How do you get to the video stream on the National Board?
It's usually posted on CAP Channel (http://www.capchannel.com).
It also usually doesn't work half the time. >:D
I just wait for the CAP Talk synopsis & catty remarks, rather than trying to stream it live.
Way more entertaining! ;D
Quote from: dwb on September 01, 2009, 07:16:58 PM
It also usually doesn't work half the time. >:D
Your annual dues at work.
QuoteI just wait for the CAP Talk synopsis & catty remarks, rather than trying to stream it live.
Love that color commentary. ;D
Quote from: Gunner C on September 02, 2009, 03:26:12 AM
Love that color commentary. ;D
The best part of the NB meeting, for me, is reading CAP TALK remarks after the end of each session. Unfortunately, I can't watch the stream.... (only the flush) >:D ;D
:D
Now that's comedy!
Quote from: FW on September 02, 2009, 03:33:38 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on September 02, 2009, 03:26:12 AM
Love that color commentary. ;D
The best part of the NB meeting, for me, is reading CAP TALK remarks after the end of each session. Unfortunately, I can't watch the stream.... (only the flush) >:D ;D
;D
I wonder if they will ever hit the record button.... and then the upload button...
hint hint... we can't all watch it live....
I tried yesterday and couldn't get it to work. Is it working now?
What time do the start on Thursday?
Quote from: Big_Ed on September 03, 2009, 01:22:43 PM
What time do the start on Thursday?
Here's what was in the National email about the times;
Don't forget that you can watch the 2009 Annual Conference and National Board meeting live via web stream on www.capchannel.com.
Please look at the schedule below for live stream times.
September 3rd 1-5 PM CST National Board Meeting
September 4th 8-9:45 AM CST General Assembly
September 5th 8:30-9:45AM CST Awards Ceremony
September 5th 7-10 PM CST Banquet
thanks
My Colonel is there so I'll see if he gets into the Shot...
Anyone getting any video yet
Yep
It's actually kind of cool to be sitting in the room AND watching the stream.
Better view on the stream?
Quote from: CAPSGT on September 03, 2009, 06:52:40 PM
Better view on the stream?
Plus I'm looking forward to the classic CT discussion stream as we get into the substantive parts of the meeting.
Let me know when you want me to wave.
Be nice if we could make it full screen...
Quote from: Al Sayre on September 03, 2009, 07:11:00 PM
Be nice if we could make it full screen...
Right click the bottom of the video and select zoom. Then select full screen. So far it is working well.
Dóh! I was left clicking all over the place... Got it thanks
Surrogate Predator: I can't believe they didn't think of that before....
Nice intermission muisic. I'm really groooving with it. >:D
:clap: the gen did a good job.
I tuned in at the tail end of someone discussing real-time video proposals - is this something 1AF is looking to task CAP with?
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 08:24:08 PM
I tuned in at the tail end of someone discussing real-time video proposals - is this something 1AF is looking to task CAP with?
Yeah, they're looking to eventually fit 20 182s with a Predator-like sensor turret to fly real time video missions for NORTHCOM.
They're currently in a closed session for the next however-long-it-takes.
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 08:24:08 PM
I tuned in at the tail end of someone discussing real-time video proposals - is this something 1AF is looking to task CAP with?
Yes, they are looking at purchasing kits that would allow us to provide realtime video to them or other "decision makers". Initially it would pe a kit but then possibly move to a pod type installation.
John
What did they break for again. I heard the General speaking but before I could get back towards the computer they were gone again?
more secret hush hush metting...? random
Quote from: c172drv on September 03, 2009, 08:30:53 PM
What did they break for again. I heard the General speaking but before I could get back towards the computer they were gone again?
Closed Session. Eyes Only National Board, BoG, CAP-USAF, previous National CCs, and a bunch of other people.
Only 70 or so people allowed in the room,
real hush-hush, secret squirrel stuff.
but not the gen pop of cap members huh? ::)
Why advertise for your membership to attend a streaming meeting if you're going to make it private/closed half the time?
Gotta admit, these closed sessions just add to the anxiety of the membership and fuel the conspiracy theorists. They're also just plain annoying if you are trying to plan your activities around watching the stream only to have it interrupted for closed sessions. If I knew when they were coming back I could be doing other things. (like my real job :D >:D)
The Closed Session makes me wonder... Are they talking about new stuff for CAP? I liked that they would be bringing Computers into more Squadrons. This is the First time I have seen Major General Speak.
I think its pretty cool, wish I could be down there.
Quote from: Lunsford on September 03, 2009, 09:03:18 PM
The Closed Session makes me wonder... Are they talking about new stuff for CAP? I liked that they would be bringing Computers into more Squadrons. This is the First time I have seen Major General Speak.
I think its pretty cool, wish I could be down there.
No, probably more like budget and Homeland Security/Counter Drug stuff.
Vice-Commander candidates now.
They're back. Vice Commander election speeches.
Campaign videos for national vice commander? Seriously?
Quote from: RiverAux on September 03, 2009, 09:30:49 PM
Campaign videos for national vice commander? Seriously?
Yeah...
I love Col. Chazell's, so
dramatic!
... and the vote
I just signed on to the feed... whos running for Vice?
Quote from: Nolan Teel on September 03, 2009, 09:56:24 PM
I just signed on to the feed... whos running for Vice?
I lost count/stopped paying attention at three.
That many?
Mike Murrell
Reggie Chitwood
Russ Chazell
? Boyd
(I believe they are all colonels, but I'm not sure)
Uhhh... Does General Courter know that her personal conversation is being broadcasted? :P
I wonder if someone should tell our national commander that the microphone is still on.
haha, camping food... Yummy!!!
Based on the backdrop, I guess the new CAP symbol for 2009-2010 is just a simple red prop. No new slogan? Hooray!
Um, I guess that solves the open mic problem - I just lost all audio. Is it just me?
hmmmmm so tense!!! Whos it going to be......
Quote from: RiverAux on September 03, 2009, 10:02:23 PM
Based on the backdrop, I guess the new CAP symbol for 2009-2010 is just a simple red prop.
That and we should be welcoming our new Canadian overlords ;D
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 10:02:50 PM
Um, I guess that solves the open mic problem - I just lost all audio. Is it just me?
I lost it too.
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 10:02:50 PM
Um, I guess that solves the open mic problem - I just lost all audio. Is it just me?
Haha, nope.. It did it to me too.. Guess they realized the issue and took care of it drastically.
I dream to see CAP all in the same uniform one day! This is my first time watching this meeting.
For those that like the politics side of these things, I find it interesting that the first guy to go in the voting process is the only guy I believe who said CAP needed to be more corporate.
What are the other guys saying they will do if they are elected?
We're onto the third round of voting, the candidates are now down to Gen. Chitwood and Col. Chazell.
I dont know Col Chazell all that well... anyone have any insights to him?
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 09:58:29 PM
Mike Murrell
Reggie Chitwood
Russ Chazell
? Boyd
(I believe they are all colonels, but I'm not sure)
I think they all are Colonels... ...Hahaha, they just held the buses to the Barbecue because they are still voting... :D
I hope someone did an ORM Form on busses!!! Could be dangerous!
"Don't create a safety issue running to get on the buses."
We may have to get a new pledge.
Quote from: Lunsford on September 03, 2009, 10:14:51 PM
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 09:58:29 PM
Mike Murrell
Reggie Chitwood
Russ Chazell
? Boyd
(I believe they are all colonels, but I'm not sure)
I think they all are Colonels... ...Hahaha, they just held the buses to the Barbecue because they are still voting... :D
Chitwood is a Brig Gen, since he is the incumbent CV.
Quote from: Lunsford on September 03, 2009, 10:14:51 PM
Quote from: Fubar on September 03, 2009, 09:58:29 PM
Mike Murrell
Reggie Chitwood
Russ Chazell
? Boyd
(I believe they are all colonels, but I'm not sure)
I think they all are Colonels... ...Hahaha, they just held the buses to the Barbecue because they are still voting... :D
Oops, as the current vice-commander, that would be Gen Chitwood.
A TIE!!
A tie????
A tie --- can I take charge if they can't make up their minds?
Voting again and again until there is no longer a tie. This could go on for some time.
Looks like they are voting again...
It doesn't take this long to elect a new Pope!
Quote from: edmo1 on September 03, 2009, 10:20:11 PM
Voting again and again until there is no longer a tie. This could go on for some time.
That tie-voting process doesn't seem very efficient.
TIE!
They tied again.
I like the idea that the MER Commander came up with. They should have 2 to 3 minutes to persuade people to change their vote.
Oh Noes...another tie.
You'd think the world was going to end if they didn't get out of there to get some BBQ. LOL
Quote from: Lunsford on September 03, 2009, 10:29:10 PM
I like the idea that the MER Commander came up with. They should have 2 to 3 minutes to persuade people to change their vote.
I agree. I would sorta like to hear another bit from them myself..
My vote... stay and do your job... even if that means missing BBQ... This is an important issue.
FWIW I've known Russ since he joined the wing as a cadet and he was a very effective member as well as a very good region commander. Plus, he lives in Washington DC working for the Nuke Reg Commish and is actually in a good place and could be a good asset for CAP...
Just my .02 since someone asked.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on September 03, 2009, 10:12:59 PM
I dont know Col Chazell all that well... anyone have any insights to him?
He's a former UTWG and RMR commander. He graduated me at the 2008 RSC at Nellis AFB while still serving as the RMR commander. I remember seeing him and his wife during the 2008 PCR convention in Portland OR walking outside a short distance from the hotel. So I stopped, picked them up and gave them both a ride as I was in my car at the time passing by. Very nice gentleman.
Quote from: Nolan Teel on September 03, 2009, 10:31:26 PM
My vote... stay and do your job... even if that means missing BBQ... This is an important issue.
Yes, agreed.
Quote from: Camas on September 03, 2009, 10:31:56 PM
Quote from: Nolan Teel on September 03, 2009, 10:12:59 PM
I dont know Col Chazell all that well... anyone have any insights to him?
He's a former UTWG and RMR commander. He graduated me at the 2008 RSC at Nellis AFB while still serving as the RMR commander. I remember seeing him and his wife during the 2008 PCR convention in Portland OR walking outside a short distance from the hotel. So I stopped, picked them up and gave them both a ride as I was in my car at the time passing by. Very nice gentleman.
Thanks!
Hahaha. He hit the table. :)
Gen. Chitwood won, there's now a motion to recess.
35 - 31.
No congratulations from Gen Courter - her guy lost.
Quote from: DC on September 03, 2009, 10:39:07 PM
Quote from: Lunsford on September 03, 2009, 10:36:51 PM
Hahaha. He hit the table. :)
Who?
Far Right. The guy on the far right.
Anyway, I will be watching this tomorrow. Can't wait to talk about this tomorrow. :D
Quote from: Westernslope on September 03, 2009, 10:39:47 PM
No congratulations from Gen Courter - her guy lost.
She did immediately cross the stage once the meeting was closed to Gen Chitwood and shake his hand in a congratulatory manner.
So several NB members decided "I'm changing my vote because I'm hungry"?? >:D
You got that feeling too... I would have imagined there be time for each person to give a final word about themselves... but BBQ is important...
Quote from: JC004 on September 03, 2009, 10:59:57 PM
So several NB members decided "I'm changing my vote because I'm hungry"?? >:D
I would say.
Al Double click on the picture and you have full screen
Quote from: DC on September 03, 2009, 10:38:15 PM
Gen. Chitwood won, there's now a motion to recess.
35 - 31.
Glad to see General Chitwood reelected.
Quote from: Westernslope on September 03, 2009, 10:39:47 PM
No congratulations from Gen Courter - her guy lost.
??? Who was "her guy"?
Quote from: STGSN, USN on September 04, 2009, 12:35:51 AM
Quote from: DC on September 03, 2009, 10:38:15 PM
Gen. Chitwood won, there's now a motion to recess.
35 - 31.
Glad to see General Chitwood reelected.
Curious, why? What was his "platform"? - I missed most of their speeches.
I know nothing about Chitwood or any of the others that were interested in the position. What does he bring to the table?
Quote from: Nolan Teel on September 03, 2009, 11:02:58 PM
You got that feeling too... I would have imagined there be time for each person to give a final word about themselves... but BBQ is important...
They each had already given 5 minute speeches before the vote.
Is it normal to have this many people challenge an incumbent?
Quote from: A.Member on September 04, 2009, 01:39:16 AM
I know nothing about Chitwood or any of the others that were interested in the position. What does he bring to the table?
Well, don't everyone speak up at once. ;) :P
So It's after 8AM Central time, so where is the video feed??
Only getting audio, what's the deal?
Working fine for me
apparently we didn't miss anything exciting at the beginning of the meeting earlier this morning?
What is going on witht he discussion of removing National Commanders? I'm in Canada and the hotel's internet is horrible. I get a few words here and there but that is it.
Quote from: c172drv on September 04, 2009, 03:43:30 PM
What is going on witht he discussion of removing National Commanders? I'm in Canada and the hotel's internet is horrible. I get a few words here and there but that is it.
A move to clarify the process and to remove some conflicts with regulations that predate the creation of the Board Of Governors.
For anyone at the NHQ who cares about these things, my suggestion would be to stress using the term "Bee Oh Gee" vs. "bog" when referring to the Board of Governors. "Bog"sounds disrespectful and grating in the same way that some people refer to "Cee Ay Pea" as "cap" (as in hat).
Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2009, 03:49:11 PM
For anyone at the NHQ who cares about these things, my suggestion would be to stress using the term "Bee Oh Gee" vs. "bog" when referring to the Board of Governors. "Bog"sounds disrespectful and grating in the same way that some people refer to "Cee Ay Pea" as "cap" (as in hat).
Agreed! 100%
Isn't "bog" a verb... >:D
If the stream drops off for private caucus, you may have to keep hitting play to renegotiate the connection.
I've had the BOG meeting playing in the background since the beginning, and a couple of thoughts....
First, I really appreciate the broadcast. It helps me, a regular member trying to make my way and do the right thing, to have a bigger picture. I like seeing this. It openly shows the senior leaders are trying to do the right thing as well.
These folks have a huge responsibility. Anyone taking a few moments to pay close attention to the dialogue and to listen carefully should see the same. My appreciation for them taking on hard, complicated, high-impact issues is raised significantly with this visibility. And these folks are volunteers.
All members, especially those who like to get on the conspiracy bandwagons, should be watching this.
Oh, and is it just me or was Texas a little greedy on SWR awards? >:( (Congrats) :clap:
Capt. B
Ned didn't wave "hi" *sniffle*
Oh, and congrats to FL WG on thier awards as well!
Maybe it is too early for our august leaders to be up and in action.
What agenda items have tey covered so far?
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 04, 2009, 04:20:54 PM
Oh, and congrats to FL WG on thier awards as well!
What awards?
Quote from: kc4lqt on September 04, 2009, 05:13:48 PM
What agenda items have tey covered so far?
As far as I know:
1a
1c
2
3
4
5
6
13
Has anyone been able to connect back in now that they've moved the video off the web page?
QuoteWhat happened to 7 - 12?
I think they jumped over them to go to #13.
Quote from: Fubar on September 04, 2009, 05:59:04 PM
Has anyone been able to connect back in now that they've moved the video off the web page?
It is up now.
>>>>>>>>>> BUFFERING <<<<<<<<<<
They're on Item 1b: Property Freeze.
1b passed as amended.
1d Also passes
Anyone else lose the stream?
Never mind, got it back...
7 fails
8 fails
9 referred NCAC
9 was referred to NCAC.
New Inspector General...
"6 Part" Motion... Fails.
I'm sometimes amazed at the information people sometimes throw out as fact. For example, "if a cadet earns a Spaatz there is a 99.9% chance they will be picked up by a service academy". Really?! I'd really like to see someone provide some real evidence to support claims before they are thrown around. Simply put, I think that is rather exaggerated, yet many it was still presented as fact.
Quote from: DC on September 04, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
1b passed as amended.
1d Also passes
I missed 1b. What was amended? (really hope this wasn't passed to include comm).
Got some opposing of the original decision...
Post-Lunch Confusion... ;D
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 06:55:10 PM
Got some opposing of the original decision...
I'm rather shocked. Pretty much all of the comm directors were in opposition. I really hope a video is available afterwards.
If I understand this correctly, there is disagreement over if a member should not be allowed to attend unit meetings if not "safety current" - HOWEVER local commanders have the discretion to override this regulation and allow the member to attend the meeting anyway.
Sure, if the commander wants to document the waiver....what a waste of time.
Quote from: Fubar on September 04, 2009, 06:59:07 PM
If I understand this correctly, there is disagreement over if a member should not be allowed to attend unit meetings if not "safety current" - HOWEVER local commanders have the discretion to override this regulation and allow the member to attend the meeting anyway.
I agree with the Col's words. Why tell someone they can't come to a meeting to get safety current if they missed a meeting. ??? Just make a differentiation between social activity / squadron meeting and CAP activity. Why is this so hard?
Yeah, the other guys was right in line by asking how is this to be inspected.
Motion as Amended...
...And the Motion Passes!
I guess the next item will be to change our name to the "Safety Patrol" as that is apparently more important than anything we might actually have joined to do.
Granted this is all pretty dry stuff, but I do like how Maj. Gen. Courter runs a meeting.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 04, 2009, 07:04:54 PM
I guess the next item will be to change our name to the "Safety Patrol" as that is apparently more important than anything we might actually have joined to do.
I'm not against a strong safety program, but I am against piling further tracking requirements and totally rigid bans (yeah, like the squadron commander will really have a choice here) on member's showing up to a meeting - regardless if they are there to get current.
As a constantly deploying military member with others in the squadron in the same category - this is getting out of hand.
We don't even have the manpower to keep up with the tracking now. This will be a mess.
Quote from: Fubar on September 04, 2009, 07:06:18 PM
Granted this is all pretty dry stuff, but I do like how Maj. Gen. Courter runs a meeting.
She does good. I would be a raving lunatic by now. She keeps it moving along.
I thought clear-text call-signs were only ICS requirements during "mutual aid" situations, not when talking internally.
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 04, 2009, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: Fubar on September 04, 2009, 07:06:18 PM
Granted this is all pretty dry stuff, but I do like how Maj. Gen. Courter runs a meeting.
She does good. I would be a raving lunatic by now. She keeps it moving along.
Major General does do better than some of these Colonels that like to speak 5 words a minute...
Again
If CAP wants in in on the DHS / HLS missions...clear text will have to be an accepted practice...
What is so tough about that??
What going to be tougher...is complying with all the self inflicted safety programs and initiatives that are really going to go overboard
It will make clear text look like a walk in the park.........
General Courter used to be my group commander BITD. She ran good meeting.
Quote from: heliodoc on September 04, 2009, 07:24:20 PM
Again
If CAP wants in in on the DHS / HLS missions...clear text will have to be an accepted practice...
What is so tough about that??
What going to be tougher...is complying with all the self inflicted safety programs and initiatives that are really going to go overboard
It will make clear text look like a walk in the park.........
The concerns are not from mutual aid situations, but rather the impact of just making up any callsigns we wish to use. Unlike state or commercial frequency owners, we have to follow AF rules. Callsigns have to be approved and propagated, and as the col. stated, are not a matter of single choices.
The legality of the proposal is under question based on AF and DoD rules. If anything, the use of free text callsigns may be questionable.
If we use mutual aid frequencies, that's another matter. We can use whatever callsigns they let us. It's their call. For state or county government frequencies, they have the freedom to use whatever they want - which they can extend to us. Emergency or Disaster declaration situtations usually preclude even those.
But I do agree on one thing - compared to other items, this should be a "no brainer" at wing DC level.
17 passed, the board is in recess until 1500 CST.
Quote from: DC on September 04, 2009, 07:44:57 PM
17 passed, the board is in recess until 1500 CST.
I'm EST, so is that 4 or 5 EST?
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 04, 2009, 07:29:29 PM
But I do agree on one thing - compared to other items, this should be a "no brainer" at wing DC level.
Wasn't the main concern about how difficult it might be to get a particular call sign approved? Lt Col Reiter, (ND Interim Wing Commander) mentioned that "Peace Garden" was not even in the top 20 suggested call signs for ND Wing, yet, it is what we have been stuck with.
- No I don't know what made the list...
Oh Sweet. Eric Boe! :clap:
They're going to a closed session to talk about 18g.
What is so secret about Corporate Uniform outergarments?
Back to closed session for item 18g... What the heck is secret about sweaters?
Quote from: DC on September 04, 2009, 08:06:43 PM
They're going to a closed session to talk about 18g.
What is so secret about Corporate Uniform outergarments?
I had the same question. Maybe they had a numbering change or something.
please tell me 18a was voted down? are they skipping around? ???
Why the heck would 18g--a discussion of uniform outergarments--need to be conducted in a closed session? Madness.
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 08:10:40 PM
please tell me 18a was voted down? are they skipping around? ???
They're skipping around.
Did they give an estimate of when they will be back to open session?
Quote from: RiveraJ on September 04, 2009, 08:23:04 PM
Did they give an estimate of when they will be back to open session?
Nope it cut off in the Middle of Major General Sentence.
Quote from: RiveraJ on September 04, 2009, 08:23:04 PM
Did they give an estimate of when they will be back to open session?
The Gen said they'd try to get through it as fast as possible, but no.
I get the impression everything went downhill after the medical discussion. I liked that forum. Good info, great detail.
From there, it seemed to go randomly awry... Not sure what exactly happened on the Safety discussion. Not very happy about the Logistics Freeze (missed it). Still confused on the NCP item.
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 04, 2009, 08:30:19 PM
I get the impression everything went downhill after the medical discussion. I liked that forum. Good info, great detail.
From there, it seemed to go randomly awry... Not sure what exactly happened on the Safety discussion. Not very happy about the Logistics Freeze (missed it). Still confused on the NCP item.
What happened with the meds item? I missed that one unfortunately.
They are sure taking a long time to talk about sweaters.
Where was Eric Boe a Cadet? Florida or Georgia?
Quote from: BillB on September 04, 2009, 08:41:25 PM
Where was Eric Boe a Cadet? Florida or Georgia?
I think it was Georgia.
Are they still in a Closed Session? Because I'm not getting any footage.
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 08:42:35 PMAre they still in a Closed Session? Because I'm not getting any footage.
Either that or they forgot to turn the feed back on.
Quote from: Fubar on September 04, 2009, 08:44:10 PM
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 08:42:35 PMAre they still in a Closed Session? Because I'm not getting any footage.
Either that or they forgot to turn the feed back on.
I think they forgot to turn the feed back on. Well... I guess we are just going to have to wait.
Back up. 18b, I think...
Looks like they're skipping a bunch of old business.
19 is now up.
This years meeting is now over...
Wow. Did someone announce an open bar afterwards during the closed session?
Anyone know what happened with 18a and 18g? I got back to the stream late.
What a joke...we're paying employees to produce this webstream. I think we need to start over, can anyone say SNAFU
So it's over? What exactly happened? Did we accomplish anything?
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 09:30:35 PM
So it's over? What exactly happened? Did we accomplish anything?
No. I don't think. Just closed sessions about Outer Garments... :-\
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 09:44:06 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 09:30:35 PM
So it's over? What exactly happened? Did we accomplish anything?
No. I don't think. Just closed meetings about Outer Garments... :-\
It's over for today. They came back briefly, went through all of the old business (didn't really discuss much) and adjourned for the day.
Quote from: argentip on September 04, 2009, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 09:44:06 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 09:30:35 PM
So it's over? What exactly happened? Did we accomplish anything?
No. I don't think. Just closed meetings about Outer Garments... :-\
It's over for today. They came back briefly, went through all of the old business (didn't really discuss much) and adjourned for the day.
The whole meeting is over, they finished the agenda.
Quote from: argentip on September 04, 2009, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 09:44:06 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 09:30:35 PM
So it's over? What exactly happened? Did we accomplish anything?
No. I don't think. Just closed meetings about Outer Garments... :-\
It's over for today. They came back briefly, went through all of the old business (didn't really discuss much) and adjourned for the day.
All tomorrows streaming is, is the Awards Ceremony and the Banquet. No Meeting. 8)
so 18a was shoot down right??
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 10:00:44 PM
so 18a was shoot down right??
I guess. I was half paying attention, half eating my lunch... ;) :D
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 10:00:44 PM
so 18a was shoot down right??
It wasn't even mentioned from what I saw. The way it was explained was that the 18 series items were not agenda action items, so they would be ignored unless specifically brought up. Since no one spoke up, they were passed over. I don't know if that means they go away, or it will be revisited in the future.
Ok, here's the deal. I'm at the Board Meeting and here's the current info:
Item 18a : Lt Gen. Courter has her third star, everyone else is a Brig Gen........................just kidding!!
Actually, 18a died because no one made the motion to discuss it, it went by real fast.
18g, corporate uniform sweaters, approved the army sweater but with regular Air Force rank slides on it. They ditched the whole metal rank on the sweater thing without discussion.
Everything else was pretty much tabled or referred to committee so it ended pretty quick after the closed session. I'm not sure the closed session was on 18g, but who knows.
They discussed a lot of things that really didn't need to be discussed. Some things like the electronic devices while testing was dragged on for too long, it's a simple, much needed requirement, it made sense. That's why it took so long.
Over all, not a bad board meeting, not much in it that really interested me.
Thanks for the update!
18 G was approved?!?!? SWEET!
Quote from: NCRblues on September 04, 2009, 08:10:40 PM
please tell me 18a was voted down? are they skipping around? ???
Several board members were prepared to vote down 18a, however it was determined that if it wasnt called back up from old business by a NB member it would die permanently. So that's what was done. No one was in favor of it, it was just a question of the most effective way in parlimentary procedure to send it away.
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 04, 2009, 09:07:34 PM
Wow. Did someone announce an open bar afterwards during the closed session?
If that's true, who's paying for it?
Yeah, a lot of times it is that way... A commander's reception on friday evening... I know the TX Wing Conference in the spring had it like that.
Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 08:42:35 PM
Quote from: BillB on September 04, 2009, 08:41:25 PM
Where was Eric Boe a Cadet? Florida or Georgia?
I think it was Georgia.
Are they still in a Closed Session? Because I'm not getting any footage.
He was a cadet in Georgia. He is currently a Senior member in Florida
Quote from: addo1 on September 04, 2009, 10:59:08 PM
Yeah, a lot of times it is that way... A commander's reception on friday evening... I know the TX Wing Conference in the spring had it like that.
LOL. I was referring to the fact they went "radio silent" after hours of low-gear progress, and emerged with "OK...next...next....next... NEXT... outta here"
Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2009, 10:36:52 PM
18 G was approved?!?!? SWEET!
Seriously? Are people color blind?
I didn't undestand the proposal let alone why it should pass. Why a black army sweater for wear with a blue uniform loosely styled after the air force? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. A blue air force v-neck pullover already exists. Clearly I am missing something.
Quote from: A.Member on September 05, 2009, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2009, 10:36:52 PM
18 G was approved?!?!? SWEET!
Seriously? Are people color blind?
I didn't undestand the proposal let alone why it should pass. Why a black army sweater for wear with a blue uniform loosely styled after the air force? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. A blue air force v-neck pullover already exists. Clearly I am missing something.
Yes, you are.
The point with the CSU is that it's a military-style uniform but is distinctive from the USAF-style blues.
There are only so many colors and styles of US military-style uniforms to choose from, and the precident has already been set that we where black outerwear with the CSU for the distinction from the USAF.
It makes perfect sense to wear a black sweater with the CSU - it maintains the military "look", while being distinctive from either Army or the USAF. No one in either service will make the mistake.
Were we to wear the blue USAF sweater, we'd be shirt-color away from the USAF uniform, and in certain light you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.
For the record, a colleague down there told me the wording was changed from "Army" to "police style" to avoid the issues of the Army being concerned.
Fine with me - I think the sweater combo is one of the sharpest ones we have, and its hard to screw up. It allows you to get dressed quick, but still look professional.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2009, 05:29:41 PM
The point with the CSU is that it's a military-style uniform but is distinctive from the USAF-style blues.
There are only so many colors and styles of US military-style uniforms to choose from, and the precident has already been set that we where black outerwear with the CSU for the distinction from the USAF.
It makes perfect sense to wear a black sweater with the CSU - it maintains the military "look", while being distinctive from either Army or the USAF. No one in either service will make the mistake.
Were we to wear the blue USAF sweater, we'd be shirt-color away from the USAF uniform, and in certain light you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.
Fine with me - I think the sweater combo is one of the sharpest ones we have, and its hard to screw up. It allows you to get dressed quick, but still look professional.
Two Thoughts:
1. Eclipse is spot on about why we can't have Blue Sweaters with the CSU. If you want a Blue Sweater, you need to wear the AF-style uniform. (I'm personally using that as a Carrot to get myself to continue losing weight. Only xx more pounds to go.) (You didn't really think I was going to put the real number in there, did you???)
2. The Black Sweater with the AF Blue Epaulet Sleeves should look very sharp and match the CSU nicely. I personally can't wait to get that combo up and running for the 'winter' season here in Louisiana. We don't ever need anything more warm than a Sweater, so this should handle all fall and winter except for inclement weather.
Do we have any idea when the final language and wear guidance will be published in, yes, another ICL?
Thom Hamilton
No changes for the grey slacks crowd is that true?
You can go full screen. Just right click on the picture and should give you the option to go full screen (about midway down the list).
Jim W.
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska :)
Guys, sorry I'm not in San Antonio...I have registered (will donate the funds to the event, will seek no refund).
I was so looking forward to meeting the many of you. :( :(
Why do we even have the CSU? We have the blazer/gray pants uniform, which is a legal, nonmilitary uniform. Isn't that enough? That the Powers That Be didn't ratify the CSU via CAPM 39-1 in a timely fashion means it's dead, if we follow our own regulations.
If the Powers That Be cared enough about the CSU to make sure it stayed around, would they have at least included it in a quick supplement to CAPM 39-1?
What gripes me about it is this: We have regulations governing how policy is made. If we're going to ignore those, what other regulations will it be convenient for leadership to blow off? And if they can blow it off, so can we. Leadership by example.
So the National Board keeps on building on the CSU even though they haven't made it a permanent addition to the closet via a change to CAPM 39-1. Do they realize there's an oversight? Do they realize ICLs only last six months, then they're dead without a followup regulation change? Or are they deliberately not codifying it because they know the Air Force will countermand it? If that's the case, folks, that's just shady.
These are important issues, folks. If the National Board can't even follow CAP regulations, regulations don't mean anything to any of us. And that's not good.
Quote from: A.Member on September 05, 2009, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2009, 10:36:52 PM
18 G was approved?!?!? SWEET!
Seriously? Are people color blind?
I didn't undestand the proposal let alone why it should pass. Why a black army sweater for wear with a blue uniform loosely styled after the air force? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. A blue air force v-neck pullover already exists. Clearly I am missing something.
True. Black wouldn't go well with Air Force Blue. We need to start a Riot! ;D
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on September 05, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
Why do we even have the CSU? We have the blazer/gray pants uniform, which is a legal, nonmilitary uniform. Isn't that enough? That the Powers That Be didn't ratify the CSU via CAPM 39-1 in a timely fashion means it's dead, if we follow our own regulations.
If the Powers That Be cared enough about the CSU to make sure it stayed around, would they have at least included it in a quick supplement to CAPM 39-1?
What gripes me about it is this: We have regulations governing how policy is made. If we're going to ignore those, what other regulations will it be convenient for leadership to blow off? And if they can blow it off, so can we. Leadership by example.
So the National Board keeps on building on the CSU even though they haven't made it a permanent addition to the closet via a change to CAPM 39-1. Do they realize there's an oversight? Do they realize ICLs only last six months, then they're dead without a followup regulation change? Or are they deliberately not codifying it because they know the Air Force will countermand it? If that's the case, folks, that's just shady.
These are important issues, folks. If the National Board can't even follow CAP regulations, regulations don't mean anything to any of us. And that's not good.
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif) Let's not start this again, shall we? (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)
Quote from: DC on September 05, 2009, 08:32:45 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on September 05, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
Why do we even have the CSU? We have the blazer/gray pants uniform, which is a legal, nonmilitary uniform. Isn't that enough? That the Powers That Be didn't ratify the CSU via CAPM 39-1 in a timely fashion means it's dead, if we follow our own regulations.
If the Powers That Be cared enough about the CSU to make sure it stayed around, would they have at least included it in a quick supplement to CAPM 39-1?
What gripes me about it is this: We have regulations governing how policy is made. If we're going to ignore those, what other regulations will it be convenient for leadership to blow off? And if they can blow it off, so can we. Leadership by example.
So the National Board keeps on building on the CSU even though they haven't made it a permanent addition to the closet via a change to CAPM 39-1. Do they realize there's an oversight? Do they realize ICLs only last six months, then they're dead without a followup regulation change? Or are they deliberately not codifying it because they know the Air Force will countermand it? If that's the case, folks, that's just shady.
These are important issues, folks. If the National Board can't even follow CAP regulations, regulations don't mean anything to any of us. And that's not good.
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif) Let's not start this again, shall we? (http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f269/CAPnum/icon_deadhorse.gif)
I KNOW, I KNOW! But the principle is important. It goes to the core values. It goes to "do as I say, not as I do."
Does anybody have a summary of what was covered / voted on?
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on September 05, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
Why do we even have the CSU? We have the blazer/gray pants uniform, which is a legal, nonmilitary uniform. Isn't that enough? That the Powers That Be didn't ratify the CSU via CAPM 39-1 in a timely fashion means it's dead, if we follow our own regulations.
Give me a break. There's no point in this argument, at least not here. Next time you are before the board, bring it up.
NHQ has made it perfectly clear that they intend to continue to govern via ICL.
Salute and execute.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2009, 09:45:13 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on September 05, 2009, 07:28:05 PM
Why do we even have the CSU? We have the blazer/gray pants uniform, which is a legal, nonmilitary uniform. Isn't that enough? That the Powers That Be didn't ratify the CSU via CAPM 39-1 in a timely fashion means it's dead, if we follow our own regulations.
Give me a break. There's no point in this argument, at least not here. Next time you are before the board, bring it up.
NHQ has made it perfectly clear that they intend to continue to govern via ICL.
Salute and execute.
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
As I understand it, CAPM 39-1 is in rewrite "development HECK" and when it does come out it will address the CSU.
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 05, 2009, 10:48:20 PM
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
That hasn't stopped them before, why should it now?
Quote from: PHall on September 05, 2009, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 05, 2009, 10:48:20 PM
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
That hasn't stopped them before, why should it now?
Retention maybe? the CSU is my uniform, if they lose it...they lose me, and I'm sure the countless others who have spent many hundreds of dollars on it.
I'm watching the banquet...
Make the bad Sinatra impersonator stop!!!!!
Quote from: Lancer on September 05, 2009, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 05, 2009, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 05, 2009, 10:48:20 PM
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
That hasn't stopped them before, why should it now?
Retention maybe? the CSU is my uniform, if they lose it...they lose me, and I'm sure the countless others who have spent many hundreds of dollars on it.
If losing "your" uniform is enough to make you quit, then maybe you need to ask yourself why you're even a member.
Quote from: PHall on September 06, 2009, 01:45:55 AM
If losing "your" uniform is enough to make you quit, then maybe you need to ask yourself why you're even a member.
I haven't lost my uniform yet and I ask myself that question all the time! ;D
It is still a valid reason. Personally, I don't know why so many people have hatred for it. So what if it came about during Pineda's leadership (or lack thereof). I certainly like it better than the white/gray's. I've seen SO many people wear that combo and look totally, un-militaristic and sloppy.
Quote from: PHall on September 05, 2009, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 05, 2009, 10:48:20 PM
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
That hasn't stopped them before, why should it now?
It will now, even though that "democracy" thing is hooey for CAP, good leadership understands the idea of looking out for its followers. To loose this uniform, when so many have spent money (legitimately) on it merely because of certain people's "fashion" sense or other arbitrary notion would be folley.
And, before anyone seeks to point out that disconnection between high leadership and the field exists by saying "remember who you are talking about, his is CAPNHQ" I will remind you that they are not quite the "idiots" people here sometimes make them out to be. In fact, many of them are CAPTALKERS that use this as a device to gauge public opinion, a reality that often results in people's propensity for posting their "wish lists" in hopes one of them will smile down upon those desires.
Quote from: PHall on September 06, 2009, 01:45:55 AM
Quote from: Lancer on September 05, 2009, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 05, 2009, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 05, 2009, 10:48:20 PM
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
That hasn't stopped them before, why should it now?
Retention maybe? the CSU is my uniform, if they lose it...they lose me, and I'm sure the countless others who have spent many hundreds of dollars on it.
If losing "your" uniform is enough to make you quit, then maybe you need to ask yourself why you're even a member.
I think you are missing the point. The point for Lancer seems not to be the old "uniform" issue that people bring up when the discussion turns to eliminating USAF style and going to GOLF SHIRTS; but rather that a significant expense has been made and is canceled, after a distinctly long period of time, based on arbitrary means.
The CSU, has been a CAP uniform since 2007...it has been sold since before the 2009 National Board in Atlanta. I have seen it, contrary to the disproportionate rants against it here, word by a great number of CAP officers at Wing Conferences and in CAP media.
It, my friends, is here to stay.
I have not purchased it, mostly because I have feared that it would be dropped. However, many have and have need for it.
Quote from: Lancer on September 06, 2009, 01:57:14 AM
It is still a valid reason. Personally, I don't know why so many people have hatred for it. So what if it came about during Pineda's leadership (or lack thereof). I certainly like it better than the white/gray's. I've seen SO many people wear that combo and look totally, un-militaristic and sloppy.
I have to point out the disingenuous nature of the "Pineda" angle on this uniform. While he was in command of CAP when it came out, I think it is more likely that the CAP leadership at the Region Level and Wing Commanders at the time had an equal hand in generating this uniform.
Remember, contrary to the rants of many on this board both past and present, the National Commander is not an all encompassing dictator whose word is law. No action of a CAP National Commander can be assigned to being only his/her fault or whim. Also, if it was offensive to the USAF, then the CAP-USAF commander would have "nipped it in the bud" right then and there.
As I remember clearly and distinctly, there was a general call to return to metal rank and such on service coats. This was a boisterous call from lots of long time CAP Members and likely was loud in the ears of Wing, Region and National. A solution to the matter was obviously reached in the creation of this uniform. In fact, taking all into account, it likely goes down as one of the most perfect "compromises" in CAP, if not human, history.
It is a USAF style like uniform with metal rank that does not offend the USAF.
Quote from: PHall on September 06, 2009, 01:45:55 AM
Quote from: Lancer on September 05, 2009, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 05, 2009, 11:25:01 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 05, 2009, 10:48:20 PM
The CSU is here to stay. It has been invested in by countless CAP Officers and I would, at this time for that reason, fight against its removal citing that as grounds.
That hasn't stopped them before, why should it now?
Retention maybe? the CSU is my uniform, if they lose it...they lose me, and I'm sure the countless others who have spent many hundreds of dollars on it.
If losing "your" uniform is enough to make you quit, then maybe you need to ask yourself why you're even a member.
Make it stop.
How many times a day to you guys need to tell people to re-evaluate why they are members?
If I spent 500 on a uniform, it was the only one I had, and it went the way of the VX-150. I would seriously reconsider my membership too.
As would you and everyone else around. And to say that spending that kind of coin just to have the item taken away as soon as you paid off the credit card bill wouldn't bring you to the boiling point is nonsense.
So, why did you guys even buy the new uniform? Why not just keep what you had. I hjave never owned the CSU nor do I ever plan to purchase one.
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
On a different not, the Comm Mangers' Meeting is on.
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
There is a fairly detailed press release about his background on CAP News Online.
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
Brig Gen Chitwood has served CAP honorably for many years, not only as CAP National Vice Commander, but as a Wing Commander and South West Region Commander. I know of no issues requiring "answers."
The paranoia surrounding CAPNHQ these days makes me cringe. I warned against this in 2007 when all that drama was unfolding. Once the precedent for "falling" CAP officials was set...it seems it has become a
modus operandi status quo.
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
Wow.. There's even a page devoted to his 2009 Vice Commander Campaign!
Pretty soon we'll have multiple parties with nominees and such... :o
Communications Meeting video stream:
"One way or another, encryption is coming." Hang on...
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 06, 2009, 02:29:39 AM
Quote from: Lancer on September 06, 2009, 01:57:14 AM
It is still a valid reason. Personally, I don't know why so many people have hatred for it. So what if it came about during Pineda's leadership (or lack thereof). I certainly like it better than the white/gray's. I've seen SO many people wear that combo and look totally, un-militaristic and sloppy.
I have to point out the disingenuous nature of the "Pineda" angle on this uniform. While he was in command of CAP when it came out, I think it is more likely that the CAP leadership at the Region Level and Wing Commanders at the time had an equal hand in generating this uniform.
Remember, contrary to the rants of many on this board both past and present, the National Commander is not an all encompassing dictator whose word is law. No action of a CAP National Commander can be assigned to being only his/her fault or whim. Also, if it was offensive to the USAF, then the CAP-USAF commander would have "nipped it in the bud" right then and there.
Sparky, you may have forgotten, but HWSRN ruled tyranically. Ask a deposed California Wing commander about how a trivial incident cost him his job. And look at how the NB was cowed into accepting his whims, lest they get fired, too. When they were fired, sycophants were installed, and remember how they were all "let go" when Courter took over?
I hear it quite a bit from folks who were in Florida Wing while he was the commander here. Wow.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on September 06, 2009, 07:16:21 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 06, 2009, 02:29:39 AM
Quote from: Lancer on September 06, 2009, 01:57:14 AM
It is still a valid reason. Personally, I don't know why so many people have hatred for it. So what if it came about during Pineda's leadership (or lack thereof). I certainly like it better than the white/gray's. I've seen SO many people wear that combo and look totally, un-militaristic and sloppy.
I have to point out the disingenuous nature of the "Pineda" angle on this uniform. While he was in command of CAP when it came out, I think it is more likely that the CAP leadership at the Region Level and Wing Commanders at the time had an equal hand in generating this uniform.
Remember, contrary to the rants of many on this board both past and present, the National Commander is not an all encompassing dictator whose word is law. No action of a CAP National Commander can be assigned to being only his/her fault or whim. Also, if it was offensive to the USAF, then the CAP-USAF commander would have "nipped it in the bud" right then and there.
Sparky, you may have forgotten, but HWSRN ruled tyranically. Ask a deposed California Wing commander about how a trivial incident cost him his job. And look at how the NB was cowed into accepting his whims, lest they get fired, too. When they were fired, sycophants were installed, and remember how they were all "let go" when Courter took over?
I hear it quite a bit from folks who were in Florida Wing while he was the commander here. Wow.
Yes, but we are a Nation and Organization of rules and laws. Circumnavigating the rules and laws, even to fall a tyrant, cheapens the process. But more than that, it normalizes the extra-legal procedure for future use against persons who might not be tyrants.
Everyone is happy when people go outside the regulations to remove an unpopular person...however, suppose those same methods are used in the future to remove "a good guy." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I am confident that if the proper channels had been followed, the 2007 situation would have been resolved in the appropriate manner. What ended up happening was a stumble for the greater organization.
Now, suppose you are a modern Wing, Region or National Commander and someone uses these tactics, true or speculative in origin, to fall you from your position. It would seem that in the established precedent from 2007 there is a conundrum...should I feel a degree of righteous indignation and come to your defense...or simply chalk it up to "you are a tyrant" and thus "must be removed" whether the allegations are correct or just some speculation made fact by being posted on two forums.
After all, if you see it twice in two different places it has to be a FACT.
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 06, 2009, 07:24:36 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on September 06, 2009, 07:16:21 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 06, 2009, 02:29:39 AM
Quote from: Lancer on September 06, 2009, 01:57:14 AM
It is still a valid reason. Personally, I don't know why so many people have hatred for it. So what if it came about during Pineda's leadership (or lack thereof). I certainly like it better than the white/gray's. I've seen SO many people wear that combo and look totally, un-militaristic and sloppy.
I have to point out the disingenuous nature of the "Pineda" angle on this uniform. While he was in command of CAP when it came out, I think it is more likely that the CAP leadership at the Region Level and Wing Commanders at the time had an equal hand in generating this uniform.
Remember, contrary to the rants of many on this board both past and present, the National Commander is not an all encompassing dictator whose word is law. No action of a CAP National Commander can be assigned to being only his/her fault or whim. Also, if it was offensive to the USAF, then the CAP-USAF commander would have "nipped it in the bud" right then and there.
Sparky, you may have forgotten, but HWSRN ruled tyranically. Ask a deposed California Wing commander about how a trivial incident cost him his job. And look at how the NB was cowed into accepting his whims, lest they get fired, too. When they were fired, sycophants were installed, and remember how they were all "let go" when Courter took over?
I hear it quite a bit from folks who were in Florida Wing while he was the commander here. Wow.
Yes, but we are a Nation and Organization of rules and laws. Circumnavigating the rules and laws, even to fall a tyrant, cheapens the process. But more than that, it normalizes the extra-legal procedure for future use against persons who might not be tyrants.
Everyone is happy when people go outside the regulations to remove an unpopular person...however, suppose those same methods are used in the future to remove "a good guy." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I am confident that if the proper channels had been followed, the 2007 situation would have been resolved in the appropriate manner. What ended up happening was a stumble for the greater organization.
Now, suppose you are a modern Wing, Region or National Commander and someone uses these tactics, true or speculative in origin, to fall you from your position. It would seem that in the established precedent from 2007 there is a conundrum...should I feel a degree of righteous indignation and come to your defense...or simply chalk it up to "you are a tyrant" and thus "must be removed" whether the allegations are correct or just some speculation made fact by being posted on two forums.
After all, if you see it twice in two different places it has to be a FACT.
Whether you realize it, you just totally made the case against the power accumulation in the federal executive branch!
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
WHY is this information not readily available through official means? One would think that a bio of the command staff should be something that the PAO shop would be involved in.
Quote from: IceNine on September 07, 2009, 04:46:39 AM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
WHY is this information not readily available through official means? One would think that a bio of the command staff should be something that the PAO shop would be involved in.
My opinion is tempted to respond that this is likely because they are trying to avoid the "cult of personality." However, that is in the realm of opinion.
CAP Public Affairs is meant to provide news to the organization and populace. When biographical data is needed it is released, such as in stories about the promotion of an official, or even cadet. This was done when Maj Gen Courter and Brig Gen Chitwood assumed command. I suspect that those fact sheets are still online somewhere.
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 07, 2009, 05:10:43 AM
Quote from: IceNine on September 07, 2009, 04:46:39 AM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
WHY is this information not readily available through official means? One would think that a bio of the command staff should be something that the PAO shop would be involved in.
My opinion is tempted to respond that this is likely because they are trying to avoid the "cult of personality." However, that is in the realm of opinion.
CAP Public Affairs is meant to provide news to the organization and populace. When biographical data is needed it is released, such as in stories about the promotion of an official, or even cadet. This was done when Maj Gen Courter and Brig Gen Chitwood assumed command. I suspect that those fact sheets are still online somewhere.
It's pretty standard for AF unit websites to have bios of the CC, CV and Command Chief; no reason CAP can't do the same.
Uh, its already on the CAP website. Just saw it yesterday.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 07, 2009, 12:46:46 PM
Uh, its already on the CAP website. Just saw it yesterday.
Here is the link from the official CAP Web Site:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Chitwood_Bio__CV__May_09_A27D90C42DC83.pdf
It's in the media section along with bio's for Maj. Gen. Courter & Mr. Rowland.
Quote from: DC on September 06, 2009, 07:04:19 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
Wow.. There's even a page devoted to his 2009 Vice Commander Campaign!
Pretty soon we'll have multiple parties with nominees and such... :o
He has a campaign website? I remember attending the national Board in Atlanta and GenCourter had a campaign video presentation. Who are they campaigning too> The only people that can vote for them is the National Board (how evermany that is. I dont keep up with that stuff)
That is intense that they develop these high tech websites. So in order to be Wing Commader or higher you have to be a politician? I like the whol go before a board andthey select the most quaified person. Thats the military way. ;D
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 07, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: DC on September 06, 2009, 07:04:19 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
Wow.. There's even a page devoted to his 2009 Vice Commander Campaign!
Pretty soon we'll have multiple parties with nominees and such... :o
He has a campaign website? I remember attending the national Board in Atlanta and GenCourter had a campaign video presentation. Who are they campaigning too> The only people that can vote for them is the National Board (how evermany that is. I dont keep up with that stuff)
That is intense that they develop these high tech websites. So in order to be Wing Commader or higher you have to be a politician? I like the whol go before a board andthey select the most quaified person. Thats the military way. ;D
There was a thread that dealt with the "democratization" of CAP where membership would be allowed to vote for Wing Commanders and higher. What you are seeing here is only but a small example of how bad it could get.
You see, the above examples are merely to introduce the officials to the membership. So you hear some Col Courter or Col Chitwood is up for the "stellar" grades...you wonder who they are and what they have done. They create a website and...BAM...there you go...you get an idea of who they are.
That is understandable.
However, the circus that would commence from real CAP campaigns would rob from the effectiveness of mission readiness...as people would spend their time, resources and focus on campaigning (both for and against). Then would come the reprisals, spite and likely sabotage from the losers and their supporters. I mean why help your winning opponent have a good administration when you can turn it into a debacle so you can run and win next term.
I will point out the Elections of 1824 and 1828 where Andrew Jackson, feeling slighted, worked to make the administration of John Q. Adams one of the most unremarkable securing a win in 1828.
And that was in the great era of American democratic process, would people wish that nonsense on us?
I should hope not.
Let's keep the politics down and the information up.
Given that our two top officials are elected and given the size of the group that is electing them, they have to campain in some form so that the people voting know a little bit about them. I didn't see anything that was out of line, even if some was a bit hokey.
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
So, why did you guys even buy the new uniform? Why not just keep what you had. I hjave never owned the CSU nor do I ever plan to purchase one.
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Almost any thread that lasts more than five pages turns into a uniform discussion!
I must have missed it on the agenda and on here but what happened with finance? We have an UCC coming up and they want all CC's & FM's there. Something to do with a total rewrite of the 173 series????
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 06, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: JCJ on September 06, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
Quote from: A.Member on September 06, 2009, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 06, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
btw how did this thread about the National Board turn into a uniform discussion?
Because the fashion unconscious proposed and passed the addition of a black army sweater to go with their dark blue airforce style trousers. Just keeping a bad uniform alive. ;) :P
This uniform stuff does get too much play. I was still hoping to get some answers about our vice commander.
You mean our National CV? What would you like to know?
Ditto. He has been an active, high-visibility member for quite a while. Statements like the above wanting "answers" insinuate there are any to have.
Alot of information at www.reggiechitwood.us
Thanks!
Quote from: RiverAux on September 07, 2009, 07:52:12 PM
Given that our two top officials are elected and given the size of the group that is electing them, they have to campain in some form so that the people voting know a little bit about them. I didn't see anything that was out of line, even if some was a bit hokey.
What big size group electing them? Its the National Board. usually people going for the CC and CV positions are already on the NAtional Board tobegin with, so everyone already knows them.
Quote from: flyguync on September 08, 2009, 02:59:17 AM
I must have missed it on the agenda and on here but what happened with finance? We have an UCC coming up and they want all CC's & FM's there. Something to do with a total rewrite of the 173 series????
The new CAPR 173-1 combines the "old" CAPR 173-1 & 2 however, it hasn't yet been vetted by the Air Force. FM is hoping it will take effect 1 October but.... This is why it was not on the agenda.
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 08, 2009, 07:49:46 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 07, 2009, 07:52:12 PM
Given that our two top officials are elected and given the size of the group that is electing them, they have to campain in some form so that the people voting know a little bit about them. I didn't see anything that was out of line, even if some was a bit hokey.
What big size group electing them? Its the National Board. usually people going for the CC and CV positions are already on the NAtional Board tobegin with, so everyone already knows them.
We're talking about 60+ people, many of whom they may only have met in passing once or twice (if that). The people in their home region probably know them fairly well, but with everyone else they aren't going to be more than an acquaintance, at best. So, they have to do some form of campaigning.