MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP UNIT COMMANDERS
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: Interim Change Letter
–
CAPM 39
-
1
Civil Air Patrol Uniform Manual
1.
In celebration of Civil Air Patrol's 75th anniversary, authorization is granted for an
interim change
to the Mess Dress, Cadet Semi
-
formal Dress, Service Dress, Long and Short
Sleeve Blue Shirt (Class B), and the aviator shirt uniform.
2.
During the period 01 December 2015 to 31 December 2016, those individuals who
are
authorized
to wear CAP Aviation Badge
s are authorized to wear the World War II
-
issue CAP
Aviation Badges (Pilot and Observer) in lieu of the current style of CAP Aviation Badge,
under the following provisions:
•
Only one of the World War II
-
issue CAP Aviation Badges will be worn.
•
Only one Avi
ation Badge will be worn.
•
CAP Chaplains will continue to wear the Chaplain badge above the World War II
Aviation Badge.
•
No other
occupational
badges (
Legal Officer, Health Services Officer,
Ground
Team, Incident Commander, Parachutist Badge, etc.)
will be
worn.
3.
World War II
-
issue CAP Aviation Badges (Pilot and Observer) will be worn on the
wearer's left
in the same manner as the present day Aviation Badges.
4.
Members may wear the original silver World War II
-
issue CAP Aviation Badges
or
purchase
a reproduc
tion World War II
-
issue CAP Aviation Badge available for sale from
Vanguard.
Interesting. I may not actually wear it, but I may buy it for the cool factor.
Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future. Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what? I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th, lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 06:59:29 PM
Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future. Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what? I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th, lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.
Celebrating an organization's history and accomplishments at milestone years is a great way for current members to learn more about the organization's history and is a great way to recruit. That is a big reason why the military branches also celebrate milestone years.
Quote from: kwe1009 on November 16, 2015, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 06:59:29 PM
Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future. Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what? I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th, lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.
Celebrating an organization's history and accomplishments at milestone years is a great way for current members to learn more about the organization's history and is a great way to recruit. That is a big reason why the military branches also celebrate milestone years.
They celebrate them, they do not change their uniforms, spend huge amounts of resources on planning events around them. Lets face it, we are a volunteer organization with limited resources, if we still want people in the Civil Air Patrol 25 years from now, we need to spend our resources on making sure we are ready to implement our current missions and training for future missions, not constantly talking about what we did way back when.
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 07:38:50 PM
we need to spend our resources on making sure we are ready to implement our current missions and training for future missions, not constantly talking about what we did way back when.
That is two different departments at CAP. I have gotten these types of emails in the past. That my wing is focusing on the past and not enough on the future. My response back is, that is not my fault. If you want to know the future operations, do not ask the historian, rather ask the Wing/DO. Ask the Wing/DO why he is not communicating the future of the wing.
I communicate frequently with the members of my wing. The items I publish takes the resources of only 1 or 2 people. The time the commander spends on the history of the wing is minimal to the point of a few minute talk here and there and a signature on a memorandum. But if I send out 100 emails and the Wing/DO only sends 1 out, it appears that the wing is only focusing on the history when in reality, less than 1% of the Wing's Staff time is spent on history.
It is not like the entire National Headquarters is saying "sorry, cannot work on that because we need to work on the history".
Quote from: LSThiker on November 16, 2015, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 07:38:50 PM
we need to spend our resources on making sure we are ready to implement our current missions and training for future missions, not constantly talking about what we did way back when.
That is two different departments at CAP. I have gotten these types of emails in the past. That my wing is focusing on the past and not enough on the future. My response back is, that is not my fault. If you want to know the future operations, do not ask the historian, rather ask the Wing/DO. Ask the Wing/DO why he is not communicating the future of the wing.
I communicate frequently with the members of my wing. The items I publish takes the resources of only 1 or 2 people. The time the commander spends on the history of the wing is minimal to the point of a few minute talk here and there and a signature on a memorandum. But if I send out 100 emails and the Wing/DO only sends 1 out, it appears that the wing is only focusing on the history when in reality, less than 1% of the Wing's Staff time is spent on history.
It is not like the entire National Headquarters is saying "sorry, cannot work on that because we need to work on the history".
Truth......the historians stay quiet most of the time, but when a milestone year comes up, it's something to celebrate. From a recruiting and retention standpoint, people want to join a prestigious organization, so coming in they should know our history, our accomplishments, and how proud we are of them.
Alaric, if you're not at the celebration, waving a CAP flag and singing the CAP song, that's up to you, but don't belittle others who are proud of our organization's history, and don't belittle the historians who are doing their job and professing that proud history.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 16, 2015, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 07:38:50 PM
we need to spend our resources on making sure we are ready to implement our current missions and training for future missions, not constantly talking about what we did way back when.
That is two different departments at CAP. I have gotten these types of emails in the past. That my wing is focusing on the past and not enough on the future. My response back is, that is not my fault. If you want to know the future operations, do not ask the historian, rather ask the Wing/DO. Ask the Wing/DO why he is not communicating the future of the wing.
I communicate frequently with the members of my wing. The items I publish takes the resources of only 1 or 2 people. The time the commander spends on the history of the wing is minimal to the point of a few minute talk here and there and a signature on a memorandum. But if I send out 100 emails and the Wing/DO only sends 1 out, it appears that the wing is only focusing on the history when in reality, less than 1% of the Wing's Staff time is spent on history.
It is not like the entire National Headquarters is saying "sorry, cannot work on that because we need to work on the history".
The resources are coming out of the same budget, every dollar spent by National on this Anniversary based items is a dollar not being spent on other issues, including training, AEX, etc.
Quote from: 1st Lt Thompson on November 16, 2015, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 16, 2015, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 07:38:50 PM
we need to spend our resources on making sure we are ready to implement our current missions and training for future missions, not constantly talking about what we did way back when.
That is two different departments at CAP. I have gotten these types of emails in the past. That my wing is focusing on the past and not enough on the future. My response back is, that is not my fault. If you want to know the future operations, do not ask the historian, rather ask the Wing/DO. Ask the Wing/DO why he is not communicating the future of the wing.
I communicate frequently with the members of my wing. The items I publish takes the resources of only 1 or 2 people. The time the commander spends on the history of the wing is minimal to the point of a few minute talk here and there and a signature on a memorandum. But if I send out 100 emails and the Wing/DO only sends 1 out, it appears that the wing is only focusing on the history when in reality, less than 1% of the Wing's Staff time is spent on history.
It is not like the entire National Headquarters is saying "sorry, cannot work on that because we need to work on the history".
Truth......the historians stay quiet most of the time, but when a milestone year comes up, it's something to celebrate. From a recruiting and retention standpoint, people want to join a prestigious organization, so coming in they should know our history, our accomplishments, and how proud we are of them.
Alaric, if you're not at the celebration, waving a CAP flag and singing the CAP song, that's up to you, but don't belittle others who are proud of our organization's history, and don't belittle the historians who are doing their job and professing that proud history.
I'm not belittling anyone, I am stating an opinion. As a dues paying member of the organization it is both my right and responsibility to state when I think the organization is prioritizing the wrong thing. I'll be at the 75th Conference, just like I was at the 70th, 71st and 72nd because I think the conference has worthwhile training and I can get there by car.
I'm all for promoting and celebrating our history and heritage, but I don't think this uniform thing is a good idea.
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 08:07:36 PM
The resources are coming out of the same budget, every dollar spent by National on this Anniversary based items is a dollar not being spent on other issues, including training, AEX, etc.
Out of the $39.8 million it receives with ~$3 million in member dues, if I recall correctly, I think only $4,000 goes to the history. The Chief Historian can please correct me. Very little actually goes to the history of CAP. I believe most of that goes to spending for the storage space for CAP items.
A lot of the history program is accomplished through volunteer resources. I'm sure more of the conference budget is going towards the celebration next year, but that's not money that would have gone to AEX, ES etc., it would've gone to another presentation at the conference.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 16, 2015, 08:29:16 PM
I'm all for promoting and celebrating our history and heritage, but I don't think this uniform thing is a good idea.
And that's really the bottom line. Want to sell WW2 style insignia as a fund raiser? Cool. Making a temporary reg change so we can wear that insignia? Nah.
Since this idea was entirely my own doing, perhaps some context is involved.
There is a CAP re-enacting effort. This costs the membership $0.00 as it comes out of the pockets and generosity of those members who publicize and increase awareness of the CAP story at airshows and other events across the country, whether in groups or as individuals. When I took over as Chief/National Historian I opted to find out what could be provided to assist these folks and increase the potential for more involvement. Insignia was the obvious area.
Now, what did it cost to get Vanguard to reproduce the World War II insignia? No more than $20.00, entirely for the cost of mailing insignia to Vanguard and then back to the original donor. Do not worry, the cost was born out of pocket to myself and the other individual who loaned insignia to see this process through. Why Vanguard? Part of the proceeds comes back to CAP to support cadet programs and other ventures. I'm confident the $20 investment by volunteers such as myself will yield many times that in financial resources to help a cadet acquire a uniform for encampment or a wing/region obtain funds to give a training opportunity to cadets or seniors.
As for the wings, this is an entirely optional effort to celebrate the pioneers in retrospect of 75 years. If people do not wish to participate then they neither gain nor lose a thing. For those who participate it is a chance for them to individually honor and celebrate how far CAP has come, which could have been eliminated any number of times in its history. Ideally wear of the wings will result in people asking questions about them and in turn stimulate conversation in CAP, perhaps producing actions to better ourselves as we move into the next 75 years.
It is easy to throw rocks at new ideas or even optional actions to celebrate the 75th anniversary. But considering that this and a number of other projects that individual CAP historians, the National History Program, or myself have initiated at essentially zero cost to the membership, I cannot help but wonder why so much negativity. If any of this results in improved relations and new opportunities with the American public, local/state/federal government officials, law enforcement, emergency managers, or members of the U.S. military, then it will have been well worth the investment in volunteer hours.
Vanguard web site doesn't have the WWII aviation badges listed yet.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 16, 2015, 09:43:43 PM
Vanguard web site doesn't have the WWII aviation badges listed yet.
It isn't easy to find: http://www.vanguardmil.com/collections/cap-historical-insignia (http://www.vanguardmil.com/collections/cap-historical-insignia)
Quote from: MisterCD on November 16, 2015, 09:18:09 PM
For those who participate it is a chance for them to individually honor and celebrate how far CAP has come, which could have been eliminated any number of times in its history. Ideally wear of the wings will result in people asking questions about them and in turn stimulate conversation in CAP, perhaps producing actions to better ourselves as we move into the next 75 years.
We celebrate that every time we put on the uniform. Since 1994 I've never been engaged in a CAP conversation because of any of the badges or ribbons that I've worn. Maybe if we stop with the constant and never ending backslapping about "the good old days" and spend more time really setting the organization for accomplish our missions of today, we won't have to "stimulate conversation" with 60 year old insignia.
Who knows, maybe when the USAF is 75 years old, they'll let pilots wear WWII heritage insignia.
As the PAO of my squadron, I like the idea. CAP does have a unique history, & I think it's a good idea that we remember where we've come from and honor the people who came before us.
And like other posters on this thread, I think it's also important as an organization that we know where we are going today and tomorrow and in the years ahead. But looking back and celebrating our history and looking towards the future isnt mutually exclusive.
Quote from: jeders on November 16, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
Who knows, maybe when the USAF is 75 years old, they'll let pilots wear WWII heritage insignia.
Hap Arnold buttons?
People won't wear those wings because they don't look "USAF-enough"
And?
And, it's always about the pilots and aircrew. Where's the historical love for use ground guys? ;D
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 02:33:17 AM
And, it's always about the pilots and aircrew. Where's the historical love for use ground guys? ;D
A GTL in my squadron has an old version of the senior GT badge that he showed me once (not sure what era) it looks pretty cool, but its basically the same design as the current version and not as shiny...
I'd be interested to see what an old GT badge looked like, have they changed as much as the aviation badges?
According to this would we wear the same wings on service coat as the shirt?
Quote from: almostspaatz on November 17, 2015, 02:41:47 AM
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 02:33:17 AM
And, it's always about the pilots and aircrew. Where's the historical love for use ground guys? ;D
A GTL in my squadron has an old version of the senior GT badge that he showed me once (not sure what era) it looks pretty cool, but its basically the same design as the current version and not as shiny...
I'd be interested to see what an old GT badge looked like, have they changed as much as the aviation badges?
Haven't as they were created in 1994, IRC
http://imgur.com/uJbeDNZ (http://imgur.com/uJbeDNZ)
What about these wings? ::)
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 03:15:58 AM
Quote from: almostspaatz on November 17, 2015, 02:41:47 AM
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 02:33:17 AM
And, it's always about the pilots and aircrew. Where's the historical love for use ground guys? ;D
A GTL in my squadron has an old version of the senior GT badge that he showed me once (not sure what era) it looks pretty cool, but its basically the same design as the current version and not as shiny...
I'd be interested to see what an old GT badge looked like, have they changed as much as the aviation badges?
Haven't as they were created in 1994, IRC
Interesting...so basically just the two versions
Quote from: SamuelRosinsky on November 17, 2015, 03:21:17 AM
http://imgur.com/uJbeDNZ (http://imgur.com/uJbeDNZ)
What about these wings? ::)
1948 to 1977, when our current design was created.
I'm going with the Coastal Patrol submarine and bomb for my coat, instead of the wings. >:D heh heh
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 04:07:16 AM
Quote from: SamuelRosinsky on November 17, 2015, 03:21:17 AM
http://imgur.com/uJbeDNZ (http://imgur.com/uJbeDNZ)
What about these wings? ::)
1948 to 1977, when our current design was created.
Ah, I see. Thank you!
Quote from: jeders on November 16, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
Who knows, maybe when the USAF is 75 years old, they'll let pilots wear WWII heritage insignia.
They may. But, the US Air Force already has museums all across the country so what would be the point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_museums
in addition to the plethora of private milair museums. What does CAP have to tout it's history of service to the nation? Not much. So anything that can be done to celebrate our history of service to the nation is a plus.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 16, 2015, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 16, 2015, 08:07:36 PM
The resources are coming out of the same budget, every dollar spent by National on this Anniversary based items is a dollar not being spent on other issues, including training, AEX, etc.
Out of the $39.8 million it receives with ~$3 million in member dues, if I recall correctly, I think only $4,000 goes to the history. The Chief Historian can please correct me. Very little actually goes to the history of CAP. I believe most of that goes to spending for the storage space for CAP items.
And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much
Really? You are going to begrudge the historians a paltry $4,000? Now you are just being unreasonable. As a national organization with over 7 decades of history, it would be irresponsible not to take some measure to preserve and record that for posterity.
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 01:04:36 PM
Really? You are going to begrudge the historians a paltry $4,000? Now you are just being unreasonable. As a national organization with over 7 decades of history, it would be irresponsible not to take some measure to preserve and record that for posterity.
We all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine. The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's
I agree we need to keep looking forward to stay current. But let me ask this. What CAP national program is underfunded such that an infusion of $4000 would turn it around? What are we not doing that this money would make the difference between success and failure? Personally, I am amazed at the great work our historians have done at so little cost to us.
MisterCD,
I see some reenactors wearing WW II CAP uniforms. But have not found where to buy the shirts with the red epaulets. Do you have one place?
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 01:15:53 PM
I agree we need to keep looking forward to stay current. But let me ask this. What CAP national program is underfunded such that an infusion of $4000 would turn it around? What are we not doing that this money would make the difference between success and failure? Personally, I am amazed at the great work our historians have done at so little cost to us.
First, I would like to see the actual numbers, not a guess, and having reviewed the Financial report for 2014 other than the mention of a restricted fund that is used to defray historical costs (not necessarily cover them completely) there is no line item for the costs that are incurred for Historical activities. I'm fairly certain the hoopla over the 75th anniversary is costing more than 4000 dollars, but once again have no concrete numbers.
Second, I am not claiming 4000 dollars would turn a program around, what I am saying is if we can spend that money to send 1 cadet to an NCSA, pay for 1 weekend of PD training, or any of the other myriad of things we can do with 4000 dollars, that's what we should be doing, not breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back.
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 01:10:34 PM
We all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine. The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's
Do you think we should teach our cadets about aerospace history? Or military history? Or do you think all that mandatory AE time should be spent on ES training?
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 02:28:42 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 01:10:34 PM
We all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine. The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's
Do you think we should teach our cadets about aerospace history? Or military history? Or do you think all that mandatory AE time should be spent on ES training?
Yes, Yes, no.
Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.
I still do not see which of our missions is not being accomplished because we are making an active effort to preserve CAP history and commemorating three quarters of a century of service. Should we just let the past fade and teach future generations half remembered legends about where we came from? I've yet to hear a valid argument how this anniversary program is detrimental to CAP. I personally think that allowing the historical wings on the modern uniform is unnecessary. But there is no harm.
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
Yes, Yes, no.
Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.
Well good then. Our history is aerospace history. Our history is also military history. So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history. Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history. In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.
Of course how we go about teaching our history is similar to how we go about teaching aerospace education. I may spend more time on the history and astronomy during AE while another unit may spend more time on the mechanics of flight and meteorology. To each their own in how we teach the details.
I think we can celebrate our history and pass on our heritage without making temporary changes to our uniforms. Regardless of cost, that wasn't a good idea. We have enough issues with the uniform as it is.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 17, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
I think we can celebrate our history and pass on our heritage without making temporary changes to our uniforms. Regardless of cost, that wasn't a good idea. We have enough issues with the uniform as it is.
I agree. I am not a fan of the wearing the old insignia on today's uniform. Nevertheless, it was not my call and it seems as though it is not costing the organization. To each their own in how we present the details.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
Yes, Yes, no.
Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.
Well good then. Our history is aerospace history. Our history is also military history. So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history. Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history. In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.
Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 03:32:15 PM
Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.
I sent out information on both the 73rd and 74th anniversary of CAP. In fact, I sent press releases to the local newspaper on each of those days. I even sent out information for the units on those days as well.
Again, how we present our history is in the details. Even if CAP does not host large-scale celebrations on the 73rd and 74th anniversaries does not mean we still were not spending time and personal resources on those days.
Besides, your argument was "And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much". So I guess we should have been spending money on those celebrations then?
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
Yes, Yes, no.
Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.
Well good then. Our history is aerospace history. Our history is also military history. So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history. Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history. In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.
Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.
I've never seen someone so adamantly opposed to preserving and promoting history. I just don't get it. The only argument you have offered is that we aren't mandated to do it and therefore should waste no time or resources on it.
Maybe I am biased as I feel all history, good and bad, must be preserved. But I am trying to see the argument from your point of view and it is not working for me. If you offered an argument that CAP was neglecting another area of responsibility to promote our history program I could see your point.
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 03:51:06 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
Yes, Yes, no.
Those items are already "budgeted" and are part of our three fold mission. The key word is Mandatory as in we are mandated to teach AE, have a cadet program, and do ES Nothing mandatory about celebrating the 75th anniversary with uniform changes, logos, and commemorative items. I don't remember "Throw a celebration and keep reminding people of your organizations wartime service" in the charter, but maybe I missed it.
Well good then. Our history is aerospace history. Our history is also military history. So we are in agreement that we should keep teaching Civil Air Patrol's history because it is aerospace history and military history. Since you say we should still teach aerospace history, then celebrating our 75th anniversary is teaching aerospace history and our wartime service is military history. In order to do this, we must spend money to preserve that history so that we can continue teaching that aerospace history.
Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.
I've never seen someone so adamantly opposed to preserving and promoting history. I just don't get it. The only argument you have offered is that we aren't mandated to do it and therefore should waste no time or resources on it.
Maybe I am biased as I feel all history, good and bad, must be preserved. But I am trying to see the argument from your point of view and it is not working for me. If you offered an argument that CAP was neglecting another area of responsibility to promote our history program I could see your point.
Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.
I agree that allowing the old-timey wings wasn't a great decision. But it's been said that this was done at no cost to the membership unless the choose to buy these items. I don't see the harm.
All I see is the Historians being FAR better at social media and diseminating information to the membership than any other area of CAP. We should be taking our cue from them.
Quote from: THRAWN on November 17, 2015, 03:56:55 PM
Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.
Correct. If the last few posts were limited to only wearing the old insignia, then I would agree with his point of view. However, his argument is:
QuoteWe all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine. The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's
Quote
And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much
As he presents his argument, we, CAP, should not even be spending money to preserve our CAP history or even discussing CAP history. Perhaps that is not his true argument, but he has not really communicated that thus far.
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 04:01:31 PM
All I see is the Historians being FAR better at social media and diseminating information to the membership than any other area of CAP. We should be taking our cue from them.
I agree. The two areas of CAP that I think excel at spreading information are Cadet Programs and History. Other than the short blurbs in the CAP vector, I do not see much from Operations.
One of the large issues with CAP, Inc is the lack of communication to the field. I applaud the work that Ned, Nin, and Blazich do in helping facilitate that communication.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 03:36:42 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 03:32:15 PM
Uhh no, If we didn't need to spend money to celebrate the 74th anniversary or the 73rd but we still taught AE (and I know my units did) then your argument is specious.
I sent out information on both the 73rd and 74th anniversary of CAP. In fact, I sent press releases to the local newspaper on each of those days. I even sent out information for the units on those days as well.
Again, how we present our history is in the details. Even if CAP does not host large-scale celebrations on the 73rd and 74th anniversaries does not mean we still were not spending time and personal resources on those days.
Besides, your argument was "And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much". So I guess we should have been spending money on those celebrations then?
Point by point
Electronic information doesn't really cost. Also, what you do for your unit and what National does spending the organizations money are two different things. If your unit wishes to spend its money on commemorative activities more power to them.
"...time and personal resources..." are yours to spend, organizational money, perhaps not. If I want to fund a celebration to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a squadron, or the 10th anniversary of a member or anything else, out of my pocket, that's my choice. If I want to spend my units money on it, then other people may have something to say about. They may not get their way, but they get to speak out.
You totally misunderstood my point. I feel 4000 dollars is too much to spend on commemorating the 75th anniversary, so no I don't think we should have spend any money on the 73rd or 74th.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 04:04:38 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 17, 2015, 03:56:55 PM
Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.
Correct. If the last few posts were limited to only wearing the old insignia, then I would agree with his point of view. However, his argument is:
QuoteWe all have our priorities, looking backwards is not one of mine. The budget is a zero sum game once issued and I think we need to be spending our money on making sure we are ready to perform our current missions, not talking about how wonderful we were back in the 40's
Quote
And in my opinion, if that number is accurate that's 4000 dollars too much
As he presents his argument, we, CAP, should not even be spending money to preserve our CAP history or even discussing CAP history. Perhaps that is not his true argument, but he has not really communicated that thus far.
No my argument is that we shouldn't be spending money on creating logos, and commemorative nonsense for the 75th anniversary, or celebrating what we did in WWII. Let's look forward. Every year since I joined CAP NHQ is asking for money, if they need money, first thing is cut unnecessary costs. I feel the 75th anniversary stuff is an unnecessary cost, National feels otherwise. I am stating an opinion, which I am entitled to. Obviously it will not change what National does.
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 04:21:54 PM
No my argument is that we shouldn't be spending money on creating logos, and commemorative nonsense for the 75th anniversary, or celebrating what we did in WWII. Let's look forward. Every year since I joined CAP NHQ is asking for money, if they need money, first thing is cut unnecessary costs. I feel the 75th anniversary stuff is an unnecessary cost, National feels otherwise. I am stating an opinion, which I am entitled to. Obviously it will not change what National does.
As the chief historian has stated, no money (or at least very minimal) was spent, except his own, on the historical insignia or on the majority of the history projects. The designs of the logos were created by members at there own cost. CAP did not spend money on those designs. So as I see it, we have not spent money on those items. The 75th anniversary celebration has been left up to the wings to decide. Thus, if the wing decides to spend money on that, then "more power to them". But the spending money on this and that is so far a non-argument as, apparently, no money has been spent.
Your point has not been about the money only, but rather the entire focus of the history as stated in your first post:
Quote
Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future. Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what? I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th, lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.
As of now, the only resources spent on any of this has been the time and personal resources of the historians in organizing the projects. As you have said "...time and personal resources..." are yours to spend".
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 03:32:04 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 17, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
I think we can celebrate our history and pass on our heritage without making temporary changes to our uniforms. Regardless of cost, that wasn't a good idea. We have enough issues with the uniform as it is.
I agree. I am not a fan of the wearing the old insignia on today's uniform. Nevertheless, it was not my call and it seems as though it is not costing the organization. To each their own in how we present the details.
I just hope I don't have to spend too much time making sure members are wearing the right insignia or are wearing it correctly.
And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 04:34:24 PM
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 04:21:54 PM
No my argument is that we shouldn't be spending money on creating logos, and commemorative nonsense for the 75th anniversary, or celebrating what we did in WWII. Let's look forward. Every year since I joined CAP NHQ is asking for money, if they need money, first thing is cut unnecessary costs. I feel the 75th anniversary stuff is an unnecessary cost, National feels otherwise. I am stating an opinion, which I am entitled to. Obviously it will not change what National does.
As the chief historian has stated, no money (or at least very minimal) was spent, except his own, on the historical insignia or on the majority of the history projects. The designs of the logos were created by members at there own cost. CAP did not spend money on those designs. So as I see it, we have not spent money on those items. The 75th anniversary celebration has been left up to the wings to decide. Thus, if the wing decides to spend money on that, then "more power to them". But the spending money on this and that is so far a non-argument as, apparently, no money has been spent.
Your point has not been about the money only, but rather the entire focus of the history as stated in your first post:
Quote
Still too much focus on the past and not enough on the future. Its the 75th anniversary ,yay, but so what? I don't remember all this hoopla for the 70th, lets focus on being a viable organization for the next 75 years and stop living in a time most current members weren't even alive for.
As of now, the only resources spent on any of this has been the time and personal resources of the historians in organizing the projects. As you have said "...time and personal resources..." are yours to spend".
Yes and I still maintain that there is no value add to the anniversary celebration. Announce it, sure, change uniform regs, logos, etc. No. I do not believe it adds value to recruiting or retention, NIN wrote a great article about not using IACE and NCSAs to recruit as that only affects a limited number of our cadets. The fact we were around during the 2nd WW is not going to attract some 12 year old or even some 40 year old. The mission we did then no longer exists. I am willing to be wrong, but don't think anyone already a member is staying a member because of what we did in 1941. So my question remains (where is the value add)
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 05:04:15 PM
Yes and I still maintain that there is no value add to the anniversary celebration. Announce it, sure, change uniform regs, logos, etc. No.
Other than the WWII uniform items, nothing else has been changed. A logo was created, but not changed. Even then, it was created as a personal project of specific CAP members and was selected out of the nominations. No member was required to submit proposed logos and no member was required to spend any money on it. The creation of a logo does not subtract from the overall or larger mission of CAP or resources.
QuoteI do not believe it adds value to recruiting or retention, NIN wrote a great article about not using IACE and NCSAs to recruit as that only affects a limited number of our cadets. The fact we were around during the 2nd WW is not going to attract some 12 year old or even some 40 year old. The mission we did then no longer exists. I am willing to be wrong, but don't think anyone already a member is staying a member because of what we did in 1941.
Neither do I. Who said it was a recruiting and retention of cadets? Or senior members for that matter?
QuoteSo my question remains (where is the value add)
Professional development as the others have stated. It is part of aerospace history and military history. It is part of our CAP. It is the same reason why the military expects officers and NCOs to learn about military history. What the military, or its leaders, did in WWII has little value to what our current operations are in middle east. We no longer fight conventional warfare like we did in WWII. Nevertheless, learning about the history develops the leadership in that he/she knows the past. He/she gains leadership principles.
Look at the professional reading list from the Army Chief of Staff in 2013 and see how many history books are on it. Computer is acting up on pdf files and that is the one that I have saved on my computer:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/105/105-1-1/CMH_Pub_105-5-1_2013.pdf (http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/105/105-1-1/CMH_Pub_105-5-1_2013.pdf)
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?
Already know a few that think they can start wearing the observer wings even though they are not observers.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 05:35:02 PM
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?
Already know a few that think they can start wearing the observer wings even though they are not observers.
And pictures are already appearing on social media of the WWII wings over military badges on CAP blues.
Edit: Unless I am reading the change letter wrong, the WWII wings can not be worn with any other badge unless you are chaplain.
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 17, 2015, 05:35:02 PM
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
And takers on how many members who have AC wings will start wearing the WWII Observer wings?
Already know a few that think they can start wearing the observer wings even though they are not observers.
And pictures are already appearing on social media of the WWII wings over military badges on CAP blues.
Edit: Unless I am reading the change letter wrong, the WWII wings can not be worn with any other badge unless you are chaplain.
Hence why I think this temporary uniform change was a bad idea. I also don't think it adds anything of value to our 75 anniversary celebration.
Quote from: Alaric on November 17, 2015, 05:04:15 PM
Yes and I still maintain that there is no value add to the anniversary celebration. Announce it, sure, change uniform regs, logos, etc. No. I do not believe it adds value to recruiting or retention, NIN wrote a great article about not using IACE and NCSAs to recruit as that only affects a limited number of our cadets. The fact we were around during the 2nd WW is not going to attract some 12 year old or even some 40 year old. The mission we did then no longer exists. I am willing to be wrong, but don't think anyone already a member is staying a member because of what we did in 1941. So my question remains (where is the value add)
Everything we do is intertwined with recruiting. Color guard in the local parade...recruiting. Teaching AE in a middle school....recruiting. Working with a local BSA troop....recruiting. Historical presentations....recruiting.
Anytime we have interactions with the public, no matter what they are, we should have a mind towards recruiting. Working for the newspaper, I have covered a few historic presentations at local museums, and they always draw a crowd. Next year, my Squadron is putting on a display and presentation at the local historical museum, in which the only cost so far has been about $40, which I paid out of pocket. It will draw a crowd, and therefore, will be a recruiting effort.
One of the reasons I joined as a 15 year old Cadet, was because I was interested in military history, and the Cadet that came and talked to my JROTC class did a great presentation on Civil Air Patrol's history, and I wanted to be involved. A good historical presentation doesn't only focus on one part of an organization's history, but the entire history, and he did a good job discussing the Civil Air Patrol from the 40's to present, and how the missions evolved over time. I was hooked, and went the next Tuesday to check out the Squadron.
Maybe this isn't something that interests you, but don't say it brings no value to recruiting. One thing I've learned over the years, is that people want to belong to something. Our history is a draw for some people, and is something we should all be proud of. As far as retention, a historical program makes for a more well rounded program, and adds content to meetings that make them a little more interesting. If that doesn't interest you, that's your loss, but some people enjoy learning about the history of their Squadron and the history of CAP.
As for the wings, they cost a total of $20 in postage to produce, which was taken care of out of pocket by Col Blazich. If you don't want to wear them, don't. When I read the change letter last week at our meeting, a lot of members were very receptive to the idea. If you're not one of them, great, you don't have to be, carry on as normal as this change doesn't effect you.
As with any change to 39-1, you're going to see uniform infractions. Deal with them as you would with any other infraction....pull the member aside and show them the change letter, and help them correct the issue. Not a big deal.
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but has anyone considered the money making opportunity for CAP by authorizing the wear of this badge? Honestly, how many people are going to buy this or any other historical item from Vanguard if they can't put it on their uniform? I know that some will but I think the numbers go up quite a bit when you authorize it for the uniform.
Quote from: kwe1009 on November 17, 2015, 07:23:10 PM
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but has anyone considered the money making opportunity for CAP by authorizing the wear of this badge? Honestly, how many people are going to buy this or any other historical item from Vanguard if they can't put it on their uniform? I know that some will but I think the numbers go up quite a bit when you authorize it for the uniform.
Not sure what you mean. It is authorized starting 01DEC15 through 31DEC16.
Quote from: winterg on November 17, 2015, 07:29:24 PM
Quote from: kwe1009 on November 17, 2015, 07:23:10 PM
Not sure if it was mentioned yet but has anyone considered the money making opportunity for CAP by authorizing the wear of this badge? Honestly, how many people are going to buy this or any other historical item from Vanguard if they can't put it on their uniform? I know that some will but I think the numbers go up quite a bit when you authorize it for the uniform.
Not sure what you mean. It is authorized starting 01DEC15 through 31DEC16.
I think his point was by authorizing it, it encourages more people to buy them from Vanguard, which kicks back part of its profit to CAP.
That makes sense. Lol. Reading and responding via my mobile on the fly. I thought he was suggesting it should be authorized. Ignore me. :)
Quote from: 1st Lt Thompson on November 17, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Maybe this isn't something that interests you, but don't say it brings no value to recruiting. One thing I've learned over the years, is that people want to belong to something. Our history is a draw for some people, and is something we should all be proud of. As far as retention, a historical program makes for a more well rounded program, and adds content to meetings that make them a little more interesting. If that doesn't interest you, that's your loss, but some people enjoy learning about the history of their Squadron and the history of CAP.
I completely agree...the concept of "story" is huge in recruiting, marketing, branding and in connection. I have an organizational development business and I stress this all the time with my clients that you have to tell the story and connect the dots of the story so that people have a picture of what they're a part of, and what their role is (or could be) in the bigger story.
As a PAO I am always looking for the story to tell about our squadron and CAP, and with the anniversary and the insignia, I now have another angle to tell our story to the public.
I know it may sound way too "touchy-feely" for many, but we're wired for connection and this historic insignia program is one way people (who choose to) can connect with the past. And for those that think it's not a great idea, take a pass on it and nothing changes. And if we disagree, we disagree. We're all on the same team-some may just have different wings for a year.
Quote from: THRAWN on November 17, 2015, 03:56:55 PM
Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.
Failing to pause from time to time to take stock of your history is a sure way to eliminate it from memory. Our history is what garners us most of our appropriation. Without it, why on earth does Congress fund us? There are dozens of other organizations that can do everything that we do that they could fund. It's our history, and our ability to tell that story, that keeps us funded.
So, no, I certainly don't begrudge our Historians the pittance that they receive.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 17, 2015, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 17, 2015, 03:56:55 PM
Preverving history is one thing, but this is not preserving history. Want to wear old gear? Join a reenactment group. Otherwise, we as an organization preserve our history every time we wear our uniforms correctly. There is a difference between preserving history and dwelling on the past. We've been doing the latter for far too long.
Failing to pause from time to time to take stock of your history is a sure way to eliminate it from memory. Our history is what garners us most of our appropriation. Without it, why on earth does Congress fund us? There are dozens of other organizations that can do everything that we do that they could fund. It's our history, and our ability to tell that story, that keeps us funded.
So, no, I certainly don't begrudge our Historians the pittance that they receive.
Not even close to what I wrote. Yay, we won WW2, but Eddie, what have you done for me lately?....and what did we do in the subsequent 70 years? If the constant drum banging about recognizing WW2 vets with a CGM and the "attention grabbing" wear of WW2 wings is any indicator, not a whole lot. For some reason the organization is stuck on one part of our history. Dwelling on one period is just sad. Reminds me of the high school jock who is living too much in '82....
Again, a good history program doesn't dwell on one era, it tells the whole story.....but in a milestone year, we're going to go back and tell the story from the start....it's our beginnings that shaped who we would become, and as others have said, our beginnings are what allowed us to keep going when other CD organizations are no longer around. We had humble beginnings, but then adapted to the Country's needs as situations changed over the years, and we will continue to do so. That's something definitely worth celebrating.
Quote from: SkywalkerRA on November 17, 2015, 07:49:09 PM
Quote from: 1st Lt Thompson on November 17, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Maybe this isn't something that interests you, but don't say it brings no value to recruiting. One thing I've learned over the years, is that people want to belong to something. Our history is a draw for some people, and is something we should all be proud of. As far as retention, a historical program makes for a more well rounded program, and adds content to meetings that make them a little more interesting. If that doesn't interest you, that's your loss, but some people enjoy learning about the history of their Squadron and the history of CAP.
I completely agree...the concept of "story" is huge in recruiting, marketing, branding and in connection. I have an organizational development business and I stress this all the time with my clients that you have to tell the story and connect the dots of the story so that people have a picture of what they're a part of, and what their role is (or could be) in the bigger story.
As a PAO I am always looking for the story to tell about our squadron and CAP, and with the anniversary and the insignia, I now have another angle to tell our story to the public.
I know it may sound way too "touchy-feely" for many, but we're wired for connection and this historic insignia program is one way people (who choose to) can connect with the past. And for those that think it's not a great idea, take a pass on it and nothing changes. And if we disagree, we disagree. We're all on the same team-some may just have different wings for a year.
You are absolutely correct. A decade or so ago the Air Force started renaming units to bring back some of the history and help to bring about a sense of belonging. It was kind of strange for some squadrons however. I was in an intel squadron that was renumbered to take on the history of a WWII pursuit squadron. I'm not how a P-38 squadron and a unit of photo analysts are related but the Air Force said they were. This was a great expense since we were still wearing BDUs, squadron patches, and squadron hats. Not to mention the cost of replacing signs and banners. While I am all for preserving history, I this this move was pretty wasteful.
Now, looking just at CAP's efforts to promote their history in a milestone year, I don't think a lot of money is being spent and it will certainly help with recruiting and maybe even retention. To simply say that it won't because it doesn't do anything for you is very short sighted. We are all different and different things motivate up. If you don't think history matters when it comes to recruiting then just look at sports teams that were last great over 20 years ago but they still keep filling the seats on game day.
History and tradition are major drivers and should not be discounted. I have only been in CAP for just over 3 years. I would have joined sooner but I didn't even know it existed until about 10 years ago and I have been in the Air Force for almost 30 years.
Quote from: THRAWN on November 17, 2015, 08:08:28 PM
Yay, we won WW2, but Eddie, what have you done for me lately?....and what did we do in the subsequent 70 years? If the constant drum banging about recognizing WW2 vets with a CGM and the "attention grabbing" wear of WW2 wings is any indicator, not a whole lot. For some reason the organization is stuck on one part of our history. Dwelling on one period is just sad. Reminds me of the high school jock who is living too much in '82....
We have a rich history going back the last 74 years. If CAP wishes to authorize the wear of "retro wings" for the year; great. IMHO, it does not retract from our long and honored service of protecting the homeland, SAR/DR, and many other accomplishments of our members and our organization.
Quote from: 1st Lt Thompson on November 17, 2015, 08:17:11 PM
Again, a good history program doesn't dwell on one era, it tells the whole story.....but in a milestone year, we're going to go back and tell the story from the start....it's our beginnings that shaped who we would become, and as others have said, our beginnings are what allowed us to keep going when other CD organizations are no longer around. We had humble beginnings, but then adapted to the Country's needs as situations changed over the years, and we will continue to do so. That's something definitely worth celebrating.
And we're going to tell the story from the start...again...the problem is, that's the only story that's told. The point is, the WW2 experience is being celebrated to the point that recognizing it again is making it meaningless.
Quote from: FW on November 17, 2015, 08:23:39 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 17, 2015, 08:08:28 PM
Yay, we won WW2, but Eddie, what have you done for me lately?....and what did we do in the subsequent 70 years? If the constant drum banging about recognizing WW2 vets with a CGM and the "attention grabbing" wear of WW2 wings is any indicator, not a whole lot. For some reason the organization is stuck on one part of our history. Dwelling on one period is just sad. Reminds me of the high school jock who is living too much in '82....
We have a rich history going back the last 74 years. If CAP wishes to authorize the wear of "retro wings" for the year; great. IMHO, it does not retract from our long and honored service of protecting the homeland, SAR/DR, and many other accomplishments of our members and our organization.
Nor does it recognize the accomplishments of that service. It once again says "Look! We were in WW2!" Doesn't mention anything about the CD service during the Cold War, doesn't touch on the multiple DR operations, says nothing about the CN missions...
I'm sure the Historian folks are just ready to help you implement your ideas on how to high light those cold war contributions and Disaster Relief contributions.
Oh...wait....you don't have have any contributions....you only have negative criticism.
Typical CAPTALK.
:)
Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2015, 08:45:31 PM
I'm sure the Historian folks are just ready to help you implement your ideas on how to high light those cold war contributions and Disaster Relief contributions.
Oh...wait....you don't have have any contributions....you only have negative criticism.
Typical CAPTALK.
:)
And, of course, you miss the point. The "Historian folks" are the ones that should be looking at the entirety of the organization's history, not recelebrating the war. If this is supposed to be a genuine effort to highlight 75 years of contributions to the nation, it should encompass all of the history. These are in no particular order and as completely thought out as the "wings" concept:
*bring back crush caps
*bring back the berry boards
*add the CD patch to the utility uniforms (this way, everybody can participate in the celebration, not just the aviators)
*make a national competition where each region puts a satellite into space
*revive the CD ribbon
Yeah...yeah....yeah.....Like I said once again it is CAPTALK telling someone else "what they should be doing".
It is this simple.
The history folks in their own little meeting say "wouldn't it be cool if we....." they sold the idea to the boss and got it approved.
Totally optional, not very expensive, not really all that bad looking, and does accomplish it's intended goal...of high lighting CAP's 75 years of of existence.
Done.
No harm no foul.
NOPE......not good enough! CAPTALK has got be the naysayers of the CAP and complain.
This pattern is repeated time and again here on CAPTALK.
Okay...I throw down the gauntlet! If you can do better.......then volunteer for the position and take a shot at it! Otherwise.....just ignore it. Which by the way is what I'm gonna do.
Thank you for playing.
I have a solution to this debate...
If you like the wings (and qualify to wear them) rock them proudly-and tell the story of why you're wearing them, what it meant yesterday and how it translates to today and tomorrow. And be kind to the people who choose not to wear them.
If you think the wings are the worst thing ever, don't wear them and just speak of CAP's story today and tomorrow. And be kind to the people who wear them.
I will say that I do believe that CAP could do a better job clearly communicating our relevance today-because we don't want to be stuck in the past...and I do think it's worth discussing how we can all do that more effectively-on another thread of course.
It's back to khaki for all of ya... >:D >:D
http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/ (http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/)
(http://auxnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/NatCCLetter_Dec1_2015.png)
Quote from: JC004 on November 18, 2015, 04:59:21 AM
It's back to khaki for all of ya... >:D >:D
http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/ (http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/)
(http://auxnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/NatCCLetter_Dec1_2015.png)
:clap: :clap:
Quote from: JC004 on November 18, 2015, 04:59:21 AM
It's back to khaki for all of ya... >:D >:D
If I can find a decent "original" khaki for little cost, I might actually wear the "heritage wings" on the uniform. However, I do not think my wife would be happy with me purchasing those :(
Quote from: LSThiker on November 18, 2015, 05:10:55 AM
Quote from: JC004 on November 18, 2015, 04:59:21 AM
It's back to khaki for all of ya... >:D >:D
If I can find a decent "original" khaki for little cost, I might actually wear the "heritage wings" on the uniform. However, I do not think my wife would be happy with me purchasing those :(
They seriously don't make khakis like they used to. What you can find in most any clothing store now is crap. Except Bill's Khakis (https://www.billskhakis.com/). Made in Pennsylvania. Shame they don't make WWII uniform style...
JC and Alaric...
Yeh sure!
Try landing a Cessna at an airport with what may look like a bomb under it... You'll have the local police on you. The Feds will be next!!!
:angel:
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2015, 08:21:08 PM
JC and Alaric...
Yeh sure!
Try landing a Cessna at an airport with what may look like a bomb under it... You'll have the local police on you. The Feds will be next!!!
:angel:
And a one-way trip to Gitmo! >:D
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 18, 2015, 09:19:49 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2015, 08:21:08 PM
JC and Alaric...
Yeh sure!
Try landing a Cessna at an airport with what may look like a bomb under it... You'll have the local police on you. The Feds will be next!!!
:angel:
And a one-way trip to Gitmo! >:D
I saw Gitmo in that Harold and Kumar movie. It didn't look that bad.
Quote from: winterg on November 18, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 18, 2015, 09:19:49 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2015, 08:21:08 PM
JC and Alaric...
Yeh sure!
Try landing a Cessna at an airport with what may look like a bomb under it... You'll have the local police on you. The Feds will be next!!!
:angel:
And a one-way trip to Gitmo! >:D
I saw Gitmo in that Harold and Kumar movie. It didn't look that bad.
Grab yourself some Cuban cigars and a mojito, you're set.
Quote from: JC004 on November 18, 2015, 04:59:21 AM
It's back to khaki for all of ya... >:D >:D
http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/ (http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/)
(http://auxnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/NatCCLetter_Dec1_2015.png)
This has got to be a joke right?
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 19, 2015, 01:43:51 AM
This has got to be a joke right?
You mean, you missed the election of our new National Commander Maj Gen Hernandez?
:)
Quote from: SkywalkerRA on November 18, 2015, 11:19:35 PM
Quote from: winterg on November 18, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on November 18, 2015, 09:19:49 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2015, 08:21:08 PM
JC and Alaric...
Yeh sure!
Try landing a Cessna at an airport with what may look like a bomb under it... You'll have the local police on you. The Feds will be next!!!
:angel:
And a one-way trip to Gitmo! >:D
I saw Gitmo in that Harold and Kumar movie. It didn't look that bad.
Grab yourself some Cuban cigars and a mojito, you're set.
Will do! Off to Mexico in 6 days!
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 19, 2015, 01:43:51 AM
Quote from: JC004 on November 18, 2015, 04:59:21 AM
It's back to khaki for all of ya... >:D >:D
http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/ (http://auxnewsnow.com/2015/11/for-the-75th-anniversary-a-return-to-1941/)
(http://auxnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/NatCCLetter_Dec1_2015.png)
This has got to be a joke right?
Aux News Now is a satire site for CAP ;)
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
Fraud, waste and abuse? Only $4k to preserve historic artifacts, research the history of the organization, conduct interviews and oral histories, produce material that aids in recruiting and fostering esprit de corps, etc. etc. etc. Name one other program in CAP that does so much for the organization, with such little money? If you don't care enough about the organization, to want to preserve it's history, to be able to tell it's story to future generations, then why are you a part of it?
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
Fraud, Waste and Abuse? Give me a break. You might not like the expenditure, I get that. You might think the money could be better spent. I get that also. But the expenditure is authorized under CAP regs and NHQ policy. And orginizational history is a vital part of the Public Affairs and Outreach function of NHQ. The Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps all expend resources on their history and heritage. It's not Fraud, Waste, or Abuse until the IG says it is.
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
Perhaps you need a refresher on those definitions
http://www.dodig.mil/resources/fraud/fraud_defined.html (http://www.dodig.mil/resources/fraud/fraud_defined.html)
Quote from: LSThiker on November 21, 2015, 02:25:48 AM
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
Perhaps you need a refresher on those definitions
http://www.dodig.mil/resources/fraud/fraud_defined.html (http://www.dodig.mil/resources/fraud/fraud_defined.html)
Don't think I need a "refresher" on waste.
At least it's not a race car.
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 04:46:51 AM
Don't think I need a "refresher" on waste.
Then please elaborate as to how the history program relates to mismanagement, inappropriate actions, and/or inadequate oversight.
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 04:46:51 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 21, 2015, 02:25:48 AM
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
Perhaps you need a refresher on those definitions
http://www.dodig.mil/resources/fraud/fraud_defined.html (http://www.dodig.mil/resources/fraud/fraud_defined.html)
Don't think I need a "refresher" on waste.
BTW; most likely it's $4000 out of a $2,000,000 budget. This expense came out of member (Corporate) money. FWA, this is not. There is a vetting process in these matters, and I'm sure it was followed.
Oh, and as a former "bean counter", we need to sell about 5500 of them to break even..., but this is about our history, not about making money. :angel:
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
I would venture that our history brings us far more than $4,000 every year. Without our history, our appropriations would be approximately $0.
Quote from: PHall on November 21, 2015, 01:32:52 AM
Quote from: PhotogPilot on November 20, 2015, 08:04:01 PM
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem here. Wear of the WWII wings is not mandatory, it's optional for one year. The wings cost $12.50. Don't like 'em? Don't buy em. Don't put 'em on your uniform. Come on folks, is it really that big a freakin' deal?
And please explain to me how $4000 out of a $39,000,000 budget is going to hurt our operations.
That $4000 could be used for something useful and not for something of zero value.
There is a term that is used to describe stuff like this. It's Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
So, I presume that you've reported this via the proper channels, then, right? Because if you see something that is FWA and don't report it, that's a pretty serious integrity issue on your part.
Interesting...a uniform thread that went into a budget thread. Most unusual.
IMO, this is not fraud, waste or abuse.
Fraud would mean the monies taken in from our membership or Congress were used in a manner inconsistent with the mission(s) of CAP.
Waste would mean frivolous use of monies taken in by members or Congress (NASCAR, anyone? *snerk*)
Abuse would mean the consistent misuse of funding.
I don't see how these heritage wings fall under any of these categories.
I would suggest that if you have an issue with the funding of this program, you can file a complaint with your Wing IG. I'm sure they will forward your complaint up the chain.
I think this thread should be locked before we REALLY get our panties in a wad.
And again, the heritage wings program cost $20, which the Chief Historian paid out of pocket. The entire History program gets around $4k a year, which is not a lot of money, and defintely not waste or abuse.
Why is this even a thing, anyway?
Buy, or do not buy. Wear, or do not wear. There is no gray area here. Don't wanna spend your money on this? Then DON'T. No one is twisting your arm.
If we're going back to WWII with uniforms and regulations. Will we pay the same dues if any from that time period?
Quote from: CAP_truth on November 21, 2015, 04:53:13 PM
If we're going back to WWII with uniforms and regulations. Will we pay the same dues if any from that time period?
Yes. We will also arm our planes (we will be returning our Cessnas and taking on L-19s and Piper Cubs) with faulty bombs and torpedoes. Germany has agreed to lend our Navy several of their museum-quality U-boats so we can sink them.
The vintage wings are OPTIONAL, wear them or not, your choice. The $4000 annual budget is a drop in the bucket out of CAP funding. Out of that CAP will have a National Museum at Bolling AFB, we got the Congressional Gold Medal, and several other good things. If you won't wear them, you can use the wings to present to new pilots or aircrew.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
I have misgivings about this, but not from any budgetary standpoint or disagreements with any need to preserve history.
My objections center around my belief that it is poor form to wear badges or awards which one did not earn. And I did not earn those wings.
The WWII era wings were awarded to people who earned them under WWII era conditions, using WWII era criteria. The wings I earned, in 1970, were different from what are worn now. When the ones I earned were replaced by different versions, I wore the newer ones, just as people in 1949-50 put aside the enameled wings.
It seems to me that we are turning hard-earned and hard-worn aviation badges into lapel pins or brooches. I can't help but be reminded of Gill Robb Wilson's daughter wearing her CAP uniform to a gold medal presentation wearing her dad's WWII wings - not only did she not earn them, but unless she is a pilot and has earned any version of wings she shouldn't wear them. But, "cool" seemed to outrank "proper" in that case and seems to reign under the new change. We are combining re-enactment with current service, a bizarre concept, in my opinion. I can't picture the US Army authorizing puttees on uniforms in 2018 to commemorate WWI, either.
I'd totally support the idea of letting CAP members who earned the enameled wings to wear THEIR wings for a year. Or allowing those who earned dropped wings to wear THEIR wings. But, allowing all and sundry to wear SOMEBODY ELSE'S wings? Just doesn't seem right.
Mitchell, I thought these guys were regular US Army.
Continental Color Guard, Honor Guard Company, 4th Battalion, 3rd US Infantry Regiment in
http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard (http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard)
If they are regular US Army, they are doing just what you said the US Army would not do.
First and foremost, I love the idea! Actually a neat way to celebrate the anniversary. But, since I am a senior member who had to suffer through the embarrassment of maroon epaulets, I'm always a little apprehensive when there is a change to the uniforms. No matter how small, insignificant or well meaning and received any change needs to comply with the regulation. I know I sound like a barracks lawyer, but some may debate the validity of the ICL with respect to the USAF style uniform since it is not counter signed by CAP-USAF.
CAPM 39-1 26 JUNE 2014,
"1.1.2.2. The Commander, CAP-USAF, with the approval of Headquarters USAF, prescribes the wear of the USAF-style uniforms, as well as the insignia, badges, and devices worn on these uniforms.
1.1.2.3. The CAP National Commander (CAP/CC) prescribes the wear of the Corporate- style uniforms, as well as the insignia, badges, and devices worn on these uniforms."
I've yet to see a CAPM 39-1 with the National CC's signature on it. At least, to the best of these addled eyes and lame brain.
Our connection to CAP's origins in WW2 is one of the best recruiting tools available, as we should be able to see in the media attention that the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal replicas has attracted...no way does this constitute FWA!
If you don't like the option, don't buy or wear the darn things...and. meanwhile, feel free to express that view hear or through the chain of command...but let's be careful about alleging regulatory violations.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 22, 2015, 05:35:19 PM
Mitchell, I thought these guys were regular US Army.
Continental Color Guard, Honor Guard Company, 4th Battalion, 3rd US Infantry Regiment in
http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard (http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard)
If they are regular US Army, they are doing just what you said the US Army would not do.
Cite ONE example, please. ONE, of anyone in those units wearing an individual qualification badge on a current uniform, with said badge being one which they did not personally earn.
I'll wait here.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on November 23, 2015, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 22, 2015, 05:35:19 PM
Mitchell, I thought these guys were regular US Army.
Continental Color Guard, Honor Guard Company, 4th Battalion, 3rd US Infantry Regiment in
http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard (http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard)
If they are regular US Army, they are doing just what you said the US Army would not do.
Cite ONE example, please. ONE, of anyone in those units wearing an individual qualification badge on a current uniform, with said badge being one which they did not personally earn.
I'll wait here.
The fact that the army allows the wear of UNIT awards (cords and unit award ribbons) that they did not personally earn for the express purpose of honoring the history and accomplishments of the unit, set the same type of precedence that CAP is using to allow currently qualified Observers and Pilots to wear historical badges....to honor the history and accomplishments of our organization.
Your stretch that we should not wear WWII wings because we did not earn them is really just silly.
If CAP tomorrow discontinued the current wings and came up with a completely new set......we would not have to re-earn them. We would simply put on the new ones. And if CAP 30 years down the road wanted to honor the accomplishments of the Millennial Members of CAP by allowing those member to wear "our" wings......it would the same thing.
Listen. If you don't want to wear them......good on you. Otherwise it is just a lot of noise.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on November 23, 2015, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 22, 2015, 05:35:19 PM
Mitchell, I thought these guys were regular US Army.
Continental Color Guard, Honor Guard Company, 4th Battalion, 3rd US Infantry Regiment in
http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard (http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard)
If they are regular US Army, they are doing just what you said the US Army would not do.
Cite ONE example, please. ONE, of anyone in those units wearing an individual qualification badge on a current uniform, with said badge being one which they did not personally earn.
I'll wait here.
This idea isnt unprofessional, its a great way to talk about CAP if anyone were to ask. For the most part NOBODY outside of CAP is going to even notice. If I was active in CAP still, I would probably sport a set. As far as saying "I didnt earn them".... ehhhhh thats not even relevant. You are a CAP Pilot. The style of badge has no bearing on that. What if a member was a CAP pilot when the old style wings were worn, would they be prohibited from wearing the new wings or prohibited from flying until they took another Form 5? If a CAP member wore the old style ribbons, did they have to re-earn their Commanders Commendation Medal with the new ribbons came out?
Its not a qualification badge, but the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments still wear the French Fourragere for the units actions in WWI. (I was with the 6th Marines... and that cord was a big deal.) Believe me, I had NOTHING to do with the Battle of Belleau Wood. The US Army Continental Color Guard wears the Revolutionary War style uniform. They definitely didnt "earn" that. But CAP isnt the military as we all know. However..... in LE many agencies will wear throwback badges on their major anniversaries. An agency I was with in CA went back to the original issued badge of 1910 and wore it the entire length of 2010. It was typically the LAPD style shield, but in 1910 it was a small 5 point star. I think that comparison is closer to a CAP example vs looking at the military.
http://www.6thmarines.marines.mil/Units/2ndBattalion/History/Fourragere.aspx (http://www.6thmarines.marines.mil/Units/2ndBattalion/History/Fourragere.aspx)
So with that.. I guess one could argue that the Marines should worry less about the past and more about the future. But for some reason they seem to think history is important. Id be more concerned about wearing someone else's valor awards than I would be about wearing a different style of a badge Im actually qualified to wear.
I guess I'm in the very small minority since I did earn the enameled pilot wings. (as a cadet) We laughingly called them Luftwaffe wings which they closely resembled.
Did you have to take a new Form 5 before you could wear the new ones? >:D
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on November 22, 2015, 09:38:18 AM
I have misgivings about this, but not from any budgetary standpoint or disagreements with any need to preserve history.
My objections center around my belief that it is poor form to wear badges or awards which one did not earn. And I did not earn those wings.
The WWII era wings were awarded to people who earned them under WWII era conditions, using WWII era criteria. The wings I earned, in 1970, were different from what are worn now. When the ones I earned were replaced by different versions, I wore the newer ones, just as people in 1949-50 put aside the enameled wings.
It seems to me that we are turning hard-earned and hard-worn aviation badges into lapel pins or brooches. I can't help but be reminded of Gill Robb Wilson's daughter wearing her CAP uniform to a gold medal presentation wearing her dad's WWII wings - not only did she not earn them, but unless she is a pilot and has earned any version of wings she shouldn't wear them. But, "cool" seemed to outrank "proper" in that case and seems to reign under the new change. We are combining re-enactment with current service, a bizarre concept, in my opinion. I can't picture the US Army authorizing puttees on uniforms in 2018 to commemorate WWI, either.
I'd totally support the idea of letting CAP members who earned the enameled wings to wear THEIR wings for a year. Or allowing those who earned dropped wings to wear THEIR wings. But, allowing all and sundry to wear SOMEBODY ELSE'S wings? Just doesn't seem right.
This is exactly the way I feel. And while I won't be wearing them, many others who did not earn them will.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 06:16:25 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on November 23, 2015, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 22, 2015, 05:35:19 PM
Mitchell, I thought these guys were regular US Army.
Continental Color Guard, Honor Guard Company, 4th Battalion, 3rd US Infantry Regiment in
http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard (http://www.oldguard.mdw.army.mil/specialty-platoons/continental-color-guard)
If they are regular US Army, they are doing just what you said the US Army would not do.
Cite ONE example, please. ONE, of anyone in those units wearing an individual qualification badge on a current uniform, with said badge being one which they did not personally earn.
I'll wait here.
The fact that the army allows the wear of UNIT awards (cords and unit award ribbons) that they did not personally earn for the express purpose of honoring the history and accomplishments of the unit, set the same type of precedence that CAP is using to allow currently qualified Observers and Pilots to wear historical badges....to honor the history and accomplishments of our organization.
First of all, we are not the Army Auxiliary, so what the Army does sets no precedent for CAP. Second, the Army does not allow members to wear qualification badges if they did not earn them; certainly not historical badges. Third, the Air Force does not do what we are doing here and they would be the ones who could set a precedent for us. Finally, only Air Force retirees can wear historical uniforms or insignias authorized at the time of their retirement according to AFI 36-2903 (and I'm not including reenactments and the like). CAP only allows corporate uniforms.
Storm,
I am well aware that we are not the Army Aux. But Mitchell was asking for an example of the Army wearing them them.
The USAF does do what we are doing here. Back in my AD days we had warrior Fridays (last Friday of the month) where airman could wear historical uniforms.
And finally......39-1 and the appropriate ICLs tell us what we can wear.......and they tell us we can wear these historical badges, so 36-2903 says is irrelevant, because we are the CAP not the USAF. :)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PMThis is exactly the way I feel. And while I won't be wearing them, many others who did not earn them will.
But they did earn them. They are CAP pilots and Observers.
Lordmonar,
I'll continue engaging in the discussion, but let's agree to keep our replies within context.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 04:17:14 PM
Storm,
I am well aware that we are not the Army Aux. But Mitchell was asking for an example of the Army wearing them them.
You stated that the Army wearing certain unit awards "set the same type of precedence [
sic] that CAP is using to allow currently qualified Observers and Pilots to wear historical badges..." That's why I replied that "we are not the Army Auxiliary, so what the Army does sets no precedent for CAP." Your assertion was incorrect; mine was a statement of fact.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 04:17:14 PM
The USAF does do what we are doing here. Back in my AD days we had warrior Fridays (last Friday of the month) where airman could wear historical uniforms.
In all the years I've been in the Air Force I've never seen that. How long ago was it? Was it a unit or base thing? Was it allowed in an AFI or other official publication? If so, I stand corrected.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 04:17:14 PM
And finally......39-1 and the appropriate ICLs tell us what we can wear.......and they tell us we can wear these historical badges,
I don't disagree with you. I may not like it, but anyone in my AOR will be able to wear these badges, within the parameters of the ICL, if they so choose to.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 04:17:14 PM
so 36-2903 says is irrelevant, because we are the CAP not the USAF. :)
Again, I agree that we're CAP, not the Air Force. But your assertion is not 100% correct. CAPM 39-1 does refer to AFI 36-2903 with regards to allowed military badges and awards, making it relevant to CAP, but not in the context of these historical CAP badges. The reason I brought this AFI (again, context is everything) is because you implied that CAP can approve uniform changes based on precedent, I wanted to illustrate the precedent set by the Air Force, not to imply we needed to follow this AFI.
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 23, 2015, 03:33:59 PMThis is exactly the way I feel. And while I won't be wearing them, many others who did not earn them will.
But they did earn them. They are CAP pilots and Observers.
That's incorrect. They earned the CAP ratings and the current badges, not the badges worn in WWII. There is a difference.
Storm,
Back in the 80's in ATC (now know as AETC) it was policy to do warrior Fridays.
The practice was not allowed in 35-10 (yes I'm that old) but like many many many things in the USAF practices were not in the regs or AFIs.
My reference to 36-2903 being irrelevant was to counter your comment that only retirees could wear historical uniforms.
And finally.....CAP pilots are CAP pilots are CAP pilots (or observers). The guys who wore the WWII wings did not have re-earn their wings when the switched in the 50's nor again when it changed again. If the WWII guys did not have to qualifier to wear MY wings.....I don't have to earn their wings.
The is no difference. Any more then if CAP said we will have to wear the Barry Boards for historical purposes......it is not like we have to earn them. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 08:11:57 PM
Storm,
Back in the 80's in ATC (now know as AETC) it was policy to do warrior Fridays.
The practice was not allowed in 35-10 (yes I'm that old) but like many many many things in the USAF practices were not in the regs or AFIs.
My reference to 36-2903 being irrelevant was to counter your comment that only retirees could wear historical uniforms.
And finally.....CAP pilots are CAP pilots are CAP pilots (or observers). The guys who wore the WWII wings did not have re-earn their wings when the switched in the 50's nor again when it changed again. If the WWII guys did not have to qualifier to wear MY wings.....I don't have to earn their wings.
The is no difference. Any more then if CAP said we will have to wear the Barry Boards for historical purposes......it is not like we have to earn them. :)
I'd view the Berry Boards as more of a punishment than anything of historical significance. I'll wear them again over my dead body.
Mitchell, you did not ask for badges but for putees. I gave you an example of a regular Army unit wearing an old uniform, the Continental Army uniform. Now are you changing the equation midstream by asking for a badge.
Tell me, do you know anyone in the unit I mentioned?
How do YOU know they are not authorized to wear, for instance, the Purple Heart if they did NOT earn it?
That is a medal instituted by George Washington. The Continental Army uniform may not be complete without one.
However since neither you nor me may know anyone there, it may be pointless to ask about any badges...
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 08:11:57 PM
Storm,
Back in the 80's in ATC (now know as AETC) it was policy to do warrior Fridays.
The practice was not allowed in 35-10 (yes I'm that old) but like many many many things in the USAF practices were not in the regs or AFIs.
I remember that and actually thought it was pretty cool. I don't recall anyone at the time really saying anything negative against it. I know of quite a few NCOs who spent a lot of time trying to find these old uniforms (with the old rank too) so they could wear them.
Quote from: kwe1009 on November 23, 2015, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 08:11:57 PM
Storm,
Back in the 80's in ATC (now know as AETC) it was policy to do warrior Fridays.
The practice was not allowed in 35-10 (yes I'm that old) but like many many many things in the USAF practices were not in the regs or AFIs.
I remember that and actually thought it was pretty cool. I don't recall anyone at the time really saying anything negative against it. I know of quite a few NCOs who spent a lot of time trying to find these old uniforms (with the old rank too) so they could wear them.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 23, 2015, 09:30:20 PM
Mitchell, you did not ask for badges but for putees. I gave you an example of a regular Army unit wearing an old uniform, the Continental Army uniform. Now are you changing the equation midstream by asking for a badge.
Tell me, do you know anyone in the unit I mentioned?
How do YOU know they are not authorized to wear, for instance, the Purple Heart if they did NOT earn it?
That is a medal instituted by George Washington. The Continental Army uniform may not be complete without one.
However since neither you nor me may know anyone there, it may be pointless to ask about any badges...
Don't even joke about the Purple Heart. Just don't.
One of the CAPTalk members, leeyo32, was the commander of the Continental Color Guard. If you'd like I can let him know and he can chime in if you really want to know. I don't think he frequents here much.
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 23, 2015, 09:30:20 PM
Mitchell, you did not ask for badges but for putees. I gave you an example of a regular Army unit wearing an old uniform, the Continental Army uniform. Now are you changing the equation midstream by asking for a badge.
Tell me, do you know anyone in the unit I mentioned?
How do YOU know they are not authorized to wear, for instance, the Purple Heart if they did NOT earn it?
That is a medal instituted by George Washington. The Continental Army uniform may not be complete without one.
However since neither you nor me may know anyone there, it may be pointless to ask about any badges...
The Badge of Military Merit was only awarded to 3 people as far as historians can figure. Although it was supposedly awarded to more, but any log of those cannot be found.
The History of the Purple Heart is actually interesting in that it was awarded, forgotten until the 20th century, revived, revised criteria numerous times, made into a specific "wounded" warriors medal, and revised some more.
http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/ (http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/)
Quote from: kwe1009 on November 23, 2015, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2015, 08:11:57 PM
Storm,
Back in the 80's in ATC (now know as AETC) it was policy to do warrior Fridays.
The practice was not allowed in 35-10 (yes I'm that old) but like many many many things in the USAF practices were not in the regs or AFIs.
I remember that and actually thought it was pretty cool. I don't recall anyone at the time really saying anything negative against it. I know of quite a few NCOs who spent a lot of time trying to find these old uniforms (with the old rank too) so they could wear them.
During the celebration of the Air Force's 50th Anniversary, Keesler allowed vintage uniforms once a month for a year.
Also, interestingly, AFI 36-2903 authorizes oxidized finish "heritage" wings.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 23, 2015, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 23, 2015, 09:30:20 PM
Mitchell, you did not ask for badges but for putees. I gave you an example of a regular Army unit wearing an old uniform, the Continental Army uniform. Now are you changing the equation midstream by asking for a badge.
Tell me, do you know anyone in the unit I mentioned?
How do YOU know they are not authorized to wear, for instance, the Purple Heart if they did NOT earn it?
That is a medal instituted by George Washington. The Continental Army uniform may not be complete without one.
However since neither you nor me may know anyone there, it may be pointless to ask about any badges...
The Badge of Military Merit was only awarded to 3 people as far as historians can figure. Although it was supposedly awarded to more, but any log of those cannot be found.
The History of the Purple Heart is actually interesting in that it was awarded, forgotten until the 20th century, revived, revised criteria numerous times, made into a specific "wounded" warriors medal, and revised some more.
http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/ (http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/)
May 19, 1998
Effective this date, the Purple Heart is limited to American military personnel, and civilian awards are eliminated. I wonder what prompted this change? Ive never heard of a civilian being awarded the PH. I read into it and think "Hmmm some civilian got a purple heart and it made some general mad." But 1998.... there wasnt anything going on in 1998.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 23, 2015, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 23, 2015, 09:30:20 PM
Mitchell, you did not ask for badges but for putees. I gave you an example of a regular Army unit wearing an old uniform, the Continental Army uniform. Now are you changing the equation midstream by asking for a badge.
Tell me, do you know anyone in the unit I mentioned?
How do YOU know they are not authorized to wear, for instance, the Purple Heart if they did NOT earn it?
That is a medal instituted by George Washington. The Continental Army uniform may not be complete without one.
However since neither you nor me may know anyone there, it may be pointless to ask about any badges...
The Badge of Military Merit was only awarded to 3 people as far as historians can figure. Although it was supposedly awarded to more, but any log of those cannot be found.
The History of the Purple Heart is actually interesting in that it was awarded, forgotten until the 20th century, revived, revised criteria numerous times, made into a specific "wounded" warriors medal, and revised some more.
http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/ (http://www.thepurpleheart.com/history/)
May 19, 1998
Effective this date, the Purple Heart is limited to American military personnel, and civilian awards are eliminated.
I wonder what prompted this change? Ive never heard of a civilian being awarded the PH. I read into it and think "Hmmm some civilian got a purple heart and it made some general mad." But 1998.... there wasnt anything going on in 1998.
If you call a series of terrorist attacks before and after "nothing"...interesting timing though. Just a few months before the Embassy Bombings that introduced the general public to bin Laden's merry band of murderers...
Right, that Im aware of. Im just curious what specific incident made someone decide that was an issue that needed addressed.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 02:58:03 PM
Right, that Im aware of. Im just curious what specific incident made someone decide that was an issue that needed addressed.
This is from Wiki
QuoteFrom 1942 to 1997, civilians serving or closely affiliated with the armed forces—as government employees, Red Cross workers, war correspondents, and the like—were eligible to receive the Purple Heart. Among the earliest civilians to receive the award were nine firefighters of the Honolulu Fire Department killed or wounded while fighting fires at Hickam Field during the attack on Pearl Harbor.[9] About 100 men and women received the award, the most famous being newspaperman Ernie Pyle who was awarded a Purple Heart posthumously by the Army after being killed by Japanese machine gun fire in the Pacific Theater, near the end of World War II. Before his death, Pyle had seen and experienced combat in the European Theater, while accompanying and writing about infantrymen for the folks back home.[10]
The most recent Purple Hearts presented to civilians occurred after the terrorist attacks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, in 1996—for their injuries, about 40 U.S. civil service employees received the award.
However, in 1997, at the urging of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Congress passed legislation prohibiting future awards of the Purple Heart to civilians. Today, the Purple Heart is reserved for men and women in uniform. Civilian employees of the U.S. Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result of hostile action may receive the new Defense of Freedom Medal. This award was created shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 02:58:03 PM
Right, that Im aware of. Im just curious what specific incident made someone decide that was an issue that needed addressed.
Lobbying by the MOPH. When the 1998 Defense authorization was on the table, they lobbied to introduce language into the bill that would award the medal only to military personnel. That's why, in 2001, the DoD introduced the Defense of Freedom Medal to recognize DoD civilians wounded or killed.
OK great thanks for the info. I had no idea the PH had ever been awarded to civilians and didnt know about the Defense of Freedom Medal. Thats why I was wondering why it was an issue.
It would be a fun time to be a civilian awarded the Purple Heart... join CAP, wear it as your ONLY military decoration and then when people ask you say "Yes its a Purple Heart, no I was never in the military." >:D :clap: Did those civilian Purple Hearts revert to the DoF Medal? Or do those people keep their Purple Hearts?
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
It would be a fun time to be a civilian awarded the Purple Heart...
Minus that part of having to earn it >:D
Was looking for and going to wear the WWII era Chaplains cross...but "doh". The CAP Chaplain Service/Corps wasn't established until 1950...so I will be wearing the 65th anniversary commemorative Chaplains cross -- which is the same that was worn in 1950. Looks like I get to save some money :)
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 01:42:15 PM
May 19, 1998
Effective this date, the Purple Heart is limited to American military personnel, and civilian awards are eliminated.
I wonder what prompted this change? Ive never heard of a civilian being awarded the PH. I read into it and think "Hmmm some civilian got a purple heart and it made some general mad." But 1998.... there wasnt anything going on in 1998.
That was just a couple of years after I was nearly killed in a terrorist attack and earned the PH along with many others including 19 fellow Airmen who didn't live to tell the story. Don't forget about the embassy attacks in 1998 either. Terrorism against the US has been going on for a long time but not all attacks get much air time because they are not "sexy" enough.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 24, 2015, 04:25:24 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
It would be a fun time to be a civilian awarded the Purple Heart...
Minus that part of having to earn it >:D
Nothing fun about earning the Purple Heart.
Quote from: LSThiker on November 24, 2015, 04:25:24 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
It would be a fun time to be a civilian awarded the Purple Heart...
Minus that part of having to earn it >:D
I understand what you mean but by clipping part of my comment you totally changed the context. In no way was I saying or even implying it was fun to earn Purple Heart. My reference was to the interaction of someone calling you out for having a Purple Heart as your ONLY military decorations. Prior to this discussion I would have been suspicious myself. Just to clear that up because people are now reposting the quote. No, I don't think being wounded is fun.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 06:22:12 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 24, 2015, 04:25:24 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
It would be a fun time to be a civilian awarded the Purple Heart...
Minus that part of having to earn it >:D
I understand what you mean but by clipping part of my comment you totally changed the context. In no way was I saying or even implying it was fun to earn Purple Heart. My reference was to the interaction of someone calling you out for having a Purple Heart as your ONLY military decorations.
I knew what you meant, hence the >:D
PHall,
I was not joking about the PH!
I'm glad I get temporary wear of the observer badge. It shows that CAP liked me, so they put a wing on it.
Quote from: DoubleSecret on January 12, 2016, 08:51:25 PM
I'm glad I get temporary wear of the observer badge. It shows that CAP liked me, so they put a wing on it.
you had 2 months, and that's what you came up with? Where's the gong?
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 06:22:12 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on November 24, 2015, 04:25:24 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 24, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
It would be a fun time to be a civilian awarded the Purple Heart...
Minus that part of having to earn it >:D
I understand what you mean but by clipping part of my comment you totally changed the context. In no way was I saying or even implying it was fun to earn Purple Heart. My reference was to the interaction of someone calling you out for having a Purple Heart as your ONLY military decorations. Prior to this discussion I would have been suspicious myself. Just to clear that up because people are now reposting the quote. No, I don't think being wounded is fun.
There is nothing funny about receiving or inflicting wounds.....unless you are wounding a Clown....