-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Good idea or not?
- Thread starter Homer J
- Start date
- Status
No.
Stealing a riff from the movies:
Gordon Cooper: "You boys know what makes this [ship get built]? FUNDING makes this [ship get built]."
Gus Grissom: "He's right. No bucks...no Buck Rogers."
Pop Culture Reference: The Right Stuff
Gordon Cooper: "You boys know what makes this [ship get built]? FUNDING makes this [ship get built]."
Gus Grissom: "He's right. No bucks...no Buck Rogers."
Pop Culture Reference: The Right Stuff
No, just...no.
I have no problem with the man. But Navy warships aren't goddamned highway overpasses.
I have no problem with the man. But Navy warships aren't goddamned highway overpasses.
A substantial number of folks in the SF Bay Area that either knew and or worked with Milk have stated publically that Milk wouldn't have wanted his name associated with anything related to the MIL.
LowLevelGay = Ship named after him? NO!
Highly Decorated/Respected (gay) service member who's contributions deserve such an honor? Yes.
My Vote= Bad Idea.
(Maybe this thread will bring back A4's?)
LowLevelGay = Ship named after him? NO!
Highly Decorated/Respected (gay) service member who's contributions deserve such an honor? Yes.
My Vote= Bad Idea.
(Maybe this thread will bring back A4's?)
A substantial number of folks in the SF Bay Area that either knew and or worked with Milk have stated publically that Milk wouldn't have wanted his name associated with anything related to the MIL.
LowLevelGay = Ship named after him? NO!
Highly Decorated/Respected (gay) service member who's contributions deserve such an honor? Yes.
My Vote= Bad Idea.
(Maybe this thread will bring back A4's?)
Novel idea. What's the selection criteria that differentiates a "low level gay" vs a "highly decorated/respected gay"? How do you remedy that prior to the repeal of DADT, a service member couldn't be openly gay? Do we go back and ask every Medal of Honor, Navy Cross etc recipient and their families if they are/were gay? Do we take a poll of all the openly gay service members now, pick the highest award and make a ship after them? Do we go by rank? Apparently Milk was pretty instrumental in the gay rights movement. His selection seems to be inline with things like selecting the name Cesar Chavez for a ship due to his role in "fair working conditions and equal rights" even though there were better qualified hispanics when it came to military service records. I personally think that military service records should play a larger role in naming ships then it has in recent history. But at least they're considering someone whose ties to military service expands beyond marrying an Intruder driver turned astronaut and surviving being on the receiving end of a bullet. (Edit: If I knew how to insert the rolling eyes smiley I would have already.)
Not my first pick, for sure, but definitely more deserving by virtue of his military service than a congressperson who was unknown until being shot. Also in his favor: he's dead. Not that it's a good thing, but I think that objects should only be named after dead people unless the person paid for the thing personally.
I'll put him in the same category as Cesar Chavez in one respect, though. Chavez said his time in the Navy was one of the worst parts of his life.
I still think we have a large bench of military heroes before we need to dip into our stock of noteworthy, politically significant individuals.
If no one buys my earlier idea of using kick-ass British ship names, how about resurrecting the earlier system of naming ships according to class, e.g. cruisers=states, subs=fish, etc? Yes, I know,"Fish don't vote."
I'll put him in the same category as Cesar Chavez in one respect, though. Chavez said his time in the Navy was one of the worst parts of his life.
I still think we have a large bench of military heroes before we need to dip into our stock of noteworthy, politically significant individuals.
If no one buys my earlier idea of using kick-ass British ship names, how about resurrecting the earlier system of naming ships according to class, e.g. cruisers=states, subs=fish, etc? Yes, I know,"Fish don't vote."
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Going out on a limb here but there are probably one or two people that gave their life for others in a war zone that don't have a ship named after them yet, maybe, just maybe they might be more deserving.
Zippy, I think his point is still valid. The point is this: Prior to the repeal, if someone was gay and successful in the military, it was likely a pretty good secret. In those days, if you were openly gay, your military career was short, at best.
But we can't fix the past. What we CAN do is now that being openly gay isn't an issue (as LONG as it may have taken to get rid of that stupid rule), we can wait and see what kind of really great careers happen and reward someone who has an illustrious and important career in the military .... who HAPPENS to be gay. Not BECAUSE they are gay, but just that it is no longer a secret.
I am inclined to agree with CAMike because, like similar integration issues, it is wrong to IMMEDIATELY push an idea simply because the rules have changed. We now don't hate gays in the military.... so let's name a ship after a guy who had a short and uninteresting military career who did great things afterward!
NOT a good idea. Just like the brass PUSHING that a woman be made a jet pilot, and putting an incapable, mediocre female pilot into an F-14 and watching her fly it into the water isn't a good idea, neither is naming a ship after a mediocre gay sailor who went on to fame after his short stint in the Navy. Apples to oranges, I know, but the decision making is similar, not the situation.
Honor him as a politician? Sure. Honor him as a sailor in the Navy? Why?
Perhaps my post came off the wrong way. I tried to highlight the pandoras box we'd open by specifically looking for a gay combat veteran to honor with a ship naming. I think thats a road we shouldn't want to go down and politicians have lost sight of the traditions of ship names in order to pass out political favor. Military service records should have been the deciding factors in who in cases of recent history have had ships named after them. If they happen to be White fine- same way if they happen to be Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, gay, straight, woman, man whatever. In the perfect world all that stuff shouldn't matter. Unfortunately it seems to be the driving selection criteria in naming ships these days. My solace in the matter comes from the fact that I won't likely be on any of these ridiculously named ships and have to shake my head every time I read the name before I cross the brow. I feel bad for those who will.
Well, keep it in perspective. It's not SECNAV's idea. It's just a congressman agreeing with a resolution passed by a SF city council.
The whole proposal sucks, (no pun intended). IMHO, every U.S. Navy KIA/MOH deserves a ship-namesake before this quasi-politician.
BzB
- Status