Dear NHQ.

[Eclipse]

But we have decided. 

"We?"  The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.

That poor status quo is maintained because it's the "path of least resistance" for those who came after.

Forever.

There are quick and easy solutions to end that conversation.
They begin by holding everyone in the organization accountable to the same set of standards for
behavior, appearance and performance.

[Ned]

"We?" 

Yup. "we."  CAP.  By way of the elected and appointed leadership of the organization, which at times has included both you and me.

The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.

"Foisted?" 

Wow, your bitterness continues to run close to the surface on this issue, sir.  But as I said, people on both sides of the issue have passionate (and seemingly unchangable) opinions.


And yes, parts of the compromise were put in place quite some time ago.  About the time when it first became necessary to do so (which was when the AF first began to impose h/w restrictions on themselves and us.)

And you are certainly correct that normal turnover of our leadership means most of the original "compromisers" have moved to different positions.  Kinda like all the leaders in the AF from that era.  Or most of the leadership in any organization that is over 20 years old.

What's your point? 

There are quick and easy solutions to end that conversation.

Of course.  Both sides sincerely and passionately believe that.  If only the "other side" would see the wisdom of your personal aesthetic preferences, this conversation would indeed be done in a heartbeat.

Or perhaps if you were to concede that the other side is correct and your personal aesthetic preferences were incorrect, the same result would ensue.

But until and unless that occurs, we will just have to live with the compromise.

And you will be able to post another 10,000 times on the issue.  Please don't give up.  I'm sure someone will be persuaded if you just keep repeating yourself.

They begin by holding everyone in the organization accountable to the same set of standards for
behavior, appearance and performance.

[RiverAux]

"We?"  The compromise was foisted on CAP 20

well the height/weight stuff came in during the early 1980s.

[JeffDG]

The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.

"Foisted?" 

Wow, your bitterness continues to run close to the surface on this issue, sir.  But as I said, people on both sides of the issue have passionate (and seemingly unchangable) opinions.

Magna Carta was "foisted" on the King in 1215 by some angry noblemen, yet portions of it remain valid law to this day.

[Eclipse]

"We?" 

Yup. "we."  CAP.  By way of the elected and appointed leadership of the organization, which at times has included both you and me.

The compromise was foisted on CAP 20 some years ago in the wake of the foibles of the then leadership.
Few, if any, national staff who were in place then are still in positions of influence today.

"Foisted?" 

Wow, your bitterness continues to run close to the surface on this issue, sir.  But as I said, people on both sides of the issue have passionate (and seemingly unchangable) opinions.


And yes, parts of the compromise were put in place quite some time ago.  About the time when it first became necessary to do so (which was when the AF first began to impose h/w restrictions on themselves and us.)

And you are certainly correct that normal turnover of our leadership means most of the original "compromisers" have moved to different positions.  Kinda like all the leaders in the AF from that era.  Or most of the leadership in any organization that is over 20 years old.

What's your point? 

There are quick and easy solutions to end that conversation.

Of course.  Both sides sincerely and passionately believe that.  If only the "other side" would see the wisdom of your personal aesthetic preferences, this conversation would indeed be done in a heartbeat.

Or perhaps if you were to concede that the other side is correct and your personal aesthetic preferences were incorrect, the same result would ensue.

But until and unless that occurs, we will just have to live with the compromise.

And you will be able to post another 10,000 times on the issue.  Please don't give up.  I'm sure someone will be persuaded if you just keep repeating yourself.

They begin by holding everyone in the organization accountable to the same set of standards for
behavior, appearance and performance.

Ned,

I have never been part of the "leadership" in any way relevent to this conversation.  For you to infer I
was indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how CAP works, or disingenuousness  to blame the messenger.
You and I both know better, not to mention the general disinterest in "opinions" from people without eagles,
especially when they run counter to the narrative.

In those areas where I have had command authority, I held my people to the proper standard in
a way which you have indicated is impossible for NHQ to enforce and which anyone looking at the flicker
pool from the most recent national conference will see is viewed as "optional" for many who attended,
including some of the very staffers charged with enforcing those appearance regulations.

With that said, the effort to marginalize by being condescending, commenting about
my number of posts, my "bitterness" and pretending this has anything to do with "aesthetics" is just more of the same.
Is it any wonder the trendlines are negatives?  People raise legitimate points and instead of accepting reality and
addressing them directly, we get rhetoric and deflection.

Counter with an argument and a point of view, not rhetoric.  The deflection isn't working.

The glass isn't half full, and we can all see the spoon.

[Ned]

Ned,

I have never been part of the "leadership" in any way relevent to this conversation. 

Don't sell yourself short, sir.  That's just false modesty and unhelpful to the discussion.

As a group commander with a large group in a large wing, you were a mere one level below where the decisions you complain about were made (the old NB).  You had access to, and a duty to advise your boss, the corporate officer.  With whom you met frequently, both in person and electroniclly.

Your command was larger than some wings.  Restated, you had the position and responsibility to influence uniform policy more significantly than 99% of CAP members.  Of course, I certainly understand that none of us can persuade our boss 100% of the time, but to say that you had little or no influence is inconsistent with the fact that the wing commander personally selected you for a position of great responsibility, which demonstrated faith in your abilities and common sense.

In those areas where I have had command authority, I held my people to the proper standard

Of course.  I know that could not have been easy, but it is certainly the duty of every commander.

Counter with an argument and a point of view, not rhetoric.  The deflection isn't working.

It is not deflection to note that there are widely held, but opposing opinions in this area.  And that despite a passionate discussion over many years, nobody appears to be changing their opinons.

And until there is some change -- some shift -- some something -- discussions like this are inevitably circular.  And by all objective measures, unproductive in the extreme.

(The search tool here is not particularly effective, but I have been unable to find a significant number of  "Gosh, you're right.  I'm changing my position whether we should be 'all corporate' or 'all AF-style' or 'something in between' to the opposite camp."  If anything, people like yourself are more firmly entrenched and polarized than ever.)

Finally, I'm not the only person to notice and comment on your consistently negative posting style.  Feel free to disregard me, or anyone else in this regard.  Or you could take a moment and reflect.

[MisterCD]

"We?"  The compromise was foisted on CAP 20

well the height/weight stuff came in during the early 1980s.

It actually goes back earlier than that, so to speak.

[Майор Хаткевич]

"We?"  The compromise was foisted on CAP 20

well the height/weight stuff came in during the early 1980s.

It actually goes back earlier than that, so to speak.

That's what happens when a 250lb bomb is riding shotgun.

[lordmonar]

The glass isn't half full, and we can all see the spoon.

No....the glass contains 500 ml of water.   And of course you can see the spoon......but it is also not a spoon.

The point being.......it is what it is.

You want to change it.....it has to change when the general membership wants it to change.

That is why we have the compromise.

The USAF says "no fat and fuzzies".
The MAJORITY OF the membership would walk if we made the Gray and Whites THE uniform.

So.....to affect change....we either kick out all those unable or unwilling to meet the USAF standards, or we loose 50% of our adult membership.

So....who do we loose?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ned stated we will continue talking about the uniform compromise forever.

There is an adage in Spanish that sums this up. Yerba mala no muere.

Translations could be, Weed can never die, or You will never be able to get rid of Crabgrass...

[FW]

^ Crabgrass never dies...nor do uniform threads.  This is a fact of CT life 

I'm not sure where this thread is weaving itself.  Are we still talking about a standard shade of gray?  Are we talking about g/w vs blue? Or, are we talking about blaming "leadership" for our current "multiform" situation? 

In any event, this is "de ja vu" for me.  I could have sworn we went thru this in another thread.. or 100.

[Eclipse]

Ned,

I have never been part of the "leadership" in any way relevent to this conversation. 

Don't sell yourself short, sir.  That's just false modesty and unhelpful to the discussion.

Well played, Counselor, but you and I know better and how CAP really works.

As a group commander with a large group in a large wing, you were a mere one level below where the decisions you complain about were made (the old NB).  You had access to, and a duty to advise your boss, the corporate officer.  With whom you met frequently, both in person and electronically.

Your command was larger than some wings.  Restated, you had the position and responsibility to influence uniform policy more significantly than 99% of CAP members.  Of course, I certainly understand that none of us can persuade our boss 100% of the time, but to say that you had little or no influence is inconsistent with the fact that the wing commander personally selected you for a position of great responsibility, which demonstrated faith in your abilities and common sense.

You and I, and most people reading this know exactly how CAP works.  You constantly present things
as you'd like them to be, not as they are.

Finally, I'm not the only person to notice and comment on your consistently negative posting style.

This is the core of the issue.

Facts are neither negative nor positive, they simply are.

They only become negative when the person hearing them isn't happy about whatever those facts are, and perhaps feels
responsible for their state of being.

The best way to counter those facts is by disputing them with better information, a new plan, or a point of view that
justifies the behavior or situation, but that never seems to come out, only that the messenger must be blamed
because "we don't like his facts", so let's find a way to somehow make this his fault.

[Eclipse]

And until there is some change -- some shift -- some something -- discussions like this are inevitably circular. 

So let's have a shift.

[lordmonar]

Which segment of the already undermanned CAP can you do without?

[Eclipse]

Which segment of the already undermanned CAP can you do without?

I could think of a few places to demphasize, given the need.

But that's just it, there's no need, since the fix is more people, better program execution, and
consistent expectations for all members. 

Start while the FY is still fresh, accept that FY15 and possibly 16 is a rebuilding year and get moving.
CAP comes out the other side lean, mean, and ready to take the next steps, those steps, BTW
developed during the rebuilding year(s), not >after< the rebuilding is done.

Or continue to ignore the issues, make excuses, rest on shrinking, aging laurels, and watch the right side of all the charts continue to drop.

[lordmonar]

You are avoiding answering the question.

Who are you going push out of CAP?  Those who will leave if we lose the USAF uniforms or those who can't or won't meet USAF standards?

What is the plan to "fix" the organization when we lose 30-50% of our man power?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Which segment of the already undermanned CAP can you do without?

The ones who'd leave bacause the AF uniform is gone?


One week we're told most seniors don't care for uniforms and would quit if one was required (and oh, hey, it is!), the next that they will quit if blues are gone.


If you're in it for the grade, or the uniforms, then you're in it for the wrong reasons.


It's nice to be rewarded for what you do, I get it. If you don't get the warm and fuzzies just for doing it, and need "extra" love to get there, perhaps it's not for you after all.

[lordmonar]

Okay.....now who is going to run the programs? 

Announce today that the blues are gone in a year.....you will lose 30% next month.

Can your unit afford to lose 30%?

How many units will just shut down and disappear?

How many missions will we have to not do because we don't have any pilots to fly them?

Listen.....I get it.....and I agree that we "should" be in one uniform.   But reality is.....we can't afford to make the hard decision.   

We are severely undermanned....as Eclipse points out.

Does forcing everyone into one uniform actually help us?

[Eclipse]

Who said anything about forcing one uniform?

I said enforce the standard uniformly, there's a huge difference, though there would certainly
be some attrition when people accepted reality, it wouldn't be 30%.

Ultimately, yes, you want one uniform, but the uniform issue isn't the problem with CAP, it's a symptom.

Get CAP performing to the brochures and it would have plenty of leverage to ask for whatever
it wanted, not to mention it would have more manpower then it could handle.

P-S-E-A. More People, enforced Standards, consistent Expectations, Accountability.

Anyone with any management or leadership experience knows those are the keys
to a successful project, team, company, or sewing circle, yet of all the "ideas" NHQ has had in my 15 some years
these are the only ones they haven't actually tried.

[Panache]

"We?" 

Yup. "we."  CAP.  By way of the elected and appointed leadership of the organization, which at times has included both you and me.

Elected?  I don't remember voting for the new National Commander.  Or anybody in NHQ.  Or.... anybody, really.

So.....to affect change....we either kick out all those unable or unwilling to meet the USAF standards, or we loose 50% of our adult membership.

So your solution is to discriminate against the other 50% of the membership?

And what about those people who didn't join because they didn't want to be force to wear the G/Ws in the first place?  Say, veterans who no longer met the H&W requirements?