Naming of Navy ships returns to tradition

[Odysseus]

I think that with one exception, we agree that naming a ship after Chavez was out of line, and that the Murtha decision was political in a way that was calculated to insult the USMC. Clearly, the process requires more guidelines and oversight. My suggestions:

Naming of United States Naval Vessels shall be limited to the following:

Living Persons:

• Former presidents (SECNAV)
• Former First Ladies (SECNAV)
• Recipients of the Medal of Honor (SECNAV)
• Retired flag officers (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Retired Secretaries of the armed services (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Civilians who have engaged enemy forces under circumstances which would justify combat awards for valor (Bronze Star, minimum) (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Civilians whose contributions to the armed services are so great as to command the respect of the services (Bob Hope is the most obvious example) (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)

Deceased Persons:

• Civilians killed by armed enemies of the United States, to include victims of terrorism (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Military personnel killed in combat operations (SECNAV)
• Elected officials whose service included extensive support for the armed services (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)

Foreign Nationals:

• Heads of State of allied nations (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Historical figures of such stature as to inspire confidence and martial spirit (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Enemies of our enemies (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)

The following categories of persons are not eligible for having ships named for them:

Military:

• Persons discharged under other than honorable conditions.
• Persons convicted of felonies following discharge
• Persons whose activities have brought discredit to their service

Civilian:

• Persons convicted of felonies
• Persons who have sought to undermine the conduct of United States military operations or foreign policy.

[Odysseus]

Despite the lack of objectivity of the Wikipedia as a source in many articles, I can't help but note that while "Mexican-American" is not a racial designation per se, there is a commonly held image of a Mexican-American which is largely a North American Indian. None of the "hispanic" men you noted are anything other but caucasian in their appearance and probably in their genealogy.

I think it's possible that there were indeed barriers for latinos who were readily identifiable as mestizos that didn't apply to everyone who simply had a Spanish surname or ancestry.

Maybe, but at the same time, African Americans were restricted, and yet many served with distinction. Chavez' service wasn't distinguished, and his claim to fame was undermining the American economy for his own personal gain.

[Novaheart]

I think that with one exception, we agree that naming a ship after Chavez was out of line,

The only reason I defend naming a ship after Chavez is because I perceive that it was done to be "Inclusive" of Mexican-Americans in the military and to court them politically. Surely there was a a more deserving Mexican-American, but as we have all grown weary of things named for MLK as if he were the only black person worthy of being honored. In fact, it's simply been easier for blacks to demand honor be given King and whites to comply because he's the official patron saint of black people and Civil Rights in the US.

However, I have no problem honoring labor in a ship naming. Make a suggestion on a way to do it that would please you. The USS American Worker has a nice ring to it and one could hardly argue that it wasn't honoring veterans inclusively. :)

...... and that the Murtha decision was political in a way that was calculated to insult the USMC.

That's jumping to conclusions, isn't it? Why would the Sec of Navy want to insult the USMC?

Naming of United States Naval Vessels shall be limited to the following:

Living Persons:

I disagree. The tradition is to not name ships after living persons, and I think that's a good practice.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/141588.pdf

[Novaheart]

Maybe, but at the same time, African Americans were restricted, and yet many served with distinction. Chavez' service wasn't distinguished, and his claim to fame was undermining the American economy for his own personal gain.

Is there a labor leader or organizer for whom you have respect?

[Novaheart]

Naming of United States Naval Vessels shall be limited to the following:

Living Persons:
[LIST][*]Former presidents (SECNAV)
[*]Former First Ladies (SECNAV)

Even though I have already categorically objected to naming boats after living persons, in the case of First Ladies, I object categorically. Why on earth should we name a gigantic and expensive piece of military hardware after a woman whose greatest accomplishment is usually that she's really good at raising charitable funds in her husband's name? I can't recall a bridge or ferry named for a "first lady" of Maryland. Hell, it's bad enough that they named the Chesapeake Bay Bridge after William Preston Lane Jr.

And if you think I have my panties in a knot over the prospect of a USS Nancy Reagan, imagine how you're going to react to the USS Scott Livingston (spouse of future President Mark Townsend Kennedy-Smith.)

[Novaheart]

Deceased Persons:

• Civilians killed by armed enemies of the United States, to include victims of terrorism (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Military personnel killed in combat operations (SECNAV)
• Elected officials whose service included extensive support for the armed services (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)

Foreign Nationals:

• Heads of State of allied nations (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Historical figures of such stature as to inspire confidence and martial spirit (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)
• Enemies of our enemies (subject to approval by a majority in both houses of the congress)

The following categories of persons are not eligible for having ships named for them:

Military:

• Persons discharged under other than honorable conditions.
• Persons convicted of felonies following discharge
• Persons whose activities have brought discredit to their service

Civilian:

• Persons convicted of felonies
• Persons who have sought to undermine the conduct of United States military operations or foreign policy.

I object to naming boats after obscure persons. A survey must be done by a reputable company to determine that more than half of all persons surveyed can describe in some factual way the person being considered for honor. Otherwise, the ship will be named from a computerized hat full of Confederate Generals, Greek warriors and gods, and Scottish and British historical figures like Scota, Bethoc, Dundas, Rob Roy, Ethelwulf.

[Odysseus]

The only reason I defend naming a ship after Chavez is because I perceive that it was done to be "Inclusive" of Mexican-Americans in the military and to court them politically.

That's exactly why they shouldn't have done it. Using the naming of a United States warship to court voting blocs is despicable.

Surely there was a a more deserving Mexican-American, but as we have all grown weary of things named for MLK as if he were the only black person worthy of being honored. In fact, it's simply been easier for blacks to demand honor be given King and whites to comply because he's the official patron saint of black people and Civil Rights in the US.

And yet, they haven't named a ship after him, because Obama has the black vote sewn up. See how that works?

However, I have no problem honoring labor in a ship naming. Make a suggestion on a way to do it that would please you. The USS American Worker has a nice ring to it and one could hardly argue that it wasn't honoring veterans inclusively. :)

We already have ships that honor labor. They protect the system that provides them with jobs. We don't have to pander to every interest group in order to achieve skin-deep diversity. This isn't just some pork-barrel BS that some political hacks can use to lock up votes, it's about naming a ship that Americans will take into combat, and some of them will not come back.

That's jumping to conclusions, isn't it? Why would the Sec of Navy want to insult the USMC?

For the same reason that DADT repeal is the only defense priority that Obama has pursued with anything remotely resembling diligence, the same reason that he has cut our budgets and used the threat of not paying us to prevent a government shutdown: This administration is openly hostile to the armed forces. We're the only branch of government that doesn't vote their way, that doesn't support their agenda, and that cannot be manipulated to their ends.

I disagree. The tradition is to not name ships after living persons, and I think that's a good practice.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/141588.pdf

Uh, no. That's not what the paper says:

Ships Named for Living Persons
The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons. As shown in Table 1, at least 11 U.S. military ships since the 1970s have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
Table 1. Ships Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time

• Aircraft carrier CVN-70 Carl Vinson FY1974 1982
• Attack submarine SSN-709 Hyman G. Rickover FY1974 1984
• Destroyer DDG-51 Arleigh Burke FY1985 1991
• Aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis FY1988 1995
• Sealift ship TAKR-300 Bob Hope FY1993 1998
• Aircraft carrier CVN-76 Ronald Reagan FY1995 2003
• Destroyer DDG-94 Nitze FY1999 2005
• Attack submarine SSN-23 Jimmy Carter FY1996 2005
• Aircraft carrier CVN-77 George H.W. Bush FY2001 2008
• Destroyer DDG-108 Wayne E. Meyer FY2004 2009
• Attack submarine SSN-785 John Warner FY2010 2015

Is there a labor leader or organizer for whom you have respect?

Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan.

[Novaheart]

Ships Named for Living Persons
The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons. As shown in Table 1, at least 11 U.S. military ships since the 1970s have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced.
Table 1. Ships Named for Persons Who Were Living at the Time
[LIST][*]Aircraft carrier CVN-70 Carl Vinson FY1974 1982[*]Attack submarine SSN-709 Hyman G. Rickover FY1974 1984[*]Destroyer DDG-51 Arleigh Burke FY1985 1991[*]Aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis FY1988 1995[*]Sealift ship TAKR-300 Bob Hope FY1993 1998[*]Aircraft carrier CVN-76 Ronald Reagan FY1995 2003[*]Destroyer DDG-94 Nitze FY1999 2005[*]Attack submarine SSN-23 Jimmy Carter FY1996 2005[*]Aircraft carrier CVN-77 George H.W. Bush FY2001 2008[*]Destroyer DDG-108 Wayne E. Meyer FY2004 2009[*]Attack submarine SSN-785 John Warner FY2010 2015

That is a list of the exceptions. 12 exceptions out of how many?

[Novaheart]

Ronald Reagan.

So you really want to insult union workers. Interesting.

[Odysseus]

That is a list of the exceptions. 12 exceptions out of how many?

It's not an exhaustive list, it's only in the last few years. We've had others.

So you really want to insult union workers. Interesting.

Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors' Guild. He's the only union head ever elected president. That's not an insult to union workers. If I had to name another, George Meany kept the communists out of the AFL-CIO for years.