I really didn't want to start another thread on this, but the message will get lost and/or ignored if added to any of the others.
Mike
*********
Officials explain use of 'U.S. Civil Air Patrol' in identifying organization
Adding 'U.S.' to name called difference in 'style, not substance'
June 13, 2007
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS -- The only difference between "Civil Air Patrol" and "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" is one of style, not substance, top CAP officials say.
After CAP National Commander Maj. Gen. Antonio J. Pineda noted that other nations also maintain their own Civil Air Patrols, National Headquarters began exploring the possibility of using "U.S." in first full references to the organization's name.
"It's just a branding initiative," said CAP Executive Director Don Rowland. "We're not changing the charter. ... We're not really changing anything."
Using "U.S. Civil Air Patrol," Rowland said, is "the equivalent to GE used in reference to General Electric."
Gordon W. Odell Jr., CAP general counsel, used a similar comparison.
"There's an organization we know as 'IBM,' Odell said. "Its name is International Business Machines Inc. IBM is a trade name."
"U.S. Civil Air Patrol is a trade name just as IBM is a trade name. Use of the trade name does not change who or what we are," he said.
The official name of Civil Air Patrol as established in Administrative Order No. 9 on Dec. 1, 1941, remains the same, said Odell. Identification of the organization as U.S. Civil Air Patrol for marketing purposes entails no further executive orders or changes to the organization's constitution or bylaws.
Official signature blocks will remain "Civil Air Patrol."
The new approach will be reflected on the Battle Dress Uniform tape and some CAP nametags. The March 2007 National Board approved changing the BDU tape to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" effective immediately with a mandatory wear date of March 1, 2010.
On May 23rd, the National Executive Committee also approved changes to the name tags worn by senior members on the new Corporate uniform. Members may begin wearing these name tags immediately with a mandatory wear date of March 1, 2008. U.S. Civil Air Patrol will be the first line on:
* the blue two-line name tag worn by senior members on the new CAP distinctive corporate uniform (white aviator shirt and blue slacks) above the member's surname and
* the silver two-line name tag worn by senior members on the new CAP distinctive corporate service coat.
Other name tags will remain unchanged.
####
As much as I don't like USCAP, if we're going to have it we should change it all along the line.
We are setting up a patchwork of uniform items that change at random (you wear the blue epaulets on the white shirt with the blue pants, but not the gray pants, clear?). Now we're setting up two different names, sig blocks, etc.
Traditionally, since we are the first "Civil Air Patrol," we would use it without modifier and those that follow would have to add their country to the name. For example, only the British call themselves the Royal Air Force: everyone else has to use their country's name (RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF).
So... if we're just "Stylin'," why the big honkin' news release?
* the blue two-line name tag worn by senior members on the new CAP distinctive corporate uniform (white aviator shirt and blue slacks) above the member's surname and
* the silver two-line name tag worn by senior members on the new CAP distinctive corporate service coat.
Other name tags will remain unchanged.
And I just bought a blue nametag in November trying to support the concept of the new "corporate" uniform . . . good grief!! Does anyone at NHQ really care about the needless expenses pushed on members? Been using my black US Army nametag since 1965 and all it has is my last name.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 13, 2007, 09:06:24 PM
So... if we're just "Stylin'," why the big honkin' news release?
To clarify that we have a huge organizational identity issue.
CAP has
no corporate identity. We have at least four different,
approved organizational emblems (leaving out the unofficial ones), three different names, and terribly small brand recognition with the general population. This does not solve any issues and, in fact, exacerbates the problem further.
We have no corporate colors, typography, nor
enforced standardized letterhead for subordinate units (I'm aware of 10-1, but so many units, including high-level HQs ignore it). We have no branding, we have no corporate identity, and no brand recognition because of this fact. I'm not even considering the disjointed identity from the standpoint of having an unweildly assortment of uniforms, five or six different style nameplates, three different branding/painting-styles of aircraft out there, and a large van fleet with inconsistent (and terrible looking) markings - that's a contributing factor, but not the core of the issue.
Does National need to fix this? Yes. This is one issue that units operating below NHQ cannot fix on their own, through working hard and doing their jobs well. This is an organizational issue that somebody with experience in this field needs to spend the serious time to do the
research first, perform a proper SWOT analysis on Civil Air Patrol's brand and identity, and create and
enforce a subsequent program to fix this.
But I don't forsee that happening and coming to fruition until, at minimum, another National Commander takes the helm.
It's a major problem for CAP, it's sad to see the organization in such a mess from a public relations/awareness standpoint, hurting CAP and its members on so many fronts.
I still think that this is too late in the game to fix things. It only reinforces the attitude that HQ doesn't know what it's doing. To be sure, they ARE trying to change their mistakes, and I am grateful for it.
Don't get me wrong here now. I take my membership in CAP seriously. But, the first two things I learned when entering the service were 1) Get the mission done, and 2) Take care of the people you are responsible for. Don't impose needless requirements.
Also learned "it's not what you say, but what you do". Our organization will get "branded", that is nationally known and recognized, based on what we "do", not by whether our uniforms "say" U.S. Civil Air Patrol or Civil Air Patrol.
QuoteU.S. Civil Air Patrol is a trade name just as IBM is a trade name. Use of the trade name does not change who or what we are," he said.
I think that the lawyer is playing a little fast and loose with the term "trade name"..
I just love the comparisons:
International Business Machine = IBM
General Electric = GE
Civil Air Patrol = U.S. Civil Air Patrol
Note, that what CAP has chosen to do is make our name MORE ocmplicated, which is just the opposite of what the cited corporations do....
I've repeatedly warned members not to purchase the Corporate Uniform... at least until things settle down. For those that have jumped the gun, and paid the price for being an early adpoter... Well, sorry about your luck.
Quote from: MIKE on June 13, 2007, 10:12:18 PM
I've repeatedly warned members not to purchase the Corporate Uniform... at least until things settle down. For those that have jumped the gun, and paid the price for being an early adpoter... Well, sorry about your luck.
I know, I know . . . . should have listened! Well "fool me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice, shame on me"! Will be sure to take my time thinking about whether or not to support the next "major initiative" that comes down from above.
Quote from: MIKE on June 13, 2007, 10:12:18 PM
I've repeatedly warned members not to purchase the Corporate Uniform... at least until things settle down. For those that have jumped the gun, and paid the price for being an early adpoter... Well, sorry about your luck.
I'm with MIKE!
It says signature blocks will remain Civil Air Patrol. Does that mean I need to keep using it this way:
NAME, RANK, CAP
or can I use it like this:
NAME, RANK, USCAP
I'm confused with this cause this would totally go against TP's signatures blocks if the first one is the only one to go with.
Quote from: CASH172 on June 13, 2007, 10:39:32 PM
It says signature blocks will remain Civil Air Patrol. Does that mean I need to keep using it this way:
NAME, RANK, CAP
or can I use it like this:
NAME, RANK, USCAP
I'm confused with this cause this would totally go against TP's signatures blocks if the first one is the only one to go with.
Do both, like I am. See signature below. >:D
Today, a friend told me that a former commander of his always asked three questions:
1. Is it cost effective?
2. Is it practical?
3. Does it make any sense?
If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, you couldn't do it. I'm starting to think NHQ is doing the same thing.
The new CAP Branding initiative is a major topic at the upcoming PAO Academy to be held the two days before the National Board Conference in Atlanta in August.
See the following link:
http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/public_affairs/2007_cap_pao_academy/presenters/national_marketing_plan.cfm
I guess we'll learn more then.
Dr. Dave
Tripe.. pure unadulterated tripe.
They should fire that lawyer who compared the name to IBM.. C.A.P. is the equivalent.. Not that long honk'n name.
Well I am glad I decided to heck with all uniforms with the exception of the grays for special occasions.. I am so fed up with these niggly little changes and such. Then again I am fat and fuzzy.
Personally, HQ needs to get their heads out of their posterior parts.
You want name recognition.. uhhh.. How about U.S. Air Force Auxillary!?!?!? ooops was that Aux On or Off?
Unreal.... And yes, I am sure some people have noticed I have been hot under the collar, since those of us fuzzy folks have been religated to 2nd class status, by some of the uniform nazi's..
The whole thing is stupid! THE NAME IS "CIVIL AIR PATROL". That is what needs to be on our letters, banners, websites....etc! THEN is the AF going to authorize the change on the BDU's to "US Civil Air Patrol"?
uhhhh... me thinks the name tapes are already being done with U.S. on them coming from Van.. cough cough...
Quote from: 2d Lt Fat and FUZZY on June 13, 2007, 11:22:02 PM
Tripe.. pure unadulterated tripe.
They should fire that lawyer who compared the name to IBM.. C.A.P. is the equivalent.. Not that long honk'n name.
Funny, that was my first thought too.
Quote
You want name recognition.. uhhh.. How about U.S. Air Force Auxillary!?!?!? ooops was that Aux On or Off?
Well if we're going for longer names, we could be the "U.S. Air Force Auxillary, Sometimes" :D
Quote from: 2d Lt Fat and FUZZY on June 13, 2007, 11:22:02 PM
They should fire that lawyer who compared the name to IBM.. C.A.P. is the equivalent.. Not that long honk'n name.
The black vans are warming up their engines. .. . >:D
All I ask is.....is the world going to end?
Let's move on!
I don't like it, I dont' see why we had to change....but we did.....we have unti 2010 to buy the stupid things.....let's move one.
Any good missions or training coming up? I've got SLS this week end and I'm going to NESA in July followed by CLC! :)
Agree'd Capt.. I need to cool off anyway..time to get on focus and stop letting the major on the minors get under my skin
NER SARCOMP is this weekend, I head off Friday AM to drive out to the ANGB in Mass., should be a great time for all, I am looking forward to interacting with some other folks and getting in the air.
And beleive it or not I almost shaved off my goatee.. almost... ;)
Quote from: lordmonar on June 14, 2007, 05:23:39 AM
All I ask is.....is the world going to end?
Let's move on!
I don't like it, I dont' see why we had to change....but we did.....we have unti 2010 to buy the stupid things.....let's move one.
Any good missions or training coming up? I've got SLS this week end and I'm going to NESA in July followed by CLC! :)
What this does is give a precedent for more changes. Now they can make end runs around the rules and get away with it.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 14, 2007, 05:23:39 AM
All I ask is.....is the world going to end?
Let's move on!
I don't like it, I dont' see why we had to change....but we did.....we have unti 2010 to buy the stupid things.....let's move one.
Any good missions or training coming up? I've got SLS this week end and I'm going to NESA in July followed by CLC! :)
Based on that stance, we can just eliminate our Public Affairs staff from NHQ straight through the squadron, since we don't need good exposure, identity, awareness or public image. If all we have to do is perform our missions well, then why the need for any PA?
Meh - we're screwing it up our organizational identity, but we don't need to explore fixing it. If 2d Lt Joe Smith at the Middle O' Nowhere Composite Squadron keeps up his observer skills, we'll be just fine.
Well, here is something similar to the comparison....
General Electric is spoken as "Gee, Eee" and not "Gee" or "Geh". And International Business Machines is spoken as "Eye Bee Emm", not "Ibum".
Hearing people - ESPECIALLY fellow members - refer to Civil Air Patrol as "Cap" is like nails on a chalkboard! These are also the same people who say "You-Saff" for the Air Force. I don't care about the semantics of Abbreviation vs. Acronym. If you are one of those folks that says "Cap" -- knock it off!
Back on topic, that "press release" sounded more like a defensive knee jerk to all the comments posted here! I'm with the person who made the 3rd or 4th post in the thread... National should go ALL THE WAY with the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branding, or just friggen forget it.
- Ace
Mage, Us-Cap
Awks, You-Saff
'CAP' and "Cee Ayy Pee' have been used interchangeably since I first joined back in 1970, and I would suspect it began long before I came along (and will continue long after I move on!)
Oddly enough, often one and the same individual (for instance -- me!) uses both versions.
And by the way, I've never heard anyone (including actice duty personnel assigned there) say anything but "CAP-Yousaf"!
Quote from: Psicorp on June 14, 2007, 12:52:36 AM
You want name recognition.. uhhh.. How about U.S. Air Force Auxillary
Amen to that!!!!!
"Yousaf" sounds like somebody we should hate.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 14, 2007, 06:44:00 PM"Yousaf" sounds like somebody we should hate.
Now that's profiling... >:D quick, check Yousaf for an IUD! Or maybe an Eye-Udd.
Quote from: Psicorp on June 14, 2007, 12:52:36 AM
You want name recognition.. uhhh.. How about U.S. Air Force Auxillary
Now HOW did you EVER come up with something as absurd as THAT! Luckily you don't work on the Gen's staff with such silly ideas.
Maybe we're not using it because "Auxiliary" is such a difficult word to spell for many members! I know I used to be guilty of it, and how many times have you seen signs, business cards, and even patches with the Aux spelled inncorrectly.
Ok, sorry ModeRanger... moving on, nothing to see here.
-Ace
Actually, if we could trademark the misspelling and charge everyone a nickle everytime they used our trademark, our money woes would be over.
Quote from: Al Sayre on June 14, 2007, 09:18:50 PM
Actually, if we could trademark the misspelling and charge everyone a nickle everytime they used our trademark, our money woes would be over.
Now you've done it. As soon as NHQ hears this, they will issue a memo announcing it. I can hear the cash registers at Vanguard ringing already.
What I wonder is, how long do the people at national expect this "U.S. CAP" change to last? I mean, CAP has been "CAP" for over 60 years! Why change the name now, when "CAP" has worked for more than 5 decades?
What I also wonder, is if CAP had a National Commander different from Pineda, would such a change have been made? I'm inclined to think that the "U.S. CAP" change is more of a Pineda thing than a general membership thing.
Quote from: 12211985 on July 01, 2007, 06:36:52 AM
What I wonder is, how long do the people at national expect this "U.S. CAP" change to last? I mean, CAP has been "CAP" for over 60 years! Why change the name now, when "CAP" has worked for more than 5 decades?
What I also wonder, is if CAP had a National Commander different from Pineda, would such a change have been made? I'm inclined to think that the "U.S. CAP" change is more of a Pineda thing than a general membership thing.
What I wonder, is if CAP had a National Commander different from Pineda, would such a change have been given a
second thought? I'm inclined to think that this topic is more of a "bias against Pineda thing" than a true issue.
Hear me out...lots of people are taking an incredulous stance on this. But if it had been done during the administrations of Maj. Gen Richard L. Bowling, CAP or Maj. Gen. Dwight H. Wheless, CAP would you have the same objections?
Also, the Major General and the Brigadier General don't work alone. All these changes are approved, either by tacit stance or by colabortion,
en re the National Board and National Executive Committee...and by the Region Commanders. Are they all traitors too?
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:58:02 AMWhat I wonder, is if CAP had a National Commander different from Pineda, would such a change have been given a second thought? I'm inclined to think that this topic is more of a "bias against Pineda thing" than a true issue.
No, it's not a "bias against Pineda" thing, though it certainly doesn't help his credibility, either.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:58:02 AMHear me out...lots of people are taking an incredulous stance on this. But if it had been done during the administrations of Maj. Gen Richard L. Bowling, CAP or Maj. Gen. Dwight H. Wheless, CAP would you have the same objections?
Yes. My problem is that nobody on the BOG, NEC or Pineda's staff bothered to even try to change the name of the organization in the Constitution and Bylaws or the U.S.C. before making the name change official. I don't care about NHQ's rationale for making the name change; nothing can change the fact that the BOG, NEC and Nat'l CC did an end run around the rules.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:58:02 AMAlso, the Major General and the Brigadier General don't work alone. All these changes are approved, either by tacit stance or by colabortion, en re the National Board and National Executive Committee...and by the Region Commanders. Are they all traitors too?
No. They're just ignorant of the fact that when you change the name of an organization, that name must first be changed in the constitution and bylaws and any other document mandating the name of the organization.
Here, I'll show you where it states the Civil Air Patrol must be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol":
Quote from: CAP Constitution, Article IINAME AND STATUS
The name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.
Quote from: CAP Constitution, Section IINAME AND CORPORATE SEAL
2.1 The name of Civil Air Patrol may be stated by any of the following:
a. "Civil Air Patrol"
b. "Civil Air Patrol, incorporated under Special Act of Congress approved July 1, 1946, Public Law 476, 79th Congress"
2.2 Each unit, including National Headquarters, shall use a name expressing its designation, the words "Civil Air Patrol" and may also refer to its status as the United States Air Force Auxiliary as set forth in regulations.
Emphasis mine.
Clearly, the use of any name other than Civil Air Patrol needs to be approved in the Constitution and Bylaws before an official name change can be made. And since the name "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution and Bylaws as an approved name that CAP can go by, it is a clear violation of the Constitution and Bylaws.
But wait, there's more!
Quote from: 14 USC 4036The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.
Quote from: 20 USC 9442a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
Emphasis mine.
There is overwhelming evidence in both the U.S.C. and the CAP Constitution and Bylaws that Civil Air Patrol should be known as "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." I hope this clears things up.
Now...how does any of this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit? Or my Unit's Aircrews missions or form 5 Check rides?
A wise man told me the answer to these questions...
It doesn't. It really doesn't make a difference if the nametape says "CIVIL AIR PATROL" or "US CIVIL AIR PATROL" of "US AIR FORCE AUX." No one but the people on these forums really gives two shakes of a lizard's tail about this. Especially the downed pilot we find clinging to life or the wife and daughter who will continue to have a husband and father because of our efforts.
'nuff said!!!
Still, Maj Gen Pineda, the BOG and the NEC violated the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and the U.S.C. This is a true embarrassment. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: 12211985 on July 01, 2007, 07:57:33 AM
Still, Maj Gen Pineda, the BOG and the NEC violated the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and the U.S.C. This is a true embarrassment. That's all I'm saying.
Now...how does any of this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit? Or my Unit's Aircrews missions or form 5 Check rides?
The precedent that is set by Pineda violating the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and U.S.C. is a horrible one. People may argue, "Well, if a major general can get away with changing the name of the entire organization without following the proper channels, hand-propping this Cessna is no big deal!" and other things like "Well, CAP isin't supposed to be called the U.S. CAP but the general says it's okay, so pencil-whipping this Level I is perfectly fine."
See the problem here?
Quote from: 12211985 on July 01, 2007, 08:07:59 AM
The precedent that is set by Pineda violating the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and U.S.C. is a horrible one. People may argue, "Well, if a major general can get away with changing the name of the entire organization without following the proper channels, hand-propping this Cessna is no big deal!" and other things like "Well, CAP isin't supposed to be called the U.S. CAP but the general says it's okay, so pencil-whipping this Level I is perfectly fine."
See the problem here?
No, seriously...how does any of
this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit? Or my Unit's Aircrews missions or form 5 Check rides?
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 08:09:00 AM
No, seriously...how does any of this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit? Or my Unit's Aircrews missions or form 5 Check rides?
The fact that general Pineda did an end run around the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and the U.S.C. does not affect training, operations, etc. However, the precedent this action has set most certainly does have the potential to affect these things. I'll give you an example...
Let's say C/Amn Cadetson gets promoted to C/A1C. But, instead of calling him a Cadet Airman First Class, you decide to change his grade title to "Super Omnipotent Genius Cadet Airman." It clearly states in the 52-16 that cadets who complete the Arnold Achievement are to be granted the title of Cadet Airman First Class, not "Super Omnipotent Genius Cadet Airman." However, let's say (for the sake of argument) that you don't care. You're going to call this cadet a Super Omnipotent Genius Cadet Airman no matter what.
What you'd be doing is essentially the same thing general Pineda did (in addition to the BOG and NEC) in naming Civil Air Patrol the United States Civil Air Patrol. In order to change C/A1C to "Super Omnipotent Genius Cadet Airman", every manual that mandates the title "C/A1C" would have to be changed to read "Super Omnipotent Genius Cadet Airman" before the name change could be considered 100% valid.
That is just one example. There are many others.
No seriously, How does any of this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit? Or my Unit's Aircrews missions or form 5 Check rides?
It doesn't. It really doesn't make a difference if the nametape says "CIVIL AIR PATROL" or "US CIVIL AIR PATROL" of "US AIR FORCE AUX." No one but the people on these forums really gives two shakes of a lizard's tail about this. Especially the downed pilot we find clinging to life or the wife and daughter who will continue to have a husband and father because of our efforts.
'nuff said!!! Your stretching...this out far longer...than it is warranted...with specious arguments (an argument that appears valid at first but is really fallacious.) 'nuff said!!! for real, please!!!
Now, send me a list of all your ribbons via a PM and I'll generate your RACK and send it to you.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 08:26:52 AM
No seriously, How does any of this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit?
Well, since you asked, I'll tell you. The name change itself is immaterial. You're right; it probably makes no difference to the downed pilot. The problem is that we have other missions that we are supposed to be accomplishing, and the way that this "change" is being implemented does have an affect on your cadets.
It affects them because they see that the rules (the constitution / regulation) don't apply when it suits the desires of the people at the top. It demonstrates that that the rules and regulations that are put in place by the Constitution which founded this organization aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
It affects them even more when they see that the people above them (local / group / wing) are content to continue to allow things like this to happen without challenging them and instead simply tell them that you're a cadet and it doesn't affect you so don't worry about it.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 07:58:43 AM
Quote from: 12211985 on July 01, 2007, 07:57:33 AM
Still, Maj Gen Pineda, the BOG and the NEC violated the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and the U.S.C. This is a true embarrassment. That's all I'm saying.
Now...how does any of this effect C/Amn Timmy Cadetson's training in my unit? Or my Unit's Aircrews missions or form 5 Check rides?
How do any of the things we talk about here affect young Timmy?
The only way it affects C/Amn Timmy Cadetscon is in the wallet when he has to buy the new tapes for his uniform.
Quote from: ADCAPer on July 01, 2007, 12:52:09 PM
Well, since you asked, I'll tell you. The name change itself is immaterial. You're right; it probably makes no difference to the downed pilot. The problem is that we have other missions that we are supposed to be accomplishing, and the way that this "change" is being implemented does have an affect on your cadets.
That is simply untrue. In terms of cadets, they rarely even know that there is a CAP Constitution and there is even less of a chance that they think about it even on an annual basis.
Additionally, cadets are seldom aware of CAP Politics out of the squadron level...and when they are subject to things beyond that level it is normally in relation to CAC. And that is how it should be.
The CAP CADET Oath, further more, says nothing about the CAP Constitution. Plus, most CAP Officers don't know what the CAP Constitution says and likely never have seen a copy of it nor given it a second thought.
In reality, it is only quoted at time like this where it was likely "Googled."
So, as I originally maintained, this does not EFFECT daily CAP operations and is no CAUSE for such division.
Quote from: BillB on July 01, 2007, 04:18:11 PM
The only way it affects C/Amn Timmy Cadetscon is in the wallet when he has to buy the new tapes for his uniform.
No, in our unit I normally buy them their nametapes et al, if not me, then the unit provides.
Truly, the only Constitution I care about is the pocket copy of the Constitution of the United States that I carry in my go bag. Seems to me this has a little more bearing on what we are meant to do and what we DO than anything else. And the Cadets with whom I work know this.
Uh Rah, Major!
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 01, 2007, 06:06:26 PM
Truly, the only Constitution I care about is the pocket copy of the Constitution of the United States that I carry in my go bag. Seems to me this has a little more bearing on what we are meant to do and what we DO than anything else. And the Cadets with whom I work know this.
Uh Rah, Major!
I too carry a pocket Constitution. Every American should know it. The Preamble says the purpose of the US Government, the Articles how it should run and he Bill of Rights what they can't take away. Our politicians should hold it dear; but
We the people...should hold it even higher.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:39:19 PM
I too carry a pocket Constitution. Every American should know it. The Preamble says the purpose of the US Government, the Articles how it should run and he Bill of Rights what they can't take away. Our politicians should hold it dear; but We the people...should hold it even higher.
The other point of view is the one (apocraphylally) expressed by our President:
"The Constitution is just a [darn]ed piece of paper! I wish people would stop waving the Constitution in my face!"
Now, I don't know for sure if he really said that, but sometimes I think he believes it.
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 01, 2007, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:39:19 PM
I too carry a pocket Constitution. Every American should know it. The Preamble says the purpose of the US Government, the Articles how it should run and he Bill of Rights what they can't take away. Our politicians should hold it dear; but We the people...should hold it even higher.
The other point of view is the one (apocraphylally) expressed by our President:
"The Constitution is just a [darn]ed piece of paper! I wish people would stop waving the Constitution in my face!"
Now, I don't know for sure if he really said that, but sometimes I think he believes it.
Jack
If you don't know for sure that he said it, then you should not be quoting him on it as if he did.
Quote from: LtCol White on July 01, 2007, 08:57:27 PM
If you don't know for sure that he said it, then you should not be quoting him on it as if he did.
Well, I did put in all the qualifiers I could. And it's not an original from me; it's been reported in many other places.
Jack
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 01, 2007, 06:06:26 PM
Truly, the only Constitution I care about is the pocket copy of the Constitution of the United States that I carry in my go bag. Seems to me this has a little more bearing on what we are meant to do and what we DO than anything else. And the Cadets with whom I work know this.
Uh Rah, Major!
I too carry a pocket Constitution. Every American should know it. The Preamble says the purpose of the US Government, the Articles how it should run and he Bill of Rights what they can't take away. Our politicians should hold it dear; but We the people...should hold it even higher.
Don't just carry the US Constitution.......should also have a copy of your State one as well. Too many people have forgoten over time (happened sometime after the Civil War) that we are Citizens of our respective States first! I don't know when the switch happened, or who was behind it (the Federal Government most likely to make sure another rebelion never took place), but it is a highly debated topic in State VS Federal rights and responsibilities.
Sorry.......back to the topic
Quote from: mikeylikey on July 01, 2007, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 01, 2007, 06:06:26 PM
Truly, the only Constitution I care about is the pocket copy of the Constitution of the United States that I carry in my go bag. Seems to me this has a little more bearing on what we are meant to do and what we DO than anything else. And the Cadets with whom I work know this.
Uh Rah, Major!
I too carry a pocket Constitution. Every American should know it. The Preamble says the purpose of the US Government, the Articles how it should run and he Bill of Rights what they can't take away. Our politicians should hold it dear; but We the people...should hold it even higher.
Don't just carry the US Constitution.......should also have a copy of your State one as well. Too many people have forgoten over time (happened sometime after the Civil War) that we are Citizens of our respective States first! I don't know when the switch happened, or who was behind it (the Federal Government most likely to make sure another rebelion never took place), but it is a highly debated topic in State VS Federal rights and responsibilities.
Sorry.......back to the topic
Not to worry, I carry both.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 01, 2007, 05:01:34 PM
Plus, most CAP Officers don't know what the CAP Constitution says and likely never have seen a copy of it nor given it a second thought.
And therin lies a major part of the problem with this organization. There are too many units out there who aren't providing the training to their member, be it seniors or cadets, that they should be.
Emphasis below is mine.
CAP Pamphlet 151(E)
Training
STANDARDS, CUSTOMS AND COURTESIES
Your decision to join Civil Air Patrol (CAP) reflects a dedication and commitment to support this charitable, benevolent, nonprofit corporation. As a member of an Auxiliary of the United States Air Force, you are expected to follow the traditions, standards, customs and courtesies agreed and accepted by the Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol.
These apply to all of us and reflect our pride and professionalism as members of the Civil Air Patrol.
I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by the
Constitution and Bylaws of Civil Air Patrol and comply with Civil Air Patrol rules and regulations as from time to time may be amended or promulgated.
I have read the Constitution and bylaws... I guess we cannot address the Civil Air Patrol as "CAP" since it is not listed (Section 2 of the Bylaws, 2.1 a & b). I guess it's a 2b or all of us.
Also, I guess that the Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia Wings are illegal and illegitimate since Section 6.3 c, 1 states...
Quote(1) Each region shall be subdivided into areas known as wings. There shall be one wing for each state, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The above Wings are located in political entities known as Commonwealths. The only such entity in the Civil Air Patrol bylaws is Puerto Rico. Thus, there are only 48 acceptable Wings in the Civil Air Patrol.
Now...what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If "US Civil Air Patrol" is apocryphal...then I call for the dismissal and dissolution of the above mentioned Wings
Hyperbole? Yes, but so is this "US Civil Air Patrol" issue. A specious argument is a specious argument.
I consider this to be a cosmetic change; for use by Public Affairs Officers, Unit stationary and Uniforms. Not a truly official "name change." The rationale for it is been discussed in the Press Release.
I will admit that I am the new kid on the block and the U.S issue has been around almost as long as I have been involved with CAP. But really, lets all follow the good Major's lead. I have to say that I am sick of hearing about it. As I have related to other members, I am proud to serve in the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, and my uniform tapes reflect that pride. If you truly feel that the decision by Maj Gen Pineda and others at NHQ signal the erosion of CAP as an entity, as a functioning organization with service as its guiding principle and that the Civil Air Patrol that you know and love is about to come crashing down around us, the I encourage you to register your displeasure by sending your letters of resignation to Maj Gen Pineda.
There may be those among us who feel that he has somehow usurped the constitutional authority of CAP by making this change and in other actions that many believe he has taken. I have not been around long enough to know all of those details and frankly they dont matter to me. If he has done something as heinous as many believe, then he should step down or be removed. But answer me this: are your day to day function within CAP going to change? Are you going to refuse to go looking for a downed pilot? Will you not assist local authorities in finding a missing child or fly organs slated for donation to the waiting transplant team and patient? If those of you who seem so outraged by the decision by MG Pineda and truly feel that it is ruining CAP, you are free to remove yourself from service at ANY time. But then you know that, dont you? And not many of you plan to resign, do you? If you did, you would already have done it. This is just a convenient way to let off some steam against Pineda. So, ok. You've vented. Now lets all get back to work.
Semper Vigilans.
Stop reading threads that are clearly labeled as being about this issue if you don't want to read about it anymore....
Fair Enough. And stop complaining about it unless you are going to do something about it.
I'm not wearing the tapes and don't plan to and will not be using the written form in any of my CAP work. I'm not quite a corporate officer so beyond that there isn't much I can do about it except talk about it here.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 02:26:43 AM
I'm not wearing the tapes and don't plan to and will not be using the written form in any of my CAP work. I'm not quite a corporate officer so beyond that there isn't much I can do about it except talk about it here.
And should the Constitution and Bylaws be changed? Will do wear them then...or will you resign? I give it an 80% chance that it will be revised, amended or promulgated very soon to reflect all this.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 02:26:43 AM
I'm not wearing the tapes and don't plan to and will not be using the written form in any of my CAP work. I'm not quite a corporate officer so beyond that there isn't much I can do about it except talk about it here.
Until, of course, your BDUs/BBDUs are no longer serviceable or you purchase new ones, at which time you'll order new tapes -- and guess what? They'll say "U.S. Civil Air Patrol." And you'll either wear them or you won't, but if you don't you'll be setting the wrong example to those who might look up to you -- the example of picking and choosing which regs/directives you'll follow and which you won't.
As for using the phrase in writing, well, nobody's expecting anyone to do that, as far as I know.
Jack
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 02:26:43 AM
I'm not wearing the tapes and don't plan to and will not be using the written form in any of my CAP work. I'm not quite a corporate officer so beyond that there isn't much I can do about it except talk about it here.
So you wont wear them after the mandatory wear date and thereby chose to ignore those parts of the regulations which do not suit your taste without going through proper channels to register your complaint about this matter or find out how others feel about it. How could you? Whats next? Will Emergency Services fail? Will the Hawaii Wing be sold to the Japanese? Will our ground teams wander aimlessly in the woods as they do their job? Will there be gremlins in our engines? How could you? How could you think of taking this stance and making this decision without checking with the entire membership and adhering to the bylaws and constitution of the organization to which you claim to be so loyal?
Sound familiar?
Boy, you guys sure can jump to a lot of conclusions real, real fast.
1. If they change the Constitution and Bylaws, I still won't like the idea, but at least they will have done things the right way.
2. Did I SAY I was going to wear the CAP tapes past the mandatory wear dates for the new ones?
3. If they change the CAP Constitution, I will switch to the new tapes when required to do so by CAP regulations. If they don't bother to change the CAP Constitution, I just won't wear BDUs. I've got other things I can do on missions that don't require me to participate in their violation of the constitution.
And yes, it has been strongly suggested that "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" be used in all CAP news releases.
So you are going to remove yourself from all operations which require the wear of BDUs. Hmmm. Do you think that will show them? Do you think that will put an end to this heinous abuse of power? Just out of curiosity, how many letters have you written to NHQ about your concerns that the change of the name tape subverts the very fabric of CAP? Im guessing that number is somewhere between zero and none. Come on. Do you really lay awake at night, concerned about the overthrow of CAP by those who would make miniscule changes that no one but the membership will notice? Do you ACTUALLY and HONESTLY think this is the beginning of the end of CAP as we know it? Im sorry. I know we are supposed to be nice, and kind and decorous in our public interactions with each other per the recent letter from MG Pineda, but I just have to say, lest my head explode: Get over it! Perhaps if your priorities are on the use of letters on a uniform and not for what operation that uniform will be worn then perhaps it is best if you remove yourself from operations involving the wear of the BDU. You say that this change reflects flagrant disregard for the CAP Constitution. I say that your refusal to wear a uniform article which is now mandatory wear reflects your flagrant lack of commitment to the spirit of the Civil Air Patrol.
Don't do it, RiverAux. By refusing to wear the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" branch tapes past the deadline, you're no better than general Pineda and every member of the BoG and NEC who incorrectly changed the name of CAP.
We agree on most things. I think we can agree on this, too.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 02, 2007, 03:29:26 AM
I say that your refusal to wear a uniform article which is now mandatory wear reflects your flagrant lack of commitment to the spirit of the Civil Air Patrol.
You need to back off of him and recollect yourself. You have no idea who he is. How long have you been in CAP? A few months? RiverAux has been in for years (maybe decades).
The lack of the commitment to the spirit of the CAP in this thread is on your part. When you have served a fourth of the time that RiverAux has served, then you may tactfully tell someone that they "lack the spirit". Until then, you will show RiverAux and others the respect they deserve as long serving members of CAP.
On a side note...it is not mandatory for wear until the mandatory wear date.
My apologies to the rest of the forum...it really floored me that he said that.
Moderator: Any chance for a lock?
Quote from: DeputyDog on July 02, 2007, 04:09:59 AM
Moderator: Any chance for a lock?
Hold on there, you want them to lock the thread for this...but all all the innuendo and allegation of impropriety all over the forum lacks comment.
He didn't know...leave it at that.
However, I will agree, this thread should be locked in that it has really played out and there is nearly an identical one like it.
I did know that there is a mandatory wear date and that that date has not yet past. You can clearly see this if you read my other posts completely and carefully. The mistake was an error in wording, not one of knowledge.
QuoteWill the Hawaii Wing be sold to the Japanese?
Hawaii Wing is for sale? How much to buy it? I hate winters in New York!
(http://www.elmiracap.com/images/stories/DEAD%20HORSE.jpg)
Fuzzy-
I know neither one of the those gentlemen is supposed to be me, because as you know, I have a goatee. And you owe me a keyboard.
Quote from: ColonelJackOkay, fine ... they're hypocrites. Total hypocrites. They all say one thing and then do another.
You still haven't answered my question.
Why is this issue so important to you?
Because the precedent that has been set by general Pineda, the BoG, and NEC's incorrect renaming of CAP is a horrible one and now any member can look at these people and say, "Well, they broke regulations, I guess I can too!"
Just because I'm not a member anymore doesn't mean I don't have a voice. You're not a member, and you have a voice, don't you?
Perhaps people from national are looking at this page, and I hope they are because I want them to know exactly how I feel. This is regardless of whether or not I can do anything about it. In fact, if I were a member now, I'd feel pretty reluctant to try to effect any change because general Pineda likes to 2b members he doesn't agree with.
I predict someday CAP will have a more open-minded National Commander who actually cares about the people in the organization and is open to feedback. All good things in time.
Quote from: ColonelJackYou aren't a member, and by your own words won't be one for 16 months.
That's correct, Lt Col Bagley. Come to think of it, you aren't a member, either. That pendelum swings both ways in this case.
Quote from: ColonelJackIt can't be because you don't want to buy new tapes for your BDUs.
You are correct, sir. I want to get my degree before rejoining CAP. By then, I'll have more money to sustain a membership in CAP and buy all the stuff I need.
Quote from: ColonelJackI'm really intrigued why the addition of "U.S." to "Civil Air Patrol" has caused you to become so bent out of shape.
It's not the addition of "U.S." to Civil Air Patrol that has caused me to become so bent out of shape. It's the way in which it was done. If there was ever a thing National did totally bassackwards, this is it.
Quote from: ColonelJackEither I don't get it or you're over-reacting big time here. If it's the first, please explain to me your reasons -- I would really like to know. And if it's the second, well ... use your own judgment.
Jack
I think you don't get it, sir (or maybe you do by now, I don't know). You seem to think it is the inclusion of "U.S." in Civil Air Patrol that makes me mad. It's not. It's the way in which it was brought about. No change to the U.S.C. (which requires a vote, among other things), no change to the CAP Constitution and Bylaws, just an arbitrary decision to change the name of the organization.
They just don't get it. FIRST you change the documents to reflect a change, THEN you change the name of the organization. None of this make a change first and then do the correct procedure as an afterthought.
QuoteSo you are going to remove yourself from all operations which require the wear of BDUs.
Yes, and it isn't really that big a deal. I've been primarily working at the mission base for a while anyway.
QuoteDo you think that will show them? Do you think that will put an end to this heinous abuse of power?
No, not at all and I didnt say it would. But, personal integrity means something to me.
QuoteJust out of curiosity, how many letters have you written to NHQ about your concerns that the change of the name tape subverts the very fabric of CAP?
None, chain of command also means something to me.
QuoteYou say that this change reflects flagrant disregard for the CAP Constitution. I say that your refusal to wear a uniform article which is now mandatory wear reflects your flagrant lack of commitment to the spirit of the Civil Air Patrol.
There is no requirement at all that I or any other CAP member wear the BDU uniform or participate in activities in which it is the assigned uniform. Why do you care if I let my already low participation in ground team activities drop off and devote more time to parts of the mission where I am actually more useful? I'm not asking you to do anything.
Wow.
Okay, let's see here ... "They broke regulations, so I can too." I don't want to be around when some CAP officer or cadet uses that as their excuse for doing something against regulations.
The difference between us, 12211985, is that I spent a long time in and retired. You didn't. But that's a peeing contest, and I don't want to play. Both of us can rejoin whenever we want, so let's leave that one alone.
If people from National are looking at this page, they see how you feel. They see how I feel. They see how we all feel. And chances are, they don't give a flip. They do what they do. And I'd be interested in seeing how you -- or any member -- can effect change in the first place. Your only option is voting with your feet, and like me, you're not a member now so you can't even do that.
I share your prediction about future National CCs. In fact, if things go as they currently are going, the next CC will be a person who cares about CAP and the membership. Whether General Courter will be open to feedback remains to be seen, but even if she is, I would suggest you remember one thing: once they make up their minds on this or any other issue, that's it, and you'd be best advised to drop the subject. Especially after you re-join. As Heinlein says, "The captain is right, even when he's wrong."
Thank you for answering my question. Your beef is with the way the deed was done, not the deed itself. But that makes me wonder -- the wholesale changes of wing and region commanders on what appears to be a whim ... the introduction of a new uniform that may have been an end-run around AF's prohibition of metal rank and yet has become very popular with many officers ... removal of a national vice commander under questionable circumstances ... more silliness than one can shake a stick at ... and you pick this to scream about? I find myself intrigued again, but we can spare everyone else the rest of this and take it to PM if you prefer.
I am not picking on you, and if it seems that I am, I apologize. I just think that, as someone out there has said, one needs to choose one's battles wisely. Back in ROTC in high school, my old instructor (1SG Burke) had a great line that I use today. "Is this the hill you want to die on?" You and I (and everyone else) can weigh invective at each other until the cows come home, and you know what? New BDU tapes are still going to say "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" because the deed is done and only the BoG or the next National CC can undo it. Since both the BoG and the current CV seem to have approved the change, it isn't likely to happen then, either.
Jack
I'm going crazy here.
The propriety of the method of referring to us as the U.S. Civil Air Patrol is of no consequence. None. Nada. Nichts. Nottathang.
What IS of consequence is that use of the term virtually implies that we are a stand-alone paramilitary force. We talk of the U.S. Air Force, not the U.S. Air Combat Command.
If such is the vision of the National Commander and National Board, TELL US! It is wrong t try to slip a monumental organization change in through the back door. If such is not the vision of the National Commander, then I think the decision was an incorrect one, but I can live with it.
But the explanation provided in the press release posed more questions than it answered.
QuoteOkay, let's see here ... "They broke regulations, so I can too." I don't want to be around when some CAP officer or cadet uses that as their excuse for doing something against regulations.
Where did he advocate breaking regulations? He was supporting my right to chose not to wear a uniform that I did not want to wear. That is perfectly within regulations.
By the way although there seems to be a fair contingent of people in this thread who passionately don't care about the change or like it, let me remind you that in the poll on this subject, 75/100 people did not like the change.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 01:19:20 PM
QuoteOkay, let's see here ... "They broke regulations, so I can too." I don't want to be around when some CAP officer or cadet uses that as their excuse for doing something against regulations.
Where did he advocate breaking regulations? He was supporting my right to chose not to wear a uniform that I did not want to wear. That is perfectly within regulations.
When he said this:
"Because the precedent that has been set by general Pineda, the BoG, and NEC's incorrect renaming of CAP is a horrible one and now any member can look at these people and say, "Well, they broke regulations, I guess I can too!""
I have no issue with you not wanting to wear BDUs/BBDUs. I'm no big fan of those uniforms either, preferring (when I was active in CAP) to do my work in an office setting. For missions, I had a flight suit. For work, I wore blues -- at least until I couldn't any more due to weight issues, which is why I like the corporate uniforms.
I support the individual choice to wear the uniform that makes you happy (and, of course, conforms with regulations). I just don't think "they did it so I can do it" is a good answer.
My opinion, of course.
Jack
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 01:21:17 PM
By the way although there seems to be a fair contingent of people in this thread who passionately don't care about the change or like it, let me remind you that in the poll on this subject, 75/100 people did not like the change.
You're right. And even if 100 out of 100 didn't like the change, it won't matter.
The change is made.
We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but it won't matter.
For what it may be worth, I do understand the feelings behind those who weigh against the change to U.S. Civil Air Patrol. I'm not the biggest fan of the idea either. And I understand those who say it was done the wrong way, or done in an end run, or however they wish to put it. Frankly, they're right.
But the deed is done. Until the change is rescinded, it's "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" no matter what we as individual members (or retired members) think.
And no amount of complaining, bellyaching, growling, cussing, or discussion is going to change that.
Jack
While "public opinion" within CAP has no power within the regulations, I think it does have indirect influence. I suspect that if this change had been put in a proposal and if the general membership had time to learn about it and contact those who can vote on these things that there might have been a lot more discussion before this vote was made.
You would be surprised how much public opinion matters even to decision makers who don't depend on the public for their position of authority.
Apparently this change was made in the first place because someone in Iowa got the ear of the National Commander who railroaded it through. So even a little bit of influence on the other side of the issue could do the same thing.
Do I think that 75% of CAP members overall hate this idea? No, it is probably somewhat lower than that.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 03:03:01 PM
While "public opinion" within CAP has no power within the regulations, I think it does have indirect influence. I suspect that if this change had been put in a proposal and if the general membership had time to learn about it and contact those who can vote on these things that there might have been a lot more discussion before this vote was made.
I suspect you are correct on that issue. The fact that it appeared as part of one person's agenda (or one small group of people's agenda) and was pushed through with little or no resistance tells me that time for discussion, etc., might have resulted in a different outcome.
Quote
You would be surprised how much public opinion matters even to decision makers who don't depend on the public for their position of authority.
No, it wouldn't. Very little surprises me any more. :)
Quote
Apparently this change was made in the first place because someone in Iowa got the ear of the National Commander who railroaded it through. So even a little bit of influence on the other side of the issue could do the same thing.
Probably so. But there are ways to effect change that don't make those asking for change look like whining crybabies. (Not meaning you, sir, but you get the idea I am referring to.) Right now it just seems that those who don't mind the change don't mind it -- figuring there are other things to be concerned about -- while those who don't like the change are going ballistic about it. My experience has been that the more noise you make about something that sounds like whining crybabies, the less attention will be paid to you and the less you will be taken seriously.
Rather than shout from the rooftops here, those who want to effect a change should check the regulations carefully and investigate how to propose the change they want. Then investigate how to effect that change. It beats complaining about something you can't change anyway.
Quote
Do I think that 75% of CAP members overall hate this idea? No, it is probably somewhat lower than that.
But if they want to effect change, there's a way to do it in the regs.
Jack
QuoteRight now it just seems that those who don't mind the change don't mind it -- figuring there are other things to be concerned about
There are plenty of things to be concerned about and just because this is one of the issues some of us are concerned about doesn't mean it is our only issue.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 02, 2007, 03:29:51 PM
QuoteRight now it just seems that those who don't mind the change don't mind it -- figuring there are other things to be concerned about
There are plenty of things to be concerned about and just because this is one of the issues some of us are concerned about doesn't mean it is our only issue.
It certainly seems to be the most vocal. And one of the ones which all the raised outcry in the world won't change.
I too am concerned with many things. (Some will wonder why I'm so concerned that you're so concerned.) This just doesn't rate high on my list.
But we can agree to disagree, yes?
Jack
Photo redacted - MIKE
^^ That guy is taking a picture of the horses rear end! Other than that.......for some reason that brought a laugh out of me today! Thanks!
I do not support the needless beating of dead horses.....nor do I support attaching signs to said dead horses. I love animals.........mostly (except the kind that can eat me).
Oh please delete that phot. Do you realize it could be seen by young cadets and scar them for life. We must protect the cadets from the real world.
Quote from: BillB on July 02, 2007, 08:19:45 PM
Oh please delete that phot. Do you realize it could be seen by young cadets and scar them for life. We must protect the cadets from the real world.
Ummm....Toto, our cadets aren't from Kansas. This photo will have no affect on them.
Quote from: BillB on July 02, 2007, 08:19:45 PM
Oh please delete that phot. Do you realize it could be seen by young cadets and scar them for life. We must protect the cadets from the real world.
From Wikipedia...
QuoteAn equestrian (Latin eques, plural equites - also known as a vir egregius, lit. "excellent man" from the 2nd century AD onwards) was a member of one of the two upper social classes in the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire. This social class is often translated as "knight" or "chevalier" (French). However, this translation is not literal, since medieval knights relied on their martial skills, the physical power of their horse and armour to support their position, while the connection of Roman equestrians to horses had become more symbolic even in the early days of the Republic. The social position of medieval knights and Roman equestrians, however, was extremely alike, equestrians being the nearest Roman equivalent to Medieval nobility, the Roman tax farming system shared many similarities with medieval feudalism without actually being identical, due to inherent differences in the social structure and the level of central government.
The equites were the Roman middle class between the upper class of patricians and the lower class of plebs. The distinguishing mark of the equestrian class was a gold ring (that of the patrician was of iron) and narrow black band on the tunic.
Anyone own a horse in here. We used to have one...he stuck to us like glue.
Oh come on!!! People see worse on PBS, ABC, CNN and FOX.....
I've owned 5 horses, will be buying a couple more in the next few years...
They do taste great grilled, but I too would rather not beat them when they are dead!
Quote from: 2d Lt <NOT SO> Fat but FUZZY on July 02, 2007, 09:52:03 PM
Oh come on!!! People see worse on PBS, ABC, CNN and FOX.....
I've owned 5 horses, will be buying a couple more in the next few years...
They do taste great grilled, but I too would rather not beat them when they are dead!
Tender
Pferdefleisch ist wunderbar!!!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 02, 2007, 01:13:37 PM
What IS of consequence is that use of the term virtually implies that we are a stand-alone paramilitary force. We talk of the U.S. Air Force, not the U.S. Air Combat Command.
This could also be another example of the 'Corporate' vs. 'Auxiliary' point of view.
This occurred to me while watching
Godfather II yesterday -- Hyman Roth, discussing the success of The Mob's gambling operations in Havana, remarks to Michael Corleone, "We're bigger than
U.S. Steel!!!
Oh wait I need to make him fat and fuzzy!!!
(http://www.elmiracap.com/images/stories//news%20items/stone.jpg)
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 02, 2007, 10:06:57 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 02, 2007, 01:13:37 PM
What IS of consequence is that use of the term virtually implies that we are a stand-alone paramilitary force. We talk of the U.S. Air Force, not the U.S. Air Combat Command.
This could also be another example of the 'Corporate' vs. 'Auxiliary' point of view.
This occurred to me while watching Godfather II yesterday -- Hyman Roth, discussing the success of The Mob's gambling operations in Havana, remarks to Michael Corleone, "We're bigger than U.S. Steel!!!
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/graphics/photos/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/the_godfather/Hyram-Roth-&-M-Corleone200.jpg)
ZigZag911, please... "your father did business with Hyman Roth, your father respected Hyman Roth, but your father never trusted Hyman Roth." ;)
OK... my point ....
(http://www.elmiracap.com/images/stories//news%20items/stoneFF.jpg)
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 02, 2007, 10:19:43 PM
ZigZag911, please... "your father did business with Hyman Roth, your father respected Hyman Roth, but your father never trusted Hyman Roth." ;)
I'm simply pointing out that "US" has corporate applications as well as military ones.
Quote from: 2d Lt <NOT SO> Fat but FUZZY on July 02, 2007, 10:20:09 PM
OK... my point ....
(http://www.elmiracap.com/images/stories//news%20items/stoneFF.jpg)
OK, now this one looks a bit...obscene. LOL
Quote from: 2d Lt <NOT SO> Fat but FUZZY on July 02, 2007, 10:20:09 PM
OK... my point ....
(http://www.elmiracap.com/images/stories//news%20items/stoneFF.jpg)
That actually looks a bit like Conservative Radio Talkshow host, Michael Savage!!!
(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/07/08-inside-savage.jpg)
(http://img59.echo.cx/img59/324/mred7vj.jpg)
Quote from: 2d Lt <NOT SO> Fat but FUZZY on July 02, 2007, 10:34:54 PM
(http://img59.echo.cx/img59/324/mred7vj.jpg)
"Well, listen to this...I AM MR. ED!!!"
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 02, 2007, 10:30:47 PM
Quote from: 2d Lt <NOT SO> Fat but FUZZY on July 02, 2007, 10:20:09 PM
OK... my point ....
(http://www.elmiracap.com/images/stories//news%20items/stoneFF.jpg)
That actually looks a bit like Conservative Radio Talkshow host, Michael Savage!!!
(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/07/08-inside-savage.jpg)
Great... guess who's gonna be called a sodomite on the next airing of the Michael Savage show?!? (http://forums.cadetstuff.org/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif)
By the way... he's not conservative. He's a right wing extremist. I'm conservative and I know that.