Navy names a ship after Chazez...disgusting.

[Bubblehead1980]

Noticed this story on on subsim, really is a shame our Navy is naming ships after left wing radicals now.How about naming support vessels such as this after people who died in service of our country, there are plenty of names we do not know.Not shocking given who the President is currently, no doubt he had a say in it, most likely pushed his SECNAV to do so.Suppose next there will be a push for the USS Eugene Debs lol Ah, digsusting.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/navy-christens-cargo-ship-named-for-cesar-chavez.html

[Catfish]

"Navy names a ship after Chazez...disgusting. "

Right, the "USS Noriega" would fit much better :O:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

USNS Cesar Chavez (T-AKE-14)
- Named after civil right activist.
USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10)
- Named after a politician who got shot by maniac and survived it.
USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002)
- Named after politician who served 8 months in Navy during WWII mostly as bureaucrat. Was observer in aborted (mechanical problem) recon mission and got Silver Star for it. If that mission was so dangerous why nobody else got a medal?

Somebody should keelhaul Mr. Mabus ASAP!

EDIT: I know Mr. Johnson was a president but in my opinion that shouldn't automatically get ship named after you.

[Penguin]

I wonder how many people read this news and go: "OMG, they named a ship of ours after a foreign president!" :rotfl2:

I do not see a problem with it. This guy served in the Navy and did more for the common man than Ronnie Reagan who basically kicked the working class into their teeth but got a carrier named after him.

So what is radical about Chavez? Did he want to overthrow the goverment, abolish the Constitution, built up a Communist state? Or did he just organize people and fight for fair labor conditions - by nonviolent means, btw.



USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002)


Named after someone who was responsible for escalating a war that took more lives in one week than all union strikes in the whole world combined since the beginning of history.

[joegrundman]

well, i for one am with Bubblehead1880 and am so disgusted by this that the mere thought of it drives my body into reverse peristalsis

[Catfish]

Well what do you have against that man ? He has nothing to do with Venezuela ..

"Many parks, cultural centers, libraries, schools, and streets have been named in his honor in cities across the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Chavez

[Herr-Berbunch]

Be thankful you still have a navy, and ships to go in it! :yep:

[Tribesman]

So what is radical about Chavez?
Be fair, he would be radical if you was living in the 1600s

[nikimcbee]

Be thankful you still have a navy, and ships to go in it! :yep:

Touche. It's just payback to some union contributor. At least Chavez served in the Navy. If they can name an attack sub after Carter, I guess anything is possible.:zzz:

[mookiemookie]

I wonder how many people read this news and go: "OMG, they named a ship of ours after a foreign president!" :rotfl2:

I do not see a problem with it. This guy served in the Navy and did more for the common man than Ronnie Reagan who basically kicked the working class into their teeth but got a carrier named after him.

So what is radical about Chavez? Did he want to overthrow the goverment, abolish the Constitution, built up a Communist state? Or did he just organize people and fight for fair labor conditions - by nonviolent means, btw.




Named after someone who was responsible for escalating a war that took more lives in one week than all union strikes in the whole world combined since the beginning of history.

This is the correct answer. Winner of the thread right here.

You'd think Bubbles would have more respect for someone who was very anti-illegal immigration.

[MH]

Wiki says the guy was tougher on emigration than Obama....:D
(know i know who Chazes was:yeah:)

[Bilge_Rat]

I'm still waiting for the USS Richard Nixon...:D

[Oberon]

It's a cargo-ammunition ship, not an aircraft carrier. They could call it the USS Billy Bob Thornton for all it would matter.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Royal Navy to name a vessel HMS Thunder Child...but I think they're too scared of tempting a Martian invasion... :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

You would think Bubbles is entitled to his opinion, right or wrong. What were you thinking Bubbles?

[Sailor Steve]

You would think Bubbles is entitled to his opinion, right or wrong. What were you thinking Bubbles?
Several people have also stated their opinions. Have any of them flamed him, or gotten personal?

Well, Tribesman maybe, but at least he was funny about it.

[Jimbuna]

I wonder how many people read this news and go: "OMG, they named a ship of ours after a foreign president!" :rotfl2:

I do not see a problem with it. This guy served in the Navy and did more for the common man than Ronnie Reagan who basically kicked the working class into their teeth but got a carrier named after him.

So what is radical about Chavez? Did he want to overthrow the goverment, abolish the Constitution, built up a Communist state? Or did he just organize people and fight for fair labor conditions - by nonviolent means, btw.


Named after someone who was responsible for escalating a war that took more lives in one week than all union strikes in the whole world combined since the beginning of history.

^ :yep:

[vienna]

Not shocking given who the President is currently, no doubt he had a say in it, most likely pushed his SECNAV to do so.


There has been a push to do the namimg almost from the day Chavez died; most of the groundwork and movement came under Dubbya's administration, not Obama's. I really think that even with a GOP in the White House, the naming would have gone forward just as a matter of politics, catering to the Latino electorate. I don't agree with the naming of a USN craft after Chavez at all, but, at least, it is not an active combat vessel. There was and is an outcry by some on the far left who feel that honoring Chavez by naming a "military" vessel after him flies in the face of his vaunted non-violent philosophies...


Wiki says the guy was tougher on emigration than Obama....:D



I always use that little factoid to drive the Chavezites nuts; Chavez did, in fact, very publicly and openly come out against illegal immigration because, while he and his group were trying to unionize farmworkers, farmowners would undercut his efforts to stage strikes against the farms by hiring other illegals not affiliated with his group as strikebusters. Chavez was extremely vexed by this tactic. He relented in his stance only when it was seen as counter-produtive to his alliance with other left-wing groups at the time and because it was, ironically, costing him support in the Latino community...

...

[AVGWarhawk]

Great post Vienna. :up: Can you cite the start of naming a vessel after Chavez under Dubbya's administration?

[Stealhead]

It was obviously done for political reasons should not be that much of a shocker plenty of vessels are so named I personally think that vessels only be named after cities,states,battles,and persons that did a great deed as a member of the Navy(or other branch of service: example USS The Sullivans been a few of those since WWII the Navy brothers that all died on the same ship) There are plenty of Congressional Medal of Honor winner names to go around.Naming ships after any political person I do not like unless it is from or historic past over 100 years or longer ago).

For AVG:

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/ake14.htm

It does not say how far in advance they choose the names but I doubt it is done more than a year or so before the build gets contracted which would be some time in 2008 it says that the Secretary of the Navy picks the names which means that they would do so around the time they give out the contract to build the thing that would be my guess.I am guessing that it was during Obamas time also the many articles about the reaction to the naming date from 2011 which implies that the name must have been selected some time in 2011.If they named ships several years in advance there would have been reaction to the naming at that time and not in 2011.

[AVGWarhawk]

It was obviously done for political reasons should not be that much of a shocker plenty of vessels are so named I personally think that vessels only be named after cities,states,battles,and persons that did a great deed as a member of the Navy(or other branch of service: example USS The Sullivans been a few of those since WWII the Navy brothers that all died on the same ship) There are plenty of Congressional Medal of Honor winner names to go around.Naming ships after any political person I do not like unless it is from or historic past over 100 years or longer ago).

What political reason and under what administration? Vienna states Bush. I'm getting the idea you might believe it is under Obama?

[Stealhead]

Based on the information I can find about the naming process and the fact that all articles related to the naming date from 2010/2011 this implies to me that the name was chosen and finalized in the months prior and regardless it was named under Obama because his SECNAVY made the name official if the name had been chosen years in advance it makes little difference as the SECNAVY at the time of handing out the contract the building of the vessel is the one who makes the name official.

Also if Bush wanted a vessel named after Chavez during his time he had would have named a vessel that would have been launched while he was in office(some only take a year or so clearly) if he wished to receive any political gain this would have to have been long ago during his first term. Obama gains from this naming that is very clear the ship gets launched in 2012 in San Diego no less and is named after a person prominent to many Hispanics. :hmmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

The naming of U.S. Navy ships used to be based on very non-political lines, for example in WW2, carriers were named after famous battles, battleships after states, cruisers after cities, subs after fishes, etc.

That changed more and more after ww2 and not necessarily for partisan reasons. When adm. Rickover was trying to convince Congress to fund the L.A. class subs, he named them after the cities of congressmen who supported the project. When someone in the Navy pointed out that subs were traditionally named after fish, he supposedly answered that "Fish don't vote".

[vienna]

Great post Vienna. :up: Can you cite the start of naming a vessel after Chavez under Dubbya's administration?


Mainly I've been hearing about the naming controversy in local (Los Angels) press and media. Also, via some people I have know or worked with who were/are involved in the "canonization" of Cesar Chavez. I had fought and argued with them almost since the beginning because I have long, long felt the naming process to be a reward/buddy/old boys system, rather like the the naming of public buildings, highways, etc. The Chavez process accelerated under the Bush II admin because local supporters felt Bush would be more receptive to the idea given his perceived affection for the Mexican population while in Texas and a GOP need to shore up support in the Latino electorate...

Chavez died in 1993, so the initial move to name a vessel after Chavez started during the Clinton years. I rather suspect it didn't get any where because, outside of the Southwest, few people knew who he was. It took time for the legends/myths to fully gestate. I was working on projects for the Affirmative Action office of the County of Los Angeles during the Bush II first term and a number of the employees were involved in the whole Chavez movement and I do recall a couple of them being very pleased the proposal had moved some steps up the ladder under Bush. My opposition did not make me a very popular person, even more so when I opposed making Chavez's birthday a legal holiday. They held that Chavez was an important part of U.S. history and deserved to be honored. I pointed out that the only legal holidays for individuals were for George Washington (founding father, first Gerneral of the Armies, first President), Abraham Lincoln (defended the Union, was asassianated in office) [later combined with Washington to become "President's Day], and Christopher Columbus (with all apologies to our Italian descended citizens, given what history has proven, I don't think this is now deserved, either). Chavez was, at best a regional personality, affected only a minor portion of the population, died peacefully in his sleep, and will probably be forgotten by most people in a few generations, if not for the activism of his ardent followers, hardly of the national magnitude of Washington or Lincoln...

BTW, I do also recall there was a controversy over the naming of the carrier after Reagan. Some felt it was to soon after his passing and not enough time had passed for history to give the full measure of the impact of his presidency. I tended to agree, since I vividly recall the rush to name everything in sight after JFK; although, there was the very strong argument that Jfk had given his life in office. But, then again, would they be naming a carrier after Nixon if someone had put him out of our misery instead of him resigning in disgrace...

...

[Ducimus]

Hmmm, let me see here.

Article is from.... The Los Angeles times. Which as we know, is in California.
According to the article, the ship was launched in San Diego, which, as we know, is in Southern California.

In a state where the Mexican flag is as common, if not more commonly seen then the American flag, i have to wonder where does the surprise part come in that they'd launch a ship named Chavez?

[AVGWarhawk]

We have difference of what is known about the naming from Vienna and Stealhead. That is neither here nor there. What remains is Bubbles finds it "disgusting." That is fine because Bubble is entitled to their opinion.

What remains, other than political, should this vessel be named after Chavez based on his merits or service? :hmmm:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

What remains, other than political, should this vessel be named after Chavez based on his merits or service? :hmmm:My opinion is that ships (and subs if marine animals and plants are all used) should be named after:
1. geographical locations (states, cities, lakes, rivers etc.)
2. significant battles
3. distinguished military personnel (Medal of Honor recipients, admirals/officers/enlisted with extraordary record etc.)
4. elements & animals
5. after concepts like Her Majesty's Royal Navy does (which I don't think fits to U.S. Navy ships)

After what they should NOT be named:
1. politicians (except if he/she also fits to any category above, having locations/animal's etc. name as first/surname not counting)

[Stealhead]

Well Chavez did enlist in the Navy in WWII and was in from 44-46 he was born in Arizona and actually was anti illegal immigration(farmers where hiring illegals to counter his unionizing efforts).

What exactly are you asking AVG?I assume they are naming it after him for both reasons his post service merits are viewed in different lights people though.Also other persons involved in civil rights have ships named after them Chavez is not the first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Medgar_Evers_(T-AKE-13).

Here is how it is done (naming ships that is) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22478.pdf (I just found this PDF)

I suppose that is the best source on the naming topic I suppose one could ask the Navy Public Affairs Office(I am not being smart Alec here they would have the official Navy answer)

[vienna]

Found this in one of the footnotes in the document link in Steelhead's post:

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=60467

The comments section is particularly interesting...

...

[Penguin]

Naming an entity after a political leader will always result in controversy, I bet there are also some sailors on the H.W.Bush, not happy with her name, but doing their duty in a professional way.
So I see the whole thing as a sign of society's plurality. Chavez represents political ideals, shared by many others, part of America's political spectrum. Like AVG and others said here: everyone's entitled to their opinion, and regarding Chavez as an important man is one. You may not like his work, but he was an American who stood inside the constitutional boundaries - that's why for example a "USS Farrakhan" would be insane and should be sunk at once :arrgh!:

@vienna: Just curious: Are you against the naming of the ship for political reasons, as in you don't agree with his politics, or do you think his national impact was not important enough to name a US ship after him rather than a "West Coast Guard" vessel?
btw: there is one holiday for a civilian leader: MLK day - who certainly had a bigger national importance than Chavez, not too sure about creating a state holiday in CA for the latter; you guys still have a big and importnat agricultural industry.

a little desailing of the thread: I think his stance on illegal immigration is a pragmatic position, which unfortunately seems to be not too common anymore. The position of the thinking left, from the real world rather the position of middle-class college kids who are not directly affected by illegals as they don't compete for jobs with them. The stance that illegals not only negatively affect their own (non existant) labor rights, but also the ones of others, and thus hamper any efforts to change labor conditions for the better, is something I pretty much agree upon.

[TLAM Strike]

If AOE gets named for Chazez I don't care as long as we get CVN-80 named Enterprise.

It's a cargo-ammunition ship, not an aircraft carrier. They could call it the USS Billy Bob Thornton for all it would matter. We SOOOO need a USS Billy Bob Thornton! :yeah:

I bet the galley will serve the best french fried tators (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqTWQiTlhKQ) in the fleet.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Royal Navy to name a vessel HMS Thunder Child...but I think they're too scared of tempting a Martian invasion... :hmmm: Or worse Borg invasion... (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Thunderchild) ;)

[Platapus]

Pretty sure there are more important things to be concerned with than the naming of a cargo ship. :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

Pretty sure there are more important things to be concerned with than the naming of a cargo ship. :yep:
The name of a cargo ship is important. Just look at famous cargo ships throughout history; Serenity, Nostromo, Millennium Falcon.

Cargo ships must have cool names! It's just the way the world works.

:03:

[vienna]

@vienna: Just curious: Are you against the naming of the ship for political reasons, as in you don't agree with his politics, or do you think his national impact was not important enough to name a US ship after him rather than a "West Coast Guard" vessel?



As I have aged, I don't really view myself as political as I used to be when I was younger. I'm just looking for some common sense. I will vote for and support any person or group that makes the most basic sense and doesn't just sloganize and mouth vague platitudes. It seems that nowadays we elect Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen as part of a party's package deal, kind of like how we are sold wireless phones; you gotta take a whole bundle which may include some features you don't need or want. So, no, its not based on a disagreement with a particular viewpoint or party affiliation. There are a lot of people whose politics I may not totally agree with, but who, as an individual, I deeply respect and admire. As far as Chavez is concerned, I have generally been indifferent about his politics or activities. I was in middle school and high school (about ages 13-18) when he first became prominent here in California. I don't really see him as much more than another labor organizer. When held up to the contributions of people like Dr. Martin Luther King, I feel he falls rather short of the mark. He's just another of a great many politicians, commumity activists, regional VIPs who get things named after them and who will probably be forgotten after a spell. He sesems to have become the figurehead of the Latino activists, particulary the Mexican contingent, since there appears to be a paucity of 'heroes' for them to trumpet about; really, aside from Chavez, who in the Latino political community has the general public even heard of or know by sight and/or name. I'm clean out of guesses...

As far as naming ships, or anything else paid for by taxpayer dollars, after persons, I believe that:


They should be dead: The U.S. Postal Service used to require a person nominated for a honor on a postal stamp be dead for a rather lengthy number of years before they could even be nominated (this rule may have been changed in recent years as the USPS moves more to 'market their product).
As stated above a long period of time should pass before a naming honor is given (I don't think the FBI Headquarters would be named after J. Edgar Hoover if his mob connections and taste in dresses were known at the time). An exception for extraordinary heroism in military service or as an emergency responder (e.g., 9/11 firemen, police, EMT, etc.)
Politicians should be excluded from all naming unless they have made a very major contribution to the nation and have given their life or experienced pronounced disability as a result of serving in office. The founding fathers pledged their "lives and fortunes" in creating this nation and backed it up with action. Somehow, I don't think political longevity, party loyalty, pork barrel earmarks come quite up to the level of what the founders risked.
All in all, I really believe the UK custom of naming ships after ideals or non-human objects or creatures is preferrable and much less contoversial...

As a final note, I want make clear I am not "bashing" Latinos, Hispanics, or whatever the nom du jour might be; my parents both came, as legal immigrants from Central America (they arrived separately and met here in the U.S), worked hard to earn their citizenship, studied for their tests, and became very, very proud law abiding U.S. citizens. So, by the nature of DNA, I am technically a Latino (or whatever). By virtue of my birth in this country I am an American, and by virtue of my parents upbringing of myself, I am a very proud American. There are a great many native born Americans, of Latin ancestry, who feel as I do and have short shrift with all the loudmouthed "activists" who claim to speak for all Latinos anymore than all the loudmouthed Liberal and/or Consrevative "activists" speak for all Americans in general. I do not live as a hypenated entity or political viewpoint: Born American, live American, and will die American...

[Sorry for the mini-rant; I will now yeild the soap box...]


@TLAM: Facing the CVN Assimilator might just give an enemy great pause...

...

[Bubblehead1980]

The naming of any US Naval Vessel after Cesar Chavez is not appropriate nor in the tradition of naming US vessels.Chavez was a union thug nothing more.Sure, he is a hero to the mental midgets on the left who buy the class warfare, fine but a US Naval Vessel should not be named after him.

Of course Reagan deserved a carrier named after him, he did a lot for the country and the military.Our Navy was a great force when Reagan left office and despite what revisionist lefties will try to contend, his eight years is what lead to us finally defeating the Soviets in the Cold War.

What did Chavez do? rallied a bunch of farmers and despite what the popular narrative is, he was not above using violence, in fact he was known for being rather ruthless.Chavez was scum , plain and simple and naming a ship after him gives some legitimacy, more so than a state dominated by hispanics, naming a holiday after him.

The Obama appointed SECNAV is getting ridiculous! The USS Gabrielle Giffords? Ok, terrible thing she was shot but does not deserve a ship named after her. JFK deserved one as he showed great leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis and was the last decent Democrat to hold the office.

Like I said in the OP, I am sure the USS Eugene Debs is next lol or the Saul Alinsky, just a shame we have these idiots in charge.

[Sailor Steve]

The naming of any US Naval Vessel after Cesar Chavez is not appropriate nor in the tradition of naming US vessels.Chavez was a union thug nothing more.Sure, he is a hero to the mental midgets on the left who buy the class warfare, fine but a US Naval Vessel should not be named after him.
With a bias like yours, one has to wonder if you can ever see anything clearly or rationally.

he was not above using violence, in fact he was known for being rather ruthless.Chavez was scum , plain and simple
Can you cite specifics, or is this just more opinion pretending to be fact?

[gimpy117]

okay bubble...you don't agree with his ideology so you get all mad a ship is named after him.

....I guess I better send an angry letter to the navy over the USS. Ronald Reagan and H W. Bush.... :shifty:

[August]

I never liked the idea of naming ships after anyone. England has the right idea. HMS Drum, HMS Illustrious, HMS Victory. Now those are real fighting ship names.

[Sailor Steve]

HMS Hood, HMS Nelson, HMS Rodney, HMS Montcalm, HMS Duncan, HMS King George V, HMS King Edward VII, HMS Victoria, HMS Collingwood, HMS Benbow, HMS Anson, HMS Camperdown, HMS Russell, HMS Montagu, HMS Exmouth, HMS Albemarle...

[nikimcbee]

I never liked the idea of naming ships after anyone. England has the right idea. HMS Drum, HMS Illustrious, HMS Victory. Now those are real fighting ship names.

HMS Petunia? K79
HMS Pink K137 [insert Buna joke here]

HMCS Asbestos K358 [ trial lawyers please go away]

August, is that your final answer?:haha::hmmm:

[August]

HMS Petunia? K79
HMS Pink K137 [insert Buna joke here]

HMCS Asbestos K358 [ trial lawyers please go away]

August, is that your final answer?:haha::hmmm:

Yes. They are all preferable to the "USS Jimmy Carter"

[nikimcbee]

Yes. They are all preferable to the "USS Jimmy Carter"

:haha::yeah:

[Stealhead]

I bet that you will never find anything named after Smedley Butler a Marine's Marine (2 CMOH no less) and a man not afraid to stand up for veterans and America when they needed it most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler. Of course some on here will read of him I fairly sure that many have never heard of him before (not a shocker) and say that he was a lefty pinko.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I bet that you will never find anything named after Smedley Butler a Marine's Marine (2 CMOH no less) and a man not afraid to stand up for veterans and America when they needed it most. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler. Of course some on here will read of him I fairly sure that many have never heard of him before (not a shocker) and say that he was a lefty pinko.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Butler_%28DD-636%29

Named after Smedley Butler

[Stealhead]

That is a shocker to be honest considering that he wrote the book "War is Racket" in he said;

"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles." He was speaking of US military war games in the Pacific in 1935 that he felt would only serve to provoke the Japanese.

[soopaman2]

I honestly found that naming an aircraft carrier after GHW Bush vile and unpatriotic, just because he is right wing and I am left wing...


Wow Bubblehead. I sound like you, except the opposite.


Get my point?

I can find offense in anything, as can anyone else.

Petty my friend. Just saying. :)

I bet that left leaning ship don't tip over in the water.

[Bubblehead1980]

George H.W. Bush was a decorated Naval Aviator in World War II, did some pretty heroic things actually.Reagan brought the economy back and implemented a foreign policy that lead to the end of the Soviet Union basically.Please tell me why a union boss with sketchy methods deserves a ship named after him?Really no argument against Reagan or Bush having carriers named after them, but Chavez was scum.No, this is not a right or left thing, it's a whats right or wrong.Now, if Chavez had accomplished something in the military etc I would possibly be okay with it, but he badmouthed his time in service, saying his two years in the US Navy were the "worst of his life".

This is nothing more than a moronic Obama appointee playing politics at the direction of Master Barry.Shame on them, really.Instead of naming a ship after a union thug, how about some of those who have given their lives or limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan.A guy from my my hometown, well just outside my hometown was KIA in Iraq in 2005, actually, he was the 2,000th US service member killed in Iraq, let's name it after him or some of the other lesser known patriots, not a union thug with communist leanings who pretended to advocate non violence.Just another sign of how disgusting this admin is, November can not come fast enough.

[soopaman2]

I do not think it will lessen the crew in any way. I am sure they will all be outstanding sailors.

I love me some partisanship sometimes, and have alot of fun with it, but this reeks of idealogical hate.
Lets call our next one the USS Hitler, because he took over alot of countries. Or the USS Bernanke, because he runs our country.I am sure someone sees them as heroes.

Would you cheer if a ship by the name of the USS Obama got sunk? Just wondering. You have an irrational hate towards the other side, as if the other side has nothing to offer, or should be minimized.

EDIT: (St. Reagan gets too much credit for sinking the soviets, but zero blame in our current economical failure, but that is irrelivant ATM. Trickle down lulz!)

:salute:

They can name it after you for all I care. As long as it works right.

USS Bubblehead... Nice ring! ;P

[AVGWarhawk]

My opinion is that ships (and subs if marine animals and plants are all used) should be named after:
1. geographical locations (states, cities, lakes, rivers etc.)
2. significant battles
3. distinguished military personnel (Medal of Honor recipients, admirals/officers/enlisted with extraordary record etc.)
4. elements & animals
5. after concepts like Her Majesty's Royal Navy does (which I don't think fits to U.S. Navy ships)

After what they should NOT be named:
1. politicians (except if he/she also fits to any category above, having locations/animal's etc. name as first/surname not counting)

I believe this is the best of all possible answers to naming a Naval vessel. It is my believe that naming a ship for political leverage(I did not say the USS Chavez is named for leverage)is poor. This vessel should be named USS Plymouth Rock. I don't believe their will be much upset over this name.

[Tribesman]

This vessel should be named USS Plymouth Rock. I don't believe their will be much upset over this name.
But that would be even more disgustingly radical, those seperatists rejected the church and the state and formed a commune where everyone supposedly worked for and was subservient to the common good...bloody radicals from the 1600s eh.:03:

[mookiemookie]

But that would be even more disgustingly radical, those seperatists rejected the church and the state and formed a commune where everyone supposedly worked for and was subservient to the common good...bloody radicals from the 1600s eh.:03:

And they were illegal immigrants, too! :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

:haha:But that would be even more disgustingly radical, those seperatists rejected the church and the state and formed a commune where everyone supposedly worked for and was subservient to the common good...bloody radicals from the 1600s eh.:03:


Good point! Let's just call it USS Rock.

[Tribesman]

Good point! Let's just call it USS Rock.
But if you call a ship the Rock the WWF will get on your case over infringement.
no hold on they changed their name as someone confused them with the panda crowd didn't they.
Call the ship the USS panda but not that panda the other one and that will make eveyone happy.....or does panda sound too chinese

[Penguin]

really, aside from Chavez, who in the Latino political community has the general public even heard of or know by sight and/or name. I'm clean out of guesses...


Cheech Marin? :smug:


As a final note, I want make clear I am not "bashing" Latinos, Hispanics, or whatever the nom du jour might be;

I haven't seen any of your writing as a Latino-bash, rather than giving some insight about the views of the Hispanic-American community.


There are a great many native born Americans, of Latin ancestry, who feel as I do and have short shrift with all the loudmouthed "activists" who claim to speak for all Latinos anymore than all the loudmouthed Liberal and/or Consrevative "activists" speak for all Americans in general. I do not live as a hypenated entity or political viewpoint: Born American, live American, and will die American...


again a little OT, but this is an interesting topic. It has certainly been before the 24/7 "news" cycle that the media always picks out the loudest as somehow representatives of the community for which they claim to speak for. The media representation gives those people even more opportunity to see themselves as a spokesperson for whoever they claim to speak for. I have often seen this, not only with self-proclaimed community leaders, but also with "liberal activists" (I hate both words) who claim to help/fight for the oppressed, but have no clue of the life reality of the people they want to help. Most people do not want to be in the role of the eternal victim, unable to help themself, waiting for the angel to help them out of their misery....

A little German example, we have this integration/immigration debate going on for decades :yawn:... In the last couple of months, one man got invited very often, to talk shows, but also to official political conferences: Serdar Somuncu. A comedian, turkish born, raised in Germany, very well spoken, better German than most politicians. Humor is hard to translate, but I would call him a mixture of David Chappelle, Louis C.K. and Sarah Silverman. He often gets asked about immigration and about the muslim community, he always says: "Why do people ask me this and why the heck do they make the connotation: immigrant=Turk=muslim?" He says he was "dropped somewhere between Ankara and Düsseldorf", so no immigration story here and as an outspoken atheist he finds it rather offensive to be taken as a representative for a religion with which he has less to do than members of our Christian parties.

However in the moments when he joins the media game, fakes to speak for muslims and immigrants, people regard him somehow as an authority for all immigrant questions. He usually starts with saying some trivial things, followed by more and more insane arguments and demands, funny to see how long it sometimes takes till the people notice it - if at all...:D Nothing seems insane enough if you are a self-proclaimed spokesperson. :88)
The media wants faces to connect: want to speak about Alaska? Ask Mrs Palin, same way Sharpton speaks for every dark-skinned American, or Cheney for every hunter. Much less work than actually speak to a cross-section of the people for whom they claim to speak...

--------

Chavez was a union thug nothing more.Sure, he is a hero to the mental midgets on the left who buy the class warfare, fine but a US Naval Vessel should not be named after him.


Damn, this just sounds like swallowing textbook-style propaganda and repeating it without even trying to think on your own.
And you wonder that people attack your writing style and bash you? I have refrained to do so yet, I wonder why...
The reason I am not replying on the same level is that there are people from the more conservative side, even on here, whose opinions I can respect, sometimes even agree on (in my seldom cases of mind-gigantism), because they can articulate their views, put them into words and may even put some things into a different perspective.


So fighting for one's own believes, against oppression, standing up for the rights of others, helping to improve their lives is unamerican now?
And this: "[he] rallied a bunch of farmers and despite what the popular narrative is, he was not above using violence"

It sounds that you don't agree with ships that are named after George Washington... :|\\

[August]

EDIT: (St. Reagan gets too much credit for sinking the soviets, but zero blame in our current economical failure, but that is irrelivant ATM. Trickle down lulz!)

If you're gonna blame Presidents for the health of the economy then Ronnie left the Oval office with the country in a heckuva lot better shape than it was when he got it from the Peanut Farmer.

[AVGWarhawk]

But if you call a ship the Rock the WWF will get on your case over infringement.
no hold on they changed their name as someone confused them with the panda crowd didn't they.
Call the ship the USS panda but not that panda the other one and that will make eveyone happy.....or does panda sound too chinese


PETA will get after us for using Panda. :-?

[Blood_splat]

How about the USS Debt.

[AVGWarhawk]

How about the USS Debt.

This would offend all on Capitol Hill and PA Ave. Sadly, the vessel will probably still have a loan due on it. :haha:

[vienna]

Cheech Marin? :smug:


Oddly, he is viewed with ambivilence by the Latino political community. He does have supportive views of general Latino issues, but is not "Mexican enough" for the die-hard political activists. For them, he really has not spoken strongly enough on their key issues of immigation, etc. He is not enough of a raving ideologue to suit their tastes. Remember, Cheech was born in Los Angeles (native born American citizen) and is the son of a Los Angeles Police officer (his mom was a secretary, as I recall). Although I ,myself, am not Mexican, I know how the Mexican community view harshly those Latinos who are not Mexican or are not "Mexican enough". Marin is well-educated (college degree), well-read, is not very fluent in Spanish, is a patron of the arts, and really is not easy to stereotype as a "Mexican". He is also not a far left leaning liberal; he is rather more of a moderate on a great many issues. Aside from trotting him out to fill in the wide gap in the field of well-known/liked Mexicans at public functions, the Latino community seems to generally ignore him. I feel for his position since I have had to deal with far greater discrimination and ill-treatment from the Mexican community than from any other community here in Los Angeles...


Originally Posted by Tribesman http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1881596#post1881596)
But that would be even more disgustingly radical, those seperatists rejected the church and the state and formed a commune where everyone supposedly worked for and was subservient to the common good...bloody radicals from the 1600s eh.:03:


And they were illegal immigrants, too! :haha:

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I used to see in the late 60s/early 70s:

"The Indians Had Lousy Immiration Laws"...

This would offend all on Capitol Hill and PA Ave. Sadly, the vessel will probably still have a loan due on it. :haha:

So maybe we should name the ship USS Loan and say we've floated a loan?... :D

[Bubblehead1980]

And they were illegal immigrants, too! :haha:
I don't think so, this was not a sovereign nation with immigration laws back then.

[Bubblehead1980]

Cheech Marin? :smug:


I haven't seen any of your writing as a Latino-bash, rather than giving some insight about the views of the Hispanic-American community.



again a little OT, but this is an interesting topic. It has certainly been before the 24/7 "news" cycle that the media always picks out the loudest as somehow representatives of the community for which they claim to speak for. The media representation gives those people even more opportunity to see themselves as a spokesperson for whoever they claim to speak for. I have often seen this, not only with self-proclaimed community leaders, but also with "liberal activists" (I hate both words) who claim to help/fight for the oppressed, but have no clue of the life reality of the people they want to help. Most people do not want to be in the role of the eternal victim, unable to help themself, waiting for the angel to help them out of their misery....

A little German example, we have this integration/immigration debate going on for decades :yawn:... In the last couple of months, one man got invited very often, to talk shows, but also to official political conferences: Serdar Somuncu. A comedian, turkish born, raised in Germany, very well spoken, better German than most politicians. Humor is hard to translate, but I would call him a mixture of David Chappelle, Louis C.K. and Sarah Silverman. He often gets asked about immigration and about the muslim community, he always says: "Why do people ask me this and why the heck do they make the connotation: immigrant=Turk=muslim?" He says he was "dropped somewhere between Ankara and Düsseldorf", so no immigration story here and as an outspoken atheist he finds it rather offensive to be taken as a representative for a religion with which he has less to do than members of our Christian parties.

However in the moments when he joins the media game, fakes to speak for muslims and immigrants, people regard him somehow as an authority for all immigrant questions. He usually starts with saying some trivial things, followed by more and more insane arguments and demands, funny to see how long it sometimes takes till the people notice it - if at all...:D Nothing seems insane enough if you are a self-proclaimed spokesperson. :88)
The media wants faces to connect: want to speak about Alaska? Ask Mrs Palin, same way Sharpton speaks for every dark-skinned American, or Cheney for every hunter. Much less work than actually speak to a cross-section of the people for whom they claim to speak...

--------



Damn, this just sounds like swallowing textbook-style propaganda and repeating it without even trying to think on your own.
And you wonder that people attack your writing style and bash you? I have refrained to do so yet, I wonder why...
The reason I am not replying on the same level is that there are people from the more conservative side, even on here, whose opinions I can respect, sometimes even agree on (in my seldom cases of mind-gigantism), because they can articulate their views, put them into words and may even put some things into a different perspective.


So fighting for one's own believes, against oppression, standing up for the rights of others, helping to improve their lives is unamerican now?
And this: "[he] rallied a bunch of farmers and despite what the popular narrative is, he was not above using violence"

It sounds that you don't agree with ships that are named after George Washington... :|\\

Oh he was not oppressed and was not standing up for anyone, he was just a corrupt guy who found his way by forming a union, he duped a group of uneducated people, like how most unions gained power.Not being insulting, just stating the obvious, prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc The Democrats have pulled it off or did, a lot of "working" people still think the Democrats are on their side LOL. I would venture to guess it is much easier to dupe a group or farmers than a lot of other groups.

Comparing George Washington to Cesar Chavez is ridiculous.George Washington did something worthwhile that was not about self advancement, he was a patriot, Chavez was a union thug, nothing more.

[vienna]

Damn, this just sounds like swallowing textbook-style propaganda and repeating it without even trying to think on your own.


More and more, this quote from Penguin regarding Bubbles becomes truer and truer...

...

[Bubblehead1980]

I do not think it will lessen the crew in any way. I am sure they will all be outstanding sailors.

I love me some partisanship sometimes, and have alot of fun with it, but this reeks of idealogical hate.
Lets call our next one the USS Hitler, because he took over alot of countries. Or the USS Bernanke, because he runs our country.I am sure someone sees them as heroes.

Would you cheer if a ship by the name of the USS Obama got sunk? Just wondering. You have an irrational hate towards the other side, as if the other side has nothing to offer, or should be minimized.

EDIT: (St. Reagan gets too much credit for sinking the soviets, but zero blame in our current economical failure, but that is irrelivant ATM. Trickle down lulz!)

:salute:

They can name it after you for all I care. As long as it works right.

USS Bubblehead... Nice ring! ;P

Of course I would not cheer if a ship named USS Obama(although it will be a damned shame if they ever name one after him, sure they will though, eventually.Some group will whine and moan and then some spineless politician will give in to appease the AA voters) was sunk, it would be manned by US sailors and marines, lives could be lost, so no I would not want it to sink.

USS Hitler? lol get real Bernanke? That would be inappropriate also.


Reagan took office, the country and economy were a mess, Carter was just like Obama, Reagan came in and things turned around, he left office with a 64% approval rating and a strong economy, obviously majority of people did well under him.Of course, a Dem would tell you everyone can do well under them lol, sorry but that is not real life.Far as the soviets, yes he played a huge role.Every President since WW II had been almost afraid of the Soviets, dicked around with them, appeased them even.JFK took a hard line at some points during his tenure, but we wasted billions, if not trillions over 40+ years on proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, trying to "contain" them, not defeat them as we should have.Reagan felt this was stupid and decided to change it, he did not want us to fight more endless proxy wars, it was time to stand up to what he appropriately named the Evil Empire.Reagan built a strong military and the soviets could not keep up, unfortunately it ran a deficit but things can not always be perfect, it lead to the fall of the soviet union.Reagan was not perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than any Democratic President we have had.Of course there are a million factors we could discuss but that is the truth, plain and simple.

[Bubblehead1980]

More and more, this quote from Penguin regarding Bubbles becomes truer and truer...

...

:damn: NO.

[Oberon]

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by spending them into submission, and now you're paying for it. :03:

[Jimbuna]

Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by spending them into submission, and now you're paying for it. :03:

Agreed.....but I still don't understand all the hype over the naming of a ship :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Oh he was not oppressed and was not standing up for anyone, he was just a corrupt guy who found his way by forming a union, he duped a group of uneducated people, like how most unions gained power.Not being insulting, just stating the obvious
Again I would ask that you cite specifics. What is obvious to everyone but you is that you still do nothing but spout the party line. This is why absolutely no one takes you seriously. If you want to become more than the forum joke you need to start actually discussing things.

[Oberon]

Agreed.....but I still don't understand all the hype over the naming of a ship :hmmm:

Not exactly a front line vessel either. It's a bit like someone objecting to the naming of a Fort Victoria class. :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

We could just use the ships number and just not give it a name CV-76 for example that would be the dull name of the USS Ronald Reagan if we did the SSN-23 is Jimmy Carter ships need names and it does make sense that they do use the names of Americans for many of them it to an extent represents the complex nation that we are.I am pretty sure that very few sailors discuss at length the names of their ship as a ship is an entity in and of itself they my have the name of a person, place or battle but a ship and its crew has its own esprit de corps and to help promote that you need a name.

Bubblehead said:

"prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc"

What exactly makes a banker smarter than a farmer? Sure one gets higher pay and the job required more education but I see no way that being a banker or any other high paying job makes you smarter than any other person by your logic then an enlisted person is less intelligent than an officer(many times they are far more intelligent than officers) or that a person that sevres in a front line combat role is less intelligent than a person who serves in a rear echelon role when the fact of the matter is that money and power are not important to everyone not every person needs have lots of wealth or have power some people do the work that they want to do.

Also without the farmer the banker would starve to death so the banker needs the farmer at lot more than the farmer needs the banker.You should try and grow some crops and raise livestock
because it is a much harder job than you think and it requires a lot of skills and knowledge.And the work that a farm worker does I can assure you even if it paid what the banker got most people would refuse to do the job because it is such hard work.

[vienna]

What exactly makes a banker smarter than a farmer? Sure one gets higher pay and the job required more education but I see no way that being a banker or any other high paying job makes you smarter than any other person by your logic then an enlisted person is less intelligent than an officer(many times they are far more intelligent than officers) or that a person that sevres in a front line combat role is less intelligent than a person who serves in a rear echelon role when the fact of the matter is that money and power are not important to everyone not every person needs have lots of wealth or have power some people do the work that they want to do.

Also without the farmer the banker would starve to death so the banker needs the farmer at lot more than the farmer needs the banker.You should try and grow some crops and raise livestock
because it is a much harder job than you think and it requires a lot of skills and knowledge.And the work that a farm worker does I can assure you even if it paid what the banker got most people would refuse to do the job because it is such hard work.


Well put...

Just think of how many times you've heard of a freshly minted Lt. being paied up with a seasoned, knowledgeable platoon Sgt.; thers's a reason the military does this: a college degree and OCS do not even begin compare to the experience, command skills, and battle knowledge of a good NCO. Many an officer butt has been saved by a "mere" noncom...

AS far as farmers go. farmers were the most valued part of older society before the Industrial Revolution and, arguably, still are...

...

[August]

Well put...

Just think of how many times you've heard of a freshly minted Lt. being paied up with a seasoned, knoeledgeable platoon Sgt.; thers's a reason the military does this: a college degree and OCS do not even begin compare to the experience, command skills, and battle knowledge of a good NCO. Many an officer butt has been saved by a "mere" noncom...

On the other hand I've personally known more than one senior NCO that had his cookies pulled out of the fire by a young but on the ball 2LT who was smart enough to know that getting drunk and missing a troop movement could easily ruin said NCO's career on the cusp of his retirement.

There's a reason that NCO's, for all their experience, command skills, and battle knowledge are not put in actual charge of the platoon.

[Platapus]

Perhaps the solution is to just give all boats letters and numbers. :DL

[Oberon]

Perhaps the solution is to just give all boats letters and numbers. :DL

Russkie style?

[Platapus]

Perhaps the solution is to just give all boats letters and numbers. :DL

Russkie style?

Might keep the bitchin and whinin down.

[Stealhead]

On the other hand I've personally known more than one senior NCO that had his cookies pulled out of the fire by a young but on the ball 2LT who was smart enough to know that getting drunk and missing a troop movement could easily ruin said NCO's career on the cusp of his retirement.

There's a reason that NCO's, for all their experience, command skills, and battle knowledge are not put in actual charge of the platoon.



That is true people have their place in the military and a 30 year SNCO still lacks the specific training that even an 0-1 has of course such things are not a reflection of ones intelligence or lack there of on the flip side of the coin in a unit with poor officer leadership it is the SNCOs and and NCO that hold the unit together and in every unit they are the ones that maintain discipline and if the all the officers are killed or wounded one of the NCOs takes his place all though today it might only be for a few hours in the old days that usually meant a battlefield commission.

@Oberon The Soviets only did that some of the time and now most Russian navy vessels have a name short of perhaps small craft which in most cases in most navies have only numbers.I think it is important for esprit de corps for a ship to have a name on a very small vessel the sailors have pride in the unit they are assigned to and in the US military at least where units have numbers they all have some sort of mascot/name (though honestly "Bulldogs" is used a bit too often in the USAF why cant their be an Albatross squadron once in a while)

[Oberon]

Might keep the bitchin and whinin down.

Ooooh, I strongly doubt it... :03:

[Stealhead]

Yeah then you would have people that are offended by odd numbers get upset about ships with even numbers and what of the Prime Numbers Are America's Future lobby?No naming a ship only numbers just adds more to the issue someone will always find a reason to get upset.

[Penguin]

Giving vessels numbers is also off the table. In a game mod I am working on atm, the transport ships are named after rivers. I know there are some sickos out there, but who in their right mindset has something against a river? :doh:

A sensible proposition about the Chavez ship is hidden in the reply to Bubblehead, highlighted for anyone who don't want to comb through the boring wall of text.

Oh he was not oppressed and was not standing up for anyone, he was just a corrupt guy who found his way by forming a union, he duped a group of uneducated people, like how most unions gained power.Not being insulting, just stating the obvious, prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc The Democrats have pulled it off or did, a lot of "working" people still think the Democrats are on their side LOL. I would venture to guess it is much easier to dupe a group or farmers than a lot of other groups.

Comparing George Washington to Cesar Chavez is ridiculous.George Washington did something worthwhile that was not about self advancement, he was a patriot, Chavez was a union thug, nothing more.

Contrary to your previous reply, you only called Chavez a thug once here, I see you're making progress. :DL Now we need only the explanation how a guy who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which lets him stand in line with Reds like John Wayne, Maggie Thatcher and Ron and Nancy, is a radical. Please also regard post #66, the number of the Steve, where he reminded you again to bring some facts to the table.

The repeated calling Chavez a violent thug makes it sound like we are talking about Al Capone. I am aware of connections of certain unions with the mob, but so are some businessmen, so are some politicians. Certainly no lawyers, never heard of a banker working with the mafia. :know:
Power and corruption are siamese twins. (Legal disclaimer: to anybody reading this, who was, is or will be attached to his sibling - no offense to you, never met anyone of you, but I am certain you're cool people - unless your surnames are power and corruption ;))

So bring on some sources for corruption. A good start might be this extensive article from the LA Times, about corruption and the buddy-system in the post-Chavez UWF: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ufw8jan08,1,7168808,full.story

I notice a big disregard for the farming man in today's middle-class, for the job as for the food they grow, which is eaten day by day by them, hastily slung, quickly rinsed down with the help of a crappiato, without even thinking for a blink, where the wrapped, shiny red apple they grabbed at the 7/11 comes from. So I am stricly arguing on an agricultural level here.

Set course to the late 18th century:
Did ole George not only conscript his army out of farming men but did work his soil himself? Not only artisans, merchants and lawyers were taxed without representation and rose to kick out the crown with the help of cooled Ale - and sometimes by more violent means.
Certainly Washington did not only fight for himself, hiss idea, no he also fought for an improvement of the life conditions for the other settlers in North America, well as long as they were male WASPs. ;)
If you want to use class-warfare terms, he fought a rule by the aristrocat class. He also fought for a set of ideas, later written down in the DOI and the US constitution.

So a quick comparision, let's also put in soopa's proposition for giggles:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3927/washchav.png

proof that pseudo-political statistics can show Herr Schickelhuber and Mr Washington being similar: Ccchhheck! :D

And no, although I had the honor to learn a little of American history from school books during the Reagan era, I don't believe that Washington fought under the red flag, or was a Marxist before Karl was one.

I am pretty sure that the Navy is aware that Washington has a quite undisputed reputation, so they say: "let's give him a cool, big-ass vessel". As Chavez seems to be slightly more conroversial than Washington, they say: "k, we'll give him a little ship, no one will care."

Fast forward 150 years in the nation which voted a farmer and a soldier as their first president:
1944, the US is in the state of war since over 2 years, many young men get enlisted. Many of them farmers, some of them descendants of immigrants.
The years 44 and 45 were probably no easy tour in the US navy, certainly the people who fought there, would have preferred to make love to Mary-Ann in a corn field rather than being under enemy fire. Chavez and his fellow sailors are part of the generation the US calls The Greatest Generation, now nearly gone off the streets. As long as their is no proof of treason or else while in the war, Chavez belongs to this generation.
Maybe there was something that gave this gen this mindset, this strange mix of toughness and humbleness, not easy described by words.: the hope to get home to a country in peace, to fight so that it may so be, to fight to avoid to fight at home someday, that war one day comes upon their little piece of land they own. To fiight to sit in a rocking chair, watching the plants grow, without bullets flying around the head.

So the most fair and reasonable vote would be this: let those people who have been on a ship in WW2 decide. If you want to fight against the name of the ship, visit your local vet organization and find some people who agree with your view. Visit some WW2 Navy veterans, talk to shem, listen to their stories if they want to share them, confort them, if they can't leave the bed. Tell them about the ship and your opinion, ask them about theirs. I am sure you'll some who agree with your view, you'd also find others, you'd say "why not?" and many would just quote Alfred E. : "What, me worry?"
Gather the vets who are against the name, write a petition to the Navy, their words still have weight.

Beware: don't even think about calling your interest group a union, or you will be seen as a corrupt Communist! :know:
I am also curious how many vets will say that WW2 was the best time of their lives, not even touching the aspect that duty in a segregated force may also put one's perception of the service slightly into the negative.

Cut: WW2 is over, goto post-war:
Has living off the land in the US ever been a farmers-pie-walk? Hell no, it has always been a struggle. So has the life of the landless farm workers, who also contribute their share to the wealth they help to grow and harvest.

"If you don't do the job for some coins, I'll hire somewhere else that is cheaper and after this the next guy who's even cheaper?"
That is the mentality that led to those millions of illegals in the US. Same as the mentality of the consumer who wants to buy cheaper and cheaper,
led to a drain of workplaces in the industrial sector and to the giant trade deficit with nations who build cheap plastic crap.
Do you want to buy your apples from China, drained in chemicals because of unregulated poison levels? Keep on paying the guys on the farm less and less!

So there were people sick of getting the short end of the stick in agriculture, not even getting any protection for from pesticides.
So what is the weapon of the landless to improve their life conditions?? The machete to chop down the evil, fascist suppressor, or whatever reason people need in South Africa?
Set the hope into the free market, wander to the next employer, who offers the same cheap deal?
Or education? Learning another trade ain't easy without some cash to start, even without enough cash to substain a worthy life. Book education was not easy to get without dough, unlike today where imbeciles like me can copy and paste some random wiki facts together from dubious sources and claim to know crap.

So some people chose to organize, as always used in the history of mankind. Power by many. Good for hunting mamooths, good for bargaining with the employers, who, and we shall have no doubt about it, have also always been organized themselves.

Now Topedos los auf das Schlachtschiff Reagan:
Still staying on a stricly agricultural level, only short mentioning Ronnies help to the empire of evil by delivering food.
I think Reagan did a lot to disrespect the fate of the guys who work their own soil, basically his stance was: kiss my wrinkled actor's ass!
What was the life of the US farmers in the 80s like? The pressure to conglomerate - get big or get down. Why is such a big part of Americas food industry in the hands a few big companies today? Political priorities.
Reaganomics: no help, no more subsides, not even credits. The choice for the farmer was either to try to grow or sell to the banks, or to some big corps.
Even those Commie bastard representavtives from the socialist midwest protested back then about Reagan's agricultural politics, 2 random articles from '85: http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-22/news/mn-10894_1_aid-farmers,http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-03-07/news/8501130185_1_veto-farm-programs-farmers

I find it also outrageous that the industry was allowed a big real-time, biology experiment with genetically modified crops. The de facto non-existant regulation of GM crops was brought to you under Ronnie in '86, without asking the people who have to eat the food grown in american soil, day by day.
As any other pollution, it knows no boundaries of a field. What was in for the farmer? I don't know. What was in for the food mob: The perfect cycle: Make any farmer dependent from your seed. And of course the crops are only resistant to pesticides from your own company. Make him not do, what any farmer has done since thousands of years after harvesting: keep some seeds for the next sowing. Even patenting the seeds, take the farmer's soveregnity about his own cultivations.
And this is also one of the tragedies in a country, which soil is rich enough, not only to feed people in the US but many more.


with agricultural, not agorophobic greetings,
Penguin,
proud grandson of a farmer


PS: call those thoughts whatever you want, commiesocialistpinko whatever, but please not progressive, there's nothing original in this pamphlet here, all thoughts have already been thought by people living a whole lot more yesterday - maybe I'm reprogressive, lol

[August]

...which lets him stand in line with Reds like John Wayne, Maggie Thatcher and Ron and Nancy

Maybe i'm just a soon-to-die Bigot like Mookie says but calling those particular people "Reds" is just, well.... wrong! :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Agreed.....but I still don't understand all the hype over the naming of a ship :hmmm:


What name? What ship. The entire thread has gone to the dogs. :hmmm:

[HunterICX]

Woof!!!

HunterICX

[mookiemookie]

"prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc"

What exactly makes a banker smarter than a farmer? Sure one gets higher pay and the job required more education but I see no way that being a banker or any other high paying job makes you smarter than any other person by your logic then an enlisted person is less intelligent than an officer(many times they are far more intelligent than officers) or that a person that sevres in a front line combat role is less intelligent than a person who serves in a rear echelon role when the fact of the matter is that money and power are not important to everyone not every person needs have lots of wealth or have power some people do the work that they want to do.

Also without the farmer the banker would starve to death so the banker needs the farmer at lot more than the farmer needs the banker.You should try and grow some crops and raise livestock
because it is a much harder job than you think and it requires a lot of skills and knowledge.And the work that a farm worker does I can assure you even if it paid what the banker got most people would refuse to do the job because it is such hard work.

Well said. I've known some farmers in my time, and they were some of the smartest and most savvy businesspeople I've ever met. The stereotype of the slow thinking yokel in overalls and chewing a piece of hay is really far from the truth.

[vienna]

"prob a lot easier to fool a farmer than say a banker etc"

I don't think it was a farmer who engineered the "Great Recession" nor was it a farmer who lost 2 Billion dollars yesterday... :hmmm:

...

[Kaye T. Bai]

Chazez [sic]? Wait, the Navy's naming a ship after this bloke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JC_Chasez)? :O:

In all seriousness, at least Cesar Chavez served in the Navy, unlike Gabrielle Giffords.

Woof!!!

Who let the dogs out? :haha: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8)

[krashkart]

:haha:


Good point! Let's just call it USS Rock.


How about USS Sgt. Rock?

http://collider.com/wp-content/image-base/Movies/S/Sgt_Rock/misc/sgt_rock_comic_book_image_01.jpg

:rock: