portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts portland metro

9.11 investigation

Dress To Impress (or at least to keep the homefires burning)

I stopped a couple of US Naval officers to ask them why it was they were wearing their uniforms during shore-leave because i am used to seeing the sailors get changed *before* disembarking their vessels. (included link to a The Oregonian front_page article by Norm Maves Jr.)
(in the linked article, Norm Maves Jr. fails to acknowledge that the barricade at Tom McCall Waterfront Park contained a facet of cement barriers lined up from the Burnside Bridge to the Steel Bridge access. this barrier went up a day before the fencing)

so i stop these two enlisted men who were in full naval outfit. the downtown was flooded with seamen.

i wanted to ask them why they were wearing their uniforms because from my experience (working security at the port of another city here in the NW), the sailors tended to get dressed down civilian stylee before leaving the vessel.

when i asked them (their names not being asked by me) one stated that it was "the rule that we wear our uniforms the first day on shore, after that we can dress however way we want to."

hm. i don't know if this was a rule before "9-11" but since i didn't thoroughly investigate this article i'll just wonder to myself WHY WOULD THE US NAVY REQUIRE UNIFORMS ON ANY PART OF SHORE LEAVE AT ANY PORT OF CALL? wouldn't this involve safety issues for the servicemen?)

the ship these two were on was the USS Valley Forge, the 4th ship among the visiting fleet to arrive. they were "new recruits," which might explain the problems that were encountered before arriving to port here in Portland (see linked article).

today, i suppose i shouldn't see any seamen on my city streets (or joy-riding around in a white limousine for that matter. maybe).

(also, on my limited investigation, i came across the big stone that is at the park commemorating the Japanese US citizens interned during WWII)


homepage: homepage: http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/front_page/1023451050146491.xml

also 07.Jun.2002 12:16

jheri curl


impromptu search for Naval uni regulations

i'll do more.

freaky 07.Jun.2002 16:54


Sounds like something the Oregonian would waste time on. Get lives!!!

the point 08.Jun.2002 10:51

the jheri curl kid

the point of this article is not to report on the topic of what those cuties in the Navy are wearing (haha), but to hint at the odd reasoning behind letting the men & women of the US Navy wear their full uniforms in non-combat situations.

the air force supposedly isn't allowing their officers to travel commercially while wearing their uniforms, among other such restrictions


(i found another article but i lost the frickin link)

here are the regulations for Naval uniforms.


(i could not access the 6th chapter during my search. as well, i could not reach any Navy officials to inquire about a rule that servicemen must wear uniforms the 1st day on shore(leave))

why would Naval officers wear uniforms for consecutive days? it's not like they're at war, right? and they aren't a part of any police force...(are they?)

i'm still noticing sailors wearing their unis friday and today, which they have the right to do so, but has it maybe been *suggested* that they wear the uniforms a bit more often?...i don't know, maybe this is a waste of time article thinking about it.

the point finished 08.Jun.2002 11:02

the jheri curl kid

what i'm asking: IS THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM (though i haven't discovered any official info w/ regards to the relevant uniform policy) BEING DONE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE INTENT MIGHT BE TO "RIDE THE WAVE OF US PATRIOTISM" LET THE CITIZENS SEE THEIR MIGHTY NATIONS WARRIORS (who happen to not fight hand to hand too much in these modern times)?

blah blah.

i would say that if this is the policy--to insist on official-liberal uniform wear--that the Navy has instituted then the Bureau is putting their own servicemen at risk...unless of course the US has been considered a "war ground" in which case...