Our new "moniker"

[RiverAux]

In the March/April 2007 version of the CAP Volunteer MG Pineda has this in his "From the national commander column":

To emphasize CAP's unity and volunteer spirit, the National Board and I have adopted "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" as our organization's moniker.  I encourage all members to embrace this new name, which better embodies a concept that's been with CAP from the beginning.  Indeed CAP is a U.S. organization, steeped in a glorious heritage of patriotism through public service.  It is this spirit of neighbor helping neighbor -- private citizens taking action and making sacrifices to benefit their homeland that is the heart of true patriotism and the heart of the Civil Air Patrol

So, as I watched the NB meeting all I saw was them vote to change the BDU (and lets be charitable and assume they also meant the BBDU) name tapes to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."  Nothing else was changed.  I would bet good money that no one there actually thought they were voting to change the entire name of the organization (as discussed in the other thread)

So, what does he mean by our new "moniker" that we are "encouraged" to use?  Note that we aren't ordered to use it (except apparently in regards to the nametapes).  Looking through the magazine (not closely) I failed to spot it being used elsewhere.  Is it just supposed to be another sort of nickname that we occassionally use? 

Well, he at least laid out an explanation for it even if the implementation is a bit unclear. 

[Major_Chuck]

It is that whole effort to set us apart from the Candian Civil Air Patrol, the Honduran Civil Air Patrol, the Fiji Civil Air Patrol, the Iraqi Civil Air Patrol, and the Guatamalan Civil Air Patrol (even though we have adopted their uniform).

[Eclipse]

(and lets be charitable and assume they also meant the BBDU) name tapes to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." 

This KB article:  http://tinyurl.com/2e6f2d  does mention BBDU's in several spots, though doesn't actually say "will wear on the BBDU". 

I am sewing mine on tonight.  I have three new blouses, so what the heck, 2010 will be here before you know it!

[LTC_Gadget]

Geez, I got the "message" years ago regarding our heritage, our role, our history when I used to see "USAF Auxiliary" on everything..  Why does everyone now seem to need yet another, different "moniker" to get the same darn message??

The only thing I hate worse than being lied to is having my intelligence insulted..

Idle musing; rhetorical question... 

V/R,

[Smokey]

How silly for all of you not  to realize that TP is getting us ready for overseas deployment.  How else would they know that we are the US Civil Air Patrol and not the Iraqi Civil Air Patrol.

With the surge on....every able body is needed , so in preparation the name change was required. 

C'mon guys....think how much fun it's going to be looking for that elt in Tikrit.  Something you can tell the grandkids about.

[DNall]

Why does everyone now seem to need yet another, different "moniker" to get the same darn message??

IS it the same message? I thin kthat's the question of the year on a lot of this stuff.

The only thing I hate worse than being lied to is having my intelligence insulted..

You ain't kiddin. Put the two together & do it smug like we don't notice & you're above the law... that's just insult to injury. I'm not calling for the revolution or anything that stupid or out of character, but some positive leadership would sure be nice.

[SAR-EMT1]

How silly for all of you not  to realize that TP is getting us ready for overseas deployment.  How else would they know that we are the US Civil Air Patrol and not the Iraqi Civil Air Patrol.

With the surge on....every able body is needed , so in preparation the name change was required. 

C'mon guys....think how much fun it's going to be looking for that elt in Tikrit.  Something you can tell the grandkids about.

I know that you are totally joking... but you have to wonder..... I guess the 172's would be good for Foward Observers.   

[dwb]

Oh good, another change to the uniform.

I don't disagree with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on principle, I just don't know why we're changing this now.

[LtCol White]

Desert BDU's to be authorized soon for personnel deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[JC004]

Oh good, another change to the uniform.

I don't disagree with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on principle, I just don't know why we're changing this now.

Same here.

[RiverAux]

By the way, the below is the draft of the March 2007 National Board Minutes on this subject.  Note that this clearly only applies to BDU and Field Jackets and was not approval for any sort of actual new name for the organization. 

1. ITEM: Change BDU and Field Jacket Tape
Maj Gen Pineda noted that there were other "CAPs" around the world and suggested a change to put "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on name strips for BDUS to identify America's Civil Air Patrol.
LT COL SIROIS/NJ PROXY MOVED AND COL CARR/GLR SECONDED that the
National Board votes to adopt a change to the ultramarine CAP tape to include
"U.S." to then read "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." This will become the only available
tape going forward and will be mandatory as of 1 March 2010.

[sardak]

..to identify America's Civil Air Patrol.

This was clearly not thought out.  If it had been, there would have been no need to remove the "Civil Air Patrol" tape.  Remove everyone's nametape and replace it with "America's" or "American".  Then it would read "America(n) Civil Air Patrol" across the front of the uniform.  Unity would be achieved because there would be no more individuals.

Mike

[JC004]

..to identify America's Civil Air Patrol.

This was clearly not thought out.  If it had been, there would have been no need to remove the "Civil Air Patrol" tape.  Remove everyone's nametape and replace it with "America's" or "American".  Then it would read "America(n) Civil Air Patrol" across the front of the uniform.  Unity would be achieved because there would be no more individuals.

Mike

LOL!   

[mikeylikey]

http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3030

How ridiculous it sounds when you read it over and over again!  U.S CAP, U.S CAP, U.S. CAP, U.S. CAP........etc!

[jimmydeanno]

bites tongue about first picture with TP...

[Eagle400]

http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3030

How ridiculous it sounds when you read it over and over again!  U.S CAP, U.S CAP, U.S. CAP, U.S. CAP........etc!

I agree, sir.  So does this now mean that CAP-USAF has to change its name to USCAP-USAF?

Ridiculous. 

[ColonelJack]

bites tongue about first picture with TP...

Well, that is why Corporate Service Dress was created ...

I happen to know Col. Stone (featured in the link) and think he is one of the most outstanding individuals I've ever met.  If anyone deserved a DSM and full colonel's rank, it's Ben Stone.

Jack

[wingnut]

If You Watched the NEC meeting the powerpoints all said U.S. CAP.

[SAR-EMT1]

I do not agree with this "moniker " at all. NHQ is already treating it like a new name. If they want anything, threy should go back to USAF -Aux.
I hope AETC nips this in the bud quick.

[LTC_Gadget]

I hope AETC nips this in the bud quick.

Methinks that train has already left the station.  Grit your teeth and open your checkbook....again..

V/R,

[SAR-EMT1]

You say the train already left the station. I never saw Congress officialy change our name.  Or Did the CAP-USAF /CC declare that change during one of the Nat. Board broadcast's crashes?
I'm not attacking you here, but I am asking how far this is going to go.
It started small, and annoying-but insignificant. Now.... I see a Boulder crashing down a mountaintop.
I'll support it if need be, but that doesnt mean I'll like it.

[ColonelJack]

I do not agree with this "moniker " at all. NHQ is already treating it like a new name. If they want anything, threy should go back to USAF -Aux.
I hope AETC nips this in the bud quick.

I am not entirely sure of the necessary span of control here, but I don't think AETC has anything to say about what Civil Air Patrol calls itself.  It would be a "corporate" matter, and thus out of AETC -- and AF's -- control.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

You say the train already left the station. I never saw Congress officialy change our name.  Or Did the CAP-USAF /CC declare that change during one of the Nat. Board broadcast's crashes?
I'm not attacking you here, but I am asking how far this is going to go.
It started small, and annoying-but insignificant. Now.... I see a Boulder crashing down a mountaintop.
I'll support it if need be, but that doesnt mean I'll like it.

"Growl you may, but go you must ..."

Seriously ... is this really such an issue?  I'm not attacking you, either, but I have to ask this of all those who are screeching about adding "U.S." to the name of the organization -- does it matter all that much?  Or is it more rooted in collective dislike of the person who initiated the change?

Let's play "suppose" here -- assume Gen. Courter wins a second term as CV and, next year, succeeds Gen. Pineda as CC.  When she does, if she endorses the U.S. Civil Air Patrol handle, will you then accept it?  Your answer (not just you, SAR-EMT1, but all of us here) will say whether it's the change that bothers you ... or who made the change.

Discuss.

Jack

[jimmydeanno]

The only objection that I have to the name change is that it wasn't done the way it was supposed to be.

As an organization that is "steeped in military tradition" and follows regulations, why can't we follow them for something as simple as changing our name.  If congress made a law that removed freedom of assembly, it would be unconstitutional and deemed invalid.

Our organizations constitution outlines the procedures for changing the organization's name and it was not followed.  This in and of itself is a failure to obey CAP regulations and procedures.  Don't people get "fired" from CAP positions for doing this?

If they want to change the name of the organization, it tells them how it is supposed to be done.  If they want to change the way it's done, follow the rules outlined.

All I ask is that they do it according to the rules.

[SAR-EMT1]

You say the train already left the station. I never saw Congress officialy change our name.  Or Did the CAP-USAF /CC declare that change during one of the Nat. Board broadcast's crashes?
I'm not attacking you here, but I am asking how far this is going to go.
It started small, and annoying-but insignificant. Now.... I see a Boulder crashing down a mountaintop.
I'll support it if need be, but that doesnt mean I'll like it.

"Growl you may, but go you must ..."

Seriously ... is this really such an issue?  I'm not attacking you, either, but I have to ask this of all those who are screeching about adding "U.S." to the name of the organization -- does it matter all that much?  Or is it more rooted in collective dislike of the person who initiated the change?

Let's play "suppose" here -- assume Gen. Courter wins a second term as CV and, next year, succeeds Gen. Pineda as CC.  When she does, if she endorses the U.S. Civil Air Patrol handle, will you then accept it?  Your answer (not just you, SAR-EMT1, but all of us here) will say whether it's the change that bothers you ... or who made the change.

Discuss.

Jack

For myself, I have nothing against our current Commander. My stance, or root problem as it were is that I am fiercely opposed to politics of all forms and oppossed to our 'corporate mentality' even more.
I joined the USAF AUXILIARY I did not join CAP Inc nor the US CAP, which -as I see it, was merely an attempt to head off any proposal to get USAF Aux. Or at least to stall any shift away from the 'corporate para-law enforcement/ homeland security"  side of the house.

In my 'ideal world' we'd have better standards of professionalism, a better handle on recruitment and thus a larger membership. The AF Service Dress, BDUs and Flight suit and the 'heavyweight' equivilents.
Our Grey Epulets and the grey nametag on standard Blues
-or Blue Epulets, with CAP sewn on and hard rank- would be enough to set us aside. We would not have a Flag or a million technocolor patches on the BDU or flightsuit.
We would focus on our three missions - CP, AE, ES, not obscure 'missions for america'  we would have a CC who told us in plain english where to go, and we'd go there.  And - possibly- we would benefit from our newfound goal in life by being awarded the honor of augmenting with the USAF in much the fashion of the USCG Aux.
We would ditch the 'wanna -be ' status we have now and be respected by the Air Force and DoD / Gov't in general for what we are, and what we can bring to the "Domestics" table.

We would not have a million uniforms, a CEO type Commander, any Race Cars, Phone Plans, or Cookie Drives.

[mikeylikey]

When our Constitution is changed......and the Congress votes to approve the national laws regarding CAP, then I will accept it and give Vanguard more money!  Until then, there is NO U.S. CAP.  It legally does NOT exist.  They should legally get the name changed then us the term U.S. CAP  NOT BEFORE!

[LTC_Gadget]

I'm not attacking you here, but I am asking how far this is going to go.
[..]I see a Boulder crashing down a mountaintop.
I'll support it if need be, but that doesnt mean I'll like it.

I didn't take it as an attack.  I'm often very passionate about things, so it's not inconceivable that others are as well.  Elsewhere in this same thread, I've even expressed an opinion to the extent that I didn't think it was necessary, and there are those that disagree with that.  My comment was actually sort of a summation for the way that I have to deal with it personally.  I don't agree with it, I didn't see a need for it.  But the decision's been made way above my head.  There doesn't seem to be much I can do about it.  So, as 'the kids' would say, I have to 'suck it up and deal with it,' or as I've been told in other arenas, 'pick your battles.'  Pick ones that are large enough to be important, and small enough to win. At this point, it would just seem to be an exercise in futility, or at least one of resignation; no, not that  one!  So, I'm basically doing as I suggested in the earlier message; like it or not, I'm 'grinning and bearing it' and opening my checkbook... again.  I'm just trying to concentrate on helping my squadron do what they have to do to get cadets advanced, run a program, do it as well(good?) as possible with the assets available, and keep people motivated and showing up.  I'll try to do that no matter what sign they demand that I hang over the door.  God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference..   Thassall.. 

V/R, 

[Eagle400]

When our Constitution is changed......and the Congress votes to approve the national laws regarding CAP, then I will accept it and give Vanguard more money!  Until then, there is NO U.S. CAP.  It legally does NOT exist.  They should legally get the name changed then us the term U.S. CAP  NOT BEFORE!

Exactly!!!  No one but Congress has the authority to change the name of CAP.  Not AETC, not HQ USAF, not even CAP itself.

It is wrong for CAP to change the name of the organization when such a move is not allowed by Congress.  The CAP Constitution & Bylaws and USC both refer to "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."  Both documents must be changed before Civil Air Patrol can be called U.S. Civil Air Patrol, and only Congress has the power to change them.

If Maj Gen Pineda or any other high-ranking official wants to change the name of Civil Air Patrol, they need to go through Congress.  That means Congress will have to vote to have the name of the organization changed.  There is no other way. 

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

Emphasis mine.   

[Al Sayre]

In reality, it's as simple as the corporate lawyers going to the Secretary of State and filing a d/b/a.  There are many corporations that do this, since we are officially a corporation (Civil Air Patrol Inc.) we can too. 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it doesn't take an act of Congress to become Civil Air Patrol d/b/a United States Civil Air Patrol.

[DNall]

That's true, but somewhat cloudy cause we're a congressionally controlled corp. I'm not saying they'd catch it, but that doesn't mean it'd be legal.

[Al Sayre]

Works for Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae and a whole host of other federally chartered financial corporations...

[SAR-EMT1]

U.S. Fannie Mae

US CAP - not til Congress says so.

[ColonelJack]

U.S. Fannie Mae

US CAP - not til Congress says so.

Well, maybe so, maybe not.  But as Lincoln once said, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?  Four.  Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit."

I have to side with Col. Boyd on this one ... but the way I heard it is, "Ask yourself ... 'Is this the hill you want to die on?'"  I mean, I'm no big fan of the idea either, but hey -- it's done, by the only real standard that matters.  The corporation uses it now.  (And to those who don't like the "corporate" idea, remember -- CAP has always been a federally-chartered non-profit corporation.)

Not trying to be a smart Aleck ... just adding my two kopecks to the mix.

Jack

[SAR-EMT1]

I could never call you a Smart Aleck ... you out rank me 

[ColonelJack]

I could never call you a Smart Aleck ... you out rank me 

That'd be "Colonel Smart Aleck" to you, then.   

Jack

[mikeylikey]

U.S. Fannie Mae

US CAP - not til Congress says so.

Well, maybe so, maybe not.  But as Lincoln once said, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?  Four.  Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit."

I have to side with Col. Boyd on this one ... but the way I heard it is, "Ask yourself ... 'Is this the hill you want to die on?'"  I mean, I'm no big fan of the idea either, but hey -- it's done, by the only real standard that matters.  The corporation uses it now.  (And to those who don't like the "corporate" idea, remember -- CAP has always been a federally-chartered non-profit corporation.)

Not trying to be a smart Aleck ... just adding my two kopecks to the mix.

Jack

This just shows the Corporation is NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING!  Just because you can do something, should you really do it?  Whats next now that TP and his band of marauders are getting away with the SMALL STUFF.

I ask again......now that TP and the NHQ knows they can get away with the SMALL STUFF, what will they throw on us next.  This change DOES NOTHING but make each member dish out more money.  ENOUGH I SAY!

[CAP428]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.  So what if we change our name to US Civil Air Patrol?  We are still the same organization, same missions.

Some say there's no reason for the change...maybe, maybe not but I still don't see how adding a "U" and an "S" onto your uniform or hearing somebody call it the "US Civil Air Patrol" is really going to affect us, adversely or otherwise.

[JC004]

Avoid these confusing things:  Vote for me as your national commander! 

[MIKE]

Some say there's no reason for the change...maybe, maybe not but I still don't see how adding a "U" and an "S" onto your uniform or hearing somebody call it the "US Civil Air Patrol" is really going to affect us, adversely or otherwise.

It will have an effect on your wallet when you have to replace your nametag(s) branch tape(s) etc.  I dunno about you, but I have three pairs of BDUs, service uniforms and service dress.

[Eagle400]

Folks, the real problem is that Civil Air Patrol has usurped the authority of Congress by making an unauthorized change to the name of the organization.  As stated before, only Congress has the power to change the name of CAP.

The only way Congress can change the name of CAP is to vote to change it, and (if it passes) change any reference to "Civil Air Patrol" in the USC.  CAP would then change all references to "Civil Air Patrol" in the CAP Constitution and Bylaws.   

If Maj Gen Pineda wants to have the name of CAP changed, fine.  He can lobby to Congress for them to vote on changing the name.  That's the only legal way to do it.  Maj Gen Pindea has NO authority in this other than being able to lobby to Congress.

[mikeylikey]

^^  I just realized today that I care way too much!  If TP and everyone else wants to change names uniforms etc....why should I care.  I can't do anything about it.  If I wanted to do something, what could I really do, other than quit.  I spent too much time and effort and resources ($$$) so far, what benefit would I get from quiting. 

So let me make it known that I will accept the new name and support it fully.  If it SUCKS as bad as I do believe, then it will FAIL on its OWN without my help. 

Does anyone want to donate say $20.00 so I can begin purchasing new tapes and getting them sewn on?

[Eagle400]

Well, hopefully the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes will be a legitimate reason to remove the American flag patch from the BDU.  Requiring both the American flag patch and the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes would be the equivalent of beating a dead horse rancid.  Why?  Because only one part of the uniform needs to show people that CAP personnel are American. 

I'm not unpatriotic, but if the Air Force says no to the American flag patch on the BDU, then so should CAP. 

CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary, not the Army Auxiliary. 

[mikeylikey]

^^ Agreed!  Last time I checked WE (as in the United States) don't need to differentiate from other countries, OTHER COUNTRIES NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM US!  As soon as CAP leaves on missions outside the western hemisphere, then I will take more concern about making sure everyone knows I am from the United States Civil Air Patrol and not the Australian one!

[Major Carrales]

Well, hopefully the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes will be a legitimate reason to remove the American flag patch from the BDU.  Requiring both the American flag patch and the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes would be the equivalent of beating a dead horse rancid.  Why?  Because only one part of the uniform needs to show people that CAP personnel are American. 

I'm not unpatriotic, but if the Air Force says no to the American flag patch on the BDU, then so should CAP. 

CAP is the Air Force Auxiliary, not the Army Auxiliary. 

Leave the flag...tens of thousands have already paid to have it put on.  Now you would have them pay to take it off.

We are the Civil Air Patrol...the USAF wants us different enough...the flag kind  of does that.

Oh, what I really meant to say was, this issue on the flag is so dead.  That is like so last year's issue...and it was a moot one then too.

[Eagle400]

Leave the flag...tens of thousands have already paid to have it put on.  Now you would have them pay to take it off.

It would cost nothing to take the flag patch off. 

We are the Civil Air Patrol...the USAF wants us different enough...the flag kind  of does that.

Yes, but it also slaps the Air Force in the face by saying "we want to look so different we're willing to look more like the Army than the Air Force to do it."  It's an insult. 

Oh, what I really meant to say was, this issue on the flag is so dead.  That is like so last year's issue...and it was a moot one then too.

So would you say that the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes are also a moot issue?  Both are controversial, and for the same reasons, more or less.

People are going to be just as hot under the collar about adding another item (American Flag patch) to the uniform as they are about replacing one (BDU branch tapes). 

[Eagle400]

^^ Agreed!  Last time I checked WE (as in the United States) don't need to differentiate from other countries, OTHER COUNTRIES NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM US!  As soon as CAP leaves on missions outside the western hemisphere, then I will take more concern about making sure everyone knows I am from the United States Civil Air Patrol and not the Australian one!

[Major Carrales]

It would cost nothing to take the flag patch off. 

It turns a purchase and application into a waste of money.  That is even worse.  Leave it as it is.

Yes, but it also slaps the Air Force in the face by saying "we want to look so different we're willing to look more like the Army than the Air Force to do it."  It's an insult. 

Some of us here actually communicate with the people in the USAF that matter on the Subject of CAP and we have never discussed this "insult" of which you speak.  I have been told that it is regarded as "our (CAP) thing" and no one there really cares about if we have a flag or not.  If they did it would have been mandated off long ago.

Also, the Army and the Air Force are on the same side...last time I checked anyway. 

So would you say that the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes are also a moot issue?  Both are controversial, and for the same reasons, more or less.

Yes, anything such ancillary thing like that that does not alter the outcome of a mission is basically moot.  No one is going to stop and say..."sorry, US CAP is not the correct moniker.  Please, move on and let me bleed to death in this aircraft wreckage."

People are going to be just as hot under the collar about adding another item (American Flag patch) to the uniform as they are about replacing one (BDU branch tapes). 

No, real CAP officers and Cadets will just salute and execute.  They have years to replace their regular nametape, and, in that time, they are likely to simply replace their BDUs. 

This is the cause of contention only among those that allow it to be one.

I think your attack against the flag is merely agendistic drivel, designed to cause contention.

[Major Carrales]

^^ Agreed!  Last time I checked WE (as in the United States) don't need to differentiate from other countries, OTHER COUNTRIES NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM US!  As soon as CAP leaves on missions outside the western hemisphere, then I will take more concern about making sure everyone knows I am from the United States Civil Air Patrol and not the Australian one!

Not the point...

The point is that when Region Commanders and Wing Commanders had a change to vote it down or offer objections...none came.  I know that because I watched it happen.  Only one person said anything and it was about the additional cost of it...which was considered marginal along with the long phase in period.

There was no call to arms against it as many of your incredulous comment would indicate.  That was the time to vote it down...and nothing happened.

[mikeylikey]

No, real CAP officers and Cadets will just salute and execute.  They have years to replace their regular nametape, and, in that time, they are likely to simply replace their BDUs. 

So perhaps by the time we are to put the new tapes on the BDU's we will have to purchase new ABU's?  Awesome how timing can work sometimes!

[Major Carrales]

No, real CAP officers and Cadets will just salute and execute.  They have years to replace their regular nametape, and, in that time, they are likely to simply replace their BDUs. 

So perhaps by the time we are to put the new tapes on the BDU's we will have to purchase new ABU's?  Awesome how timing can work sometimes!

That would work out well.  If the ABU is of the velcro variety...that woudl save even more money still.

[mikeylikey]

Not the point...

The point is that when Region Commanders and Wing Commanders had a change to vote it down or offer objections...none came.  I know that because I watched it happen.  Only one person said anything and it was about the additional cost of it...which was considered marginal along with the long phase in period.

There was no call to arms against it as many of your incredulous comment would indicate.  That was the time to vote it down...and nothing happened.

Well the Region and Wing Commanders have not represented their Regions or Wings in years.  They are Political Appointees with more loyalty to the appointer than the average member.  

I was trying to express that the US does not need to make themselves different from any other country, other countries need to make themselves different from US.  Sorry If it was confusing it is getting a little late.

[Major Carrales]

Well the Region and Wing Commanders have not represented their Regions or Wings in years.  They are Political Appointees with more loyalty to the appointer than the average member. 

Oh...and you know this to be certain?  Sounds more like an unfounded allegation.generalization based on an emotional response than a evidence based point to me.  I have met the past and current Wing Commander of or Wing and beleive me they are no one "lackey."  The same can be said our our Region Commander.  These are people that have spent time "in the trenches" with us and listen to suggestions and needs.

Things like nametapes and flag patches are ancillary to them.  They are, and rightly so, more concerned with the distribution of WING and REGION resources to the squadrons and how to plan and execute missions and SARex activities to remian viable.

Patches and nametape have no direct bearing on the viability of CAP. 

I was trying to express that the US does not need to make themselves different from any other country, other countries need to make themselves different from US.  Sorry If it was confusing it is getting a little late.

I agree, the US is the nation of this Era.  The descision to put "US Civil Air Patrol" on our nametapes will not alter than fact.

[RiverAux]

There was no call to arms against it as many of your incredulous comment would indicate.  That was the time to vote it down...and nothing happened.

Because it was not on the agenda for the meeting and they had less than 5 minutes to consider it.  No one outside of that room knew the first thing about this attempt to change the name of the organization until it was brought up here by those watching the web broadcast.  Sort of hard to get a call to arms together when the objectionable action takes place within minutes of it being proposed. 

[Eagle400]

Some of us here actually communicate with the people in the USAF that matter on the Subject of CAP and we have never discussed this "insult" of which you speak.  I have been told that it is regarded as "our (CAP) thing" and no one there really cares about if we have a flag or not.  If they did it would have been mandated off long ago.

The insult is that CAP chooses to do it's own thing rather than model itself after the Air Force in this regard.  Regardless of what the Air Force thinks, it's still an insulting move.  I still have yet to find one good reason why the American flag is worn on the CAP BDU (other than because it is patriotic).  CAP members are not combatants, and do not go overseas.  For CAP, the American flag for the BDU really serves no functional purpose.   

Also, the Army and the Air Force are on the same side...last time I checked anyway.

Never said or implied otherwise, sir.  It's just that it's not right for the Air Force Auxiliary to mandate the wearing of the American flag patch on the BDU if the Air Force does not as well.  The Army requires it, but CAP is not the Army auxiliary.     

So would you say that the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes are also a moot issue?  Both are controversial, and for the same reasons, more or less.

Yes, anything such ancillary thing like that that does not alter the outcome of a mission is basically moot.  No one is going to stop and say..."sorry, US CAP is not the correct moniker.  Please, move on and let me bleed to death in this aircraft wreckage."

I get your point, sir.  But surely you know that there is a huge problem with usurping Congress and making an unauthorized name change to a Congressionally-chartered organization.  It is Congress who has the final say on what the name of Civil Air Patrol will be. 

People are going to be just as hot under the collar about adding another item (American Flag patch) to the uniform as they are about replacing one (BDU branch tapes). 

No, real CAP officers and Cadets will just salute and execute.  They have years to replace their regular nametape, and, in that time, they are likely to simply replace their BDUs. 

This is the cause of contention only among those that allow it to be one.

True, but people will still not like having to make petty uniform changes when the real issues remain unsolved.  Things like training and education.   

I think your attack against the flag is merely agendistic drivel, designed to cause contention.

You are wrong, sir.  For starters, I am not attacking the flag.  There is nothing wrong with the American flag.  What I am attacking is the decision to have it required on the CAP BDU.  I have discussed why. 

And I have no agenda, and certainly no desire to cause contention.  Just speaking my mind.   

[Major Carrales]

There was no call to arms against it as many of your incredulous comment would indicate.  That was the time to vote it down...and nothing happened.

Because it was not on the agenda for the meeting and they had less than 5 minutes to consider it.  No one outside of that room knew the first thing about this attempt to change the name of the organization until it was brought up here by those watching the web broadcast.  Sort of hard to get a call to arms together when the objectionable action takes place within minutes of it being proposed. 

Still, if it was the "affront" to us all that it is being made out to be...I think they would have acted.  I watched the stream and Major General introduced it almost as a suggestion.  It was then voted on after only marginal discussion.

If it was truly a blasphemy...I think it would have been voted down...or at least filibustered.  That they "only had five minutes" is not a viable excuse to be made for them.

[JC004]

There was no call to arms against it as many of your incredulous comment would indicate.  That was the time to vote it down...and nothing happened.

Because it was not on the agenda for the meeting and they had less than 5 minutes to consider it.  No one outside of that room knew the first thing about this attempt to change the name of the organization until it was brought up here by those watching the web broadcast.  Sort of hard to get a call to arms together when the objectionable action takes place within minutes of it being proposed. 

Still, if it was the "affront" to us all that it is being made out to be...I think they would have acted.  I watched the stream and Major General introduced it almost as a suggestion.  It was then voted on after only marginal discussion.

If it was truly a blasphemy...I think it would have been voted down...or at least filibustered.  That they "only had five minutes" is not a viable excuse to be made for them.

I will say that I think this stuff should be submitted as agenda items before the fact.

[Major Carrales]

Some of us here actually communicate with the people in the USAF that matter on the Subject of CAP and we have never discussed this "insult" of which you speak.  I have been told that it is regarded as "our (CAP) thing" and no one there really cares about if we have a flag or not.  If they did it would have been mandated off long ago.

The insult is that CAP chooses to do it's own thing rather than model itself after the Air Force in this regard.  Regardless of what the Air Force thinks, it's still an insulting move.  I still have yet to find one good reason why the American flag is worn on the CAP BDU (other than because it is patriotic).  CAP members are not combatants, and do not go overseas.  For CAP, the American flag for the BDU really serves no functional purpose.   

Also, the Army and the Air Force are on the same side...last time I checked anyway.

Never said or implied otherwise, sir.  It's just that it's not right for the Air Force Auxiliary to mandate the wearing of the American flag patch on the BDU if the Air Force does not as well.  The Army requires it, but CAP is not the Army auxiliary.     

So would you say that the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes are also a moot issue?  Both are controversial, and for the same reasons, more or less.

Yes, anything such ancillary thing like that that does not alter the outcome of a mission is basically moot.  No one is going to stop and say..."sorry, US CAP is not the correct moniker.  Please, move on and let me bleed to death in this aircraft wreckage."

I get your point, sir.  But surely you know that there is a huge problem with usurping Congress and making an unauthorized name change to a Congressionally-chartered organization.  It is Congress who has the final say on what the name of Civil Air Patrol will be. 

People are going to be just as hot under the collar about adding another item (American Flag patch) to the uniform as they are about replacing one (BDU branch tapes). 

No, real CAP officers and Cadets will just salute and execute.  They have years to replace their regular nametape, and, in that time, they are likely to simply replace their BDUs. 

This is the cause of contention only among those that allow it to be one.

True, but people will still not like having to make petty uniform changes when the real issues remain unsolved.  Things like training and education.   

I think your attack against the flag is merely agendistic drivel, designed to cause contention.

You are wrong, sir.  For starters, I am not attacking the flag.  There is nothing wrong with the American flag.  What I am attacking is the decision to have it required on the CAP BDU.  I have discussed why. 

And I have no agenda, and certainly no desire to cause contention.  Just speaking my mind.   

The changing of "Civil Air Patrol" to 'US Civil Air Patrol" is a unifrom issue, not one requiring CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. We can call ourselves by any moniker we choose.  Much like when people shorten my first name from "Jose" to "Joe."  My legal name is "Jose," but I regularly sign as "Joe Ely Carrales" in my official signature.  I don't have to go before the Broosk County Judge and have it officially changed. I have not usurped the power of the County Judge now, have I?

If they want PAOs to refer to us as the US CAP, so be it.  Congress isn't doing to drop Iraqi War funding debates and address this...nor even care about it.

The USAF is not insulted at the prospect of a FLAG on our BDUs.  My Dad works for Exxon-Mobile and he has a flag?  I assuem by you logic that this is the result of that company taking after the US ARMY.  The USAF and the USAF are two distinct organizations tied in some traditions, but not all.  

And now, respectfully, I am going to have to join the chorus that cals for you to join CAP.

I respect your points, however, I don't think it is the place for a non-CAP member to be quoting and stating policy/would be policy to CAP Officers.  It brings your vaildity into extreme question and smacks of "this is none of your business."

That is why people say you are a troll.  It is the same if I were to "hang out" over at the SEA SCOUTS forum and start telling them how to run their orgaization based on CAP.  Once they would find out I am not a member...I would be looked on as a bothersome element with no footing or standing to do anything other than to ask questions about how to join.

I respectfully ask you to join CAP and make a difference instead of making metaphorical noise.

[Major Carrales]

I will say that I think this stuff should be submitted as agenda items before the fact.

There should have been a "point of order at least," but there was not.  According to parliamentary common law, the fact that there was no such objection, nor radical discussion opposed or a negative vote...means that the body politic agreed with the action.

As I said, the Major General seemed to bring it up as a "look...gee whiz on what the folks and Vanguard made!"  Then it was voted on.  Who made the motion?  Anyone remember?

[Eagle400]

I respectfully ask you to join CAP and make a difference instead of making metaphorical noise.

I respectfully submit the following:

It would be one thing if I were someone completely unfamiliar with CAP, coming on here and making inquiries and suggestions.  But I'm not.

I am a prior cadet with 8 years of experience.  There should be no reason to doubt my credibility.  I am not perfect, but just because I am no longer a member of CAP does not mean I am a troll.

Major Carrales, I have made a difference.  If only you were able to converse with the people I have served with in CAP, then you would know.     

[Major Carrales]

I respectfully submit the following:

It would be one thing if I were someone completely unfamiliar with CAP, coming on here and making inquiries and suggestions.  But I'm not.

You are out of the loop in every respect then.  Why do you continue to come here if you have no intent to rejoin. 

I am a prior cadet with 8 years of experience.  There should be no reason to doubt my credibility.  I am not perfect, but just because I am no longer a member of CAP does not mean I am a troll.

8 years of Cadet experience and you feel you can make policy statements.  What do you know of CAP aviation?  The new COMM materials that are going to come out?  What know you of OPSEC and its implementation?

There is nothing more out of kilter than when a Cadet seems to think they know it all.  I expecially get a chuckle when one lectures a prior service person on how the USAF/Military works.  I'm not a prior service person and I refrain from talk about prior service and military "goings on."

Try commanding a Comp Squadron.  Serve on a Group Staff.  Organize O-Flights and general CAP aviation activities like PCTs and SARexs.  Then try uniforming 5-10 cadets.  Prepare them for encampments.

Do these things...and you can have validity.  Me a member and fix from within.

I can now see from whence your points come.  8 years as a CAP Cadet and none as a Senior Member create a very narrow view of CAP.  No wonder things like "flag patches" and "US Civil Air Patrol" are big issues to you.

I, again, submit that you join post haste as a CAP Officer and start to build that gravitas.

You also seem to misunderstand what a "troll" is.  Trolls are people who really have no business in a forum...  Why do you continue to make these places your e-hangout when you have no need for emotional investment?

What keeps you here?  Surely not passion for CAP, if that we so you would be wearing that blue suit.

I say this for your benefit.  To search your soul.  Why are you here?

Major Carrales, I have made a difference.  If only you were able to converse with the people I have served with in CAP, then you would know.   

Ever read any post of mine where I say  "The time is come for us..."  instead of the more popular "The time has come for us..."  Some have PMed me about its grammar.  But I say it because what IS happening trumps what HAS happened.  People of action look to the past as a tool...a guide...and place from when to learn from mistakes and build on what works.

People of action do not focus on the past as their end...that is, on all of "what was;" instead they focus on the past as their beginning, how does the past effect what IS.

Join a unit an make a real difference...instead of looking for banter in a CAP forum.

[DNall]

Ever read any post of mine where I say  "The time is come for us..."  instead of the more popular "The time has come for us..."  Some have PMed me about its grammar.  But I say it because what IS happening trumps what HAS happened. 

Just to nit pick, you got that backward on the grammer... It would be mod'ing the word time. so time HAS already arrived -or- time IS in the process of arriving.

[capchiro]

Just to add my two cents worth.  Number one, Civil Air Patrol will still be called "Civil Air Patrol" when spoken of.  Civil Air Patrol is our corporate name and just as the Air Force is called the "Air Force" when spoken of and not the "U.S. Air Force", we will continue to be called the "Civil Air Patrol" and not the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."  Also we will still be referred to as "CAP" and not "USCAP" when spoken of.  Our letter heads and legal documents will still be "Civil Air Patrol" until there is a legal change of name of the corporation.  Number two, and a different point, but one brought up in this topic, the subject of "trolls".  On the various boards I have been on, the terminology of "trolls" has been used to label posters that usually hide behind a nickname to remain anonymous and take "shots" or make derogatory comments that do not add to the topic at hand.  It is my understanding that this forum is open to the public and therefore there is no requirement that anyone has to be a CAP member to participate.  Many times we can learn from those outside our own group and we can certainly carry on courteous discussions with them.  Obviously they are interested in CAP or they wouldn't waste their time being here.  We need to encourage them to join or rejoin, but not by telling them they are not welcome.  Now, if someone is just "sniping" or causing trouble, that is a different story, but let's hear what they have to say and go from there.  Some people are misinformed about CAP (and some of those people are us) but that doesn't mean we aren't all interested in becoming better informed and learning from and sharing with others.  Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming..

[Major Carrales]

Ever read any post of mine where I say  "The time is come for us..."  instead of the more popular "The time has come for us..."  Some have PMed me about its grammar.  But I say it because what IS happening trumps what HAS happened. 

Just to nit pick, you got that backward on the grammer... It would be mod'ing the word time. so time HAS already arrived -or- time IS in the process of arriving.

Dennis you have missed the point in the semantics.  The idea is that focusing on past accomplishments and not praticipating in the present is hollow at best.

[RiverAux]

Just remember that in what may have been the largest response to any poll on CAPTalk, 75% of respondents dissaproved of the name change.  Now, I doubt that percentage would be as high if you polled entire CAP membership, but it indicates to me that there is a very good chance that a majority of members disapprove as well. 

[DNall]

Dennis you have missed the point in the semantics.  The idea is that focusing on past accomplishments and not praticipating in the present is hollow at best.

I agree with that statement. However, the words you used gave the option of happening right now (has) or will happen at some point later (is). Not that it matters, but you made a point of it.