Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 18, 2019, 10:23:17 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: New CAPR 39-2 Civil Air Patrol Membership
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: New CAPR 39-2 Civil Air Patrol Membership  (Read 17146 times)
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,720

« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2011, 01:26:28 AM »

Took about 8 months for my wife to get her replacement card.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2011, 01:47:12 PM »

I have to say that I agree with stricter ID proof for new members. I also haven't read anything here of anyone having experience with a non-eligible person trying to join. I had a bunch of kids wanting to join a new flight we were starting up at school. I had one very motivated kid whom I knew was illegal (he told me) and had to tell him he couldn't join due to lack of legal status. Granted, he didn't try to falsify anything, but there were 2 other cadets who joined where I had suspicion of illegality but had no proof. So I support the new reg. I don't see that it will cause any changes in the number of new recruits, senior or cadet.

I actually find this funny because foreigners are allowed to join the US military itself, but they still go through a rigorous background check, MEPS, etc.  It does not automatically grant them citizenship but they can serve in the US military.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Did this change?  Either way, CAP is voluntary, not employment, so.... what's the big deal?  Cadets and even Seniors are paying to serve.  If the background check clears, then let them.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2011, 01:50:34 PM »

Here's Column B:

1. Driverís license or ID card issued by a State or outlying possession of the United States provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address
2. ID card issued by federal, state or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address
3. School ID Card with a photograph
4. Voterís registration card
5. U.S. Military card or draft record
6. Military dependentís ID card
7. U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card
8. Native American tribal document
9. Driverís license issued by a Canadian government authority
10. School record or report card
11. Clinic, doctor, or hospital record
12. Day-care or nursery school record


The bold items are the most likely ones available for cadets. This ain't brain science. Y'all seem to be making this way more complicated than it really is.

Couple any of these with a SS card or birth certificate, and the requirement is satisfied.

I read somewhere else that some units have many home school cadets who join.  This seems great but in those cases are items 3 and 10 covered by a computer printout from the home computer?  If not, what if they don't have a clinic, etc?  Just wondering... would items 3 & 10 technically be covered by the guardian?  Would you want it notarized?  *shrug*
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2011, 04:20:50 PM »

A background check for someone who is fraudulently identifying themselves is useless.

If you're an RSO, convicted of a felony, an illegal alien, or worse, someone with nefarious intent against the government, you would be inclined to falsify documents to gain membership.

I don't think it is asking to much for us to know to whom we are entrusting aircraft which cost several hundred thousand dollars, the safety of cadets in their care, thousands of dollars of computer equipment, or information which may be of a sensitive nature.

Though the conspiracy theorists will shouts "privacy!", it is not applicable in this case, and I can't think of a single legitimate reason why anyone who is eligible for membership would want to hide their identity.

Further, at least on AFAMs, we are pseudo-employees of the USAF, which is why we are afforded FECA and FTCA (I know, I know, it's more complicated than that, etc.).
Report to moderator   Logged


Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2011, 04:24:29 PM »

I read somewhere else that some units have many home school cadets who join.  This seems great but in those cases are items 3 and 10 covered by a computer printout from the home computer?  If not, what if they don't have a clinic, etc?  Just wondering... would items 3 & 10 technically be covered by the guardian?  Would you want it notarized?

These are situations where an exception might be made after more extensive investigation by the wing.

The list of documents provides the "quick and done" avenue for identification.  There are other means, which take longer, but are possible, assuming both sides are willing to have the conversation.  People who have chosen to live outside the normalities of "the system", are used
to this, and will either comply, or they won't.  If they won't, they probably aren't good candidates for C AP membership anyway.

Report to moderator   Logged


cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2011, 05:19:28 PM »

A background check for someone who is fraudulently identifying themselves is useless.

If you're an RSO, convicted of a felony, an illegal alien, or worse, someone with nefarious intent against the government, you would be inclined to falsify documents to gain membership.


You do know that the FBI does those checks, right?  Also, the identity is additionally verified by local law enforcement when the member goes in to get fingerprinted.  If anything was false it should appear.  So, are you saying that in your opinion this additional check is needed because the current process is not good enough?  Don't forget that those who would try to defraud you may defraud those verification documents too, so I'm not sure what the  point would be then UNLESS CAP Admin and personnel officers are now going to be trained experts with high tech detection equipment.  That would be a neat Specialty Track but highly unnecessary.  I just want to know what the real reason is.  Meaning, if the background checks are not up to a real standard, why?  If they are, then stop saying they are not.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 05:23:27 PM by cust0s » Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #46 on: August 07, 2011, 05:32:09 PM »

I read somewhere else that some units have many home school cadets who join.  This seems great but in those cases are items 3 and 10 covered by a computer printout from the home computer?  If not, what if they don't have a clinic, etc?  Just wondering... would items 3 & 10 technically be covered by the guardian?  Would you want it notarized?

These are situations where an exception might be made after more extensive investigation by the wing.

The list of documents provides the "quick and done" avenue for identification.  There are other means, which take longer, but are possible, assuming both sides are willing to have the conversation.  People who have chosen to live outside the normalities of "the system", are used
to this, and will either comply, or they won't.  If they won't, they probably aren't good candidates for C AP membership anyway.

Normalities?  What is normal?  First of all, "normalities" is not even a proper word, but if you're trying to define "social norms", well, in this context homeschooling is more of an increasing "norm" for most students in a few states. At the very least many parents are also starting to augment public or private school with additional home schooling.  So I would not say that people who chose to home-school are outside any "norm."  It's an increasing trend and we should be mindful of those folks in this situation.  They'll still have access to other records if not their own.

As for expecting them to "comply" well, in this example they are producing copies of the records they would have available, so if they gave you those documents, with or without a "waiver" being requested and subsequently granted, well, did they not just comply per the instructions?  What more could you ask for?  I could see this easily being resolved with an optional state I.D. that most people can get from the local DMV prior to being eligible to drive (e.g. ID but no driving privileges).  If they can afford cadet membership then they could also afford one of these per child.  It's great for other ID purposes anyway, right?  But if you need additional documents, well, I'm sure that this won't be a problem, but it just might be that if you give them that list, they might give you homeschool records.  These are true records nonetheless per the instruction. *Shrug*  So, what would you do then, hand them back and say, "Even though this is what we asked for, it's not good enough.  What else do you got?"  That's rather confusing don't you think?

Overall, this process will bog down the volunteer system that processes these papers, BUT, I don't think it asking too much to let would-be cadets join, work on progression items (so we don't lose them), but just not allow them to make any major base visits until then.  As for Seniors, I would expect a higher standard anyway.  E.g. let those seniors work on Level I requirements until their background clears.  However, at that point, we already verified that they are who they said they were, didn't we (e.g the fingerprint card when local law enforcement asked for I.D. and the new additional I-9 check)?

On the cadet side, was the system really that broken? *shrug*
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 05:40:01 PM by cust0s » Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #47 on: August 07, 2011, 05:33:15 PM »

You do know that the FBI does those checks, right?
Based only on the information provided, if it is false, it may not pop anything. 

Also, the identity is additionally verified by local law enforcement when the member goes in to get fingerprinted.  If anything was false it should appear.  So, are you saying that in your opinion this additional check is needed because the current process is not good enough?
There is no requirement that "law enforcement" take the fingerprints, nor are they necessarily required to "verify someone's identity", nor is the agency who took the fingerprints identified on the fingerprint card.

There are any number of unit who have a fingerprint kit in the unit and take the prints themselves.  So there is no independent verification that the prints on the card are the prints of the person being checked.

Don't forget that those who would try to defraud you may defraud those verification documents too, so I'm not sure what the  point would be then UNLESS CAP Admin and personnel officers are now going to be trained experts with high tech detection equipment.  That would be a neat Specialty Track but highly unnecessary.  I just want to know what the real reason is.  Meaning, if the background checks are not up to a real standard, why?  If they are, then stop saying they are not.

Just because you know some people will try and hop the fence does not mean you don't lock the gate.  Our duty as commanders is to do all
that we can, within reason, to identify the people standing in front of us.  We don't abdicate that simply because some may choose to attempt to game the system or slip through.

An argument made for years is that members should be re-checked regularly - lots can happen in a 25-year CAP career, but we're not doing that, either.
Report to moderator   Logged


Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,244

« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2011, 05:36:22 PM »

  I just want to know what the real reason is.  Meaning, if the background checks are not up to a real standard, why?  If they are, then stop saying they are not.

There are no black helicopters here.

The CAP background checks are not designed to, nor do they, verify identity.  IOW, the FBI does not tell us "Yes, this is John Jones."

The FBI only tells us if the fingerprint card submitted belongs to someone convicted of certain crimes (mostly felonies).  Which fortunately happens rarely.  And even then, the results are only seen by an extremely small group of folks at NHQ.  The specific information is not passed down the volunteer chain.

Bottom line, identity verification and criminal background checks are different processes serving different purposes.
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2011, 05:41:17 PM »

Normalities?  What is normal?  First of all, "normalities" s not even a word, but if you're trying to define "social norms", well, in this context homeschooling is more of an increasing "norm" for most students in a few states. At the very least many parents are also starting to augment public or private school with additional home schooling.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normalities

The norm for education in the United States is public school.
Overall, this process will bog down the volunteer system that processes these papers,
This will bog down nothing.  There isn't a unit in the country processing enough memberships for this to be anything but a conversation on the new procedure.

didn't the fingerprint card already do that when local law enforcement asked for I.D.?
Nope.  As pointed out, you're checking the prints sent in, which may, or may not, be the person standing in front of you.

Report to moderator   Logged


cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #50 on: August 07, 2011, 05:55:53 PM »

You do know that the FBI does those checks, right?
Based only on the information provided, if it is false, it may not pop anything. 
You said "may," so do you have inside information about how these are processed?  If not, let's leave it there because further consideration would be hearsay and that's not going to get us anywhere.  Something appears to be broken with the current process if all we can deduce is "may."
Also, the identity is additionally verified by local law enforcement when the member goes in to get fingerprinted.  If anything was false it should appear.  So, are you saying that in your opinion this additional check is needed because the current process is not good enough?
There is no requirement that "law enforcement" take the fingerprints, nor are they necessarily required to "verify someone's identity", nor is the agency who took the fingerprints identified on the fingerprint card.

There are any number of unit who have a fingerprint kit in the unit and take the prints themselves.  So there is no independent verification that the prints on the card are the prints of the person being checked.
I stand corrected.  It appears that CAPR 20-1 Organization of Civil Air Patrol allows the unit PO to handle this on their own.  When I joined, this person was also a local LEO.  Hence my confusion, but it appears that other organizations do require an LEO to verify their cards (e.g. fire, first aid, etc.), so there you have it.  We should require fingerprint cards to be done by local LEOs.  Just my opinion but it would serve as a good check, don't you think?
Don't forget that those who would try to defraud you may defraud those verification documents too, so I'm not sure what the  point would be then UNLESS CAP Admin and personnel officers are now going to be trained experts with high tech detection equipment.  That would be a neat Specialty Track but highly unnecessary.  I just want to know what the real reason is.  Meaning, if the background checks are not up to a real standard, why?  If they are, then stop saying they are not.

Just because you know some people will try and hop the fence does not mean you don't lock the gate.  Our duty as commanders is to do all
that we can, within reason, to identify the people standing in front of us.  We don't abdicate that simply because some may choose to attempt to game the system or slip through.

An argument made for years is that members should be re-checked regularly - lots can happen in a 25-year CAP career, but we're not doing that, either.
Okay, but was there hopping the fence?  Meaning, was what we did before (especially with cadets) a major problem?  I agree with updated checking.  Afterall, we do it for those wanting a security clearance for COunterDrug operations and if they fail they are rechecked.  AND, if we're going to update the rules, then lets require everyone to submit to them.  HOWEVER, and this is a big one, what is so wrong with having citizens of other countries joining CAP.  Meaning, why not allow for that on the form, why must they seek a "waiver."  All things considered, if you have a clean record, meet the CAP missions, and take the Oath, why should citizenship be any kind of barrier?
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #51 on: August 07, 2011, 06:08:42 PM »

Hence my confusion, but it appears that other organizations do require an LEO to verify their cards (e.g. fire, first aid, etc.), so there you have it.  We should require fingerprint cards to be done by local LEOs.  Just my opinion but it would serve as a good check, don't you think?
A good check, yes. Possible?  Not likely.

An increasing number of departments use livescan and some will no longer do fingerprints for us at all.  Further, without a pretty hefty MOU, no LEO is going to accept the potential liability for mis-identifying someone just because we asked.

As it stands today, units with a benevolent relationship with local PD are still able to get this done for them, or are able to do it themselves.

What "other organizations" are mandating a local LEA substantiate identification?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 06:12:21 PM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #52 on: August 07, 2011, 06:08:59 PM »

Normalities?  What is normal?  First of all, "normalities" s not even a word, but if you're trying to define "social norms", well, in this context homeschooling is more of an increasing "norm" for most students in a few states. At the very least many parents are also starting to augment public or private school with additional home schooling.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normalities

The norm for education in the United States is public school.
Reference.com has merely linked "normalities" to the term "norm."  That's why I used the word "norm" in my previous reply.  Even then, this is not a scholarly source.  There's no linguistic study behind it and at best the way you have chosen to use this word is in a form of odd slang.  If you mean to say "average" then don't beat around the bush just say "average," or "mean, mode, etc.."

Also, the norm for education in the United States is NOT public school.  In the United States of America there is a great divide.  If you had said that "formal" education was the norm, then I might believe you, because while there is a trend in homeschooling, formal education is still quite the norm.  However, for every public school there is at least one private school counterpart, so try again.
Overall, this process will bog down the volunteer system that processes these papers,
This will bog down nothing.  There isn't a unit in the country processing enough memberships for this to be anything but a conversation on the new procedure.
Yes, this will bog the system because assuming personnel officers are being diligent.  They will need to wait and verify and retain a record of same.  Again, these verifications take time, we're a volunteer organization.  It will not bog down the current process of the next echelon approving and retaining same, but the initial front line personnel officer (at their unique discretion) will likely feel bogged.  Ask your current personnel officer how they feel about this.  In fact, the initial preparations I'm assuming are underway...and let's face it, paperwork does indeed take time.  This will add processing time because these checks need to be done and were not done before.  Do the math.  Maybe it's minor bogging, but bogging nonetheless.
didn't the fingerprint card already do that when local law enforcement asked for I.D.?
Nope.  As pointed out, you're checking the prints sent in, which may, or may not, be the person standing in front of you.
I conceded to the point you made about this elsewhere, and I believe that local law enforcement should be doing these.  Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 06:32:22 PM by cust0s » Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #53 on: August 07, 2011, 06:13:08 PM »

What takes time?

Show me the docs.

Thanks, welcome to CAP.

Done.

There is absolutely, positively, no trend towards home schooling in the United States, those who choose to take that non-standard route are simply more visible because of the internet and media attention.  That is neither an indictment nor an endorsement of home schooling, it is the simple fact of the matter.

It also has nothing to do with properly identifying yourself.  Kids in most public elementary schools have no more (or less) identification than anyone else, and if you choose to home-school for high school, then get a state ID and move on.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 06:18:06 PM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #54 on: August 07, 2011, 06:21:52 PM »

An increasing number of departments use livescan and some will no longer do fingerprints for us at all.  Further, without a pretty hefty MOU, no LEO is going to accept the potential liability for mis-identifying someone just because we asked.

Liability?  Sorry, LEOs do not take liability in the course of thier duties.  It's referred to as "governmental immunity" and even "absolute" or "qualified immunity."  No harm from what I can see?  Plus, even if you could sue for that, you'd have to prove damages, and what would that be in this case?

As it stands today, units with a benevolent relationship with local PD are still able to get this done for them, or are able to do it themselves.

That's fine, but any citizen can go in and request same.  You may have to make an appointment but it takes not even 5 minutes once they do it.

What "other organizations" are mandating a local LEA substantiate identification?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here because of comma usage or lack thereof, but see my comment just above.  In either case, consider an applicant wishing to work for any of the known government agencies using those as you say "outdated" cards.... well, they still use them and you are required to get local LEOs to verify same (e.g. if you wished to work for say Border Patrol, Dept. of Homeland Security, etc...)  I mean the list is rather extensive.  Live scan is great but not everyone needs or is using it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #55 on: August 07, 2011, 06:24:38 PM »

I understand you are a Ph.d student, but if you're going to pick on commas, I'm going to point SARDRAGON at you and then you'll be sorry.
Ned's likely to get yo as well.

You said "other organizations" require LEA's to verify identity.  Employment doesn't count, as that is an issue of Federal Law.  I didn't refer to anything as outdated.

Name them.

No local agency is going to verify anyone's identity unless they are mandated to by law, or have agreed to via an MOU or similar agreement.
Citing "immunity" is anecdotal interesting, but not really relevant.  Also, immunity may shield an agency from liability, but not from egg on its face.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 06:29:07 PM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #56 on: August 07, 2011, 06:28:32 PM »

What takes time?

Show me the docs.

Thanks, welcome to CAP.

Done.
How about the new Regulations for membership?  Did you read those yet? :)
There is absolutely, positively, no trend towards home schooling in the United States, those who choose to take that non-standard route are simply more visible because of the internet and media attention.  That is neither an indictment nor an endorsement of home schooling, it is the simple fact of the matter.

It also has nothing to do with properly identifying yourself.  Kids in most public elementary schools have no more (or less) identification than anyone else, and if you choose to home-school for high school, then get a state ID and move on.

I dislike how you speak in absolutes.  Like it or not, there is a trend.  I'm not going to bore you with an extensive bibliography but it supports a trend (UNLESS you don't buy the US census), here's a start for your reading pleasure:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053/twps0053.html#dis

"...the data examined in this paper show that it has established itself as an alternative to regular school for a small set of families, and is poised to continue its growth. In 1999 around 790,000 children between the ages of 6 and 17 were being schooled at home, and in the late 1990s the number was apparently growing."


http://www.nheri.org/Research-Facts-on-Homeschooling.html

"It appears the homeschool population is continuing to grow (at an estimated 2% to 8% per annum over the past few years)."
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time With Silver Clasp
*
Posts: 30,205

« Reply #57 on: August 07, 2011, 06:31:27 PM »

2-8% is the virtual definition of a minority, and therefore "abnormal".

"apparently growing" - you'll have to do better than that.

Not to mention that second source cited is biased.

Absolutely.

Positively.

None.
Report to moderator   Logged


cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #58 on: August 07, 2011, 06:50:07 PM »

I understand you are a Ph.d student, but if you're going to pick on commas, I'm going to point SARDRAGON at you and then you'll be sorry.
Ned's likely to get yo as well.

Hah, okay, good call!  I'm not perfect, but something posted there was confusing.  I wasn't trying to be nit picky nor create an Ad hominem attack, rather, I was just seeking clarification.  I wanted to be on the same page; same when others use "different" terminology.  Also, don't worry, my wife is a Ph.D. in Composition, Communication, & TESOL, and I receive a tongue lashing or two whenever I'm grammatically incorrect or not up to par.  So, no need to sick the other language attack dogs on me, I'm just perfectly fine at home with my Editor-and-Spouse! :)

You said "other organizations" require LEA's to verify identity.  Employment doesn't count, as that is an issue of Federal Law.  I didn't refer to anything as outdated.

Name them.

No local agency is going to verify anyone's identity unless they are mandated to by law, or have agreed to via an MOU or similar agreement.
Citing "immunity" is anecdotal interesting, but not really relevant.  Also, immunity may shield an agency from liability, but not from egg on its face.
I actually said LEOs, but yes, that was my point.  If other governmental agencies require verification, and we too (as CAP) require the same verification, then I suppose that's why we are using the I-9 route.  I mean, didn't you notice how the verification instruction addendum was fairly much the same as the Federal one for employment?  Seems like a wonderful copy and paste job to me.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It's just, I was corrected that we actually don't need LEOs to verify fingerprint cards, but when I was a first responder for local first aid, ran for city council, applied for the DHS CBP, etc, and so on and so forth... and I'm sure others know what I'm talking about here, well they were verified by local LEOs.  So, if it's good enough for them, why should it not be good enough for us?

The only difference was that when I joined the fingerprint card was competed by the PO for our SQ who was an LEO with local PD.  In fact, some local PDs might even charge for the fingerprint card and that might be a problem but not ours.  Also, when it comes to cadets we're saying, hey, you don't have an ID card, well go to the state, pay for and get one, so for seniors, unless the local PD issues them for free well, why not do it this way?  At most, maybe a $5 charge from the local PD fingerprint officer.

I'm sure many will disagree with me, but that's cool!  After all, if it ain't broke should we fix it?  I mean, is this not the same mentality coming from these new regulations?  I'm trying to follow the same spirit of that, if not sarcastically, and I don't know which emoticon goes with that.  Sorry.  :(  But, I'm not at all opposed to them either, I just wouldn't want to be the person having to process them all . . .
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 06:56:15 PM by cust0s » Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
cust0s
Banned

Posts: 34

« Reply #59 on: August 07, 2011, 06:58:01 PM »

2-8% is the virtual definition of a minority, and therefore "abnormal".

"apparently growing" - you'll have to do better than that.

Not to mention that second source cited is biased.

Absolutely.

Positively.

None.

Yes, apparently growing because that first report was from 1999 data in 2001.  At that time it was inconclusive.  So I gave you the 2nd source to consider.  Hey, there's no way you read that entire US Census report that quick.  Even then, I said this would not be an extensive bibliography.  There's at least a new decades worth of great data to consider.  So, mosey down to your local library, get on Ebsco host, click on scholarly sources, and type in "home school" or "home school trends" or whatever you desire.  Read those several dozen of 30 page articles that verify what looks like a pretty good trend.  Spend some time looking at it.  If you can't, well, sadly that's your issue not mine, but I have faith you will before making absolute statements.  What sources told you otherwise?  Don't forget, the issue was not strictly on home-schooling.... private schools are equally in number to public schools on all levels (and yes, I would include parochial schools in there as well).

It is what it is buddy. :)  QED
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 07:04:09 PM by cust0s » Report to moderator   Logged
Captain, CAP
Deputy Commander, et al.
--
Ph.D. Student (Criminology), LAW, M.A., CERT., B.A.
AFROTC, Cadet (2001-2004)
--
The post above and beneath this one is a lie.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: New CAPR 39-2 Civil Air Patrol Membership
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me