(08-01-2016 08:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it is the fifth ship in a class that are all being named after civil rights leaders. give me a freaking break.

Sorry, john, while I agree with you in principle that this is a ridiculous thing to get upset about.

I still think, if they name them after an individual, they need to stick with naming ships after senior statesmen and personnel who served as officers in the military, not civil rights leaders, .

(07-31-2016 07:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Fleet oiler?.....That joke writes itself.

I know! Imagine getting assigned to the fleet oiler named after a pedo... My brother was in the Navy. I will have to ask him what he thinks.

(08-01-2016 10:14 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it is the fifth ship in a class that are all being named after civil rights leaders. give me a freaking break.

Sorry, john, while I agree with you in principle that this is a ridiculous thing to get upset about.

I still think, if they name them after an individual, they need to stick with naming ships after senior statesmen and personnel who served as officers in the military, not civil rights leaders, .

for what it's worth: I'm like 99.999% sure Milk served in the military before entering politics.

Eh, it's a boat.

(08-01-2016 10:14 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it is the fifth ship in a class that are all being named after civil rights leaders. give me a freaking break.

Sorry, john, while I agree with you in principle that this is a ridiculous thing to get upset about.

I still think, if they name them after an individual, they need to stick with naming ships after senior statesmen and personnel who served as officers in the military, not civil rights leaders, .

It would be one thing if he were a decorated marine. But he doesn't seem to have anything to do with the military and comes from a city that has often been hostile to the military.

(08-01-2016 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:14 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it is the fifth ship in a class that are all being named after civil rights leaders. give me a freaking break.

Sorry, john, while I agree with you in principle that this is a ridiculous thing to get upset about.

I still think, if they name them after an individual, they need to stick with naming ships after senior statesmen and personnel who served as officers in the military, not civil rights leaders, .

It would be one thing if he were a decorated marine. But he doesn't seem to have anything to do with the military and comes from a city that has often been hostile to the military.

for ***** sake guys

Quote:After graduation, Milk joined the United States Navy during the Korean War. He served aboard the submarine rescue ship USS Kittiwake (ASR-13) as a diving officer. He later transferred to Naval Station, San Diego to serve as a diving instructor.[5] In 1955, he was discharged from the Navy at the rank of lieutenant, junior grade.[note 2]

(08-01-2016 10:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:14 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  it is the fifth ship in a class that are all being named after civil rights leaders. give me a freaking break.

Sorry, john, while I agree with you in principle that this is a ridiculous thing to get upset about.

I still think, if they name them after an individual, they need to stick with naming ships after senior statesmen and personnel who served as officers in the military, not civil rights leaders, .

for what it's worth: I'm like 99.999% sure Milk served in the military before entering politics.

Was he a senior officer? That's listed as one of my criteria in naming a boat after an individual.. I've read up on milk in bits and pieces ,but don't recall him being more than a enlisted man

NVM: Your second post came through while I was writing mine.

2nd lt? Eh.. Not so sure that's boat-name worthy

so do you support the sullivan brothers getting a ship?

(08-01-2016 10:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  so do you support the sullivan brothers getting a ship?

Normally I would have said no, john..

BUT I didn't think about Killed in Action during a war we're in writing my original post.. So I'd probably have to add a couple of additional criteria that would make you possible worth getting a boat named after you (not a sure thing, just eligible to have one..)

1) Political statesmen of National level
2) Military officers (I'd probably say, Colonels at the lowest rank, unless #3 and #4 come into play)
3) Killed in action during a war in which the US was involved.
4) Meritorious service in the military above and beyond just being in there.
5) Somehow contributed to the growth of the US Navy... (see Henry J. Kasier.. not a problem.. but I'd not want to see a USNS Bill Gates :) )

For instance, I know the USNS John Lewis (the lead boat in the class) is being named after a living us representative, and he's getting one named after him mostly for his civil rights activism.

That one I don't have a problem with at all, since he sits in the US House.

(08-01-2016 10:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  so do you support the sullivan brothers getting a ship?

I was just going to add that to the criteria..

1 - Senior officer
2 - Statesman
3 - Seamen who performed heroic duty above and beyond

The Sullivans died in the line of duty and the Navy awarded them posthumous Purple Hearts

Maybe Milk would qualify under a statesman. I don't really care one way or the other. The fact he was a pedo kind of stinks but I'm sure there are those who would argue a 32 year old guy getting with a 15 yo boy was not a pedophile.

Harvey Milk is a Navy Veteran.

He was an unquestioned civil rights leader. He was assassinated for his leadership. Murdered in the service of American democracy. He gave his life for this country and our freedoms.

When he was 33, he dated a 16 year old. Creepy by contemporary standards (but it was 1962), but is it any worse than Trump's 20 year younger wife? Also, 16 year olds can consent. Milk wasn't his teacher. He had no control over McKinley. In fact, McKinley was instrumental in getting Milk to 'come out'. And McKinley was living as adult, independent of a family that threw him out, earning his own money (actually McKinley brought Milk to SF, not the other way round), making his own decisions. If anything, it was McKinley who drove the relationship, not Milk. By the way, they met when they were both working on the Barry Goldwater campaign.

Few would bat an eyelash about a 33 year old man in the 1950s and early 1960s marrying a 16 year old girl. Especially if both were living independently as adults and out of school.

Of course I wouldn't date a 16 year old, and I understand why today it doesn't seem right. The overwhelming majority of 16-18 year olds today are children, unable to be independent and make independent decisions. But both were legally able to consent, and its not like he's was trolling the school yard for him. Or that for the time, it was considered that out of sorts. Or that there's any evidence of Milk taking advantage of McKinley.

And just so we can see which ships are in this class (taken from wiki):

Georgia politician and activist John Lewis (USNS John Lewis (T-AO-205)) .
LGBT activist Harvey Milk (USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206))[4]
former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren (USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207)) whose court ruled to desegregate U.S. schools
former US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (USNS Robert F. Kennedy (T-AO-208))
women’s right activist Lucy Stone (USNS Lucy Stone (T-AO-209))
abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth (USNS Sojourner Truth (T-AO-210))[4]

So you've got three of the ones that are getting built: Lewis, Warren, Kennedy that I don't see a problem with.
Milk <- You might argue that since he was a LT, Jr. Grade.. maybe. Me, I wouldn't have included him.
Stone and Truth? <-- not a chance I'd use them for a Naval ship name, as I cant' think of one criteria they'd qualify under

For instance, I would have NEVER named a navy ship after Cesar Chavez for instance, no matter what the class ship

(08-01-2016 11:26 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  And just so we can see which ships are in this class (taken from wiki):

Georgia politician and activist John Lewis (USNS John Lewis (T-AO-205)) .
LGBT activist Harvey Milk (USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206))[4]
former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren (USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207)) whose court ruled to desegregate U.S. schools
former US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (USNS Robert F. Kennedy (T-AO-208))
women’s right activist Lucy Stone (USNS Lucy Stone (T-AO-209))
abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth (USNS Sojourner Truth (T-AO-210))[4]

So you've got three of the ones that are getting built: Lewis, Warren, Kennedy that I don't see a problem with.
Milk <- You might argue that since he was a LT, Jr. Grade.. maybe. Me, I wouldn't have included him.
Stone and Truth? <-- not a chance I'd use them for a Naval ship name, as I cant' think of one criteria they'd qualify under

For instance, I would have NEVER named a navy ship after Cesar Chavez for instance, no matter what the class ship

The USNS Cesar Chavez and USNS David Duke...

I think it was JFK that said you can tell a lot about a nation by looking at who they celebrate.

If he is right it isn't looking good for us.

(08-01-2016 11:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Harvey Milk is a Navy Veteran.

He was an unquestioned civil rights leader. He was assassinated for his leadership. Murdered in the service of American democracy. He gave his life for this country and our freedoms.

When he was 33, he dated a 16 year old. Creepy by contemporary standards (but it was 1962), but is it any worse than Trump's 20 year younger wife? Also, 16 year olds can consent. Milk wasn't his teacher. He had no control over McKinley. In fact, McKinley was instrumental in getting Milk to 'come out'. And McKinley was living as adult, independent of a family that threw him out, earning his own money (actually McKinley brought Milk to SF, not the other way round), making his own decisions. If anything, it was McKinley who drove the relationship, not Milk. By the way, they met when they were both working on the Barry Goldwater campaign.

Few would bat an eyelash about a 33 year old man in the 1950s and early 1960s marrying a 16 year old girl. Especially if both were living independently as adults and out of school.

Of course I wouldn't date a 16 year old, and I understand why today it doesn't seem right. The overwhelming majority of 16-18 year olds today are children, unable to be independent and make independent decisions. But both were legally able to consent, and its not like he's was trolling the school yard for him. Or that for the time, it was considered that out of sorts. Or that there's any evidence of Milk taking advantage of McKinley.

if it was a hetrosexual relationship and he was anything but a gay rights activist I don't think this would be brought up anywhere near as much as it gets brought up.

but for what it is worth. Milk wasn't exactly the greatest guy in the world. there is that relationship, and his outing a gay person who didn't want to be outed just to advance the LGBT agenda. his murder was nothing more than your typical workplace violence and had nothing to do with his political viewpoints.

(08-01-2016 11:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Harvey Milk is a Navy Veteran.

He was an unquestioned civil rights leader. He was assassinated for his leadership. Murdered in the service of American democracy. He gave his life for this country and our freedoms.

When he was 33, he dated a 16 year old. Creepy by contemporary standards (but it was 1962), but is it any worse than Trump's 20 year younger wife? Also, 16 year olds can consent. Milk wasn't his teacher. He had no control over McKinley. In fact, McKinley was instrumental in getting Milk to 'come out'. And McKinley was living as adult, independent of a family that threw him out, earning his own money (actually McKinley brought Milk to SF, not the other way round), making his own decisions. If anything, it was McKinley who drove the relationship, not Milk. By the way, they met when they were both working on the Barry Goldwater campaign.

Few would bat an eyelash about a 33 year old man in the 1950s and early 1960s marrying a 16 year old girl. Especially if both were living independently as adults and out of school.

Of course I wouldn't date a 16 year old, and I understand why today it doesn't seem right. The overwhelming majority of 16-18 year olds today are children, unable to be independent and make independent decisions. But both were legally able to consent, and its not like he's was trolling the school yard for him. Or that for the time, it was considered that out of sorts. Or that there's any evidence of Milk taking advantage of McKinley.

Did California have a lower age of consent back then? Almost all states are 18 year old. Under that, you can't legally consent.

(08-01-2016 11:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  When he was 33, he dated a 16 year old. Creepy by contemporary standards (but it was 1962), but is it any worse than Trump's 20 year younger wife?

Yes it is absolutely. a 16 yr old may or may not be able to consent (depending on the state) but we certainly LEGALLY limit what 16 year olds can do based on the premise that they are inexperienced, lack maturity and unaware of the potential consequences... Something we don't do with a 21+ year old, regardless of whether or not they are doing them with a 22 yr old or a 62 year old. It has nothing to do with the age gap.

With all of the attempts by the far right to paint gays as pedophiles and the left responding back that they are clearly different, I really don't think this is a line you want to be blurring too much. If it was legal, then it was legal. If it wasn't then it wasn't....

Having said that... if it was a crime at the time, I have a problem with it. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. I suspect lots of our forefathers had 'young' wives... as that USED to be how it was done. All of the jokes aside (and many of the best ones are coming from friends who are gay), if he wasn't actually a pedophile (under the laws at the time) then I'm fine with it. If he was, then despite his accomplishments, it's an issue.

(08-01-2016 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  When he was 33, he dated a 16 year old. Creepy by contemporary standards (but it was 1962), but is it any worse than Trump's 20 year younger wife?

Yes it is absolutely. a 16 yr old may or may not be able to consent (depending on the state) but we certainly LEGALLY limit what 16 year olds can do based on the premise that they are inexperienced, lack maturity and unaware of the potential consequences... Something we don't do with a 21+ year old, regardless of whether or not they are doing them with a 22 yr old or a 62 year old. It has nothing to do with the age gap.

With all of the attempts by the far right to paint gays as pedophiles and the left responding back that they are clearly different, I really don't think this is a line you want to be blurring too much. If it was legal, then it was legal. If it wasn't then it wasn't....

Having said that... if it was a crime at the time, I have a problem with it. If it wasn't, then it wasn't. I suspect lots of our forefathers had 'young' wives... as that USED to be how it was done. All of the jokes aside (and many of the best ones are coming from friends who are gay), if he wasn't actually a pedophile (under the laws at the time) then I'm fine with it. If he was, then despite his accomplishments, it's an issue.

They met in New York. I have no idea what the age of consent was back then. And if the age of consent was the same for homosexual and heterosexual activity.

But lets get real. The young man is out of school, able to support himself, and not being manipulated.

Harvey Milk was not a saint. He was a legitimate civil rights hero. Only two others from that time even come close. Frank Kameny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kameny) and Craig Rodwell (who in an odd twist - also dated Harvey Milk). Neither Rodwell nor Kameny ended up getting murdered for the cause. Kameny was a titan.

One can argue that Milk's murder was simple workplace violence. But for a jury to let the killer off scot free for pre-meditated murder? That turned his assassination into a martyrdom in my opinion.

Harvey Milk moved the banner of freedom forward.

the jury screwed up no doubt about that. but juries screw up all the time (OJ simpson). a freaking mayor was killed in that incident so I don't see how you can pull the "they did it because the victim was gay" card.

it was without a doubt a workplace violence incident. I don't see how one could argue otherwise.

(08-01-2016 03:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But lets get real. The young man is out of school, able to support himself, and not being manipulated.

Yes let's get real... if he had been shot by a cop, we'd be calling him a 'child'.