Corruption Thesis

[Eclipse]

I don't know what your college background is, but on papers you pass a point of no return were you can't change your topic or subject. You gotta live with it, and perhaps he is struggling for content, and we'd be able to help him if we weren't trolling his simple post asking for help.

NCR picking a flawed premise, and then expecting us to support it because he can't change it, wouldn't make it any more valid.

"I've had personal issues in CAP, so I it's CAP is corrupt, but can't haven't got any actual evidence, so give me examples, but only those that support my personal, flawed, interpretation of of the word, and if you don't provide examples, or disagree with my personal, flawed, definition of the word, then just stop reading, because I'm more concerned with making some political statement then the fallout of having "CAP" and "corruption" indexed for all time on the interweb."

And you call Sparky a troll?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

I must say, I haven't noticed any corruption in CAP. Maybe I haven't been looking for it, or there just hasn't been any around me. Or maybe that is because CAP has a regulation that helps keep it down, and methods to keep those who have a tendency to be corrup away from our organization.

CAP members who hold rank have no monetary gain, so they don't have much reason to be corrupt. If no one is paid then there is little purpose for corruption to gain rank and if they were paid they would try to corrupt the system to gain the rank and pay.

The way CAP keeps those who are prone to corruption is another regulation requiring any potential member to undergo a thorough background check. If they make it through the background check, there are regulations setup that can allow other members to bring up possible or potential occurrences of corruption so they can be reviewed by higher command.

The biggest to me is the ownership of CAP that is given to members, not that we actually own CAP, but that we can give such a contribution to CAP and to our community that there is little motivation, if any at all, to be corrupt. It just isn't gainful in CAP. Personally I think the chances of being caught being corrupt in CAP is so HUGE that corruption is just discouraged in every members mind from the start.

Please do just remember, these are my personal opinions, and interpretations of regulations and the foundations of membership in CAP, and I am not stating that any of this is set fact, just my personal opinion. I hope this helps a bit.

[bosshawk]

After reading three pages of this thread, I have a suggestion:  have the OP write the paper as he sees it, with his experiences and his opinions.  When finished, have him PM copies to those who request them and get others evaluations of his work.  That takes it out of the public domain of CT, where members seem Hell-bent on demeaning and insulting the OP and various others.  All of this serves absolutely no good.  How many differing definitions of the word "cortuption" can there be: sort of like asking 10 lawyers a question and getting 11 answers?

Most of what I have seen in these three pages are CT members arguing about defining corruption and insulting each other on their definitions. 

Very poor performance on the parts of a number of people who should know better.

[bflynn]

it is to serve our communities using our unique skils as pilots.

Oh darn. I'm not a pilot, I guess I'm not fulfilling CAP's goals then . I agreed with your post all the way up to "as".

Yes, yes, I always forget that there are people in CAP who never fly.  I wrote pilots, but that isn't what my brain was thinking, i twas more about aircrews.

Yes, we need to train our members on aerospace topics so they can be proficient in the air.  The rest of it - the ranks, the leadership training, inspections, reviews etc, etc, etc...we do that to ourselves. 

How many volunteer hours are used to get an airplane in air for an hour?  It has to be huge.

Back on topic - there factually has been corruption in CAP - the IG incident is one example.  If people don't want that talked about and don't want to talk about how it happened and why, then as I see it, we are just lying to ourselves.  Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.

But of course, there are already people getting upset.

So, how the whole IG thing happen?

[Nathan]

Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.

It means nothing of the sort.

[Eclipse]

Yes, yes, I always forget that there are people in CAP who never fly.  I wrote pilots, but that isn't what my brain was thinking, i twas more about aircrews.

That doesn't make your statement any more valid.  Aircrews are a small percentage of the ES force, and ES is only 1/3 of our stated mission.

Back on topic - there factually has been corruption in CAP - the IG incident is one example.  If people don't want that talked about and don't want to talk about how it happened and why, then as I see it, we are just lying to ourselves.

But of course, there are already people getting upset.

So, how the whole IG thing happen?

If you're referring to the recently released USAF IG report, that was not an "incident" that was the proper response to a member complaint.  The report
indicates that in the opinion of the investigator, CAP has governance issues which could lead to corruption, but no actual corruption was indicated (at least publicly). 

Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.

No, it doesn't.

[Extremepredjudice]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Attacking his premise is a troll post.

WNFTT

[Eclipse]

No, it isn't.

In the context of this board, and considering some of the more pointed statements made by NCR in the past about his local CAP experience,
the OP was much more of a troll than any of the responses.

[Nathan]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Attacking his premise is a troll post.

WNFTT

No, no it is not.

As I already said, if someone posted a topic saying, "So we all know that Obama's birth certificate is fake, so help me find the evidence", it is not trolling for someone to reject the premise that the birth certificate is, in fact, fake. More often than not, trolling is actually the act of advancing a premise designed deliberately to incite anger and controversy.

So, for instance, I might posit that asserting that CAP is undoubtedly corrupt to a message board solely dedicated to members of CAP is the act of a troll, because it is a premise that without question would ignite angry debate and hurt feelings. I don't believe that it was the INTENTION of the OP to cause this effect, which is why I don't believe he is a troll at all, but the response to his rather inflammatory premise isn't considered "trolling" simply because it doesn't accept what might be considered a rather trollish assertion.

[AirAux]

I consider anyone operating the program outside the REG's to be corrupt.  Example, Squadron Commanders that allow cadet officer promotions with out requiring said cadets to complete SDA requirements, including the written portion..  JMHO, as usual.. 

[Eclipse]

^ The only way that would be "corruption" is if there was personal gain by doing so beyond just not wanting to be bothered.
Your statement assumes the commander is even aware that a given reg exists.

What you're describing is just being a bad commander, not corruption.

Negligence, in and of itself is not "corruption".

In most cases even fraud, in and of itself, isn't necessarily corruption.

If breaking a regulation(s) was "corruption", there isn't anyone on this board who isn't "corrupt", especially in our universe of
conflicting, outdated, and open to interpretation regulatory culture. In the case of the OP, the assertion is a systemic corruption, ala Nucky Thompson, which categorically has never existed in CAP.

Ever.

[FW]

I guess, in the widest sense, corruption could be defined as any action which deviates from accepted practice to the point where there is a break in ethical standards.  Making false accusations to advance your point of view, holding pre conluded investigations to "prove a point", witholding vital informtion for personal gain, making up "evdidence" and, other such actions are examples of corruption.  Does the knowledge gained from knowing this may exist in CAP matter? 

We all act in self interest. However, IMHO, acting in self interest without regard to moral or ethical standards can be viewed as corruption.  Fraud my not be corruption, however, the environment we set up to let the fraud happen, is.

[Pylon]

At what "academic level" is this paper?  The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation.  The OP also referred to the paper as a "thesis" which is typically the final culminating work towards a master's degree.  Both of these graduate level works also tend to be expected to be based upon either a lot of published research or a significant level of primary (scientific) research.  I don't see how this scope of topic comes close to that.  Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?

[Nathan]

At what "academic level" is this paper?  The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation.  Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?

I had the same kind of question. I wasn't assuming that any doctorate-level program would care much about the alleged corruption within a volunteer organization. I just took it to mean some sort of research paper. Which, of course, I would still hold to the same standards that any academic work should meet in terms of supporting arguments (ie, that CAP is actually corrupt in the first place).

[Extremepredjudice]

At what "academic level" is this paper?  The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation.  Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?

I had the same kind of question. I wasn't assuming that any doctorate-level program would care much about the alleged corruption within a volunteer organization. I just took it to mean some sort of research paper. Which, of course, I would still hold to the same standards that any academic work should meet in terms of supporting arguments (ie, that CAP is actually corrupt in the first place).

I took it as a term paper...

[Major Carrales]

At what "academic level" is this paper?  The OP referred to it as a "dissertation" but I can't fathom this topic being accepted nor meeting the typical depth required for a doctorate-awarding dissertation.  Are we talking about an undergrad term paper here?

A dissertation would require a lot of archival work to support the proposed "thesis statement."  Speculations for an on line board would not fly in academic settings and would likely require a rewrite with more substantial evidence and support.

To do a true scholarly work, the author would have to solicit records and interviews from CAPNHQ and from the persons involved. 

For example, I once had a chat with Gen Anderson about the Maroon Rank Sleeves...it was just a chat.  I could not use that as a reference in an official/authoritative scholarly work unless I did it as an official interview under certain circumstances.  In fact, I would suggest in regards to such matters, one send an official corespondence the office of the persons involved.  Gen Anderson, for example, is a Delegate in the Commonwealth of Virginia so the request should, or would have to be for an official purpose and not merely for a CAPTALK post.

Still, if it was a scholarly work I don't see a problem with it and it might be beneficial.

[bflynn]

Yes, yes, I always forget that there are people in CAP who never fly.  I wrote pilots, but that isn't what my brain was thinking, i twas more about aircrews.

That doesn't make your statement any more valid.  Aircrews are a small percentage of the ES force, and ES is only 1/3 of our stated mission.

Actually, I was covering ES and AE - we educate civilians as well, but training is especially for our members.  If you want to get technical about it, Congress stated five purposes for CAP.  Cadet programs are not specifically called for by Congress, except as an observation that we would have cadet members.

So, that leaves my original intended thought to be restated again that what we're instructed to do by Congress is a small part of the organization that CAP has become.  We force a lot of extra organization on top of what our main missions are.

Integrity means we can talk openly about these things without anyone getting upset.

No, it doesn't.

You don't think so?  I think integrity also means that we don't do things for our personal gain and we don't intentionally do things that harm others.  If you assume that members have integrity, then this isn't a personal battle against any particular person or group.  Or turned around, if you assume that there is a personal agenda with an intent to cause harm, then you must conclude that those with the personal agendas aren't practicing integrity.

I choose to believe the best about people, I've found that it usually gives the best results.

So, I stand by my assertion that if we as an organization have integrity, then there is no concern of having an open and honest dialog.  And turning that same statement around, if we cannot have an open and honest dialog because we don't respect others or we believe they don't have the integrity to place the organization before themselves, then honest dialog isn't possible.

So, I'll go back to my suggestion that rather than talking about the semantics, let's have a good converstaion about our organization.

[Major Lord]

So, I am writing a dissertation on "corruption inside Civil Air Patrol". To calm some fears right off the bat, this will not be an "anti-cap" paper or harbor "anti-cap" messages.

I wanted to get your alls opinion on how CAP in particular (not outside agencies like we tend to discuss here...I.E. USAF and USCGA) becomes corrupt. What a better source than those that live CAP?

Things like at what level does it start, what level can it be controlled. What is corruption versus what is "natural selection" of good leaders. Your opinions on fairness inside CAP at all levels, your opinions on if corruption can ever be eradicated from our organization, and how to go about doing it.  (not limited to those things of course) How the scope of corruption effects CAP (I.E. the Pineda incident V the berry boards incident). Maybe even some (censored) personal stories. Anything you are willing to put out there will help me.

Like I said, anything you want to put will be a big help to me. I would not mind a little debate to add opposing opinions to the mix.

Thanks in advance to anyone who posts.

When in doubt, reexamine the initial post. First, I question the use of the term "dissertation", arising from the Latin word for "discourse". Generally, this applies to a formal written presentation compiling a body of work intended to be submitted and defended in the award of a Doctoral degree. So perhaps a better title for your paper would be "Treatise" . Second, I believe that CAP undeniably has had instances of Official Corruption, but that things like the maroon epaulette uniform changes, or simple cronyism, don't plausibly reach that threshold, although no one would argue these are "bad" things, I think few could successfully articulate how they reach the commonly held, or legal, definitions of corruption, so no Doctoral adviser would ever let you start a Dissertation with an unsupportable title. Your assurances that the paper will not be anti-CAP cannot be made in good faith, since it calls for a conclusion without first benefit of evidence and argument, so I set this aside, to be reviewed again later to see if you had pre-formed conclusions to defend, consciously, or unconsciously.

Intrinsic to your theory is the idea that CAP has had acts of corruption, and that we could benefit as a whole by disinfecting them with daylight. I could not agree more. But the second line of the post implies that since CAP has had corrupt members and corrupt acts, that CAP is by some mysterious distributive process, inherently corrupt, and this is a logical fallacy. This does not in fact disprove the idea that CAP may be inherently corrupt. In my private view, since all men are inherently corrupt, I find it more logical to believe that an association of corrupt individuals is not likely to result in a body  less corrupt as an agglomeration.

To produce a defensible thesis ( through peer review) you would need to define your view corruption, and establish that CAP meets this definition.  Difficult, but not impossible. Identifying the level at which "corruption" starts?  I would argue that would be "conception"! Making a determination as to how it can be quelled is no small task. Pretty much every philosopher and theologian to trod the face of the planet has struggled with these ideas, which inherently spring from a discussion of Good and Evil.

Your third sentence invites input from all those present. Although this group has a well known reputation for belligerence , and may not represent the healthiest of the CAP members' mindset, I thought your request for information prudent. But a few posts later, you belligerently assert "the hell with this" (or words to that effect) when you are challenged, fairly and unfairly, on your definitions, goals and motivations. This is likely to detract from any claim you make to dispassionate studies and conclusions. You opened the door, so don't be surprised if the horses run free. It also undermines your good faith in invitation to debate the subject i.e " Add opposing opinions to the mix" . Opposed to what?

Your project, like all intellectual investigation, has merit, but you will have to forgive us if we notice that you seem to lack data, objectivity, purpose,  the application of reason, or the proper use of language. Actually, I was impressed by your question:  "What is corruption versus what is "natural selection" of good leaders". This is the kind of question that Ayn Rand would have found worthy of Objectivist discussion, and in my opinion, a better subject for a thesis ( although somewhat clumsily phrased I am afraid) than your original hypothesis.

I think Mr. Hayden owns the trademark for "Anti-CAP" you may need to pay him a license fee if you use it!

Major Lord

[Eclipse]

So, I'll go back to my suggestion that rather than talking about the semantics, let's have a good converstaion about our organization.

The only person dancing with semantics on this thread is you, and the OP never intended for this to be an open conversation "about the organization" (whatever that means).  He specifically indicated a thesis, and then wanted us to supply evidence he didn't personally have to back up that thesis.

[bflynn]

It sounds like someone who wants to find out what information he needs to gather.  What rocks do we think he needs to kick over?  Only, nobody wants to say there are any bugs under the rocks.

I could see certain organizations being interested in how corruption happens...
- a business program, especially a business ethics program from a governence standpoint,
- a sociology program from a human interactions standpoint
- a LE education program, from a pure educational standpoint.