CAP Officers and shoulder cords

[Major Carrales]

People are just talking about it, it's not hurting anything. The statement made is simple supposition, it's not being stated as an absolute fact. What is "agendistic" about supposition?

It is a well known fact that the Major General is not popular, but not every blooming thing in CAP needs to have a link back to him.  Supposition on these forums is the mother of assumption which is, in turn, the father of misinformation. 

[Hawk200]

People are just talking about it, it's not hurting anything. The statement made is simple supposition, it's not being stated as an absolute fact. What is "agendistic" about supposition?

It is a well known fact that the Major General is not popular, but not every blooming thing in CAP needs to have a link back to him.  Supposition on these forums is the mother of assumption which is, in turn, the father of misinformation. 

Very true, but it's also seen that the General has brought a lot on himself. Paint a target on yourself, don't be surprised when people try to hit the bullseye. It's also well known that you are an avid supporter of his.

Second, there is no misinformation. There are people wearing cords that others want the scoop on. Since it's not being provided, they make suppositions. It is a natural thing to do.

Now back to the question: What is "agendistic" about supposition?

[lordmonar]

Now back to the question: What is "agendistic" about supposition?

Hawk.....do you not really understand or are you being deliberately dense?

It is agendanistic because of the way the question was worded.  It was making a statement about the National Commander's way of doing business.

If someone had asked "was it a last minute policy change?" or if someone asked "Is this a wear test?" that would be one thing.  But in this case they are making the statement that they don't believe the National Commander does not have the power to dictate a uniform change that affects his aids and two that somehow the National Commander is obligated to get feed back from the general membership.

The bottom line is....the NATIONAL COMMANDER does not need our approval for anything he does...he answers to the BoG and NB not to the general membership.

While the regulations do not give him the power to make uniform changes with out the approval of the NB.....CAP has a rich history of ignoring these rules....and again it is up to the NB and BoG not use to correct the National Commander.

[Flying Pig]

Having been involved in some dignitary protection,  Im just curious as to their training and quals?  Were they actual security or just playing the part?

[Ned]

Having been involved in some dignitary protection,  Im just curious as to their training and quals?  Were they actual security or just playing the part?

They're Florida cops.

And nice guys.

[Major Carrales]

It's also well known that you are an avid supporter of his.

Is it really?  I assume that is some sort of attempt to belittle me by associating me with "the demon." 

I am an opponent of any sort of agendism, especially when it becomes the sort of "game" that people play here.  I owe no "special allegiance" to the Major General, I am a squadron commander on the frontier of this organization.  Nothing gained or lost.

All I see is a constant preoccupation with this man.  So much so that I find it asinine.  I mean, every day at lease six posts about "the latest evil" or "some [darn]ation."  And normally from biased sources, such as the author of this thread.  That constitutes and agenda.

If you have some sort of proof to topple this man, then use it.  If not, just let established systems take their course.

[Hawk200]

Now back to the question: What is "agendistic" about supposition?

Hawk.....do you not really understand or are you being deliberately dense?

It is agendanistic because of the way the question was worded.  It was making a statement about the National Commander's way of doing business.

If someone had asked "was it a last minute policy change?" or if someone asked "Is this a wear test?" that would be one thing.  But in this case they are making the statement that they don't believe the National Commander does not have the power to dictate a uniform change that affects his aids and two that somehow the National Commander is obligated to get feed back from the general membership.

The bottom line is....the NATIONAL COMMANDER does not need our approval for anything he does...he answers to the BoG and NB not to the general membership.

While the regulations do not give him the power to make uniform changes with out the approval of the NB.....CAP has a rich history of ignoring these rules....and again it is up to the NB and BoG not use to correct the National Commander.

OK, I'll just put it this way, since you do not seem to understand or are being deliberately dense.

Who are you and Carrales to tell the members of this board not to discuss anything?

Both of you have on numerous occasions all but told people that they can't discuss something. Just out of curiousity, what do you think gives you the right? Your rank? Your military and CAP ranks carry a different weight on this forum, they don't give you the authority to direct people here to "...let it go."

People will discuss things as they see fit. If I don't like the topic of the thread, I don't read. Not telling you to do that, but I can say it's fairly effective. Food for thought.

By the way, the definition of agenda: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agenda

Maybe you can tell me how there's an agenda with the supposition made here.

[Hawk200]

It's also well known that you are an avid supporter of his.

Is it really?  I assume that is some sort of attempt to belittle me by associating me with "the demon." 

I am an opponent of any sort of agendism, especially when it becomes the sort of "game" that people play here.  I owe no "special allegiance" to the Major General, I am a squadron commander on the frontier of this organization.  Nothing gained or lost.

All I see is a constant preoccupation with this man.  So much so that I find it asinine.  I mean, every day at lease six posts about "the latest evil" or "some [darn]ation."  And normally from biased sources, such as the author of this thread.  That constitutes and agenda.

If you have some sort of proof to topple this man, then use it.  If not, just let established systems take their course.

It wasn't an attempt to belittle you, for the record, I consider you "little" for other reasons not associated with your support of Pineda.

And I think you should have the idea of a word's definition before you toss it around. Your application of the word "agendistic" doesn't seem to apply here.

As for the "preoccupation", Pineda has had numerous troubles associated with him. I think that for the benefit of the organization, he would best serve it by stepping down, instead of drawing the fire that he has. And I'm sure you probably haven't noticed, but I have defended him on occasion.

I've said my piece, but I'm not going to continue this on this thread. If you wish to address this further, send me a PM. I'll answer if I think it will be  worth the effort.

If people want to discuss things, sometimes it's best to let them. Telling people to "let it go", or making accusations is a sure way to guarantee that they won't stop.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Whenever a standard is violated without correction, a new standard is created.

With a general officer there, a uniform violation has the imprimatur of official sanction.  The General should have directed her aide de camp, or any other officer, to direct that the officer remove the unauthorized uniform item.

I also fault the public affairs people who let this picture be published, both because of the (evident) overweight appearance of the officer and the unauthorized uniform item.

This is what we call "Shooting ourselves in the foot."  We have only ourselves to blame.

Now, is it POSSIBLE that there has been a double-secret probation regulation change to permit this?  Possible, but very unlikely.  In the Army, aides de camp wear auguillettes (left shoulder for generals, right shoulder for the President) but I'm not aware of such a practice in the USAF.  Also, brigadier generals do not rate Lt. Col.'s as aides.  BG's rate 1st Lt. aides.

I'm left with Bill B's explanation.  Certain people can design their own uniforms.

[Hawk200]

 In the Army, aides de camp wear auguillettes (left shoulder for generals, right shoulder for the President) but I'm not aware of such a practice in the USAF.  Also, brigadier generals do not rate Lt. Col.'s as aides.  BG's rate 1st Lt. aides.

In my first few years in the Air Force, aides to Generals used to wear an auguillette. That would have been late '80's, early to mid '90's. They were later phased out, and replaced with the insignia (which was pretty much worn in the same manner as a lapel pin) shown on this page:

http://www.vanguardmil.com/insignia/main_categories.php?nav=airforce&sg1=AIDES%20INSIGNIA&sg1name=Aides%20Insignia&sg1nav=AIDES%20INSIGNIA&subnavIndexer=61

I've looked through the present 36-2903, and it appears that auguillettes have once again been authorized for General Officer Aides. An excerpt from 36-2903:

"Ceremonial, silver, single loop, chrome tip with raised "wing and star" emblem. Wear the open end loop aiguillette under the epaulet, grounded to the left shoulder seam when wearing service dress uniforms. For mess dress: silver, double loop, two chrome tips with raised "wing and star" emblem. Wear the open end loop aiguillette under the epaulet, grounded to the left shoulder seam. Pin the closed loop under the left lapel even with the second stud on the shirt so that the chrome tips hang naturally along the lapel."

For Air Force personnel, the uniform instruction spells out the wear criteria for those cords. 39-1 does not have any equivalent criteria. Some type of authorized, and openly available, published supplement would have easily avoided any questions about it. If it's authorized, written, and available to everyone, no questions would have been necessary.

[Major Carrales]

It wasn't an attempt to belittle you, for the record, I consider you "little" for other reasons not associated with your support of Pineda.

You lack Intergiry, Mister!

I'm a Public Affairs Officer in the Civil Air Patrol, that gives me the right to tell you not to discuss issues that are potentially destrcutive to CAP in a PUBLIC FORUM such as this.  That belittles us all.

As for the rest of your writings...BUPKES!

[DrDave]

Well, this thread appears well on it's way to being locked.

Before that happens, let me add the following:

The officer in question in the photo is clearly identified as Lt. Col. Jorge Del Rio of the Florida Wing.  I've looked over the publicly accessible Florida Wing website and can't find any current listing of him as either a Wing Staff member or squadron commander (although he is the former Group 6 Commander per Google).

Surely, someone can find his contact information -- here's a wild idea: send him an email and ask him what his shoulder cord denotes.

Dr. Dave

[MIKE]

Lock.