My doctor has told me to quit reading "Volunteer."

[capchiro]

Well, having been a PAO back when we used Brownies, I enjoy the Volunteer and am not too critical because not many outside of CAP read it or even see it.  The one thing I do miss are the advertizements from the old CAP Times that used to actually apply to us as individuals and the squadron.  I also miss the CAP Supply and the neat prices and stuff we could purchase, like a pallet of MRE's for $500.., even though shipping was close to that, it was still a bargain, but I digress..

[alamrcn]

Look at this mess...



What was the PAO thinking?!!

Several helmet chin straps are not fastened, and one guy is wearing his patrol cap under his helmet while another guy is just wearing a patrol cap. The guy with a cigarette in his hand <OMG!> hasn't shaved in what looks like two days. There are several shirts or jackets that are not fully buttoned, and I see only ONE guy with his pants properly bloused over his boots. And speaking of boots... HOLY CRAP are they ALL filthy!

This picture should have never made it to print and public view. How could a group of men like this with such direguard to their appearance in uniform possibly accomplish their mission?! I'm so disgusted...

-Ace

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yeah...

And only a 48-star flag!

[arajca]

Look at this mess...



What was the PAO thinking?!!

Several helmet chin straps are not fastened, and one guy is wearing his patrol cap under his helmet while another guy is just wearing a patrol cap. The guy with a cigarette in his hand <OMG!> hasn't shaved in what looks like two days. There are several shirts or jackets that are not fully buttoned, and I see only ONE guy with his pants properly bloused over his boots. And speaking of boots... HOLY CRAP are they ALL filthy!

This picture should have never made it to print and public view. How could a group of men like this with such direguard to their appearance in uniform possibly accomplish their mission?! I'm so disgusted...

-Ace

How about comparing apples to apples instead of oranges. The issues brought up here are NOT from combat related pictures taken 40+years ago in a highly stressed environment. They're from staged pictures (generally) in rear areas with plenty of time to make sure uniforms are proper.

[Smithsonia]

Among a bunch of other things I do... I teach both military history and military PA. In this endeavor, I teach Field Command Communications, Morale, and Respect. Curtis LeMay, George Patton, and Napoleon were all called down, put in their place, humbled, beat up, etc. By not recognizing the fact that what works in the field and on the parade grounds may be different. "Get your muddy "darn" boots off my nice clean desk" is part of a series of lectures about the natural antagonisms which occur between "field ops v office ops" to understand this is a Senior Level (Colonel to one star) course. Variations are taught at the Naval War College and Army General Officers Staff College. BUT, apparently not in CAP. Or at least to some of the members of this thread. On the line you don't salute (Officers get killed by snipers) in Subs you don't salute (not enough room and you'll catch the next guy's nose with your elbow) AND you don't do field uniform inspections during ops -- equipment inspection, but not uniform inspections. Unless you're trying to find out if some one needs something like replacement boots or BDs. OR, Unless something really big is going on.
General Patton assuming Command in North Africa had good reason to dress down men for not wearing ties at mess for instance, that made sense at the time. That was a garrison inspection not a field inspection. And, he didn't conduct a field uniform inspection as they marched headlong to relieve Bastone.

Screw this one up as a Commander and you'll be typed as a Martinette by your cadre. Martinettes are not good leaders, by in large. Martinettes are not respected but their troops. Martinettes serve no purpose but comedy relief. CAP Officers have the same issues. PAOs should know the differences. I'm not suggesting that the Military and CAP are identical - Shiny boots will get you killed in combat but we seldom face the problem in CAP. To that point the new Air Force Green Boots won't even take a shine. The Military is doing this for a reason. The reasons are part of the lecture series that I do... SO, common sense should prevail. PA Officers be advised -- Field Ops and Parade Grounds Dress Reviews are different places and have a different "code" of conduct and uniform considerations.
With regards;
Ed O'Brien

[Bluelakes 13]

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Now THAT is classic!

[MIKE]

If I were a non-member, I would NEVER join an outfit where old men fly less-than-attractive college girls around to count birds.  I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Now THAT is classic!

Auxie.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Among a bunch of other things I do... I teach both military history and military PA. In this endeavor, I teach Field Command Communications, Morale, and Respect. Curtis LeMay, George Patton, and Napoleon were all called down, put in their place, humbled, beat up, etc. By not recognizing the fact that what works in the field and on the parade grounds may be different. "Get your muddy "darn" boots off my nice clean desk" is part of a series of lectures about the natural antagonisms which occur between "field ops v office ops" to understand this is a Senior Level (Colonel to one star) course. Variations are taught at the Naval War College and Army General Officers Staff College. BUT, apparently not in CAP. Or at least to some of the members of this thread. On the line you don't salute (Officers get killed by snipers) in Subs you don't salute (not enough room and you'll catch the next guy's nose with your elbow) AND you don't do field uniform inspections during ops -- equipment inspection, but not uniform inspections. Unless you're trying to find out if some one needs something like replacement boots or BDs. OR, Unless something really big is going on.
General Patton assuming Command in North Africa had good reason to dress down men for not wearing ties at mess for instance, that made sense at the time. That was a garrison inspection not a field inspection. And, he didn't conduct a field uniform inspection as they marched headlong to relieve Bastone.

Screw this one up as a Commander and you'll be typed as a Martinette by your cadre. Martinettes are not good leaders, by in large. Martinettes are not respected but their troops. Martinettes serve no purpose but comedy relief. CAP Officers have the same issues. PAOs should know the differences. I'm not suggesting that the Military and CAP are identical - Shiny boots will get you killed in combat but we seldom face the problem in CAP. To that point the new Air Force Green Boots won't even take a shine. The Military is doing this for a reason. The reasons are part of the lecture series that I do... SO, common sense should prevail. PA Officers be advised -- Field Ops and Parade Grounds Dress Reviews are different places and have a different "code" of conduct and uniform considerations.
With regards;
Ed O'Brien

Ed:

With the admonition that I don't want this to degenerate into a training/historical review, your points are well-taken.

Patton in North Africa took over an army that had been demoralized from a stunning defeat at the Kasserine Pass, and whose discipline and morale were in the toilet.  His emphasis on uniform appearance, military courtesy, timeliness, and generally-improved soldierly conduct was to re-create in the minds of the officers and troops that they WERE soldiers, and soldiers who look and act like soldiers can win.

My beef, as it were, with Volunteer is that the editor needs to be a little smarter about presenting CAP in its own showcase publication.  As I said, the PAO is the organization's lawyer in the Court of Public Opinion.  No lawyer would let his client appear in court looking like a bum, but that is exactly how CAP members appear in Volunteer.

The other issue I have is the general lack of newsworthy photos in the magazine.  Posed group shots and grip-and-grins are the mark of amateur publications.

[capchiro]

John, While I agree with you almost all of the time and do so with some of the issues here, I think that you are overlooking the fact that most of our photos are taken by amateurs and reflect same.  We also need to face the fact that a lot of the shakers and movers in this organization are old has beens that are still making history, but they now have gray hair, fat bellies, and wrinkles.  It hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when the sow's ear does the brunt of the work.  I fit in there somewhere (sow's ear, not history making)..  Cessna 172's aren't F-16's but they get our job done.  It's a dilemma.  Do we stage all of the photo's with young guys in tight flight suits or do we show the true story??  It wouldn't be fair to the hard working characters involved not to show them and their story.  Unfortunately we don't have enough Rock Polermo's to go around..

[Eclipse]

This isn't a dilemma.

NHQ should issue rules and guidelines for submission which include uniform and regulation violations.

As it is today it appears they accept online articles with very little editing or filter, including poor grammar, incorrect abbreviations and terminology, and bizarre spacing layouts.

If enough "great" photos are bounced back, with comment or explanation, eventually people will get the idea and submit better photos, and/or stop submitting bad ones.

Either way the goal is achieved.

At least in the old days of the CAP News back page, there were regularly notes about photos being inappropriate for training, etc., because of safety or regulation violations (despite them being great photos).

If you encourage bad behavior, what you get is more bad behavior.  And don't think that members all over the country don't use the Volunteer pics to justify their own uniform infractions when it suits them "Well, if it's in the CAP mag, it must be ok..."

[JohnKachenmeister]

John, While I agree with you almost all of the time and do so with some of the issues here, I think that you are overlooking the fact that most of our photos are taken by amateurs and reflect same.  We also need to face the fact that a lot of the shakers and movers in this organization are old has beens that are still making history, but they now have gray hair, fat bellies, and wrinkles.  It hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, especially when the sow's ear does the brunt of the work.  I fit in there somewhere (sow's ear, not history making)..  Cessna 172's aren't F-16's but they get our job done.  It's a dilemma.  Do we stage all of the photo's with young guys in tight flight suits or do we show the true story??  It wouldn't be fair to the hard working characters involved not to show them and their story.  Unfortunately we don't have enough Rock Polermo's to go around..

I feel your pain.

And... your pain is NOT limited to the CAP.

In the Army I would constantly be sent photos that were flat unusable.  Fat guys, uniform violations, safety violations.  I got a pic from a battalion whose mess sergeant was getting some kind of award.  The pic they sent me was one of the sergeant filling an immersion heater with gasoline with a cigarette in his mouth.  Just because that what I was sent does not mean that's what I publish.

There are things you, as the editor can do to fix it.  Things like sending out training letters to your stringers, sending photos back, calling the submitter and telling him to submit a righteous photo.  Whatever happened to the age-old editor's tool of creatively cropping the photo?

I had a guy, pilot, thousands of hours, who insisted on wearing the AF flight suit even though he was a good 75 pounds over the maximum weight.  And, he looked every ounce of it... all fat, no muscle.  The pic I sent in to the newspapers when he got promoted was a shot of him checking the oil in a C-172 before flight, shot from across the cowl.  No gut, no problem!

If guys are smart enough to fly airplanes, they're smart enough to figure out little dodges like that that help our organization look good. 

[RiverAux]

Excerpts from the submission guidelines for the Volunteer: http://www.cap.gov/visitors/members/public_affairs/civil_air_patrol_volunteer_submission_guidelines/?preview=1

If a person is mentioned in the story, please provide a photo. Action is preferred but headshots are acceptable.

Public Affairs will carefully review all photos for uniform compliance; however, since this is a requirement in order for a photo to be used, writers are encouraged to provide several photos to pick from.

[Smithsonia]

John;
Is a PAO a lawyer? In defense of his client will a lawyer lie (exaggerate). As a PAO, I don't recommend it. My point is, that's a bad simile/metaphor.

Try this one on. In the middle of an action shot and during a real Red-Cap I pull three or 4 members out of a pic because I notice uniform gigs, or they look old, fat, or have crooked teeth. Yes, I can artfully shoot around a couple of problems... but to a point, I can't take care of everything. I also don't think it good to pull people off duty to stage a pic either. I don't thinks it's right to stage or recreate action except when so unidentified. .

"Volunteer" is a house organ, not a newspaper. I don't have a problem with that and understand the difference. But intellectual honesty and factual accuracy is part of a house organ too.

With regards; ED OBRIEN

[RRLE]

I'd join the Coast Guard Auxiliary where they at least count bikinis and match them up with the number of life jackets.

Bikinis are too commonplace - so they made it more challenging - they count thongs.

BTW - you wouldn't be any happier in the Aux with their national magazine the Navigator. On another board, the Auxies have fun tearing apart each new issue as it comes out, just as you are doing here.

New Navigator Winter Issue 2007-08

2007 Summer Navigator

Fall 2007 Navigator available

[RiverAux]

Yep, we do a lot of looking for uniform violations with that one also, but I was very happy when CAP started publishing the Volunteer as it was finally catching up with what the Navigator had been doing for years (though the Navigator does occassionally waste some pages on "articles" from various national leaders).   

[JohnKachenmeister]

John;
Is a PAO a lawyer? In defense of his client will a lawyer lie (exaggerate). As a PAO, I don't recommend it. My point is, that's a bad simile/metaphor.

Try this one on. In the middle of an action shot and during a real Red-Cap I pull three or 4 members out of a pic because I notice uniform gigs, or they look old, fat, or have crooked teeth. Yes, I can artfully shoot around a couple of problems... but to a point, I can't take care of everything. I also don't think it good to pull people off duty to stage a pic either. I don't thinks it's right to stage or recreate action except when so unidentified. .

"Volunteer" is a house organ, not a newspaper. I don't have a problem with that and understand the difference. But intellectual honesty and factual accuracy is part of a house organ too.

With regards; ED OBRIEN

Actually, Ed, I got that comparison at DINFOS in 1984.  (PAOC 2-84).  I don't think it referred to the worst that a lawyer could be, it was a reference to the role of representing your organization as an advocate.  That's what is supposed to separate PA types from "Journalists," who are supposed to report without advocacy, but lately real journalists are as hard to find as Nazis in Germany in 1946.

My solution to your dilemma?  Take tons of shots of the action and hope for the best.  I would use a GOOD, real action shot of REDCAP activity, even if there were some minor uniform violations.

In the case of Volunteer, the uniform violation wasn't minor... you just cannot wear a beard and the USAF uniform at the same time...and the shot was posed... no "action" at all.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Look at this mess...



What was the PAO thinking?!!

Several helmet chin straps are not fastened, and one guy is wearing his patrol cap under his helmet while another guy is just wearing a patrol cap. The guy with a cigarette in his hand <OMG!> hasn't shaved in what looks like two days. There are several shirts or jackets that are not fully buttoned, and I see only ONE guy with his pants properly bloused over his boots. And speaking of boots... HOLY CRAP are they ALL filthy!

This picture should have never made it to print and public view. How could a group of men like this with such direguard to their appearance in uniform possibly accomplish their mission?! I'm so disgusted...

-Ace

I get your point, Ace.  I think your point is absurd, but I get it.

In combat a LOT of guys from WWII (The picture looks like Korea, but a lot of WWII vets and equipment found their way there) would unsnap their helmet.  This was to prevent the concussion of an artillery shell getting trapped under their helmet and breaking the soldier's neck.  Later, we developed breakaway chinstraps, but it was a while before soldiers trusted them.

Yes, they are dirty, unshaven, and wearing their uniforms and equipment in ways that would not be acceptable on the parade ground.

And even after several days in combat, they ALL have less of a beard and look sharper than Lieutenant Fuzzface in Volunteer. 

[mikeylikey]

Is that one soldier......stepping on a dead dog?

[RiverAux]

Should the Volunteer not have run the 1943 CAP photograph on p.39 since there several different styles of uniform being worn at the same time
1.  Civilian suit and tie
2.  Khaki shirt and pants with possible black belt buckle
3.  Khaki shirt and pants with silver buckle
4.  Khaki Service coat with black tie
5.  Khaki Service coat with khaki tie
6.  Blue/Black Service coat

Somebody is probably wrong somewhere....

Plus one guy has his flight cap tucked in his belt on his right side and another has it tucked in the belt on left side.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Should the Volunteer not have run the 1943 CAP photograph on p.39 since there several different styles of uniform being worn at the same time
1.  Civilian suit and tie
2.  Khaki shirt and pants with possible black belt buckle
3.  Khaki shirt and pants with silver buckle
4.  Khaki Service coat with black tie
5.  Khaki Service coat with khaki tie
6.  Blue/Black Service coat

Somebody is probably wrong somewhere....

Plus one guy has his flight cap tucked in his belt on his right side and another has it tucked in the belt on left side.

Why would you think someone is wrong?

In 1943, the CAP had just transitioned to Army uniforms, and in all likelihood was struggling along with the rest of the military to keep up the logistical support of an army expanding to unprecedented size.  What the uniform of the day was, whether or not it was during a uniform transition period, how long it took to get new members into uniform, are all factors that we don't know.  These are factors that add to the richness of our heritage in that we overcame logistical roadblocks and still achieved success in flight operations.

And this relates to a member wearing a beard with an Air Force uniform, refusing to comply with regulations... how?

The editor's decision to run that photo was just flat wrong. 

I think that nit-picking uniform violations is counterproductive.  We can always find some.  But obvious, apparent and flagrant disregard of both regulations and common sense should be picked up by the editor and spiked.

IF, for example, the only violation in that photo was the fact that one officre was wearing bright rank on his ball cap, I could live with that error.  There is a point, though, that the appearance of your folks in the picture is SO BAD that it reflects poorly on the professionalism of the organization.

Like I said earlier, we should strive for Steve Canyon, and keep "Larry the Cable Guy" hidden in a closet.