07-09-2003, 01:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2003, 01:48 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Paul Harvey, to whom I listen about two mornings per week, just announced that the latest nuclear powered aircraft carrier has been completed in a Norfolk, Virginia, shipyard and will be commissioned USS Ronald Reagan.
I object. Not to honoring President Reagan, though others might, but to the following problems of nautical heritage.
USS Ranger is still available. The original Ranger was one of JP Jone's early vessels, a name used six or seven times. CV-61 retired a few years back, time to give Ranger another hull.
Or
USS America
CV-66 was retired a while back. How can the US Navy NOT have a ship called USS America?
How about USS Independence, recently taken off the active roles?
What about, USS Constitution! As in, "I swear to support and defend the . . ."
EDIT: Foolish Occhi, go to Boston Harbor and have a look at USS Constitution! ^^^^ DOH! (Thanks Rhydd, Ghostiger, for the reminder. Even worse, I have a picture of that ship on top of my speakers in my den, and have visited it within the past 5 years.)
America used to name the capital ships for things that were important parts of our national heritage, states of the Union, great battles, or for the critical legacies deriving from the founding of our country: USS Bon Homme Richard and USS Lexington, for example. (Note: The Lexington is now a floating museum here in Corpus Christi, operated by a non-profit organization. :) )
Smaller ships are typically named for cities, heroes (Medal of Honor winners, such as Clyde Lassen or Wayne Caron of Boston Mass, a corpsman who had a destroyer named for him USS Caron) great naval men, Arleigh Burke et al, and even counties. Battles are also major names for ships, like USS Belleau Wood and USS Chanceloresville.
Heritage is important, in matters nautical. John Paul Jones' legacy has given the Bon Homme Richard more than one hull, and Ranger multiples as well.
Times change, there are no more Battleships. (booooo!) The Cruisers and Amphibious Assault Ships now have the Great Battle franchise, such as Yorktown, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, the Belleau Wood and the Tarawa.
The Destroyers are the "people" ships, heroes or nautical men of note, such as USS Winston Churchill.
Nuclear submarines get Cities and States. (USS Corpus Christi got renamed USS City of Corpus Christi after a heated protest by some foaming at the mouth Catholic pacifists. They did not "get" that the sub was named for the City, too easy that one, and I wonder at their failing to force the state of Texas to rename our little town here "Nueces Mouth" or some such non 'body of Christ' name.)
Amphibious ships and oilers are still named for counties, or cities.
What is it with contemporary polticians getting top billing on the nation's capital ships?
JFK? He earned it that hard way: PT-109, President, Cuban missile crisis, shot in office, etc etc.
Harry Truman? Street cred, asserting civilian control over the MacArthurtary, standing tall and tough in Korea, integrating the Armed Services, and of course The Bomb. Famous and infamous . . .
John Stennis (on a carrier?) and Ronald Reagan given priority over traditional names for Aircraft carriers/capital ships? Should there not be a statute of limitations, like a generation, or a requirement for legendary status (uh, Mr Stennis, you can have a Destroyer, nice job as not the president) like TR or Honest Abe before one has a capital ship named for him?
Benjamin Franklin, once the proud name of a nuclear sub, is OVER DAMEND DUE for once again gracing a capital ship with his name. Thomas Jefferson as well.
What about James Monroe, who gave us The Monroe Doctrine, which is what gunboat diplomacy is all about! And what do aircraft carriers do? Gunboat diplomacy, among other things.
Why the rant?
Among other reasons, President Reagan is Still Alive!
He did some good things, sure (and was as rabid an anticommunist as JFK) but for the U.S. Congress to name capital ships for a man still breathing, when far more appropriate choices are available and begging to grace the vessels that Cromwell called the "best ambassador," is just plain wrong.
They say that the military is the tool of the politician.
Indeed. It is in poor taste for nautical heritage to be so blatantly abused. (The naming of a ships is, of course, a highly charged political process.)
*slaps forehead*
I forgot, good taste went out of politics with Watergate, perhaps, and for sure when Cigars and Interns as groupies were debated on the floor of the House in Constitutional terms.
(PS: On an interesting note, the Royal Navy tends to name capital ships after adjectives, such as Intrepid or Indomitable, or verbs, such as Repulse, and lately escort ships on a theme: the Amazon class frigate names all started with A, and IIRC, the Type 23 frigates all start with B. HMS Beaver was one of the first frigates, IIRC, to have female sailors embarked as part of the crew: did anyone think that one through at the Defense Ministry? Or was The First Sea Lord having one last Non-PC joke?)
I object. Not to honoring President Reagan, though others might, but to the following problems of nautical heritage.
USS Ranger is still available. The original Ranger was one of JP Jone's early vessels, a name used six or seven times. CV-61 retired a few years back, time to give Ranger another hull.
Or
USS America
CV-66 was retired a while back. How can the US Navy NOT have a ship called USS America?
How about USS Independence, recently taken off the active roles?
What about, USS Constitution! As in, "I swear to support and defend the . . ."
EDIT: Foolish Occhi, go to Boston Harbor and have a look at USS Constitution! ^^^^ DOH! (Thanks Rhydd, Ghostiger, for the reminder. Even worse, I have a picture of that ship on top of my speakers in my den, and have visited it within the past 5 years.)
America used to name the capital ships for things that were important parts of our national heritage, states of the Union, great battles, or for the critical legacies deriving from the founding of our country: USS Bon Homme Richard and USS Lexington, for example. (Note: The Lexington is now a floating museum here in Corpus Christi, operated by a non-profit organization. :) )
Smaller ships are typically named for cities, heroes (Medal of Honor winners, such as Clyde Lassen or Wayne Caron of Boston Mass, a corpsman who had a destroyer named for him USS Caron) great naval men, Arleigh Burke et al, and even counties. Battles are also major names for ships, like USS Belleau Wood and USS Chanceloresville.
Heritage is important, in matters nautical. John Paul Jones' legacy has given the Bon Homme Richard more than one hull, and Ranger multiples as well.
Times change, there are no more Battleships. (booooo!) The Cruisers and Amphibious Assault Ships now have the Great Battle franchise, such as Yorktown, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, the Belleau Wood and the Tarawa.
The Destroyers are the "people" ships, heroes or nautical men of note, such as USS Winston Churchill.
Nuclear submarines get Cities and States. (USS Corpus Christi got renamed USS City of Corpus Christi after a heated protest by some foaming at the mouth Catholic pacifists. They did not "get" that the sub was named for the City, too easy that one, and I wonder at their failing to force the state of Texas to rename our little town here "Nueces Mouth" or some such non 'body of Christ' name.)
Amphibious ships and oilers are still named for counties, or cities.
What is it with contemporary polticians getting top billing on the nation's capital ships?
JFK? He earned it that hard way: PT-109, President, Cuban missile crisis, shot in office, etc etc.
Harry Truman? Street cred, asserting civilian control over the MacArthurtary, standing tall and tough in Korea, integrating the Armed Services, and of course The Bomb. Famous and infamous . . .
John Stennis (on a carrier?) and Ronald Reagan given priority over traditional names for Aircraft carriers/capital ships? Should there not be a statute of limitations, like a generation, or a requirement for legendary status (uh, Mr Stennis, you can have a Destroyer, nice job as not the president) like TR or Honest Abe before one has a capital ship named for him?
Benjamin Franklin, once the proud name of a nuclear sub, is OVER DAMEND DUE for once again gracing a capital ship with his name. Thomas Jefferson as well.
What about James Monroe, who gave us The Monroe Doctrine, which is what gunboat diplomacy is all about! And what do aircraft carriers do? Gunboat diplomacy, among other things.
Why the rant?
Among other reasons, President Reagan is Still Alive!
He did some good things, sure (and was as rabid an anticommunist as JFK) but for the U.S. Congress to name capital ships for a man still breathing, when far more appropriate choices are available and begging to grace the vessels that Cromwell called the "best ambassador," is just plain wrong.
They say that the military is the tool of the politician.
Indeed. It is in poor taste for nautical heritage to be so blatantly abused. (The naming of a ships is, of course, a highly charged political process.)
*slaps forehead*
I forgot, good taste went out of politics with Watergate, perhaps, and for sure when Cigars and Interns as groupies were debated on the floor of the House in Constitutional terms.
(PS: On an interesting note, the Royal Navy tends to name capital ships after adjectives, such as Intrepid or Indomitable, or verbs, such as Repulse, and lately escort ships on a theme: the Amazon class frigate names all started with A, and IIRC, the Type 23 frigates all start with B. HMS Beaver was one of the first frigates, IIRC, to have female sailors embarked as part of the crew: did anyone think that one through at the Defense Ministry? Or was The First Sea Lord having one last Non-PC joke?)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete