Ellen Haring: That Valor Isn’t Yours To Defend

| March 18, 2015

So, this Ellen Haring person claims to be a retired colonel and she writes in Task & Purpose about Stolen Valor, specifically about one video in which some Rangers confront a fellow claiming to be a Navy SEAL.

When I saw the video I was embarrassed, less for the man they humiliated and more for the Rangers, and the Army that they serve. Supposedly, these men were acting on behalf of all veterans (three against one) by calling out an imposter for stealing something from us that he hadn’t earned. But what exactly had he stolen and from whom?

I think we ran the video for a day and I was a little squeamish about posting it only because of the confrontation that went too far. The reason that I started on this enterprise of exposing valor thieves was because people were using their false valor to excuse their bad behavior.

Take for example Jason Strader who actually robbed gravesites and then used his false narrative in court to get himself a wrist slap. There’s Steve Cushman who thought that pretending to be a combat experienced pilot would help him in his election. Jordan Taylor uses his phony service to panhandle from well-meaning civilians every day. Charles Chavous assisted in a murder plot and used his false service in Vietnam in court to get five years on parole. Christopher David Duke used his fantasy of being a Marine sniper to build a business. Terry Lee Farmer beat his wife and kids and blamed it all on his nonexistent time in Vietnam for sympathy from the community. Timothy Poe tried to win on America’s Got Talent by preying on America’s sympathy for his nonexistent combat wounds.

There’s usually other crimes hidden under those phony uniforms, stealing valor is only an outward projection of the sociopath behavior that lies beneath the phony claims. Of course, Ms. Colonel Haring doesn’t think so;

There are laws that prohibit citizens from impersonating public officials, especially police officers, but they have nothing to do with stealing their valor. These laws vary by state and range in severity from misdemeanor to felony charges depending on the circumstances of the impersonation.

Putting the military on a pedestal has some very negative downsides. Namely, it says that not only is it unacceptable to impersonate us or even to claim to have served in the military it has made some believe that we can’t even be criticized. Outsiders who criticize us are viewed as unpatriotic. This is a dangerous course to chart and one that the military should zealously avoid. Growing, learning organizations must accept, even invite, criticism if they are to improve.

Yeah, we’re providing a public service, Ms. Haring. We are ones who bust the phonies, the civilians really can’t – they don’t understand the uniforms, the vast array of claims to which phonies subscribe. We’re protecting our honor from the criminals who use the public good will that veterans have worked so damn hard to regain after Vietnam to cover for their nefarious deeds.

I know it’s popular for Leftist rags to publish veterans who tug at the threads of that good will to bring us down to the level of those who have never served, so try to resist the temporary fame that brings.

ADDED: A fan on Facebook points out that we’ve run into Ms. Col. Haring before in such riveting TAH posts as Female colonel sues military to include women in combat, Advocates; Pentagon not killing women fast enough, and Expert in combat tells us what is important about combat.

Category: Who knows

Comments (111)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. AndyFMF says:

    You know that somewhere a FOIA is being drafted…someone is betting she isn’t the real thing.

    • Nicki says:

      Hey, I admit it. My first thought was, “Did this bitch even server? And if she did, did she make full bird due to affirmative action?”

      If she doesn’t understand the theft of the honor that is earned by a tiny percentage of the population, she can’t be helped.

    • Hondo says:

      Thought the name sounded familiar before I even read Jonn’s note at the end.

      If anyone can come up with the appropriate info (Full name, DOB, POB, and approx dates of service or First/MI/Last and SSN) and I’ll be happy to file the FOIA.

  2. AndyFMF says:

    Google her…..its pure comedy.

    Maybe a bit ironic.

    • rb325th says:

      Same one who said Audie Murphy could not have passed USMC Infantry Officers Course… Dumb and Dumber all wrapped into one body.

    • rgr1480 says:

      Ellen Haring holds a BS in Behavioral Science from the United States Military Academy and a MS in Peace Operations Policy from George Mason University. Ellen is a US Army civil affairs officer with over 28 years on active and reserve duty. She has lived and served in numerous locations around the world. Ellen has researched and studied the roles and effects of the military’s newly created Female Engagement Teams in conflict environments. Currently, she is engaged in efforts to expand the rights and roles of women in the US military. CNN, the BBC and numerous print media journalists have interviewed Ellen on the effects that the military’s combat exclusion policy has on women in the Armed Services. Ellen serves as a staff officer researching, writing and conducting experiments for the military on the Chairman’s Joint Staff.


      • CLAW131 says:

        Hmmm, Lars Taylor’s Commanding Officer?

      • farmgirl with a mosin nagant says:

        Speaking as a scientist in training, as well as general skeptical farmer: how exactly has she researched and studied something which has just been created? Of what real value, worth, is that research, are those studies, when there is by the very defining criteria of the subject an extremely limited amount of data with which to work?

        Maybe I’m nitpicking and they mean she’s studied how integration of women into combat roles in other nations’ militaries has worked, or the psychological and physical ramifications of women undergoing these experiences, but from the sound of it, they’re making her out to be a serious scholar of something which is still emergent, not actual. Better for her credibility if they said it differently if so; it’s harder to view this as credible.

        • Instinct says:

          She does it the same way those global warming.. er, CLIMATE CHANGE, types do it – she makes it up as she goes.

        • Reddevil says:

          FETs or their equivalent have been around for a while, and women have been in combat for a while as well- both in other nations and in the US military. We have just excluded them from ‘direct combat’ jobs like armor and infantry.

      • CAs6 says:

        Why are the loudmouths so frequently Civil Affairs officers? I’m ashamed for my branch. It’s like they forget we aren’t the freaking peace corps, we in Civil Affairs are still part of the United States Army…

        • CAs6 says:

          Holy crap, reading one of the old posts reveals she went from Signal to Civil Affairs, the path I took. I swear, we’re not all ate up blue falcons.

      • L. Taylor says:

        Wait, is that -“meh”- intended to disparage FETs?

        I am not sure they deserve that. Most FET team members were doing FET in addition to their other jobs while deployed.

    • David says:

      She is one of the two female officers who sued to get women in combat arms , because she felt like she was being discriminated against. (One of the funny arguments was that “her on and husband are both body builders, but both said they could not meet the standard to assist a wounded 200 pounder”. Guess they are not real serious body builders.) Her argument was that commanders should not look at physical test scores or obstacle test scores, but at the total soldier. So a software whiz would be better qualified for combat than a reasonably intelligent guy who could ace all the physical standards?

  3. Isnala says:

    “it says that not only is it unacceptable to impersonate us or even to claim to have served in the military it has made some believe that we can’t even be criticized. ”

    Two quick thoughts on this one:
    1. YES it is unacceptable to impersonate one of us, when you are not.
    2. I think most of us will be the first to criticize each other and the military. Also we have a very unique perspective on it and frame of reference of having been there done that. This is akin to having to civil rights leaders going through the police reaction training. We’ve already walked a least a mile or more in the shoes of those currently serving, unlike many who haven’t served and don’t have clue 1 about the reality of things. This is akin to saying all military retirees make $50K a year in military retirement.

    I have no problem with civilians criticizing the military as long as they actually take the time to actually learn what it is they are talking about. I’m pretty sure most of us on TAH would be happy to have a such a conversation as long as it is a conversation and not simply someone being a “talk points patriot” and speaking out both sides of their mouth.

  4. Animal says:

    It’s 1st Sgt Moerk. She morphed and came back.

  5. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    In my view, she has missed the boat on Stolen Valor, and I don’t mean by a wee bit. First, the valor she writes about is defined narrowly: “Valor,” she says, “Is a recognition that is bestowed by others on those who demonstrate courage or bravery in situations of extreme personal danger.” I suppose, then, that there can be no valor if there is no recognition of it. So, a solitary person whose act of bravery is known only to himself has not acted valorously. Hey, it’s her definition, not mine! Second, there are valorous acts that are officially recognized as such, and then there is valor of a much more pedestrian kind—the sort attributed by acquaintances and family to a friend or loved one who enlists in time of war. I wouldn’t myself call enlisting valorous myself, but I just want to recognize that other people do. Third, Stolen Valor encompasses more than Haring’s description of it. Stolen Valor includes falsely claiming a Purple Heart, for instance. There need be no officially recognized valorous act associated with the wound or death that lies behind the Purple Heart. So, again, her definition is wanting. Fourth, there are those whose sacrifice and service they themselves can no longer defend against the incursions of others. It is for these men and women that we stand against Stolen Valor most of all.

    My only question is, how the hell did she rate colonel with such narrow thinking? But then there’s Bateman so I withdraw the question.

    • Hondo says:

      Yep. The “good Colonel” needs to go out and buy a dictionary.

      The Oxford English Dictionary defines valor as “great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle”. It’s not dependent for its existence on any external observation, or on any form of post-act recognition. Indeed, many valorous acts in battle go unobserved and unrecognized.

      The lady appears to have confused the term with “decoration”. It’s rather hard to take someone seriously when they don’t even know the proper definition of the term about which they’re bloviating.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Yes, it is hard for us to put any stock in what she wrote but there are many people, unfortunately, who will read this or something else by her, see that she is a retired kernel (no, it was on purpose) and accord her words undeserved weight.

  6. Bobo says:

    I read the article this morning. One of the things that caught my eye was also what caught Jonn’s; “There are laws that prohibit citizens from impersonating public officials, especially police officers, but they have nothing to do with stealing their valor.”

    I propose that the good colonel don the uniform of a New York City police officer and walk into a local precinct, then wait to see how long it takes until she’s carted off to a holding cell despite not attempting to conduct anything resembling policing activities. If she contends that laws prohibiting the impersonation of police officers under these circumstances, then what is her issue with stolen valor?

  7. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    I agree with Jonn that acting out in public three on one is a little unsettling and serves no particularly useful purpose and will probably end badly at some point.

    I think the measured response that comes after an FOIA and some time investigating is far more appropriate.

    I do not believe that explaining to the public that an individual is a lying sack of shit and is probably trying to get something from that very same public is a bad thing. It’s no different than hanging a bounced check on the wall of your business to let folks know that some guys can’t be trusted.

    Worship of the military, or placing them on a pedestal where they are considered unimpeachable sources of truth and justice is indeed dangerous but I don’t see that as what is happening.

    As someone from the good old days of zero acknowledgement except from other vets I am happy to see our troops recognized even if the means of recognition is silly like a free cup of coffee. Most civilians don’t know what to say or do about your service…I think they try to understand it was difficult and want to let you know that what you did had value. I don’t see that as a bad thing,

    I don’t know how effective it is overall but I prefer a polite society that recognizes a fraction of the population is willing to put on a uniform and engage in some ugly business on behalf of the vast majority and the nation housing all of us.

    To answer the question of what did that assclown in the video steal if not honor, how about stealing the truth? Why doesn’t that matter to people like Ms. Haring. Why are they so willing to accept the behavior of liars who prey on the goodwill of the public? Liars who deceive often to advance their economic standing or their reputation with false claims about their experience.

    I wonder how Ms. Haring would feel if a fellow academic who was hugely critical of her work and was regularly being paid to speak about the very same research that Ms. Haring did was found out to be a fraud. I wonder if she would consider that nothing of value was stolen, that minimal harm was done. I suspect the truth is she would be screaming about it at the top of her lungs to all who would listen. She would write an article about the danger that false academics pose to the public…and she would be right in doing so as liars are problematic and their lies are often only the lesser of their evils.

    Ms. Haring has missed the mark due to her lack of experience with the camaraderie of an institution that makes you respect and care about people some of whom you would absolutely hate under other circumstances. Perhaps she can reconsider her efforts and apply them to something with real value.

  8. OIF '06-'07-'08 says:

    I wonder how fast her tune would change if the DRG believed she was EX-PH2

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      As much as I would love that, even this whiny broad does not deserve that crap, so I respectfully decline to pursue it.

  9. Stacy0311 says:

    She’s mentoring 1SG Moerk…

  10. The Other Whitey says:

    Wasn’t she the same one who said that women should be in combat because physical strength is not important, and used Audie Murphy for her example? Ya know, I’m no expert on this infantry stuff, but I do remember that Audie Murphy once went apeshit on that German MG crew, took their MG42, and went Rambo with it and a shitpot of belted 7.92 to annihilate the entire German platoon he faced singlehandedly, standing up. Free-handing that heavy bitch and the copious amounts of ammo he ran through it, yeah, I don’t think he was displaying a lack of upper-body strength, so her example sucks. Never mind everything else Murphy did in his life.

    So I’d say that pretty much sums up her credibility, or lack thereof, on pretty much any topic.

  11. Pinto Nag says:

    Epic FAIL, from start to finish.

    Until the FOIA is made available, I won’t say any more than that.

  12. Mayhem says:

    She sounds like one of those “career” Soldiers who prefers to hug and try to understand our enemies rather than use brute violent force. I am sure that she views her military service more as a hobby than she does a profession. Thank god she never deployed, she would be one of the first casualties of a conflict because she would depend on the kindness and humanity of our advesaries.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Tell me, does this bitch EVER stop whining?

    She’s a desk jockey, isn’t she? That’s about all she’s good for, at this point. There are far too many women I can point to whose careers were quite successful without direction combat interaction. That was her first complaint. Now she’s whining about the exposure of someone who lied about military service. Does anything ever make her happy?

    I think she’d complain if she were hung with a brand new rope.

  14. FatCircles0311 says:

    Why does the US military have an epidemic of super blue falcon high ranking officers?

    These people really hate the military and I just don’t understand it.

    • B Woodman says:

      Just look at the current occupant of The Red Shed.

      ‘Nuff said.

    • billo says:

      The reason that you have so many is that the military doesn’t have a way of dealing with the need for high-level non-command expertise. When I joined the Army, I had an MD, MS in Computer Science, subspecialty certification in two medical subspecialties (AP/CP and FP), certification in some specialized computer areas, and some other stuff. The military wanted me for some specific things, and they wanted me in a way that meant I couldn’t say “no” when they told me to do stuff. When I applied for my position, the response was “Bill, we really want you, but you have to be uniformed. We won’t take you as a GS. We have two Army slots and one Navy slot. Take your pick and go to Officer Basic.”

      So, I went in and was commissioned as a CPT, to be MAJ as soon as I got out of Officer Basic. I was LTC in four years, and would have been COL in 8, except that I jumped out to be a GS15 DoD civilian after 8 years.

      In my platoon at Officer Basic, there was one guy who was *commissioned* as an LTC, with an expectation that he would be a COL at the end of Officer Basic. He was a neurosurgeon. He was never going to be in combat, but the Army *needed* neurosurgeons badly to take care of those who were.

      I always felt a little odd walking around as an LTC and really being in “command” of nobody. I mostly hung out with a Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer who had a higher security clearance than me and vetted my correspondence, but I didn’t “command” him.

      Few of my peers cared much about the rank other than for the pay scale, but most of our income came from bonuses anyway. The problem, though, was that we had to deal with line officers, and if we didn’t have rank, they treated us like crap. So, if I was investigating something on a base and I was a civilian or enlisted, I couldn’t get anything done. But, as an officer, and working with other O-5s and O-6s, I could do what I needed to do.

      The military has never dealt well with this. The Warrant Officer thing never worked like it was supposed to.

      So, you get a bunch of academics and specialists and odd-jobs who end up with O-5 and O-6 who really have little to do with combat arms. Most of us are pretty much aware of it. On those rare occasions when I went into areas that were not safe, I was surrounded by people who took care of me — even when I didn’t know they were doing it. And I’ve always been grateful.

      But… If you aren’t careful, it’s easy to start thinking that if you are an LTC then, sure, you must know what *every* LTC knows about combat…

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        billo. That was a damn fine explanation. Thanks. Um, M.D. you say? Say, you’re not a proctologist are you? If so, I have a friend who has this problem. Every time I–dammit.

      • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

        Billo – great response and a lot of info that a bunch of us probably weren’t aware of. I hope that you continue to be party to the “fun” we have here at TAH.
        Unfortunately, COL Haring can’t use your info to help herself – she’s a USMA grad and came up through the ranks (and still missed the boat apparently).

  15. Friend S. Wilkins says:

    My old buddy old pal, Jordan Taylor, is still trying to scam money out there in California. I’m still trying to figure out how the hell he got that VA card. Check out his latest and greatest.


  16. OWB says:

    While she certainly is entitled to her opinion, she is not entitled to expect anyone to take her opinion seriously.

    After she explains what stolen valor has to do with someone, anyone, criticizing the military, we can discuss the other ridiculous stuff that she opines.

    • Grimmy says:

      I kinda get a case of ass chap when folks use that “… entitled to their opinion…” thing when it’s about someone lying through their teeth.

      She’s a fuckwit. Her “opinion” is fuckwitted and therefore non-op.

      Opinion, above, is in scary quotes because I do not, for one second, believe the degenerate piece of shit means a single word of it. She’s just running her sump to get her name out there in all the right places.

      She’s a Clintonista, plain and simple. Straight up astro-turf.

      • OWB says:

        Is that anything like being entitled to our own opinions but not making up “facts” to support them? 😉

        • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

          Might even be like, just because you CAN say something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD say something…

  17. Dave Hardin says:

    ‘So what exactly had the man in the video stolen? He had actually offered high praise to Navy SEALs by saying he wanted to be just like them even if he wasn’t. Who hasn’t heard the idiom, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?”’

    Shipley better shut down his site and stop trying to keep people from offering praise to other Navy SEALs.

    ‘What stolen valor groups have done is make it acceptable for these Rangers and others like them to act as self-appointed vigilantes, emboldened to act unprofessionally and unlawfully. They assaulted a stranger on the street and no one objected. In fact, many celebrated their behavior and believed that the man got off lightly. What if they had done more than just slap him in the face a few times? When would their behavior have risen to an unacceptable level?’

    I am pretty sure the overwhelming majority of us condemned the actions of those so called Rangers. In fact I think most of us doubt some of them were ever Rangers.

    ‘Valor cannot be claimed and doesn’t need to be defended because it can’t be stolen. Service members and veterans who think they have to defend their valor are likely those who are the least deserving of such praise.’

    I have said this for many years; nobody can steal my Valor if I even have such a thing. What Broadzilla doesn’t seem to comprehend is they fraudulently use the collective Valor of all who served. I am not defending my individual Valor, I defend the integrity of Valor itself. If anyone can claim that honor……it has no honor.

    Broadzilla needs a collar.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      If anyone can claim that honor……it has no honor.

      Indeed in our everyone is special society, which means no one is actually special, the concept that some have done the work to earn more or be recognized in some manner for a sacrifice the masses are not willing to make (like starting a company and working a million hours a week or joining the military) is foreign to most of our culture these days.

      Your military service is dishonored by assclowns who lie and the people like our Ms Haring feel we should just sit back and take it as some sort of aspiration to a higher ideal that claims liars are actually flattering the military by pretending to be what they are not. Or liberal dems claim your business wasn’t really started by you because you dared to use a public road to get to your business site. Even though none of those useless whining dems actually put up their house and their life savings to take the risk…

      Fuck the people who do nothing but lie or whine or pretend that those activities carry the same value as the actions of real soldier and entrepreneurs. Ms. Haring has invested nothing of herself to get where she is, safe job, safe academics and zero risk. She can’t possibly understand what it means to risk your home, your family’s well-being or your life in service so her opinion carries all the weight of a single feather…floating along to be carried by whatever wind happens to blow that day.

      • Dave Hardin says:

        When you are in the game, screams always come from the cheap seats. Success and sacrifice need to be punished. If we achieve more than our comrades, we should give it to those who do not. Its all about the motherland comrade.

        What we see as honor and pride is just misdirected. All for the Motherland comrade, all for the motherland.

  18. JimW says:

    “Growing, learning organizations must accept, even invite, criticism if they are to improve.” When ever I see statements that refer to the military like this, there’s really a good chance the writer is pretty far left of left.(like Lars). The military needs to remain an organization of integrity. Can’t happen if there getting in-touch with there softer and more “growing” side of inclusive behavior. She would have all the new recruits have more social skill classes so they can talk to the enemy without being offensive. And less emphasis on destructive behaviour that could be used in warfare to win a dam war. Someone should check to see if she doesn’t have a hammer and sickle card in her purse. Whether she’s a veteran or not make no difference, she’s a commie.

  19. Thunderstixx says:

    This is what happens when people take themselves entirely too seriously.
    Truly an arrogant woman with obvious narcissistic issues, much like so many on the left side of the aisle.
    It sure would be a mess if they really did run the world…

  20. 3E9 says:

    Stupid twit. That is all

  21. Ex-PH2 says:

    This whiny individual was first brought to our attention because her claim was that not being allowed in combat was a bar to the advancement of women in the military, right?

    Here is complete refutation of her statement: Brigadier General Laura Richardson.


    Haring is SO full of hot air and horse apples that I refuse to take her seriously. In my opinion, she does more harm than good and should learn when it’s best to shut her mouth. Tightly.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Sorry, I had a brain fart when I said it was Laura Richardson. That was an entirely different person. Laura Richardson was promoted to BG in 2012.


      For the Illinois National Guard, 2014, it was Alicia Tate-Nadeau.

      Sorry about that. My bad.

    • Bobo says:

      It now seems to be popular among some of the military “academics” to very publicly bad mouth the military in hopes of gaining name recognition in academia and the press outside of the military. We’ve seen it with Bateman and with Haring. We’ll see it with a few more as they leave the military and hope for a six figure consulting gig with a think tank or the media.

      Honestly, if she didn’t go out of her way to be the squeaky wheel, she’d just be one more retired COL with a slightly above average education (USMA, not that cheesy MS) looking for a job inside the beltway.

  22. TheCloser says:

    She was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the DoD complaining that not enough women were getting killed in combat, knowing full well that she would never have to reap what she sowed.


    • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

      If she really wants PTSD, I’m sure she’s gonna get some now.

    • Grimmy says:

      Like I said above. She’s nothing but a degenerate astro-turf.

      The only thing that makes any sense at all is that she’s angling for one of those leftard “think tank” jobs that pay totally ridiculous amounts for leftards of proven loyalty and ideological compliance and utter and complete lack of intellectual integrity or moral honor to run their sumps.

  23. nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

    “This We’ll Defend”.

    Ever notice how Oh six and Oh shit look and sound almost the same?


  24. Perry Gaskill says:

    It’s difficult to comment on this without falling into a trap of psycho babble. Still, Haring seems to have a basic lack of understanding of why the Rangers were pissed off in the first place. Sort of in the way somebody might be color blind or tone deaf, she apparently sees the issue as one of bullying when it’s actually one of those with a moral compass reminding someone who does not why having a moral compass matters.

    Having such cognitive blinders then leads to a long semantic dance around the meaning of the word “valor” which is mostly beside the point.

    Were the Rangers justified in slapping the phony SEAL dude? Beats me. The way I look at it is that if you wave a red flag at a bull, you shouldn’t be surprised when your sorry ass gets gored.

  25. ByrdMan says:

    1. I thought most of us came to the conclusion that those knobs in the video probably weren’t Rangers (especially the dude with the beard)

    2. I understand her point, I don’t think those 3 douches should have slapped that other guy up either. However, she’s using a bad example as a basis for her argument and doesn’t fully understand why many who served detest stolen valor. Additionally, the purpose of these “groups” is to do exactly what the Supreme Court directed; combat false speech with true speech.

    Should fake Rangers be slapping up fake Navy Seals in drunken buffoonery? No. Should assholes like Richard Rahn, Nate Fornwalt, and Shane Ladner be called out for their lies? Absolutely.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      One of the many shortcomings in Ellen “Red” Haring’s piece is that very example of the “Rangers” that she uses. Although she begins by calling the little group purported Rangers, she thereafter confers on them the title of Ranger and writes about them as such. I give you these:

      “…but the Rangers filmed the incident”; “When I saw the video I was embarrassed, less for the man they humiliated and more for the Rangers, and the Army that they serve”; “The Rangers’ behavior stems not just from this sense of automatic superiority that they accrue by joining the military…”; “there wasn’t anything valorous in the actions of the three Rangers who slapped a man….”

      As you and others said, the doubt about the authenticity of the oafs who called themselves Rangers was expressed by many, here and elsewhere, right from the start. And this was the best Red Haring can do?

  26. nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

    So when does claiming to be someone/something that you’re not cross the line into the realm of identity theft?

  27. Ex-PH2 says:

    Haring may have changed the spot she sits in since she retired, but she hasn’t changed HER own spot. She’s still the same cranky, quarrelsome cow that she was in the previous post about her, where she complained bitterly that women don’t get to advance to higher ranks because they can’t get into combat infantry.

    Now, considering that the number of Army and Navy (not sure about Marines) women who had advanced to upper ranks before they retired, as well as the fact that Haring had NOT gone higher than COL in 28 years in the Army, my personal conclusion about her is that she was passed over for various reasons. And I’m guessing, but again, in MY opinion, I’d say she made a nuisance of herself in more ways than one, as in constantly finding fault in other people. As cranky as her article is, I’d guess that she rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

    Chronic complaints do not make you pleasant to work with.

  28. Airdog says:

    When I was a boy in the early 1970s, I found a surplus Army field jacket with a “Screaming Eagles” unit patch on the shoulder. Wearing it, I thought was cool; an elderly colonel that was a family friend and who had served with George Patton chastised me for “impersonating a soldier of the 101st Airborne Division.” That old colonel knew something about valor: Whether or not it could be stolen, it damn sure deserved to be defended.

    Words have meanings. “Valor” means to have strength in reply to adversity, and signifies worthiness. Valor is integral to the notion of “honor”–to posses a reputation worthy of respect. Such a reputation must be defended–dutifully, manfully, and unremittingly.

    Heroism in combat is valorous conduct, but so is battling a fire or flooding on ship; managing a compound emergency in an aircraft; surviving the cut in one of the military’s elite training courses; or scoring a passing grade on the Navy’s brain-bending nuke power exam. There are thousands of people who are serving or have served in the service that have demonstrated valor. Those who endured captivity as PWs or who charged machine gun nests and jumped on grenades deserve the highest regard, but valor is not confined to a handful of medal recipients. The author is sorely mistaken when she argues that swift and affirmative defense by individuals of valor and the honor it engenders is somehow mere “self-promotion.” Claiming you are something that you are not may not nowadays constitute a criminal offense, but some things aren’t crimes that are wrong nevertheless–everywhere and always such offenses deserve an appropriate response:

  29. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Not only had I not seen that clip before, but I don’t recall hearing of the incident. Nice job, Buzz! He was 72 at the time, and no charges were placed b/c he was provoked. Gosh, I love a happy ending. “You’re a liar, a coward, and a thief!” SMACK!

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      You know, when the video is rerun on TV news, for some reason the microphone check (breaker, breaker, check, check) ahead of Neil Armstrong actually stepping down the ladder isn’t included. I wish they’d leave that in.

  30. L. Taylor says:

    Her position was not unreasonable.

    However, I do believe that claiming you are a SEAL, or SF, or recipient of awards only given for valor (Silver Star, DSC, MoH etc.) is stealing valor and not just “flattery.” I do not think it matters that many SF or SEALS have never received and award for valor. Most people assume that anyone who has served in many types of units were likely have acted in a way that was valorous, perhaps even simply for volunteering to serve in one of those units.

    I generally understand, but do not entirely agree, with her point and I think it was a reasonable contribution to the debate. I do not understand the hostility this board is projecting at her.

    And the Rangers in the viral video did act in a way that reflected negatively on the military.

    • L. Taylor says:


      • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

        Hey! Somebody forgot to flush again!

      • JimW says:

        eventually the larvae hatches…and Troll starts to buzz around…

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Nobody gives a shit about typos, Lars. It’s your argument that’s lacking. Let’s start with something simple: How do you know that the bullies on the video were Rangers? And then, let’s move onto her argument and her definition of valor. Do you agree with her definition–as she wrote it, not as you read into it?

        • L. Taylor says:

          It does not matter if they were rangers. The internet perceived them as rangers and their action therefore reflected negatively on the military.

          No, I do not think the definition of valor only includes those things officially recognized with awards for valor.

          • GDcontractor says:

            How did “the internet” perceive that cartoon on the VA employees desk Mr. Infanty? Do tell.

            • L. Taylor says:

              The smart ones saw a uniform.

              • The Other Whitey says:

                Hey, Larsy Limpdick is back! Where ya been, asshole? Conversations around here were actually civil and insightful without your chickenshit. We missed you like like a rash.

                Just so you know, you’re still an assdouche who makes the other liberals look bad. And you’re not better or smarter than anybody else here. You’re just a self-righteous prick. Fuck off and die, and have a blessed fucking day while you’re at it.

              • Hondo says:

                The smart ones saw a uniform.

                And you know this how, Lars? Did you conduct a statically-valid sample of Internet users, ask them, obtain their IQ scores (or equivalent, such as ASVAB scores), and analyze the data to see if there was any correlation between their perception and intelligence? If so, did you ensure that you adjusted for any anti-military bias in the sample (e.g., by picking a sample that doesn’t over-represent the population that is biased against the US military – such as one that isn’t drawn exclusively from a left-leaning university that has a high proportion of non-US students)?

                I’m guessing the answer is no, and you’re making yet another unsupported assertion here. Well, news flash for ya, sunshine: you’re not the Deity, your word isn’t law, and you are neither omniscient nor infallible. And your sh!t stinks just like anyone else’s, too.

                You would do well to remember those last two sentences when commenting here. Make a case based on fact, not unsupported crap you pulled out of your butt. Or be prepared to be called an idiot and a fool.

                And if you continue to act like smug jerk and talking rectum with unfounded delusions of superiority, be prepared to be called exactly that too. Or worse.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Rebuttal of the use of ‘internet’ as a physical entity: the internet is not a corporeal, living organism. It is an electronic medium by which information is conveyed to and accessed by a wide range of people who can or will make judgments based on their perception of something.
            Therefore, the use of ‘internet perceived’ is an incorrect and invalid argument.

    • L. Taylor says:

      This is the kind of nonsense responses my post generates.

      My posts are moron attractors.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Well, lars, if you stopped flooding us with your delusions of your own superiority and acted like a human being instead of a stuckup little snot, you might get a better reception.

        It isn’t your posts that attract responses you don’t like.

        It is YOU. You are obnoxious and self-important and perceive yourself as better than everyone else in the world. Yes, you do.

        You sneer at the people who post here, casting aspersions on them – yes, you did that — without knowing anything about them, beyond the fact that they disagree with your haughty opinions.

        You’re a stuck-up jerk. When you decided to come down off your cloud and join the human race, let someone know, will you?

        • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

          cpt Lard is the one who, when reading the various Articles of the UCMJ, inserts his name in every place that says “superior officer”.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        No, you’re just a moron, and we treat you accordingly.

      • Sparks says:

        L. Taylor…I’m tired of the “holier than thou cause I’m smarter than you all” attitude you bring so go fuck yourself pal. Debating with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. It just comes and knocks over the pieces, shits on the board and then struts around like it won. I’m telling you, Christopher Reeve would not stand for this.

  31. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “And the Rangers in the viral video did act in a way that reflected negatively on the military.” Okay, Lars. That’s what you wrote. You did not qualify “Rangers” in any way, shape, or form. You presented as fact that the bullies were Rangers. Then, when I asked how you knew them to be Rangers, you said, “It does not matter if they were rangers.” Golly. Fact. Not fact. Whatever, I suppose. You would like not to be lampooned and then you serve up that pap. Worse, you point to the internet, saying that it perceived them to be Rangers. Now, I ask you, how is that anything but silly? I keep trying, giving you opportunities to make a lucid, fact-based argument and you keep rebuffing my attempts to help you display the intellect you fancy yourself to have. I guess that makes me the bigger fool.

    • GDcontractor says:

      This is where Lars uses Google to find a fantastic statistic that is totally unsubstantiated by any data. He will then use this statistic to create a bullshit argument to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a nothing but a mean, big, fat, racist.
      When called out on it, he will say,”I didn’t pull it out of my ass”.
      Then he will go back to working on his homework, using crayon.

  32. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    My favorite Larsism is when he–in the very same thread!–dismissed anecdotal evidence as worthless and then, in another of his inane comments, said that anecdotal evidence matters. What changed in the time elapsed between the two comments? Nothing: it was just that anecdotes hurt his position the first time and helped it (in his view) the second.

    • CLAW131 says:

      2/17, if you meant “Larscissim and not “Larsism”, I fixed it for ya./smile

      • Hondo says:

        I think he was correct.

        “Larsism” is a term for a self-contradictory or hypocritical argument. 2/17 Air Cav gave an example in his comment above.

        “Larsissism” refers to the condition wherein an individual erroneously believes himself to be superior to others when there is no objective justification whatsoever for that belief. Sufferers are often identified by loud proclamations of such superiority (or by calling dissenters inferior), while exhibiting words or behavior that conclusively prove that their belief of superiority is unfounded. One example of such behavior includes using repeated use of larsisms during debate as valid arguments without apparently realizing them to be bogus. In doing so, the individual’s self-professed “superiority” is manifestly and obviously contradicted by the individual’s own words and acts.

        Both larsissism and extensive use of larsisms are often observed in the same individual. When that’s the case, use of the phrase “just Lars being Lars” – patterned after the archetype meme “just Manny being Manny” – is apropos to explain the behavior.


        • CLAW131 says:

          Thanks Hondo. Too many big words for me.

          I’m not the fartest smeller on Sunday mornings anyway.


        • Ex-PH2 says:

          A fine definition, Hondo. It should be added to the Oxford Unabridged (online edition), so that it can be also used when describing polticians who engage in fake rhetoric when they adopt a popular cause, especially if they make cash from it.

          • Hondo says:

            Ex-PH2: I think that’s already there. I believe what you describe is the aberrant behavior that’s been called “goreissism” since about 2006. Specifically: “goreissism” is the behavior in which an individual engages in making bogus or misleading public statements for the purpose of stirring up public unease and/or fear (and in democratic nations, achieving public policy changes) based on unproven or false science, with the intent to generate personal gain from the resulting fear or changes. A statement of this kind is called a “goreism”.

            That’s the most recent variant of which I’m aware. However, there may also be preexisting similar terms. (smile)

  33. Green Thumb says:

    I just read the article.

    She is an idiot. Just look at her background.

    I hope her daughter marries a poser.

    • GDcontractor says:

      I hope her portfolio manager is a counterfeiter.

      • Hondo says:

        I’m waiting for the day when someone plagiarizes one of her articles (or her PhD dissertation, if she ever finished that program) and claims her written work as their own.

        I suspect she’d have a bit of a problem with that. And then, she just might “get it”.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I have not read her article, but I would like to know if it is worth the time it takes to read it to critique it for fact-checking and composition.

      Not that I’m a celebrated literary critic, or anything, but she does come off as a rather cocksure cow.

  34. Green Thumb says:

    I watched the video. It was not that bad.

    Also, Christopher Duke is a turd.

  35. MSG Eric says:

    Strangely enough, this article popped up in my FB feed today from Task & Purpose.

    Someone seems to have linked that to this article for review as well. She’s such a hindrance to real life.