Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Since the bay area pretty much chased Fleet Week and the US Navy out why would the Navy ever listen to them?
Still, this reminds me of the Simpson's gag that had the USS Mondale, a laundry ship.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-05-18 00:59||
#2 I could make a snarky comment about "torpedoed in the stern." But that would just be wrong.
Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2012-05-18 02:06||
#3 How about a Submarine named the USS Richard Simmons, a Cruiser named the USS Rock Hudson, A Destroyer named the USS Rosie O'Donnell or an Aircraft Carrier named the USS Castro District.
We're not far from a demand that "Special Services" provide bases and ships with Bath Houses as part of their recreation programs.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2012-05-18 02:06||
#4 We already have the Jimmy Carter. Can't we just leave well enough alone?
Posted by SteveS 2012-05-18 02:14||
#5 "The Horror!The Horror!
Posted by borgboy 2012-05-18 02:20||
#6 Wouldn't the USS Pander cover all bases?
Posted by crosspatch 2012-05-18 04:20||
#7 Even more vehement is gay activist Tommi Avicolli Mecca. "Why not name a bomber after Gandhi?"
I would have no problem with a bomber named after Gandhi. He forged his anti-war beliefs as a streacher bearer, carrying wounded and dying British soldiers to aid stations and field hospitals in a bloody African conflict.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-05-18 05:10||
#8 ...It should be pointed out that the gay community is actually against the idea. By all accounts Mr. Milk was a pretty decent guy, and served honorably, but he strongly protested the Vietnam war (which, after all, was his right)and a great many folks don't think a warship (according to them, even if it's a supply ship, it's gray so it's a warship)should be named after him.
After all, the government should listen to the people. :D
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2012-05-18 06:06||
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-05-18 09:25||
#10 USS Remora
Posted by mojo 2012-05-18 10:37||
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-05-18 10:39||
#12 As a gay guy, I want to say I find this idea patronizing, humiliating, and shameful. Milk is being honored for two reasons: he is a victim and he fought for partisan political causes that not everyone agrees with. Hey, I've got a novel idea! Let's name ships after people admired by patriotic Americans of all political outlooks. How could this be anything other than a no-brainer?
Even more radically, I might suggest that we name ships only after people who have contributed significantly to the cause of American security. Is there a shortage of such candidates? I don't think so!
If the politicians are so damn committed to shamelessly catering to identity politics, even naming a ship after the gay guy who probably helped take out the Flight 93 terrorists would at least be somewhat appropriate.
Posted by ryuge 2012-05-18 10:56||
#13 Amen ryuge
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2012-05-18 11:12||
#14 I still cannot believe they commissioned a ship named for Chavez. Chavez described his experience in the military [US Navy] as "the two worst years of my life."
Something is seriously f'd up in the Dept of the Navy regards ships names.
Posted by OldSpook 2012-05-18 11:23||
#15 What about reserving the names for CMH winners, those who died in the line of service, and deceased FEDERAL elected office holders (like Congress or Pres only), or those who conspicuously aided their service and the nation. Plenty of non-controverisal names there. As small as the navy is getting, I would thing limiting the list to Naval heroes (Jones, etc), CMH awardees, States and major city names would be plenty.
Posted by OldSpook 2012-05-18 11:27||
#16 Name them after battles, not people.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-05-18 11:58||
#17 Give 'em hell, ryuge! ;-p
Posted by Barbara 2012-05-18 12:22||
#18 Problem is a lot of the modern battles arent well named. My own for instance: the USS 73 Easting doesn't exactly pop, yet its the largest armored land battle the US Army has fought since WW2.
Its taught in the academies as a textbook example of how a meeting engagement and assault are done with modern cavalry in the absence of air support (due to weather). For those unaware:
The Battle of 73 Easting and the movement to contact south of the battle brought the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment's covering force mission for VII Corps to its conclusion. During the operation the Regiment covered the advance of three different U.S. divisions in turn, moved 120 miles in eighty-two hours and fought elements of five Iraqi Divisions. The violent battle at 73 Easting fixed the southern forces of the Iraqi Republican Guard Corps and permitted the Corps Commander to launch First Infantry Division into the depths of the Iraqi defenses and on into Kuwait.
The 2nd ACR, which advanced between the Iraqi 12th Armored Division and the Tawakalna Division, was the only American ground unit to find itself significantly outnumbered and out-gunned. In moving to and through the Battle of 73 Easting, 2nd ACR destroyed 160 tanks, 180 personnel carriers, 12 artillery pieces and more than 80 wheeled vehicles, along with several anti-aircraft artillery systems during the battle.
Too bad they dont teach recent history in school. Kids hear all about Vietnam, but not about this.
Posted by OldSpook 2012-05-18 12:27||
#19 Basically the largest armored/mech turn and assault since the Bulge. I think Patton would have been proud of us, as he was when the regiment served as "The Ghosts of Patton's Army" (as the Germans called us).
Posted by OldSpook 2012-05-18 12:39||
#20 Welcome to 'corporatization' of the USN.
To be accurate, tho. the Cesar Chavez is a USNS vessel not USS. That's the designation for Military Sealift Command vessels; fleet auxiliaries with civilian crews (albeit with a military detachment on some).
So it's pandering, but, since it's not a warship, it's in a way rather meaningless (kind of like the most of the diversity movement).
Posted by Pappy 2012-05-18 14:44||
#21 Even more radically, I might suggest that we name ships only after people who have contributed significantly to the cause of American security. Is there a shortage of such candidates?
Unfortunately ryuge, things are done in the name of PC and perceived political advantage but what you say is a good idea and the right thing to do.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-05-18 14:47||
#22 Maybe you should adopt the British system of naming ships after qualities, rather than people.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-05-18 15:00||
#23 We would just get the USS Sensitive.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-05-18 15:09||
#24 Aircraft Carrier USS Meh and USS Ennui deployed to gulf.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-05-18 15:18||
#25 Harvey was a decent guy, but his only two achievements were the "pooper scooper" law and to get shot. They say it's bad luck to rename a ship but......
Posted by Mercutio 2012-05-18 15:30||
#26 Maybe they can get the ship some chaplains from the People's Temple.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-05-18 22:54||