Given all the discussion about fuzzies around here...

Pacifists can serve, usually as a CO.  They will be put in non combat positions.  many Mennonites serve this way.

It doesn't often happen, though. 

I have a Mennonite background a couple of generations back (my grandmother).  During Korea my uncle did alternative non-uniformed civilian service in a VA hospital.

Most Mennonites will not wear the uniform, nor will they do anything that they believe in their consicence to be assisting the "war machine."  Some are more vocal about it than others; some will register for Selective Service as CO but others refuse to register entirely.

I haven't yet run across any Mennonites in CAP, so I don't know how they would view it.  Some of my relatives thought our mission was a good thing but they didn't like the Air Force connections, nor the "indoctrinating children" of the cadet program.

I do understand self indulgence.  I do understand basic hygiene.  I do understand being that special little ray of sunshine your mother told you could be. I do understand folks in my generation growing that beard for that second and third chin. I do understand agencies with no spine in dealing with arrogance and political correctness in their ranks.  I do understand wasted time and efforts dealing with the public and political reps because of those little rays of sunshine.

Most folks are too polite to tell you when you look squirrelly regardless of the uniform or dress.  The perceptions of people from appearance is critical in certain situations.  Competence must be built up in people caught in ES and Disaster situations.  We don't need to look like we can't dress our selves properly.  Dressing properly doesn't apply to just uniforms, it also applies to those wearing suits and ties.  When I'm at the courthouse, folks expect to see me in a proper suit, white shirt and tie.  It is simply a show of respect.  And when I have to deal with a judge with a beard and pony tail, I start drawing conclusions about his politics, judicial ability, allegiances to the law, and arrogance towards people.  Usually, my experience shows I'm right.  When I'm at CAP, I wear the appropriate uniform for the activity.  It is simply a show of respect.
73s

Brig. Gen. Robin Olds, one of the best fighter pilots of the Vietnam war, famously sported an extravagant handlebar mustache.

Just sayin'.

Good point, I do understand self indulgence.   
73s

I see the pony tails on uniform NOAA, USPHS, CAP and other agencies in uniform.

NOAA and USPHS?

Do you mean their non-uniformed components?

The NOAA Commissioned Corps and USPHS uniformed side (who often provide medical care for the Coast Guard) wear slightly modified Navy uniforms and have to meet those grooming standards.

I've seen Canadian naval officers with beards...probably goes back to their Royal Navy traditions...

http://tinyurl.com/RCNadmiral

...but never any in the U.S. uniformed services.

Unfornatually, I get to see and deal with'em all the time with eoc ops.  Still looks like my generation's hippies who just had to have a job. 
73s

And when I have to deal with a judge with a beard and pony tail, I start drawing conclusions about his politics, judicial ability, allegiances to the law, and arrogance towards people.

Sure hope you can hide your feelings toward the judge.  I never knew that you could tell a person's allegiance to the law just by looking at their beard and pony tail.  That must be a really useful ability - you could make a ton of money working for TSA at airports.  Good thing you were born in the 1900s and not the 1800s.

And when I have to deal with a judge with a beard and pony tail, I start drawing conclusions about his politics, judicial ability, allegiances to the law, and arrogance towards people.

Those be the dirty liberal hippies, right?

If I could refer everyone, once again, to the CAP Core Values:

Integrity
Volunteer Service
Excellence
Respect

Please consider your statements regarding your fellow CAP members in light of your and their situations in regard to the CAP Core Values.

That is all.


Thom

Unfornatually, I get to see and deal with'em all the time with eoc ops. 

  Equal opportunity commission? 

USAFaux2004, three words, perception, perception, perception... That is all..

So....who's perception do we use to set the standards?

My father used to believe all body builders were gay.  So do we use his perception?  Cherokeepilot thinks that the longer the facial hair the worse the individual.

I agree that perception is important.....but as will all things.....only to a point.

As I asked before.....at one time there was a real military reason for no beards and short hair in the military.  Cleanliness, loss of individuality, gas mask seal, etc.  There is also the affects of social norms....what the society that is paying us (those of us who are serving or have served) expects us to look like.

Again I accept that perception is important.

But where do we draw the line?

If a ZZtop beard tucked into you pants is a bad image....but the good dentist with his nicely trimmed beard is not (or at least on the acceptable side of bad) where between 1/4 inch and 20" is the line?  And what specifically are the driving factors that set that line?

 

Gentlemen all...........

I've never bothered to hide my issues from anyone in the courthouse much less any judge.  If they look squirrelly, then their logic and decisions will usually be equally squirrelly. I expect to see beards on folks dealing in harsh wx  or related jobs. Up until the past few years, I expected to see recent police academy grads wearing mustaches that looked like they had been issued with their badges.  I expect to see rock stars of my generation wearing long gray beards.  I expect to see a gentlemen of the Sikh religion to wear a beard.  And apparently the US Army has the same expectation. 

One of the general goals of CAP is to be accepted by other agencies as an equal professional, but unpaid volunteer agency.  If you want to be viewed as a professional then look and act as a professional.  The public and other agencies do have certain expectations.  Either we meet these expectation levels or we do not.  I'm not trying to be unpleasant, but we have only ourselves to blame if we fail.

73s

Fail to do the mission....or fail to look like we can do the mission?

That is the question.

Technical competance is just as important as image.....more so in my book.  Again appearance IS important.....I don't disagree.  Getting the mission done is the primary goal.

Fail to do the mission....or fail to look like we can do the mission?

That is the question.

Before you have the opportunity to fail a mission, you actually have to get a mission. 

This is an increasing problem for our organization.  This is also where perception becomes increasingly important.  And like it or not, we only get one chance to make a first impression.  In our case, we need all the help we can get.

I find it odd that there in the counterargument to grooming standards is almost this underlying suggestion that those adhering to grooming standards are necessarily incompetent.  Afterall, the consistent, fallacious counterargument implies that we fail the mission if we don't have these people with beards or long hair along to participate.  While I agree that getting the mission done is the primary goal, this counterargument is just nonsensical.

Just sayin'...

Folks.............
I'm not really trying to beat up on anyone nor am I starting a fight.  However, I am part of the government that evaluates agencies in training and response.  There is a trend to outsource everything that the government usually performed.  Search and rescue is becoming a for profit business. 

For CAP to do its flyn' airsearch and rescue, CAP has to be asked.  Just because we are sittin' by the phone doesn't mean that we are going to be called.  Even the USAF has abrogated some of these issues to other agencies.  Remember that all agencies are out there competing for the tax dollar.  The USCG and USAF rescue duties may eventually be farmed out to for profit corporations.  This trend is already occurring with some of our NATO allies.  If you are rescued in certain parts of the world, your employer or you are gonna' have to come up with big bucks. 


I just want CAP to have its place in SAR and Disaster response.

73s

Before you have the opportunity to fail a mission, you actually have to get a mission. 

This is an increasing problem for our organization.  This is also where perception becomes increasingly important.  And like it or not, we only get one chance to make a first impression.  In our case, we need all the help we can get.

I find it odd that there in the counterargument to grooming standards is almost this underlying suggestion that those adhering to grooming standards are necessarily incompetent.  Afterall, the consistent, fallacious counterargument implies that we fail the mission if we don't have these people with beards or long hair along to participate.  While I agree that getting the mission done is the primary goal, this counterargument is just nonsensical.

Just sayin'...

Well that is the point....but the argument that beared people are incompetent and the counter argument are nonsense.

Yes apearances are important.....not denying that at all.....but we need to keep it in perspective.

On the larger issue....I am trying to spark some discussion into how and why we set the standards we do.

Clean and pressed uniforms with well maintained foot ware helps present a professional image.  It shows that you care enough about your uniform that you MAY care about your training and your execution of your mission.

Maintaining your grooming standards may show that you care about yourself, your gear and your training.

But beards or no beards.....as opposed to a nasty dirty birds nest  under your mouth and a nicely groomed beard....there is a big difference....it is a specturm of options not a one or the other.

Now on to my original point....if we give waivers due to religious considerations....why not personal preference?

Given the basic parameters of meeting the mission goals, safety and basic professionalism.....If we let the good dentist wear his beard why not Joe Blow the infantry man?...or the dental technican working for the Dentist?

Why do religious considerations trump what ever the military's goals are for grooming standards?

Remember that all agencies are out there competing for the tax dollar.  The USCG and USAF rescue duties may eventually be farmed out to for profit corporations.  This trend is already occurring with some of our NATO allies.  If you are rescued in certain parts of the world, your employer or you are gonna' have to come up with big bucks. 

  Certain parts of the world does not mean in the US.  This is really not a country that will watch a person die on the side of a mountain just because they can't pay for the rescue or let a 5 year old child disappear into the woods because the parents can't afford to pay for an expensive search.

You can not compare the cost of CAP to the USCG or the USAF.  We are so cheap there is no way a private for profit company can do it cheaper.  Just ask the company that was doing the Surrogate Predator missions.

Well..............
we need to be making the point to the governments.....local, state & fed.  Part of the problem is that there is no mandatory gateway for SAR nor Disaster work.  Also, the Federal gov is encouraging development of for profit corporations involvement in SAR.  These corporations come to the table with the right aircraft, personnel, political connections all at a fixed cost.  I've seen some of the outfits in some state ops, mostly using foreign registered aircraft, and if I were younger, I'd get into the business in a heart-beat.

The cost problem of CAP lies with the fairly large amount of aircraft inventoried and the cost of acquisition and maintenance with the cost of training and pilot pro.  CAP is not really encouraging participation of members who have their own aircraft.  I'm not going to go into great detail since that issue is a different discussion for a different day. 

We the members have to do the right things to make certain when those agencies look us over.......they see good reasons to use the CAP


73s

Please answer three questions:
1.  Which federal agency is encouraging for profit corporations to become involved in SAR?
2.  What corporations have submitted proposals?
3.  Which outfits have been involved in which state ops - should be easy since you have seen them.

Please answer three questions:
1.  Which federal agency is encouraging for profit corporations to become involved in SAR?
2.  What corporations have submitted proposals?
3.  Which outfits have been involved in which state ops - should be easy since you have seen them.

Hey, gang, how did we get from talking our barbate buddies to the quoted post?

Hey, gang, how did we get from talking our barbate buddies to the quoted post?

Still looking for a definition of "barbate".  However, the premise was that our fuzzy compatriots were so unprofessional looking that we would end up being replaced.  In fact, the government was looking for "for profit" companies to replace us in the SAR mission already because they could do it much cheaper than we can.