Ribbons on Miniature Medals

Started by JC004, January 02, 2015, 01:21:12 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

flyboy53

#20
Although I respect your opinion, you can't have a firm understanding of the future without knowing your past.

However, just like the Air Force, the CAP has always had some sort of identity crisis and "re-branding" of mottos or various PR campaigns.

I don't know how many mottos I've seen in the Air Force since I joined. The only two that ever meant anything to me were "Pride in the Past, Faith in the Future" which was used around the time of the 25th anniversary and "Aim High" which was used when I first joined the Air Force and continued to be used for at least a decade.

While I can understand the  PR value of special displays at places like the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force and the Smithsonian, it calls to question what happened to the display that used to be at Wright-Patterson? Seems to me that's the true sad commentary of our organization's identity. I would hope that any new display is tied to the three or four CAP aircraft that are already part of the collection -- including the one in the Presidential Hangar -- and the old display.

Sure, build on the success of the CGM but tragically that is a PR achievement that should have been trumpeted by NHQ directly and not farmed out to the field for promotion. Also, the one aspect of the ceremony that I  noticed directly was the fact that those WW II CAP members are now called "veterans."

Shouldn't NHQ now take this honor to the next level and again pursue veterans recognition for these same individuals?

Eclipse

Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2015, 02:55:41 PMWhen I was in college, the decision was made to go Division I, the idea being that this would bring in more Alumni support and financing.  It didn't work.  So whereas I recognize that CAP believes that expending effort on the 75th anniversary will bring CAP greater recognition, but wishing doesn't make it so. 

Agreed.  Simply put.  No one cares, not even the majority of the membership, and it's 100% irrelevant to
the demographic CAP is trying to recruit.  That's the harsh, painful reality and CAP needs to accept that and move on.

The knee-jerk response to that is "those who ignore the past, blah, blah...".  No one is saying ignore the past,
but it should not be the first, or even the fifth thing discussed when recruiting, talking to the media, etc.

Just as with our parent service, there should be enough going on in current ops that historical discussions
should be an afterthought, not featured in the majority of the press releases.

And by "current ops", just FYI - Columbia was 12 years ago, Katrina nearly 10, even Sandy was 2+ years ago.
Those aren't "current ops" either.

And if you're not involved in anything on that scale, or smaller missions but in reasonable quantity, TODAY,
there you go...



"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

I do not intend to be forever the hard-bitten cynic, but if we do not prove our worth to:

1. The Air Force, who largely ignores us (except for higher echelons, some enlightened base commanders and TPTB concerning uniforms) and/or does not know who we are.
2. The ES community, who we partner with on so many occasions (fire departments, first responders, law enforcement).
3. The Coast Guard - odd maybe, but last time I checked AuxAir was very miniscule.  We can help be their "eyes in the skies."
4. The National Guard, when they are activated for Disaster Relief missions.  Not all states have SDF's, and their level of capabilities vary considerably.
5. The educational community...however, in my area, CAP of any kind has been very restricted from high schools due to our quasi-military nature.
6. The awareness of the public in general.  I have frequently got comments of "I didn't know you guys still existed."

...well, everything on Earth has a "shelf life," and that could include CAP, especially as some of the above agencies are acquiring greater technology than is available to us in the ES role.

And now that John McCain looks to become Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee...well, for reasons best known to him, he has always had a burr in his butt about us.  I remember back in the '90s when he tried to kibosh us.  Now he just may have the power to accomplish it.

I have sometimes thought that it would be more effective to have us moved to Army jurisdiction.  Before you flame me, remember a few things:

1. We were largely formed under the USAAC/USAAF, before the Air Force was an independent service, so it's part of our "DNA."
2. On a personal level, I have had better relations with Soldiers I have encountered (especially ARNG) than with Airmen.
3. Except for a few dedicated CSAR units, many in the ANG/AFRES, the AF is not in the business of SAR, especially with said units so often on deployment.
4. It would fit better with GT-dedicated personnel; who is better at hoofing it through the brush than the Army? ;)
5. The Army has very little in the way of fixed-wing aviation these days - we might be able to fill a niche.
6. AFB's are often few and far between, depending on location.  The ARNG has a lot of armouries.  One unit I was in operated out of an armoury.  They treated us quite well.
7. I am sure our cadets would like O-rides on Chinooks or Hueys as much as they do Herks or KC-135's...and availability may be better.
8. The Army is larger than the Air Force and may have better funding to support us with.
9. ARNG units have SAR as one of their missions; we could help them.

These are only hypotheses, and I do not know if the Army would welcome us with open arms, but it might be worth a try.  Of course, it would take an act of Congress, and getting Congress to agree on anything except what [censored]s the people on the other side of the aisle are is a Herculean accomplishment nowadays.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Luis R. Ramos

Ok, does the CAP fly helos? Nope.

CAP airplanes may fly from short or long runways, but never from or into a helipad!

Who controls the NG armories? I remember when I was in a unit that met at an armory, renewing the annual permit the armory administrator had to go to Albany, to an office of the State Military Affairs.

Worse, since the armories are also subject to city control, every time the city needs money they enter into an agreement with a corporation that preempts CAP meeting.

Many were the times we could not meet since New York City needed the armory for an art show and auction, or filming the Victoria's Secret show.

I am not saying that Army, NG, or Reserve would be better or worse than the Air Force. Just that Grass is Greener on the Other Side.

And we were formed under USAAC/USAAF. Again, to support airplane operations. Flight operations. Not ground operations.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

LSThiker

Quote from: Alaric on January 06, 2015, 02:55:41 PM
My point still is that in my opinion, we spend far too much time talking about what we did in WWII and when SAR was in its heyday.  Great, move on.  {snip}  I know that I am tired of hearing what we have done, I'm far more interested in what we will be doing.

Future operations need to be addressed to the appropriate directorate:  Director of Operations.  If the recruiting material is constantly pushing the history and WWII, then that needs to be addressed to the Public Affairs/Recruiting Officer.  The Historian has little say over these decisions.  If you are constantly hearing about the history, then I would say that the Historian Directorate is doing his job by promoting his lane and that the other lanes are failing to promote their AORs.

I agree that the historian's office is responsible for the design of the ribbons, insignia, etc.  At least, that is the job of the TIOH for the military.  However, is it really a "top" priority that the ribbons match the medals?  Or are there some higher priority items that should be accomplished before changing the medals?  Will changing them now or next year or 5 years from now make any strategic difference?

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on January 06, 2015, 09:04:20 PM
Worse, since the armories are also subject to city control, every time the city needs money they enter into an agreement with a corporation that preempts CAP meeting.

Armories are not under city control (or at least for the majority of states).  NG Armories are state property and fall under control of the state.  That being said, the state wants to make money off of their armories, which usually sit mostly vacant except under drill weekends and those areas used by AGR staff.  Therefore, they will sell the space to the highest payer. 

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 06, 2015, 10:05:09 PMI agree that the historian's office is responsible for the design of the ribbons, insignia, etc.  At least, that is the job of the TIOH for the military.  However, is it really a "top" priority that the ribbons match the medals?  Or are there some higher priority items that should be accomplished before changing the medals?  Will changing them now or next year or 5 years from now make any strategic difference?

Will not changing them propagate the malaise?

Which details are the ones you can ignore until they pile up and become "problems"?

The regs are a mess.

The insignia are a mess.

The message is a mess.

The mission is shrinking and so is the membership.

NHQ purports that there are over 30k adult members, many (most?) who are professionals, and the
majority of them referring to themselves as "officers", some are even specifically charged with the fixes
yet it seems that even the most simple things are nearly impossible to change, either because
they are "too trivial to address now", or "so big there is not enough man power".

There's a reason for the term "low hanging fruit". Grab it while you can, because it clears off the ground
and the lower branches and makes the tree easier to see.

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

Quote from: CyBorg on January 06, 2015, 08:36:34 PM
I do not intend to be forever the hard-bitten cynic, but if we do not prove our worth to:

1. The Air Force, who largely ignores us (except for higher echelons, some enlightened base commanders and TPTB concerning uniforms) and/or does not know who we are.

So, your position is something to the effect of "except for the people who actually run the Air Force, no one in the Air Force knows who we are?"  And that is such a terrible thing that [insert doom and gloom here] and CAP will be out of business shortly?

Sigh.

I've had a chance to chat with the AF Vice Chief of Staff, as well as the AFNORTH commander about CAP.  And you are absolutely correct that they are aware of us, and that they believe that we have not only justified our continued existence to the satisfaction of the AF, but that we add substantial, measurable value to the AF mission.

You may well be correct that SRA Jones and GS-5 Guy On the Gate may not fully appreciate both the current value and past heritage of this organization, and both we and our AF colleagues can do a better job of getting the word out.

And I also agree with what I think is your basic premise, that CAP must constantly be able to justify the trust placed in us by both the AF and Congress.  Our past successes in SAR, DR, and youth leadership programs means absolutely nothing if we cannot sustain our needed capabilities into the future.

Heck, I'm a taxpayer, too.  No agency, group, or program should receive tax dollars as some sort of "thank you for past services."  Thank Goodness that is not the case with us.

One way to avoid being taken as a "hard-bitten cynic" is to stop posting cynical messages in a public forum.


LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2015, 10:16:40 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on January 06, 2015, 10:05:09 PMI agree that the historian's office is responsible for the design of the ribbons, insignia, etc.  At least, that is the job of the TIOH for the military.  However, is it really a "top" priority that the ribbons match the medals?  Or are there some higher priority items that should be accomplished before changing the medals?  Will changing them now or next year or 5 years from now make any strategic difference?

Will not changing them propagate the malaise?

Which details are the ones you can ignore until they pile up and become "problems"?

The regs are a mess.

The insignia are a mess.

The message is a mess.

The mission is shrinking and so is the membership.

NHQ purports that there are over 30k adult members, many (most?) who are professionals, and the
majority of them referring to themselves as "officers", some are even specifically charged with the fixes
yet it seems that even the most simple things are nearly impossible to change, either because
they are "too trivial to address now", or "so big there is not enough man power".

There's a reason for the term "low hanging fruit". Grab it while you can, because it clears off the ground
and the lower branches and makes the tree easier to see.

And what strategic value will changing the ribbons on the medals bring that will address all of those problems addressed by you in previous posts and those above?

Pruning the lower branches does not necessarily mean doing it one leaf at a time. 

Does any one outside of the few people on CAPTalk really care that a few medals do not match exactly the ribbon counterparts? 

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 06, 2015, 10:31:35 PM
And what strategic value will changing the ribbons on the medals bring that will address all of those problems addressed by you in previous posts and those above?

Pruning the lower branches does not necessarily mean doing it one leaf at a time. 

Does any one outside of the few people on CAPTalk really care that a few medals do not match exactly the ribbon counterparts?

So baseline competency means nothing?

And why does it only have to matter to those outside?  These things are primarily for and between members.
Do you think it bodes well on an organization that purports to the core value of excellence, not to mention
exalts attention to detail that it can't even get it's decorations to be the correct color?

When things THIS SIMPLE come up, yo just fix them.  DONE.  Then you never have to think about it
or answer the question again.

Another lesson CAP seems to miss - anytime a question is asked more then once, you set policy and answer it,
not leave it ambiguous for perpetuity, otherwise you spend all your time answering unnecessary questions
and losing member confidence.  Which is exactly and literally what CAP does.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2015, 11:35:49 PM
Do you think it bodes well on an organization that purports to the core value of excellence, not to mention
exalts attention to detail that it can't even get it's decorations to be the correct color?

Perhaps there is a historical reason for the medals to be those designs that has been lost?  Therefore, it may just be the correct design and color.  Are you really saying that because CAP chose to make its medals with a different ribbon design than the ribbon counterparts, it fails at the attention to detail?  Perhaps if you were making the argument at insignia specifications and the lack of production consistency in the Cadet Grade insignia or the cloth GT badges, then I would agree.

QuoteWhen things THIS SIMPLE come up, yo just fix them.  DONE.  Then you never have to think about it
or answer the question again.

Except it is not "this simple".  You see, to change the medal designs will mean that NHQ has to buy all of the medal stocks.  Therefore, the question really is, does CAP need to spend money on something that really holds real value to its current set of problems?  Is this really a necessarily use of the member's money? Is it better to spend money and time on items that have no real value to the organization or spend that time and money on the "low hanging fruit" that have an actual benefit to the organization?  What is the cost-benefit of changing the medal designs?

QuoteAnother lesson CAP seems to miss - anytime a question is asked more then once, you set policy and answer it,
not leave it ambiguous for perpetuity, otherwise you spend all your time answering unnecessary questions
and losing member confidence.  Which is exactly and literally what CAP does.

And how will changing the medal designs correct this problem?

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 07, 2015, 12:09:05 AMExcept it is not "this simple".  You see, to change the medal designs will mean that NHQ has to buy all of the medal stocks.  Therefore, the question really is, does CAP need to spend money on something that really holds real value to its current set of problems?  Is this really a necessarily use of the member's money? Is it better to spend money and time on items that have no real value to the organization or spend that time and money on the "low hanging fruit" that have an actual benefit to the organization?  What is the cost-benefit of changing the medal designs?

No, it doesn't.

It issues a sundown on new orders and runs out current stock, then once the dead stock is gone, the next
run is corrected.  Wear date in perpetuity for anyone with an award date of "x".

Done. 

Zero extra cost.   One less this on the list.


Quote from: LSThiker on January 07, 2015, 12:09:05 AM
And how will changing the medal designs correct this problem?

It's >part< of the solution to the larger problem.

Level One Foundations Course • Module Five:

"Excellence
CAP members should always be in continual pursuit of excellence; there is no room for the
"good enough" mentality.
Fulfilling Civil Air Patrol's three missions of emergency service,
cadet programs, and aerospace education often results in shaping lives and saving lives,
humanitarian volunteer work too important to be just "good enough."


"Why strive for excellence anyway?
One answer to that question may seem wonderfully simple, perhaps
some would rather I said, "simple minded." If I settle for
less than my best effort, then I must live with less than my
best self, and I won't then like myself very much. I shall fall
short of the kind of being I could have become; I may
even be what modern psychiatrists suggest is very
unhealthy--I may be ashamed of what I become."

                                    ----- Brigadier General (Ret.) Malham M. Wakin

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

If it not important enough to correct the error now.....why correct it at all?

And let's face it.....there may be thousands of these medals sitting on a shelf somewhere....we could "fix it" now....but it may be 10 years before they have to make a new run of mini medals.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2015, 12:47:26 AM
If it not important enough to correct the error now.....why correct it at all?

And let's face it.....there may be thousands of these medals sitting on a shelf somewhere....we could "fix it" now....but it may be 10 years before they have to make a new run of mini medals.

Or there could be zero.

Wrong is wrong. If it's wrong, fix it.  If it's as intended, clarify in an appendix to 39-3 why they are different,
either way at least it's not added to the "meh" pile.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 12:42:49 AM

No, it doesn't.

It issues a sundown on new orders and runs out current stock, then once the dead stock is gone, the next
run is corrected.  Wear date in perpetuity for anyone with an award date of "x".

Done. 

Zero extra cost.   One less this on the list.


Unfortunately, from talking with Vanguard and NHQ, that apparently is not how it works with them. So yes, NHQ must buy all stocks of the medals. Whether we agree with that decision is for another discussion but is way beyond my pay grade.


Quote

It's >part< of the solution to the larger problem

First you have to demonstrate the medal designs are a problem and are associated with this "larger problem".

Quote from: lordmonar on January 07, 2015, 12:47:26 AM
If it not important enough to correct the error now.....why correct it at all?

And how do we know this is an error?  Perhaps it was designed this way intentionally or a direction passed down by the USAF at the time.

Eclipse

Quote from: LSThiker on January 07, 2015, 01:10:47 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 12:42:49 AM

No, it doesn't.

It issues a sundown on new orders and runs out current stock, then once the dead stock is gone, the next
run is corrected.  Wear date in perpetuity for anyone with an award date of "x".

Done. 

Zero extra cost.   One less this on the list.


Unfortunately, from talking with Vanguard and NHQ, that apparently is not how it works with them. So yes, NHQ must buy all stocks of the medals. Whether we agree with that decision is for another discussion but is way beyond my pay grade.

"Dear VG,

Please terminate production of item number OU812, effective immediately.  Existing stocks will continue
to be sold until they are depleted.  We will notify you when and if a replacement is required.

     Love,

          CAP"

At some point CAP designs and reorders something else.  Everything other then the production order
is an internal process and not VGs concern.

As to the other, read my posts fully, beyond that, you're ignoring the points on purpose, or just don't get it,
either way, repeating myself isn't going to change that.

"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 01:31:57 AM
As to the other, read my posts fully, beyond that, you're ignoring the points on purpose, or just don't get it,
either way, repeating myself isn't going to change that.

No I did not miss them.  I have ignored it on purpose because organizational excellence, attention to detail, and CAP organizational issues are irrelevant to medal designs in this context.  Or at least until you demonstrate that the design is an error and is the result of those issues.  Simply because the ribbon on the medal and its counterpart do not match, while not within tradition, is not an necessarily an error or the result of those issues. 

QuoteAt some point CAP designs and reorders something else.  Everything other then the production order
is an internal process and not VGs concern.

Perhaps, but from what I have been told, and assuming that it is correct, CAP must purchase remaining stock when it discontinues or otherwise redesigns emblems.

Eclipse


"That Others May Zoom"

LSThiker

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2015, 02:18:05 AM
Then I guess we're done.

I guess so.  However, if you find demonstrable evidence that shows the difference between the medal ribbons and the ribbon counterparts is due to CAP's a failure in excellence, attention to detail, or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss this further.  Until next time, as I am sure these exact same points will be brought up in other threads.  Good night there in Illinois. 

Luis R. Ramos

So you are telling me that if CAP decides to discontinue all ribbons and use challenge coins instead, it must buy all ribbon stock in Vanguard?

Incredible.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

JC004

I have noticed the color changes in ribbons (several times for the same ribbon).  Why can't they just make the updated ribbon when they run out of rolls of ribbon?  Leave the medals themselves be, I guess...