we could benefit as a whole by disinfecting them with daylight. I could not agree more. But the second line of the post implies that since CAP has had corrupt members and corrupt acts, that CAP is by some mysterious distributive process, inherently corrupt, and this is a logical fallacy. This does not in fact disprove the idea that CAP may be inherently corrupt. In my private view, since all men are inherently corrupt, I find it more logical to believe that an association of corrupt individuals is not likely to result in a body less corrupt as an agglomeration.
To produce a defensible thesis ( through peer review) you would need to define your view corruption, and establish that CAP meets this definition. Difficult, but not impossible. Identifying the level at which "corruption" starts? I would argue that would be "conception"! Making a determination as to how it can be quelled is no small task. Pretty much every philosopher and theologian to trod the face of the planet has struggled with these ideas, which inherently spring from a discussion of Good and Evil.
Your third sentence invites input from all those present. Although this group has a well known reputation for belligerence , and may not represent the healthiest of the CAP members' mindset, I thought your request for information prudent. But a few posts later, you belligerently assert "the hell with this" (or words to that effect) when you are challenged, fairly and unfairly, on your definitions, goals and motivations. This is likely to detract from any claim you make to dispassionate studies and conclusions. You opened the door, so don't be surprised if the horses run free. It also undermines your good faith in invitation to debate the subject i.e " Add opposing opinions to the mix" . Opposed to what?
Your project, like all intellectual investigation, has merit, but you will have to forgive us if we notice that you seem to lack data, objectivity, purpose, the application of reason, or the proper use of language. Actually, I was impressed by your question: "What is corruption versus what is "natural selection" of good leaders". This is the kind of question that Ayn Rand would have found worthy of Objectivist discussion, and in my opinion, a better subject for a thesis ( although somewhat clumsily phrased I am afraid) than your original hypothesis.
I think Mr. Hayden owns the trademark for "Anti-CAP" you may need to pay him a license fee if you use it!
Major Lord
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 06:15:32 PMSo, I'll go back to my suggestion that rather than talking about the semantics, let's have a good converstaion about our organization.
The only person dancing with semantics on this thread is you, and the OP never intended for this to be an open conversation "about the organization" (whatever that means). He specifically indicated a thesis, and then wanted us to supply evidence he didn't personally have to back up that thesis.
It sounds like someone who wants to find out what information he needs to gather. What rocks do we think he needs to kick over? Only, nobody wants to say there are any bugs under the rocks.
I could see certain organizations being interested in how corruption happens...
- a business program, especially a business ethics program from a governence standpoint,
- a sociology program from a human interactions standpoint
- a LE education program, from a pure educational standpoint.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 06:15:32 PM
You don't think so? I think integrity also means that we don't do things for our personal gain and we don't intentionally do things that harm others. If you assume that members have integrity, then this isn't a personal battle against any particular person or group. Or turned around, if you assume that there is a personal agenda with an intent to cause harm, then you must conclude that those with the personal agendas aren't practicing integrity.
I choose to believe the best about people, I've found that it usually gives the best results.
So, I stand by my assertion that if we as an organization have integrity, then there is no concern of having an open and honest dialog. And turning that same statement around, if we cannot have an open and honest dialog because we don't respect others or we believe they don't have the integrity to place the organization before themselves, then honest dialog isn't possible.
So, I'll go back to my suggestion that rather than talking about the semantics, let's have a good converstaion about our organization.
Having an "open and honest dialogue" is something quite different than "talking openly without anyone getting upset."
IE, a member who reports a hazing incident is acting with integrity. It is most definitely going to be upsetting to the people who get thwacked in the hazing report. A member with integrity is almost certainly going to be getting people upset, because if doing the right thing was always the popular thing to do, then the need to define integrity would not exist.
And, just to be open and honest, I hope you realize your implication that the members who disagree with your assertion are lacking integrity. After all, by your view, anyone who does not agree about CAP's alleged corruption is "lying to themselves", and I assume in your world therefore are "getting upset", which apparently means that they are not "talking openly." Which means that you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you has no integrity, because they reject a premise you have assumed to be true.
If I may be open and honest, that's harsh, dude.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 06:25:31 PM
What rocks do we think he need kick over?
"We" don't need to kick over any rocks. While a few who participate here are actually charged with those tasks, the majority are not,
and none of it should be done in public, especially as general conversation with the implication that a few isolated incidents are endemic
to the organization as a whole.
"Unintended Consequences" is not just an indie band appearing this Saturday at the Thirsty Whale.
Quote from: Nathan on March 29, 2012, 06:33:11 PM
Having an "open and honest dialogue" is something quite different than "talking openly without anyone getting upset."
IE, a member who reports a hazing incident is acting with integrity. It is most definitely going to be upsetting to the people who get thwacked in the hazing report. A member with integrity is almost certainly going to be getting people upset, because if doing the right thing was always the popular thing to do, then the need to define integrity would not exist.
And, just to be open and honest, I hope you realize your implication that the members who disagree with your assertion are lacking integrity. After all, by your view, anyone who does not agree about CAP's alleged corruption is "lying to themselves", and I assume in your world therefore are "getting upset", which apparently means that they are not "talking openly." Which means that you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you has no integrity, because they reject a premise you have assumed to be true.
If I may be open and honest, that's harsh, dude.
Well, if nobody brings a personal agenda to the converstaion, then open discussions shouldn't upset anyone. This isn't personal, this is about the organization.
As far as an implication that I say anyone is lacking integrity, that isn't true at all. If you do not hold the premise that corruption exists, then you just disagree. That's just disagreement, no harm, no foul.
On the other had, if you know that corruption exists and you want to hide it from members, then you're bringing your personal agenda to the table. Now, you could still just avoid the topic and practice integrity.
So I think your statement that I'm splitting people into those who talk and those who have integrity is a bit much.
Regardless - it's clear that nobody wants to discuss the topic. I'm not sure that's healthy because it helps sustain the issues that caused corruption in the first place.
Integrity is a "sort of strength from within" the almost compulsion to "do the right thing." It prevents you from doing the unethical thing and compells you to remain within the limits of established ethichs, rules and laws for the benefit of the greater organization, or (if you will) for no direct benefit to oneself. Yielding only to the concept of "the right thing." It is, in a since, the antithesis of corrpution, where a wrong thing is eiter justified or don't in a concious violation of ethics, rules and laws for a PERSONAL benefit.
Integrity called people, at times, to disagree with concepts, premises and actions that they are opposed to. There is no choice for a person who has integrity. It, integrity, cannot be built "over night." However, when it is present in the character of a member it "eats at" that person to remain silent or be on the "unethical side" of the matter.
As a commander there is plenty of times that arrise where the "ethical" path is the more difficult road to follow. Integrity causes internal conflict when tough decisions are made.
All this said, it is not a lack of integrity to disagree with a premise. In fact, in some cases, it is mandatory.
This is the sort of paper I could have seen myself writing for my Social Psychology class.
Without getting into the minutiae of Stanley Milgram, Emile Durkheim or any of those, I am sure most of us have heard of the "close-the-wagons mentality" and "learned helplessness."
The first could apply to CAP leadership (or cronyism) from a bunch of GOB's who have known one another for years, have been in CAP ever since we had silvertan uniforms and are probably all Lieutenant Colonels. First Lieutenant Silverbar witnesses what she believes to be clearly unethical behaviour from her squadron CC, Major Goldleaf, and deputy CC, Captain Railtracks. Since the Lieutenant is relatively new to CAP, she does not know the regulations inside and out, like us old-timers do (cough, hack, ahem) but her gut instinct tells her that
something is wrong. So she initiates an IG investigation. However, the wing IG, Lieutenant Colonel Silverleaf, the wing CC, Colonel Chickenshield, and the wing Chief of Staff, Major Butterball, have all known Maj. Goldleaf since (as my dad used to say) Shep was a pup. There is no way they could ever believe that Maj. Goldleaf could ever do something that egregious, and he is a sound judge of character, otherwise he would not have appointed Capt. Railtracks to the deputy CC position, and Capt. Railtracks seems like such a nice young woman anyway. So, the august Wing personages hold a private, closed-door brainstorm (knock on the office door at your peril of being busted down to A3C) and decide "this young looie is getting a head too big for her hat; it is time to show her how the real world operates." So, said august personages summon Lieutenant Silverbar to their presence. They tell the young Lieutenant in no uncertain terms that what she did is a breach of discipline, ethics, morals and regulations (they are quite sure that someone as "green" as she is has not studied the regulations). They offer her three choices:
- Take a demotion to Second Lieutenant, and the word will quickly get around, making Silverbar persona non grata around the Wing;
- Accept a 2B, and get your tail out of my office and out of my life;
- Resign "gracefully," and no shame or dishonour will come upon you, and you might even get to rejoin CAP in a couple of years if you do not drag a lawyer into it!
Cronyism, corruption or circling the wagons?
Then, regardless of what our now-very dispirited young Lieutenant decides to do (in her position, my reply would
possibly involve some inventive and colourful invective and a certain upraised digit, followed by a precipitous departure), the word gets around Wing and scares the life out of everyone not in the nexus of the crisis. The prevalent attitude becomes "oh, what's the use?" and the CAP members within the Wing eventually demonstrate learned helplessness, meaning that even if an action
is clearly in violation of regulations, it will be "let it pass." Even Major Boffin, who holds Master ratings in Administration and Personnel, will be too frightened to rock the boat.
Corruption? I do not know.
Disclaimer: I have never witnessed either of the situations above; they are totally hypothetical based on broadly similar situations I know of (or have heard rumour and hearsay of) within CAP over the past couple of decades. No resemblance to any ladies, gentlemen or otherwise serving or having served in CAP is intended.
Having written a masters thesis and published articles in professional journals, I agree with a few of the previous posters who don't see any way that someone could write any sort of article on cronyism in CAP since you're not going to find any reliable sources. Now, if you want to write about real corruption -- misuse of funds, etc., you probably could put together a decent paper based on various newspaper accounts. These might not be terribly accurate, but could work.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 07:33:18 PM
Well, if nobody brings a personal agenda to the converstaion, then open discussions shouldn't upset anyone. This isn't personal, this is about the organization.
As far as an implication that I say anyone is lacking integrity, that isn't true at all. If you do not hold the premise that corruption exists, then you just disagree. That's just disagreement, no harm, no foul.
On the other had, if you know that corruption exists and you want to hide it from members, then you're bringing your personal agenda to the table. Now, you could still just avoid the topic and practice integrity.
So I think your statement that I'm splitting people into those who talk and those who have integrity is a bit much.
Regardless - it's clear that nobody wants to discuss the topic. I'm not sure that's healthy because it helps sustain the issues that caused corruption in the first place.
Now see, that's exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. "Nobody wants to discuss the topic." Really? We have several pages discussing the topic. The problem is that almost nobody is simply accepting that corruption exists in the first place, at least not in any way that's been defined.
It's like you saying that you want to talk about how to stop the alien lizard people from invading our government, and then claiming that "nobody wants to talk about it" when we deny that there ARE alien lizard people. We're not trying to cover up corruption by denying its existence. We simply don't think it exists, and we're waiting for you (or the original poster) to come up with a strong assertion that supports that it DOES exist. If you can do that, then we can start discussing it. But we aren't going to speculate on what corruption MIGHT be happening when there is no real evidence that it is happening, or has actually happened in the past.
To assume that our rejection of the premise is evidence of a cover-up or that the subject matter is uncomfortable is how baseless conspiracy theories are formed. "If you don't think that the alien lizard people are here, then that only means you're on their payroll."
I would think that if someone were really going to write an article, paper, thesis, etc. about "corruption" in an organization then there would have to be the perception that corruption was endemic or commonplace in that organization. Or there would have to be the direct knowledge that corruption exists but is being covered up by the organization in part or as a whole.
I'm sorry but I don't see corruption as endemic to CAP or there being a "vast Triangle Thingy conspiracy" to cover up the "hidden" corruption to CAP. Is there cronyism, nepotism, or just being an "egotistical doughhead"? Of course, but as has been pointed out, that is not corruption on the face of it.
Not being the most internet oriented person on CT, I'm not sure what the definition of a "troll" is, but telling somebody that you think is wrong that you think they are wrong is not being a troll. That's just being brutally honest.
On the whole, I think some of us have the "officer" part down cold, but maybe we should all remember the "gentleman" part of the equation.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 29, 2012, 04:22:34 AM
Lets say a wing commander appoints a classic CAP "good ol boy" club inside his/her wing I would consider that a form of "corruption" more or less
Uh, that is exactly what CAP's system is designed for. Those in charge get to pick their staff. Most commanders are smart enough to realize that if they pick incompetent people just because they are their friends, its going to hurt them in the long run and make them look bad.
So, most wing commanders are going to appoint people that they think are competent to be on their staff and to run their squadrons. Sure, some will probably also be friends, but anyone that becomes a Wing Commander is going to have been around long enough that just about anybody who is anybody is their friend, so its almost unavoidable.
Now, those who don't get picked for the staff or squadron commander jobs are going to feel that they were slighted and that its corrupt because they didn't get picked.
Quote from: Nathan on March 29, 2012, 11:15:21 PM
Now see, that's exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. "Nobody wants to discuss the topic." Really? We have several pages discussing the topic.
No, until this page we have several pages denying there's a problem and attacking those believe there is one.
Hint on how to read this - without passion and with a certain level of defeatism.
If you don't think the description CyBorg gave could (has?) happened, then you have a very different view of the structure here than I've experienced. In general, how dare anyone question their superiors, how dare anyone make a suggestion. It's all been asked before, you don't know who you're offending, do pipe down before you get in trouble.
Tell me it won't happen.
I came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.
I think RiverAux has hit a good point.
Back in the Bad Old Days with HWSNBN and even during Gen Courter's time.....anytime a wing or regional commander was releived or resigned then it was almost instantly assumed that politics were involved.
I am not saying that there was not a lot of that going on.....but the "word on the street" was almost universally on the conspiracy side of things.
Same deal with wing appointments.....just look at Newsoftheforce's recent analysis of the NER and see how it is all spun toward the corrupt political side of things.
So yes...there is corruption.....sometimes a lot of it.....but there is also a lot of good officers doing their job in a volunteer organisation. Appointing freinds and aquantances to "choice" jobs over other people is not necessarily a bad thing. You know them, they know you and it makes for a good working team.
A large part of the problem is the governance at national level. Who is really driving the train? Is the BoG? The NB? The NEC? Is the NHQ staffers? Fixing the governance model will go a long way to correct a lot of the politics involved at that level. It would make selecting more skilled leaders at wing and regional level easier as you don't have to worry about political reliablity.
To go with this, if regions and wings were given clear operational expectations, it becomes easier to judge the effectivenss of a commander in a more meaningful way then just relying on the CIs and SUIs.
And back to NCR's original point......how does corruption start and spread? When a memeber's personal desires and goals causes him/her to disregard the organisations core values and start gameing the system for his/her own aims instead of the aims and missions of the organisation.
Quote from: ol'fido on March 30, 2012, 12:11:02 AM
I'm sorry but I don't see corruption as endemic to CAP or there being a "vast Triangle Thingy conspiracy" to cover up the "hidden" corruption to CAP. Is there cronyism, nepotism, or just being an "egotistical doughhead"? Of course, but as has been pointed out, that is not corruption on the face of it.
On the whole, I think some of us have the "officer" part down cold, but maybe we should all remember the "gentleman" part of the equation.
I give two examples of "happenings" which are easily found in eservices; both MARB cases. The first is the review of the relief from command of (redacted) wing in 2009. The second was the review of the relief from command of (redacted) wing in 2011.
In the first case, the member was reinstated because the evidence was totally fabricated. It seems the month before his relief of command, he openly questioned the national commander in open session of a NB meeting. Is this corruption?
In the second case, the member was reinstated because his "infractions" did not rise to the level of misconduct as defined by the regulations. The review also showed the evidence was not only fabricated but, in direct condridiction to the written records. This member, who was not liked in the wing, was then immediatly 2b'd for theft of CAP property. The reinstated member decided to quit rather than continue fighting for his cause;even knowing he was in the right. This wing is now, according to published accounts, in total turmoil; all for the sake of a certain group of members who wanted their way. Is this corruption?
Is the system which allows for this corrupt? Is this system endemic in CAP? Is this perception?
Why did the USAF IG report his findings the way he did? I'd love to know what the SECAF's response was. There have been unconfirmed reports; were they leaked? If so, who leaked them?
Is this corruption?
I'll give other "actions" which are either hypothetical or can be found on earlier CT posts, other websites or, in "open letters" to the membership:
A member takes the time to become a mission pilot. His squadron commander grounds him before he schedules his first flight because "he isn't safe". The member has never had a safety issue before. However, two other pilots in the squadron fly regularly; each having multiple infractions. Is there corruption here?
A region commander is granted completion of Level 5 of the Professional Development program without completing the requirments because the National Commander needs their suppot. Is that corruption?
A national commander, region commander and, some others get the silver medal of valor after fabricating an incident and strong arming the NEC. Is that corruption.
A national vice commander decides to make public his forced resignation and termination of membership. Most of what is says is inconsitant with the written record. However, many believe him at his word; is that corruption?
A wing is forgiven a $250000 debt to the Air Force for improper handling of aircraft maintanence funds because the national commander needs the support of the region and wing commander. All other wings must pay their bill. Is this corruption?
I could hypthosise that the above examples may fit the definition of the term. Unethical conduct for personal gain seems to be the MO in almost all the cases presented.
I could give many other examples however, the point is not to stick out our sores. The point is to be honest with ourselves. Correct the behavior and, move on. Failing to recognize our weaknesses does nothing to help the situation. And, to say there are many (the great majority) of members who are good, honest and, hard working individuals is irrelavent to a system which allows the above to happen. Politics? I think this is something more.
Any thoughts?
I don't think that anybody is going to argue that we have recently gotten rid of a doughhead National Commander who was in it for himself and not for the organization. And yes, if all those allegations are true then he needed to go. So the system worked like it was supposed to and he went. I didn't say there weren't instances of individual corruption in CAP but there is nothing that is endemic to the organization. Perhaps, we disagree on the definition of "endemic". I am using the term to mean ingrained and system wide and I don't think that there is that kind of corruption in this organization.
Having explained that I don't see any reason to alter my previous stance and opinion.
You assume I speak of incidents only under Pineda. I don't. The system worked then. Does it now? Do the examples I've given show an inherant weakness of our system? The Air Force IG says we have a problem. Is it endemic? That is a good question. We'll know the answer when we get the BoG's changes to CAP's governance structure.
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 12:34:46 AM
No, until this page we have several pages denying there's a problem and attacking those believe there is one.
I really just don't see that. I promise I'm not part of a conspiracy of denialism because I don't see it. But I simply don't see the evidence that anyone's being "attacked." I see that someone made a pretty bold assertion to a bunch of CAP members who have been around for a while that CAP has experienced corruption. I saw people either refute that idea directly, or ask for clarification on how "corruption" is being defined. Nobody is saying that anyone is an idiot for believing there is corruption, just that they disagree, and even that they might agree depending on how "corruption" is defined.
Which, again, is why I'm pointing out that your defensiveness about this isn't really warranted or helpful. I see a lot of people who are interested in debating the topic. In fact, you're the one saying that if we don't accept your view on things, we're "lying to ourselves." That's far more
ad hominem than I have been.
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 12:34:46 AMIf you don't think the description CyBorg gave could (has?) happened, then you have a very different view of the structure here than I've experienced. In general, how dare anyone question their superiors, how dare anyone make a suggestion. It's all been asked before, you don't know who you're offending, do pipe down before you get in trouble.
Eh... that's kind of a slippery thing to say. Saying that there is "corruption in CAP" isn't exactly just questioning superiors, that's accusing superiors of facilitating or directly participating in a system that is unethical and reflects poorly upon their personal integrity. I still doubt that such postulates would shift anything upstairs (there have been far worse things said by far more irritating individuals), but you can't exactly claim that any fallout from calling your superior "corrupt" is evidence of corruption.
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 12:34:46 AMI came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.
Well, if you're judging the entirety of CAP off of this place (as evidenced by your desire to quit CAP because of your apparent maltreatment here), then I can probably understand why you would extrapolate a few questionable, undoubtedly shifty incidents to how CAP itself operates (as an organization with, as you see it, a corruption problem). But really, CAP is a big organization that has a lot going on, and just as the culture here isn't indicative of how CAP as a whole operates, a few incidents which MIGHT be considered corruption doesn't necessarily indicate that the system itself is flawed, or that corruption actually even occurred.
And again, don't pretend that you aren't making direct remarks on the "integrity" of the individuals here when you are basically accusing us of maliciously attacking you. This is one of the tamer threads in CAPTalk, and despite your feelings of persecution, nothing that's been put forth by you or the original poster has said anything inflammatory enough to really rile anyone up yet.
I'm sorry that you feel upset that people don't agree with you, but if you're going to participate in an online discussion board, especially when you choose to make accusations of corruption to the members of the organization you are accusing, then you probably need to be prepared to defend your arguments by saying something other than "you all are out to get people like me."
Seriously, I'm not trying to be harsh or drive you off. You just seemed to believe that having an "open, honest conversation" is a mark of integrity, which I can respect, so per your own definition of integrity, I expect that you, as an individual with integrity, would not get upset at my open, honest remarks.
Quote from: bflynn on March 29, 2012, 04:13:22 PMYes, we need to train our members on aerospace topics so they can be proficient in the air.
Really? I learned a bunch of AE stuff as a cadet, but its intent wasn't specifically to prepare me as a pilot. It certainly gave me a lot of insight into what goes on in the cockpit, and how/why an airplane flies, but those segments were part of a scope of material.
The SM Aero Ed program is more oriented toward aviation history, current events, and new technology, rather than the hows and whys of flying.
QuoteHow many volunteer hours are used to get an airplane in air for an hour? It has to be huge.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Volunteers do ZERO maintenance on corporate aircraft. As far as basic flying goes, there's the usual preflight and postflight, and some minor cleaning (windows, interior, etc), but nothing extraordinary, over and above private aircraft ownership.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 30, 2012, 03:49:32 AM
QuoteHow many volunteer hours are used to get an airplane in air for an hour? It has to be huge.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Volunteers do ZERO maintenance on corporate aircraft. As far as basic flying goes, there's the usual preflight and postflight, and some minor cleaning (windows, interior, etc), but nothing extraordinary, over and above private aircraft ownership.
Overhead, not maintenance. How many house of meetings, training, administration, etc....
Yes, we do more than fly, but flying is why CAP was brought into existence.
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 02:03:29 PM
Overhead, not maintenance. How many house of meetings, training, administration, etc....
Yes, we do more than fly, but flying is why CAP was brought into existence.
Relevance to corruption? CAP's mission is no longer air-centric.
Only ~3% of the USAF is aircrew, and the rest of the organization supports them, or are tasked with missions unrelated to air superiority.
The meetings, training, and administration are what keeps the aircrews and other mission-focused members flying. You can pick nits about the charter, but our published mission is only 1/3 ES, and inside that 1/3 is only about 1/2 related to the aircrews and planes.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2012, 04:41:47 PM
Only ~3% of the USAF is aircrew, and the rest of the organization supports them, or are tasked with missions unrelated to air superiority.
Ok.
I suspect that's why from time to time, there are dicussions about whether the country still needs the Air Force. They compare very negatively to other services when you look at the amount of support needed for the pointy end of the spear to work.
We've drifted in topic. CAP is not doing all of what Congress charged us to do. Why shouldn't we invent our own mission then?
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 04:54:04 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2012, 04:41:47 PM
Only ~3% of the USAF is aircrew, and the rest of the organization supports them, or are tasked with missions unrelated to air superiority.
Ok.
I suspect that's why from time to time, there are dicussions about whether the country still needs the Air Force. They compare very negatively when you look at the amount of support needed for the pointy end of the spear to work.
We've drifted in topic. CAP is not doing all of what Congress charged us to do. Why shouldn't we invent our own mission then?
(http://evangelicaloutpost.com/images/LostLogo_.jpg)
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 12:34:46 AM
Quote from: Nathan on March 29, 2012, 11:15:21 PM
Now see, that's exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. "Nobody wants to discuss the topic." Really? We have several pages discussing the topic.
No, until this page we have several pages denying there's a problem and attacking those believe there is one.
Hint on how to read this - without passion and with a certain level of defeatism.
If you don't think the description CyBorg gave could (has?) happened, then you have a very different view of the structure here than I've experienced. In general, how dare anyone question their superiors, how dare anyone make a suggestion. It's all been asked before, you don't know who you're offending, do pipe down before you get in trouble.
Tell me it won't happen.
I came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.
The members on this page are not representative of CAP; If they were, CAP would be a continual fist-fight. This is where the most cynical among us come to die, so don't let us take the wind out of your sails. Come back again in a few years after you have burned out and you will be welcome back with open and cynical arms.....
Major Lord
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 12:34:46 AMI came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.
Kinda funny, actually.
You came in swinging and thrashing from the get go. What did you expect to get back from that?
Quote from: bflynn on March 30, 2012, 12:34:46 AM
I came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.
The Civil Air Patrol is, despite all the high profile machinations we tend to read about, a very "local" organization. The Squadron level is where the "rubber meets the road." Not only in terms of mission readiness, but in the culture.
In that regard, CAP is what we choose to make it. If I want a unit where we are doing things reminiscent of the Gregory Peck film "12 O'clock High" where we are extremely structured and professional...then that is the Culture of that unit. If you are in a unit more reminiscent of the Bill Murray Film "Stripes" then that is what the culture of that unit is.
I prefer a balance...adherence to traditions of military courtesy and custom, with an atmosphere of fellowship all the while adhering to the rules and effectively accomplishing the mission. If you are not having "fun," by that I mean feeling fulfilled by your service to "COMMUNITY, STATE and NATION" then something is wrong. Then there needs to be changes...we should not be fighting and undergoing drama at our SQUADRON MEETINGS.
CAPTALK, however, is not a squadron meeting. It is a place to, for some, 1) vent, 2) rant, 3) temper ideas, 4) bicker, 5) network and a whole host of other personal reasons for coming her.
Some people aren't even members of CAP anymore, or at all (ever) and just want to criticize the organization based on some isolated experience with some unit or CAP Officer in the past. To those people, and especially those riled up by the criticisms of those people, I will remind you of Teddy Roosevelt's "man the the arena..."
QuoteIt is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
You and I, my friends...are the MEN in the ARENA.
That's an excellent in a nutshell view, actually. :)
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 31, 2012, 01:54:41 AM
Some people aren't even members of CAP anymore, or at all (ever) and just want to criticize the organization based on some isolated experience with some unit or CAP Officer in the past. To those people, and especially those riled up by the criticisms of those people, I will remind you of Teddy Roosevelt's "man the the arena..."
QuoteIt is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
You and I, my friends...are the MEN in the ARENA.
Thank you!
Quote from: Major Lord on March 30, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
The members on this page are not representative of CAP; If they were, CAP would be a continual fist-fight. This is where the most cynical among us come to die, so don't let us take the wind out of your sails. Come back again in a few years after you have burned out and you will be welcome back with open and cynical arms.....
Major Lord
Not entirely true, sir.
For one thing, I was a hardened cynic long before I ever put on a CAP uniform. ;)
If you take note of the signatures, you'll find that many new posters are 2LT, 1LT or cadets. Hardly the cynical old men that's claimed.
Bill, being a 2Lt or a 1Lt doesn't necessarily imply youth. Most of the recent new members in my unit are 40+, just about the right age to be incipient cynics. >:D
Quote from: SarDragon on March 31, 2012, 08:05:07 PM
Bill, being a 2Lt or a 1Lt doesn't necessarily imply youth. Most of the recent new members in my unit are 40+, just about the right age to be incipient cynics. >:D
Yes, but I took "youth" in this case to be "young in the organization." Newbies who haven't the three clasped RED SERVICE RIBBON or the like.
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 31, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 31, 2012, 08:05:07 PM
Bill, being a 2Lt or a 1Lt doesn't necessarily imply youth. Most of the recent new members in my unit are 40+, just about the right age to be incipient cynics. >:D
Yes, but I took "youth" in this case to be "young in the organization." Newbies who haven't the three clasped RED SERVICE RIBBON or the like.
I think you are approaching this logical fallacy: Correlation does not imply causation. Merely being in CAP does not necessarily lead to cynicism.
Just because CT is rife with cynics, that shouldn't tar all members with that brush. Cynics abound in real life, of all ages.
To support my prior example: Merriam-Webster Definition:
1 a: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle: a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct.
Therefore, my example is spot on to corruption in CAP. To allow cadet officer promotions without requiring the cadets to complete SDA requirements is not only corruption on the commanders part, but also on the part of all seniors and cadets involved and aware of the infraction. Further this sets an example to all that the requirements are only guidelines to be loosely followed. Ergo, the whole system becomes corrupt. If the ego maniacs on the board would stop espousing to hear themselves espouse and provide answers to the original question it would benefit all. This does appear to be difficult if not impossible for the handful that fortunately know everything about everything and must post as routinely as the toilet flushes. Unfortunately most of what they post should also be flushed with some regularity. I stopped coming here a couple of years ago. I hoped to find changes when I returned, but, S.O.S. different day. What a shame. How many members do you all run off after a short period of your ego driven advice??
Sorry, I was in the head, what did I miss?
FYI, we have an 83 Y/O 1LT in our squadron who flew Mosquitoes for the RCAF in WWII. Some people are just naturally cynical, but it seems like CAP is an excellent environment to bring out latent tendencies.......oooooh, I did not mean it quite the way that sounds.........
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on April 02, 2012, 05:35:31 AM
FYI, we have an 83 Y/O 1LT in our squadron who flew Mosquitoes for the RCAF in WWII.
How cool is that!
One thing is Squadrons should avoid Senior Centers as meeting places because that Squadron will drive the Group and/or Wing Commander insane.
Like they need help anyway.
Quote from: Major Lord on April 02, 2012, 05:35:31 AM
FYI, we have an 83 Y/O 1LT in our squadron who flew Mosquitoes for the RCAF in WWII.
Does he wear his flight cap slightly tilted to the right, salute palm-out and say "lef-tenant?"
Quote from: CyBorg on April 04, 2012, 02:52:43 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 02, 2012, 05:35:31 AM
FYI, we have an 83 Y/O 1LT in our squadron who flew Mosquitoes for the RCAF in WWII.
Does he wear his flight cap slightly tilted to the right, salute palm-out and say "lef-tenant?"
Um...I say lef-tenant. Waiting for my railroad tracks so people don't look at me funny when I introduce myself...
Quote from: CyBorg on April 04, 2012, 02:52:43 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 02, 2012, 05:35:31 AM
FYI, we have an 83 Y/O 1LT in our squadron who flew Mosquitoes for the RCAF in WWII.
Does he wear his flight cap slightly tilted to the right, salute palm-out and say "lef-tenant?"
I have not seen him wear a uniform in years, but he is active in the RCAF Legion and they have provided scholarships for us to flight academies, by way of thanks for our providing Color Guards for their activities. He is a "paper LT" now, since his health is not optimum. He has been in America a long time, so no tremulous open hand saluting with a foot stomp or "Leftenants" but he still says "hoose" and "aboot" and probably eats back-bacon and drinks Strohs, eh? I never heard him call anyone a "houser" either. In their event programs, they always list us as the "22nd Civil Air Patrol Squadron" which I admit has a nice SAS sounding ring to it! ( Personally, I prefer "His Majesty, King Obama's Royal Civil Air Patrol Squadron".
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on April 04, 2012, 02:52:48 PMPersonally, I prefer "His Majesty, King Obama's Royal Civil Air Patrol Squadron".
I dunno, I have a rather strong reaction against that King part whether the name after it is Obama, Bush, Clinton or even Reagan.
I think you were joking though?
Quote from: JeffDG on April 04, 2012, 11:52:19 AM
Um...I say lef-tenant. Waiting for my railroad tracks so people don't look at me funny when I introduce myself...
Actually, I do too sometimes. Too much CBC, BBC and ABC, and living so close to the border, not to mention repeated viewings of
The Battle Of Britain.What really throws my colleagues is when I address them in German:
Guter Nachmittag, Leutnant.
Wie geht es Ihnen, Oberstleutnant?
Zu befehl, Major!
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 31, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 31, 2012, 08:05:07 PM
Bill, being a 2Lt or a 1Lt doesn't necessarily imply youth. Most of the recent new members in my unit are 40+, just about the right age to be incipient cynics. >:D
Yes, but I took "youth" in this case to be "young in the organization." Newbies who haven't the three clasped RED SERVICE RIBBON or the like.
Hey, I'm a 1LT with out three clasps. Although I'll have it in July! >:D
You may now continue with your current program.