How to cover up a girly Marine cover.

The New York Post touched off a media firestorm two weeks ago with their headline Obama wants Marines to wear ‘girly’ hats.  Following the firestorm, there has been a concerted effort to reframe the issue to make it appear that the Post and other news organizations got it all wrong.  The Stars and Stripes ran an article announcing not only that the the proposal had been pulled, but claiming that the proposal had never been serious in the first place:

Still, Marines say the Daly cover was added to the survey as a throwaway option.

“The Marine Corps commandant had and has zero intention of changing the male cover,” Marine officials said.

This post-media-firestorm claim contradicts an Oct 21st story by the Marine Corps Times which predates the New York Post story:

The Marine Corps Uniform Board may recommend the adoption of a universal cover for men and women to be worn with dress and service uniforms.

The change could take one of two forms. Either women could begin wearing current male covers with slight modifications, or all Marines could begin wearing new “Dan Daly caps,” according to a Marine news release.

Either the Marine Corps Times made up a Marine news release, or the idea was under serious enough consideration to announce to the press.

The vaguely sourced claim in the Stars and Stripes that the proposal was never serious is a difficult one to swallow since as the same article points out the USMC has been directed by the Secretary of the Navy to adopt a universal cover for male and female Marines.  The Secretary of the Navy’s goal is for male and female Marines not to be distinguishable by their uniforms:

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has asked the Navy and Marine Corps to look at moving to one cover for men and women.

“The secretary believes that when you look at a group of sailors and Marines, you should see a group of sailors and Marines, indistinguishable by uniform,” said Cmdr. Tamra Lawrence, a spokeswoman for Mabus.

Where did the Dan Daly cap come from?

Mixed in with the denial that the Dan Daly cap was ever seriously considered for adoption by male Marines is denial that the cap is “girly”.  The Stars and Stripes article takes care to identify the proposed cap with the heroism of its namesake, while suggesting (without outright stating) that the cap under consideration is a recreation of the one Daly wore:

Sgt. Maj. Dan Daly, a two-time Medal of Honor recipient who yelled, “Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?” as he led Marines into the fight at Belleau Wood during World War I, wore a cap similar to the option proposed by the survey, as did other Marines in the early 1900s. The current male Marine dress cover was adopted in 1922.

This girly cap comes with a manly story;  maybe the Post has it all wrong.  But the New York Post in defending their original article has published a memo which they describe as background for the survey.  The memo explains that the cap in question was originally designed as a cap for female Marines in 2002/2003.  This cap was approved as the “improved female cap” by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) in 2007, but procurement efforts were halted in 2012 in order to explore a DoD mandate for a universal cover.

The memo further explains that when the improved female cap was proposed as a universal cover for male and female Marines, it was renamed the “Dan Daly” cap (emphasis mine):

It was suggested, via the on-line survey process, that the improved female cap is very similar to the uniform cap worn by Sgt Maj Daniel Daly (see enclosure (2)), and would make an acceptable “universal” cap for all Marines.  The cap worn by Dan Daly was in the Marine Corps inventory from 1904-1918, but its shape dates back as far as 1897.  From this point forward the improved female cap will be known as the “Dan Daly” cap.

As far as I can tell, neither the veracity of the memo itself nor the history it presents of the Dan Daly cap is in dispute.  The Wall Street Journal’s Ben Kesling explains the same basic history.  Isaac Cubillos of militaryreporter.net went after the NY Post hard with When a phony military story is written for political reasons, it hurts real journalism and readers.  Yet Cubillos not only republished the memo, he used it to make his case that the Post was wrong:

The New York Post released The Marine Corps Uniform Board document (all yellow highlights are from the Post). You will note, there is nothing indicating the President of the United States was involved in this. Additionally, you will note the Marines specifically say the manufacturer went out of business, not because it’s less expensive as the original NY Post story claimed.

But even here, the original Post article never stated that adopting the women’s cap for both men and women was proposed to save money.  In fact, the Post had explained that the proposal was made despite the fact that it would cost money:

According to the memo obtained by The Post, requiring all troops to use the Daly cover will cost $8,221,958. Going with the traditional cap will save $284,043, because the current female caps are more expensive.

This seems par for the course for the critics of the Post on this topic.  Straw man arguments are set up and knocked down, but the core of the story remains undisputed.  Probably the best example of this is the ridicule of the Post for connecting the Obama administration with the proposal. While it is true that the Post headline and story named Obama, in the story itself it clarified that the specific direction for a universal cover was from the DoD.  Technically the criticism is accurate;  there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that President Obama asked to have the men who hold his umbrella wear girly hats.  However, what doesn’t appear to be disputed is that under pressure from Obama’s Secretary of the Navy for a universal cap, the USMC Uniform Board renamed a female cap the “Dan Daly” cap and offered it (as one of two options) as a universal cap to be worn by male and female Marines.  An official photo shoot was ordered with men wearing women’s caps, and this allegedly non serious proposal was presented as one of only two options in a survey to all Marines in preparation for the final decision to be made by Gen James Amos, CMC.

Assuming the history of the Daly cap presented by the Post and the Wall Street Journal is accurate, the critics of the New York Post are arguing that the Post and before them the Marine Corps Times were taken in by an elaborate scheme by the Marine Corps Uniform Board and Marine press department to make it appear that the CMC was seriously considering ordering all male Marines to wear women’s caps.  Due to the obvious public relations nightmare such a scheme is bound to create, this strikes me as highly unlikely.  However, either way the blame for the public relations disaster must rest with the leadership and press department of the Marine Corps itself, and not with the Post and the other news organizations who were ostensibly fooled by the charade.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Denial, Feminist Territory Marking, Frame. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to How to cover up a girly Marine cover.

  1. sunshinemary says:

    It’s really concerning that so many news media organizations are so invested in protecting the current administration (and its underlying modern liberal framework) from criticism.

  2. Tilikum says:

    I don’t know if it matters anymore quite honestly. there is a lot of varnish on the term “Marine”.

    The only ex-Marines that I’ve met in an industry dominated by them are overjuiced, insecure, and have questionable intellect (i’m being kind).

    theses aren’t the Marines of WW2, Korea, or even Vietnam. they seem more like the LA Fitness/Playstation 3 type.

  3. Dalrock says:

    @Sunshinemary

    It’s really concerning that so many news media organizations are so invested in protecting the current administration (and its underlying modern liberal framework) from criticism.

    To a large degree this part is to be expected though. What I find more striking is the static from the conservative side. I think much of the denial comes not from partisanship, but from a sort of stoicism. The basic frame is a chivalrous one that no, don’t worry, women aren’t imposing on men, and besides, we are so manly that we can pull off wearing women’s uniforms.

  4. Dalrock says:

    To reinforce my previous comment, I think the reason the NY Post story had the impact/legs it did was because it named Obama. This knocked a good portion of Traditional Conservatives out of their feminist accommodating frame and permitted them to feel outrage. If the story was merely that women/feminists were demanding that men in our military wear feminine clothing, it would have been more business as usual. But if Obama is behind the move, this is unacceptable!

  5. sunshinemary says:

    This knocked a good portion of Traditional Conservatives out of their feminist accommodating frame and permitted them to feel outrage. If the story was merely that women/feminists were demanding that men in our military wear feminine clothing, it would have been more business as usual.

    Oh, okay, I see what you are saying. I didn’t realize the Marine Corp Times and the Stars and Stripes were traditionalist conservative sources. Good point.

    The basic frame is a chivalrous one that no, don’t worry, women aren’t imposing on men, and besides, we are so manly that we can pull off wearing women’s uniforms.

    LOL, well-said. And sadly not surprising.

    The coopting of Christianity by overt feminism is the same gig. You’d be surprised how many men are on Christian feminist sites like Spiritual Sounding Board explaining why they aren’t threatened by feminism one little bit because, you know, they’re real men (apparently you have to be a real man to let a woman rule over you).

  6. Uncle Elmer says:

    The Marines could save a bundle and avoid the negative publicity by simply mandating that female Marines get buzz haircuts, just like the men. If you have been on a military base recently you would no doubt have observed all the serious military ladies with their tightly-pulled hair buns. This fashion has trickled into the civilian world as millions of women now sport variants those afro-bun hairdos. This seems to make them look masculine, therefor able to compete with men, yet with the feminine hair mop acting as a crown bestows upon them a princess flair. They get to eat their cakes and keep them too.

  7. CarpeOro says:

    If I were serving as an officer active duty, I’d want to be able to look at hats and tell the difference between men and women. Fast way to start calculating combat effective vs. non-combatants.

  8. Alexander says:

    Nah, it’s too late for that – the only way forward is to agree and amplify.

    Make the men wear afro-buns. The faster we have an all-female combat unit because the men refuse to enlist, the faster we can bury (literally) the idea that women have a place in the army.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    Oh, okay, I see what you are saying. I didn’t realize the Marine Corp Times and the Stars and Stripes were traditionalist conservative sources. Good point.

    The MC Times is interesting because they seem to have stayed out of the fray after the firestorm. Their original story was pretty plain vanilla, but aside from their even tone and not naming the administration their story had the same basic facts that the NY Post story said. I don’t know about the Stars and Stripes in general, but the piece I linked to read like a PR job for the CMC. It was full of internal contradictions with the only consistent line being protecting the leadership from embarrassment. I think you have it more closely with your second comment in your response. It is the rank and file conservative who has identified accommodating feminism with masculine virtue, and like you I notice this very frequently.

  10. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Smithers: “But she has a new hat!

    I’m feeling my age. I think it was, what, 10 years ago that the Rather hit piece on Bush was put out? That was the breaking point for me when I realized the media had no qualms with outright lying to our faces. Before that, I figured they would just warp and twist and chop up a story to wring any bit of spin they could get for their guy. But once Rathergate hit, I realized they weren’t even holding themselves to that standard, and were outright lying to us and making up stories out of whole cloth.

    I realize that it’s important to track what the media is saying, and expose the lies being peddled. I’m glad people are doing it. And of course, you can’t actually get away from the drumbeat in any meaningful way. But as for me, if the media tells me the sun came up this morning, I don’t believe a word of it until I check for myself. Or have people I trust verify it. As far as the media is concerned, it’s a case of “‘Hello,’ they lied.”

    Did we lose a war or something?

  11. It’s worth pointing out that CMC recently ordered a test run of female marines to start wearing male dress uniforms, which received an overwhelmingly negative reaction. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130723/NEWS07/307290003/

  12. Craig says:

    “From this point forward the improved female cap will be known as the “Dan Daly” cap.”

    Wow! I missed that lil detail when the story first broke. Thanks for clearing that up. I’ll resume lurking.

  13. Yet one more example of the results of women insisting on invading and assimilating traditionally male spaces. It’s not enough that women be allowed into the ranks, it’s not enough to grant them combat ‘privileges’, men must conform, must change, must look the way that aligns with a feminine frame.

    G.I. Jane is the popular fantasy cliché – the tough as nails tom boy girl that all the boys put down “for being a girl” until she rises up from her oppression and bullying, trains hard, earns respect (usually by saving one of her oppressors lives), and proves she can be just as tough as ‘one of the guys’. The reality however isn’t about toughening up to a level she can compete at, but rather lowering the standard to accommodate a woman’s deficits. It’s not about becoming a better player, it’s about fundamentally changing the rules to make a woman a ‘winner’.

    That’s the message the USMC cap change is making. The women of the FI don’t want to make themselves into better men, they want men to make themselves better women. They want androgyny, because only self doubting men, men confused about what maleness should be, can make them feel like winners. When Men understand masculinity, they can never ‘win’ against it.

  14. Cane Caldo says:

    @RT

    That’s the message the USMC cap change is making. The women of the FI don’t want to make themselves into better men, they want men to make themselves better women. They want androgyny, because only self doubting men, men confused about what maleness should be, can make them feel like winners.

    Great point; especially the bolded bit.

    I think the idea that (what you’re calling) FI women want better women is slightly off-the-mark, but further confuses the situation. Androgyny is better; they want sexless men…or, at least, they want a lot of sexless men because they only need one actual man.

    When Men understand masculinity, they [women] can never ‘win’ against it.

    Yes, because they’re supposed to win with it. Setting (measuring) themselves against it is the first catastrophe.

  15. bike bubba says:

    It’s worth noting that the cap worn by Dan Daly was olive drab/forest green, not white. Sorry, color makes a difference. It’s also worth noting that the proposed dress white cap slopes inward as it goes up, while Daly’s cap slopes outward. So no, by no means are the new dress blues reminiscent of what Daly would have had.

    Plus, if I remember correctly,Marines would have been issued metal hats in WWI, as cloth does a poor job warding off flak and bullets from the brains of soldiers. But other than that, great analysis….not.

  16. Oblivion says:

    @ rollo

    “That’s the message the USMC cap change is making. The women of the FI don’t want to make themselves into better men, they want men to make themselves better women.”

    this the the FI truth in a nutshell, when u call women out on it they deny it at first and then just lauph and try to divert the conversation. for example “u need to be more sensative!”= Im not getting what i want waaaahh! “men and women are equals!”= why isnt something being given to me? im a woman waaaaahhhh!!

    society is now seemingly at the mercy of the waaaaahh!!! FI culture. when women start up with that crap i tell them ” you need to suck it up and be a man, a real man would know how to handle that situation” They get the message loud and clear, the problem is that most men dont even realize what the heck is going on.

  17. minuteman says:

    The “Dan Daly Hat” looks manly enough on Dan Daly (google it) I guess its whats under the hat that determines whether it girly or not.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @minuteman

    The “Dan Daly Hat” looks manly enough on Dan Daly (google it) I guess its whats under the hat that determines whether it girly or not.

    The “Dan Daly cap” is the name they gave the “improved female cap” when they decided to sell it as a unisex cap.

  19. theshadowedknight says:

    Just so you know, Da rock, the Marine Corps Times is not an official publication. It is a privately owned and operated paper, and it has a reputation as a bit of a rag. It is like the National Enquirer–sensational and hyperbolic, but occasionally it has its John Edwards moments. Case in point, they like to point out evidence of the current Commandant, Gen. Amos’s corruption and abuses.

    Overall, men and women think that the new proposed cover looks like ass. No one likes it, and I heard a few, “Hell, no, I am not wearing that!” from the younger guys.

    The Shadowed Knight

  20. Feminist Hater says:

    Interesting that Obama also seems to be purging the military commanders. I wonder, is it because they don’t like the hats?

  21. Jen says:

    I have to disagree that this Marine Corps hat controversy is an attempt by women to “invade and assimilate traditionally male spaces”. How so? By implementing the use of extremely unflattering hats?

    It just appears to be another attempt by the males in a leftist administration to humiliate the males in a traditionally male institution.

  22. Mark says:

    @SSM

    “”It’s really concerning that so many news media organizations are so invested in protecting the current administration (and its underlying modern liberal framework) from criticism.””

    Yes……..they are!…..I saw a segment the other day on FoxNews…..that the “architect” of “ObamaCare” is Canadian?……I believe this wholeheartedly. What he is trying to do is re-create OHIP(Ontario Hospitalization Insurance Plan) in the USA. It will never work in the USA! Just to give you a little bit of history into the Canadian “Free HealthCare Plan”(which is not free). The Main Canadian advocate for that was “Tommy Douglas…..”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas…….His daughter “Shirley Douglas” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Douglas…..married an actor by the name of “Donald Sutherland”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sutherland….who has a son by the name of “Keifer Sutherland”………http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keifer_Sutherland…….most Americans do not realize this.These “famous” Canadians are famous for one reason….the USA! One other note.I was watching a News Show about Sarah Palin not long ago.She stated that when her family went to the doctors’s office…..they drove over the border from Alaska into the “Yukon Territory”…because it was FREE…..not a good thing to admit for a politician like herself that is “anti-Obama-care”….Thanks!…Shalom!

  23. Why the HELL do men and women in the Corps have to wear the same hat? Will male Marines have to wear bras next? This is asinine.

  24. Travis says:

    Off topic, but you guys should really check this article out-
    Why You Should Always Have Sex On A First Date

    http://elitedaily.com/dating/sex/why-you-should-always-have-sex-on-a-first-date/

    It will blow your mind. The most shallow, disgusting thing I’ve ever read. And check out the comments from the women. 80 percent fully endorse what is said in the article. And I don’t want to give any spoilers away, but the advice to ALWAYS have sex on a first date is probably the LEAST offensive thing on there…

  25. Dalrock says:

    @Jen

    I have to disagree that this Marine Corps hat controversy is an attempt by women to “invade and assimilate traditionally male spaces”. How so? By implementing the use of extremely unflattering hats?

    It just appears to be another attempt by the males in a leftist administration to humiliate the males in a traditionally male institution.

    Women have already insisted on invading, and the assimilation (territory marking) is a foregone conclusion. The only question is how and when (and how fast) it happens. But this doesn’t mean the other part isn’t true as well. To look at this a different way, I tend to agree that for example part of Obama’s motivation to end DADT was to stick it to an institution he sees as a bunch of backwards knuckle draggers. But the expression of “gay pride” which is guaranteed with such a move doesn’t require Obama’s encouragement or machinations. All that is required is to repeal DADT, and the rest will happen automatically. So it is true that the left is using gays and feminists as battering rams to assault traditional masculinity, but this doesn’t mean that the only reason gays and feminists are undermining masculinity is because the left is using them this way. The left knows a good subversive tool when it sees one.

  26. sunshinemary says:

    @ Jen

    I have to disagree that this Marine Corps hat controversy is an attempt by women to “invade and assimilate traditionally male spaces”. How so? By implementing the use of extremely unflattering hats?

    Well, women are in the marines aren’t they? So technically, they have invaded a traditionally-male space. It’s no different than women elbowing their way into the clergy or girls insisting on being allowed to play on boys’ sports teams. They don’t belong in those places in the first place, so even if they aren’t behind cover-gate directly, the whole stupid thing wouldn’t be happening at all if they weren’t there, so I think it’s valid to lay a good portion of the blame at women’s feet.

  27. greyghost says:

    Women and homosexuals are being used to break the masculine spaces.

  28. Ton says:

    Metal helmets didn’t become a thing until after.WW 1 got started and leather lids made an appearance before the metal ones, if memory serves.

  29. dannyfrom504 says:

    this is no longer the orginization i joined 19 years ago. 5 months can’t pass quickly enough. guys i know in the E7 and above “khaki” ranks are bailing in droves. from the new kids coming in being spoined brats, to the overly PC work enviornment, to the all out assult on men with the “sexual assault” stand downs, to the overly intrussive leadership….DONE.

  30. Keyser Soze says:

    “The memo explains that the cap in question was originally designed as a cap for female Marines in 2002/2003. This cap was approved as the “improved female cap” by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) in 2007, but procurement efforts were halted in 2012 in order to explore a DoD mandate for a universal cover.”

    I find this factoid interesting: it took the US government 10 years to develop a cap that nobody really liked. Ten years on a hat. The US government sent a manned spaceship to the moon in that amount of time in the 1960s, and now the incompetent imbeciles can’t even design a “universal” hat for a branch of the military.

  31. jg1 says:

    Looks like the marines may have their first batch of 4 marine infantry women after all. Check link out: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=9741

  32. Mikediver says:

    “The only ex-Marines that I’ve met in an industry dominated by them are overjuiced, insecure, and have questionable intellect (i’m being kind).

    theses aren’t the Marines of WW2, Korea, or even Vietnam. they seem more like the LA Fitness/Playstation 3 type.”

    I am not sure who this guy is talking about; agroup of real Marines or a bunch of guys who play Marines on video games. One thing is for sure is that he has never met a real ex-Marine. This is definite because there is no such thing as an ex-Marine. The Marine Corps is like the Mafia; you join for life. Being out or retired does not make you any less a Marine.

  33. Feminist Hater says:

    Send the wimmenz to war! Let ‘Operation Vajayjay Shield’ commence!

    There is very little point in fighting feminism directly. Put all their ideas into practice, especially the crazy ones. Have entire infantry battalions made up of only women, with women commanders. At this point, there is very little difference to be made fighting over hats.

    More women to the front lines. They demand it, they should get it. 100 % support from me!

  34. Feminist Hater says:

    Also, all movies should be forced to pass the ‘Bechdel’ Test. Honestly, can hollywood not make movies where the women talk about something else other than men? Really?! It’s insane. That test should be mandatory.

  35. Michael says:

    Who cares. They deserve to wear girls hats. Marines kill innocent people overseas to further an elitist agenda just to get a job and move out of mummy’s house.

  36. MKP says:

    “The faster we have an all-female combat unit because the men refuse to enlist, the faster we can bury (literally) the idea that women have a place in the army.”

    Let’s do one better: the sooner we can bury our worthless, parasitic military itself.

    You heard me.

  37. feeriker says:

    Just so you know, Da rock, the Marine Corps Times is not an official publication. It is a privately owned and operated paper, and it has a reputation as a bit of a rag. It is like the National Enquirer–sensational and hyperbolic, but occasionally it has its John Edwards moments. Case in point, they like to point out evidence of the current Commandant, Gen. Amos’s corruption and abuses.

    That’s a good description of all of the armed services Times (each service has its own). Way back when dead tree pulp was still the medium of publication and while I was still on active duty, I maintained a paid subscription to the Navy Times. After a few years, however, it one day struck me that “the only thing this rag, that I’m paying forty bucks a year for, does is provide me with bad/distorted news, through unofficial channels, that can get FOR FREE through official channels, and just as fast. Why am I paying for this thing? That is NUTS, even for a Chief Petty Officer!”

    On rare occasions I still scan the online version, though only when I’m extremely bored, between chores, and have nothing better to do with my time for a few minutes. All I can say is that nothing has changed in fifteen years (i.e., inaccurate information, shoddy writing, and “feature” articles that center on nothing of any importance to most sailors).

  38. Dalrock says:

    @Freeriker

    After a few years, however, it one day struck me that “the only thing this rag, that I’m paying forty bucks a year for, does is provide me with bad/distorted news, through unofficial channels, that can get FOR FREE through official channels, and just as fast. Why am I paying for this thing? That is NUTS, even for a Chief Petty Officer!”

    I’ve never been in the service, but I’ve had the same basic epiphany regarding all journalistic publications. I don’t know that in that sense Marine Corps Times is any worse than any magazine I’ve ever read or subscribed to on hunting, fishing, kayaking, science, computers, etc. The same is true in my experience for the big name news outlets. One of the things I find very striking about the manosphere is the quality of writing/thinking is consistently so much higher than anything I can pay for.

  39. Kaehu says:

    The way the country is now, I assume both the government and the media are lying every time they open their mouths.

  40. greyghost says:

    MarcusD I can even one up the Anna chick by having a male birth control pill (in use in Indonesia) and have men in charge with the laws of misandry in place. In fact the current misandric family law will help sell the product. No man will be with out birth control even married men. So even if the slut marries an alpha she still can make it to her infertile years childless. leave it in place and toss in male control. Female rags (magazines for you sick turds out there) will be fun to read. I would subscribe to “Ms.” magazine type publication when the male pill gets popular.

  41. Martian Bachelor says:

    @MarcusD

    I don’t see it so much as feminists supporting C4M as them doing an endzone touchdown dance over the fact that they are in full control of what if any reproductive rights men might have.

    Besides, it gives their hamsters something to do. As with the entire work-life-balance issue, it’s a way for them to totally dominate the conversation by sucking all the oxygen out of the atmosphere.

    “Men are not allowed to discuss feminism. Usually it’s women discussing what happened to women and feminism, and what’s happened to men as well.”
    - Walter Fox

  42. Martian Bachelor says:

    Also, note that the June / Father’s Day piece at the NYT is based on a 2005 paper in an obscure academic journal. (Yes, there really is a journal of applied philosophy… ha!)

    Nothing says urgency and “this is very important” quite like waiting almost a decade does. The meta-message is that being fair to men doesn’t rank very high on the list of concerns, even on one of life’s central matters. As you can see in the NYT column, you throw in being fair to the mom and the child, and the wisdom of Solomon fails the female writer. It’s all so complicated.

    That’s why the topic/headline is posed as a question, rather than turned around into a declarative statement. They really aren’t very sure about anything, so we have to always err on the side of the wimminz and chilluns. We can’t be fair to everyone here in Femtopia.

    -didn’t mean to digress OT, but the original discussion seems to have trailed off.

  43. Martian Bachelor says:

    Here was another interesting OT item I haven’t seen mentioned `round these parts…

    Man dumps $500,000 life savings in gold coins and bullion into trash dumpster so ex won’t get it in divorce:
    * Local newspaper coverage
    * Suckeration
    * HuffPoo

  44. MB,

    Man dumps $500,000 life savings in gold coins and bullion into trash dumpster so ex won’t get it in divorce:

    Well, lets get one thing straight, he lied. He went to media and told everyone and anyone he dumped it so that he would have to share it. No man who is disciplined and responsible enough to actually accumulate $500,000 in gold coin would simply dispose of it all because he chose wrong and married a greedy BPD nutcase that never really loved him. He hid it. If he is that responsible to actually have that kind of wealth, then he is going to be responsible enough to hide it in a way that if he can’t have it (for now) then she can’t have any of it UNTIL the coast is clear.

    At some point, the coast will be clear.

  45. 8oxer says:

    Susan is very prone to making false accusations and wild emotional proclamations that are not based in any reality but her own solipsistic self righteousness. Once again, she has tried to unjustly stick the knife into a male commenter.

    I must agree earnestly with your assessment.

    Earlier this year, Susan Walsh claimed that several regular commenters on this blog had threatened the health and safety of her family during the holiday season, 2012. She posted those accusations repeatedly on her blog, even alluding to some sort of grand conspiracy orchestrated by the author/editor(s) of dalrock blog.

    I appeared, asking for evidence of this, on her “hooking up smart” blog, which is where she was seeking sympathy and attention. She had repeatedly written that these threats were made here on dalrock, and went so far as to claim the threats were still online.

    While I was skeptical, I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I would have openly mocked and laughed at anyone who made kooky threats toward her and her husband and children.

    When I asked for a link to these threats to murder/rape/harm her, she first waffled, then told me to search for them myself, then finally she deleted my request for evidence, claiming that I was a dalrock bot and alluding to the fact that I was a dangerous person myself.

    The conclusion I came to is that anyone who mildly disagrees with Ms. Walsh in an internet argument runs the risk of later being rewritten as a “stalker/rapist/murderer” by this attention-whoring perpetual victim. Most of her accusations seem to be fantasies which exist only between her ears, and I’d urge any of her readers to be skeptical of any further accusations by her, without some corroborating evidence.

    The exchange did leave me with a great deal of sympathy for her husband and children. I can’t imagine having to deal with such a nutcase on a daily basis, and I’m sure her family suffers regularly from her “creative” historical revisionism.

    Regards, Boxer

  46. Mark says:

    @8oxer

    “”Earlier this year, Susan Walsh claimed that several regular commenters on this blog had threatened the health and safety of her family during the holiday season, 2012. She posted those accusations repeatedly on her blog, even alluding to some sort of grand conspiracy orchestrated by the author/editor(s) of dalrock blog.””

    I believe it.I have read some of her blog…with comments.Seems to me that there is a little bit of animosity here. Dalrock is a “Somebody”….and she is a “NOBODY”!!!!!!!!!

  47. Stg58/Animal Mother says:

    Another reason we lost our minds about the proposed cover change is tradition. The USMC uniforms are still almost the same uniforms worn by Marines in WWII. Very little changes about our uniforms, and every piece of the uniform has a historical meaning, or has given rise to a term we use to describe each other or significant events. For example:

    Quatrefoil, or Braid on the top of an officer’s dress blue cover: Worn way way WAY back when so Marine snipers in ship’s rigging could tell who was friendly and who wasn’t.

    Blood Stripe on NCO and Officer’s dress blue trousers: Commemorates the heavy NCO and Officer losses at the Battel of Chapultepec, Mexican-American War. Also where you get charlie horsed by every higher ranking NCO in your platoon when you get promoted. “Earning your bloodstripes”.

    Standing Collar on Dress blues: Represents the Leather strip on old Marine combat unifoms meant protect the neck from saber blows. Leathernecks, hence one of our slang names.

    Crossed Rifles on rank insignia instead of a device that denotes your rate/specialty: Every Marine is a rifleman. In Korea, cooks, bakers and candlestick makers picked up their rifles and fought off the Chicom hordes when necessary.

    As you can see, it isn’t just a random assortment of items on a uniform or what looks good. The uniform represents our history, identity and traditions.

  48. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:

    >> the NY Post story had the impact/legs it did was because it named Obama

    You got that backwards. They were able to get away with (falsely) pinning it on Obama because of the recent series of scandals which chipped away at his saint-hood.

    Turn beta in your marriage and your wife will eat you alive. If a President gets wounded, the mass press will smell the blood in the water and start circling around. At first slowly, as in indirect negs about wanting the Marines to wear a certain kind of hat.

    Obama made a historical error by bringing in Obamacare now, when there is still a year before the midterm elections in which the masses can discover how badly they’re getting fucked by it.

    He is one of the most clever political operators in recent history, so it’s not a lack of ==political== instincts.

    It was that his circles actually didn’t comprehend that they were assembling a disastrous situation.

  49. Scott says:

    “No one likes it, and I heard a few, “Hell, no, I am not wearing that!” from the younger guys.”

    In the Army, we all said that about the beret. And we wore it anyway. It is now used in a very narrow setting (Army Service Uniform, outdoors, before 1800) because of how unpopular it was. But still, the “we aren’t wearing it” rebellion thing never actually works.

  50. Iconophile says:

    From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

    Marine (n.)
    14c., “seacoast;” see marine (adj.). Meaning “collective shipping of a country” is from 1660s. Meaning “soldier who serves on a ship” is from 1670s, a separate borrowing from French marine, from the French adjective. Phrase tell that to the marines (1806) originally was the first half of a retort expressing skepticism:

    “Upon my soul, sir,” answered the lieutenant, “when I thought she scorned my passion, I wept like a child.”

    “Belay there!” cried the captain; “you may tell that to the marines, but I’ll be d—-d if the sailors will believe it.” ["John Moore," "The Post-Captain; or, the Wooden Walls Well Manned," 1805]

    The book, a rollicking sea romance/adventure novel, was popular in its day and the remark is a recurring punch line in it (repeated at least four times). It was written by naval veteran John Davis (1774-1854) but published under the name John Moore. Walsh records that, “The marines are among the ‘jolly’ jack-tars a proverbially gullible lot, capable of swallowing any yarn, in size varying from a yawl-boat to a full-rigged frigate.”

    http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=marine&allowed_in_frame=0

  51. Stg58/Animal Mother says:

    Well, Iconophile I think that this John Davis character is full of shite. Why does the Navy use powdered soap? Takes longer to pick up!

    ZING

  52. 8oxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    I believe it.I have read some of her blog…with comments.Seems to me that there is a little bit of animosity here.

    I enjoy scoffing at internet bullies and kooks who make threats. (You can ask “Firepower”, “Rob Fedders” and many others about this… I’m sure one or all of them will show up here crying about me soon — as they have for years after they made the mistake of trying to threaten people into silence or “doc dropping” people they disagreed with).

    When I went over to HUS, I was completely prepared to call out the people who had “threatened the lives of [Susan's] children” etc. In fact, it became rapidly clear that no such threats had ever been made. Susan was doing what the bullies do, only in a passive-aggressive way. She was trying to shut down the debate and silence dissenting opinions, while seeking sympathy and attention.

    In her case, I think the bad behavior is probably based in some psychological problems, so I don’t want to belabor it or cause her more “trauma” (lol). But, I’d warn anyone who reads her reports of “DALROCK READERS threatened to KILL MY KIDS” nonsense to take them with a grain of salt. As near as I can tell, the commenters here merely disagreed with her in an impolite fashion.

    Well, in any event, I wish Susan well, and hope she can somehow get over the horrors of having people disagree with her on the internet.

    Regards, Boxer

  53. Anonymous says:

    The “Dan Daly Cap” is a diss to Dan Daly…

  54. Not4U says:

    I forget that Dalrock is a flaming commie that blames even the socialist takeover of the military on the Conservatives.

  55. Frederic says:

    The British army is shortening the marching step of soldiers because of female soldiers. Apparently 3 women sued the army and won. Here check this: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/britische-soldatinnen-duerfen-beim-marschieren-kleinere-schritte-machen-a-935399.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s