CAP Cleaning House?

[DakRadz]

Alright, so when CAPTalk is a bit slow, I go through the "All Unread Topics" list- often I learn something, and my OCD makes me want to get rid of the 282 pages of topics I've never read.

I ran across this quote (from way back in the day), clicked the link to check the site out (I'm a multi-program cadet and military hopeful, so it's nice to know cheap suppliers.

True.  But I have both the service jacket and the sweater.  I get annoyed at having to switch uniform items back and forth. 

I got mine for $6.25 each from www.1800nametape.com. I already bought two just in case I scratch one.

Now, if you click the link, the following appears:

NOTICE:

From the National Headquarters Civil Air Patrol United States Air Force Auxiliary, we don't have the "exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks and words" the corporation adopts. 

So, we no longer offer C.A.P. items. 



Please direct any and all questions or comments to the Civil Air Patrol Headquarters.

Now, I know all about thehock.com

This site is also up to date, so did NHQ start cleaning house of many sites this year, or is this in the past?

[a2capt]

Long Past ..  Ever since the CAPMart phase out.

However the sewing machine is less discriminatory, and will make whatever it's told. ;-)

[O-Rex]

Of all the services, Auxiliaries, SDF's and anyone else who wears some type of uniform, note that only CAP sends out the nastygrams to vendors-I love the fact that we are spinning our wheels looking for a viable operational mission in a post-121.5 world, but we are spot-on about vehemently defending 'exclusive rights' to $1 uniform gee-gaws.

Simply a reflection of the petty nastiness that now permeates our organizational culture.......

[DakRadz]

I thought it might be a graveyard occurrence. Ah well.

I've noticed that on many websites, the White on Blue tapes are cheaply available- just insert a certain organization name and voila! I do see your point, noticed it early on in another site's legal dispute.

So... anyone know of other sites that got burned? I recall a morale patch site they took out, the above link, and thehock.

[SarDragon]

Those companies are best left unidentified. Some, though not advertising it publicly, will still make tapes and patches if you ask nicely. We don't want the Alabama spies gettring info here or on CS.

[NCRblues]

i got all my name tape's, and white on blue civil air patrols from a source that was not vanguard..... it was called something like "clothing sales" on Whiteman AFB  .... now that would be a funny nastygram....

[Eclipse]

Of all the services, Auxiliaries, SDF's and anyone else who wears some type of uniform, note that only CAP sends out the nastygrams to vendors...

Since you can't prove the negative, I won't ask you to cite anything, but rest assured the US Government spends thousands of dollars and hours managing the lucrative licensing of the various indices of our military services and agencies, including plenty of C&D's to people
slapping logos on junk.

The difference is that CAP, Inc., has chosen to grant an exclusive license to one vendor, vs. spreading it around, primarily much because the market is so small that the only way to get the low-run insignias made with manageable quality and availability is to give the whole catalog to one company.  A company which is also a major supplier to the other services as well.

i got all my name tape's, and white on blue civil air patrols from a source that was not vanguard..... it was called something like "clothing sales" on Whiteman AFB  .... now that would be a funny nastygram....

AAFES sells them, too - not really a secret.

[DakRadz]

i got all my name tape's, and white on blue civil air patrols from a source that was not vanguard..... it was called something like "clothing sales" on Whiteman AFB  .... now that would be a funny nastygram....

AAFES sells them, too - not really a secret.

With all due respect, I wouldn't put it past NHQ to try to go after AAFES. After all, Vanguard has our only license to sell.

Does that license include rights to manufacturing? As in could NHQ (legally, not logically) go after someone for making their own tapes? Just to wear, if they had the proper machinery and used it for personal CAP tapes

[Eclipse]

^ No.

Non-commercial internal use is what the logos and emblems are for.  External commercial sale is where licenses are required.

AAFES is an agency of the DOD, so it probably doesn't need a license.

[Ned]

With all due respect, I wouldn't put it past NHQ to try to go after AAFES.

Whenever someone uses the phrase "with all due respect", it often (as here) carries quite the opposite connotation.

Please feel free to review - coincidentally enough - the CAP Core Value of Respect and see if your post meets our standards.

This Core Value talks about treating our members (including our volunteer leaders and NHQ emloyees) with fairness and dignity

As a cadet, you might also want to review the USAF Core Value of Service Before Self which talks about Faith in the System.

To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service.  Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then the subordinates might follow suit.

Wise words for all members, especially cadets.

[NCRblues]

Or Ned, he could exercise his *wait for it* freedom of speech and say what he wants to, even if he is a cadet....

Almost every cadet that comes on this board is torn a new one, from one person or another.

Ned, where is your soap box when senior members insult our volunteer leaders or nhq employees, or did you just pull it out because he was a cadet?

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

[HGjunkie]

Or Ned, he could exercise his *wait for it* freedom of speech and say what he wants to, even if he is a cadet....

Almost every cadet that comes on this board is torn a new one, from one person or another.

Ned, where is your soap box when senior members insult our volunteer leaders or nhq employees, or did you just pull it out because he was a cadet?

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

+5. members on this board need to learn that. this is an informal board, and i think formalities should be left at the door.

[a2capt]

Umm... yeah, good luck with that viewpoint.

[SarDragon]

Or Ned, he could exercise his *wait for it* freedom of speech and say what he wants to, even if he is a cadet....

Almost every cadet that comes on this board is torn a new one, from one person or another.

Ned, where is your soap box when senior members insult our volunteer leaders or nhq employees, or did you just pull it out because he was a cadet?

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

+5. members on this board need to learn that. this is an informal board, and i think formalities should be left at the door.

Ummm...

Might I direct your attention to here?

A brief quote:

Also please recall that the primary purpose of CAPTalk is a professional resource for CAP members to share information, tips, resources, and ideas.  We are not primarily intended to be a rumor mill or to be the Civil Air Patrol water cooler; Jerry and I would much rather see more discussion along these lines.

There are those members who seemingly live to see what they can get away with regarding the MCoC, but it's not a good example for cadets to follow. Flinging barbs at folks who help determine the future of CAP doesn't show yourself in a good light.

To quote another esteemed member: "You'd better checkity-check-check yourself before your wreckity-wreck-wreck yourself."

[NCRblues]

hey, from your little link that was posted...

"All members will respect the opinion and dignity of other members, whether or not they may be present.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and certainly discourse on varying opinions is excellent. However, members will not attack others based on their opinions and beliefs, regardless of whether they agree or not."

But i guess it only applies to SM's, certainly not cadets no no no. SM can bash the leadership all they want to, but if a cadet even thinks about questioning something they are shown the "core values" and shown a statement about never ever questioning the leadership.

Like i asked Ned and ill ask you as well, where is this soap box when senior members do it??

To never question well, That works in the military because of Article 92 ucmj, but, sorry it doesn't work in C.A.P.

And Mr. Bowles, i cant question Ned because he "helps determine the future of CAP"?? Give me a break, Ned is a good guy but, all "leadership" should expect to be questioned at some point in time.

Jump off your high horse and join us little people, because i know that's what you think of me.

[SarDragon]

My last post was aimed at HGjunkie, not you. Regarding your commentary, SMs should know better, and those who go too far afield of the MCoC get their turn in the counseling barrel. Cadets sometimes need a little more up front guidance. Some pay attention, some don't. It's their call.

I already said my piece to you a while back, and you didn't seem to get the point, so I've got you mostly on ignore. I suspect you have the same attitude about me. It all matters little in the grand scheme of things.

[edit] I suspect the Click Clock is ticking away as we speak.

[flyboy53]

^ No.

Non-commercial internal use is what the logos and emblems are for.  External commercial sale is where licenses are required.

AAFES is an agency of the DOD, so it probably doesn't need a license.

AAFES gets its insignia under contract from Vanguard. It doesn't need a license to sell it because Vanguard has to meet a DoD standard to fill the contract. However, I agree that those few suppliers out there that we still deal with should remain incognito. Since I have been on active duty, I've used a certain uniform supplier for my leather aircrew ASNP and I'll remain with the company forever because the quality and service is so much better than Vanguard.

This whole mess was another one of those HWSRN items that was intended to generate income for the CAP. The excuse to the membership was one of controlling quality. However, CAP gets a percentage of everything we buy there, and forcing it has left the membership with insignia that's sometimes junk.

The last ASNPs I bought through Vanguard were disgusting and the velcro peeled off the back only after a mnonth's use. Some quality controlled insignia comes out darker and looks dirty on a uniform. Some uniform items like swords have no meaning for the CAP; let alone being affordable for the membershp.

Than there's the whole thing about shipping charges and the time it takes to ship items....

[SJFedor]

^ No.

Non-commercial internal use is what the logos and emblems are for.  External commercial sale is where licenses are required.

AAFES is an agency of the DOD, so it probably doesn't need a license.

AAFES gets its insignia under contract from Vanguard. It doesn't need a license to sell it because Vanguard has to meet a DoD standard to fill the contract. However, I agree that those few suppliers out there that we still deal with should remain incognito. Since I have been on active duty, I've used a certain uniform supplier for my leather aircrew ASNP and I'll remain with the company forever because the quality and service is so much better than Vanguard.

This whole mess was another one of those HWSRN items that was intended to generate income for the CAP. The excuse to the membership was one of controlling quality. However, CAP gets a percentage of everything we buy there, and forcing it has left the membership with insignia that's sometimes junk.

The last ASNPs I bought through Vanguard were disgusting and the velcro peeled off the back only after a mnonth's use. Some quality controlled insignia comes out darker and looks dirty on a uniform. Some uniform items like swords have no meaning for the CAP; let alone being affordable for the membershp.

Than there's the whole thing about shipping charges and the time it takes to ship items....

...and the part where the same exact item is several dollars more for CAP members than it is when you buy it from the RM side of the site.

[DakRadz]

P.S. IMHO i don't think the "connotation" he was aiming for was the (very hollywooded up) "screw you sir" style, more like the 'well sir, i believe your wrong nhq and our "leadership" have done crazy things before" style....

This was more my intent, in all honesty. I was hoping to avoid offending Eclipse while stating my own opinion. No reason to go making enemies of someone who could destroy my name and reputation on CAPTalk- AND provide cites!

I do this often, because other than trolls and an unnamed member, I will do my best not to offend- I'm a cadet, and that can be left to SM v. SM (and it's still usually unnecessary)

With all due respect, I wouldn't put it past NHQ to try to go after AAFES.

Whenever someone uses the phrase "with all due respect", it often (as here) carries quite the opposite connotation.

Please feel free to review - coincidentally enough - the CAP Core Value of Respect and see if your post meets our standards.

This Core Value talks about treating our members (including our volunteer leaders and NHQ emloyees) with fairness and dignity

To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service.  Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt 'the system', then the subordinates might follow suit.

Wise words for all members, especially cadets.

Ned, you are right- that's something I will keep in mind from now on.

Do I think I could run NHQ better? No- I'm not an adult with years of CAP experience. I'm only just completely my first year as a member. (Well, I could institute some good ideas for the Cadet Leaders For A Week []; I couldn't do day-to-day basic skills, simply because I don't know how)

I think I have plenty of faith in my leaders. The best example I can give (and this is truthful):
Now, even the recent NC who was... asked to leave, I'll say- despite several issues I've read about here and heard about elsewhere (this incident was before my time in CAP, by the way)- but DESPITE all the negative things people have to say:
1) We are still an organization, running pretty much as before
2) We do not have berryboards or the like.
3) We still recruit and keep members (my entire squadron on the cadet side joined after this, and half on the SM side)

So I have faith in this leader because he knew how to run the organization to some extent- even if he only knew to let others do it.

Also, I don't imagine our top level execs making these decisions which are generally rather infeasible. I imagine some mid-level member who gets extremely gung-ho and decides to do one task to exhaustion- say, hunting down every unauthorized seller of CAP merchandise. I've been guilty of the like before- human nature.

[Ned]

Ned, you are right- that's something I will keep in mind from now on.

Do I think I could run NHQ better? (. . .)

Two things.

First, it is perfectly fine to disagree with your leadership.  It is even OK to express your disagreement here, IF it is done in a respectful way.

For example, some members disagree the National Board decision on  the Vanguard contract.  It is not inherently disrespectul to say why one disagrees with the decision.  One could say "the contract allows Vanguard to charge more for some CAP items than vendor X used to charge."  Or "the whole agreement was unnecessary because CAPMart did a fine job."

It is when folks trash talk our leadership that they run afoul of our Core Values, assigning incompetence or stupidity as the only possible reasons for our leaders to have made a given decision.

My point is that all of our membership owes each other a duty of respect and courtesy, even on the internet.  Even when speaking "anonymously." 

Second, many of us use "NHQ" as a short of shorthand to mean our national leadership from Gen Courter down through the wing commanders.  These are the volunteer leaders who - acting as in their individual capacities as commanders as well as collectively as  the National Board and NEC - make the policies carried out by our members and employees.

It is a bit of a historical misnomer because the hardworking corporate employees who actually work at our NHQ in Alabama do not actually make policy - they just carry out the directives of our volunteer leaders.  If someone at NHQ is issueing "cease and desist orders" to manufacturers that pirate our name, insignia, and logos for their own personal profit, it is because those actions are required by the NB-directed contract or at the direction of the senior leadership. 

Finally, for the others who reacted to my reference to our Core Values, let me note that I have made virtually the identical post to several others in the past.  But it is correct to assume that as the national cadet programs guy I take special interest in the postings of our cadets.

It looks like the Mitchell is in your immediate future.  Congratualtions!  That is an award earned by only 15% of our cadets.  On to the Earhart.

Ned Lee