February 28, 2007

Feeling wonky?

Picked up this link over at Crooks and Liars... a bunch of new Congressional Research Service reports:

"Climate Change: Science and Policy Implications," January 25, 2007.

"Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Labor Force," updated January 12, 2007.

"U.S. Military Dispositions: Fact Sheet," updated January 30, 2007.

"Navy Ship Names: Background For Congress," updated January 17, 2007.

"Latin America: Terrorism Issues," updated January 22, 2007.

"U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview," updated January 24, 2007.

"War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance," updated January 16, 2007.

"Laos: Background and U.S. Relations," updated February 5, 2007.

"Kyrgyzstan's Constitutional Crisis: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests," updated January 5, 2007.

At the conclusion of a widely cited article on U.S. policy towards Iran in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh referred to a November 2006 report by CRS "on what it depicted as the Administration’s blurring of the line between C.I.A. activities and strictly military ones."

The referenced report is "Covert Action: Legislative Background and Possible Policy Questions," November 2, 2006.

Posted by binky at February 28, 2007 11:53 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Random Thoughts


Comments

So I read through the link on Navy ship names (since that's a topic that interests me - and occasionally infuriates me). Not much there I didn't know, but one thing was that the Littoral Combat Ships are to be named after small towns and mid-sized cities. As to the first two are to be the Freedom and Independence, I assumed they were going to follow some sort of thematic pattern, but sadly no.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any sign that they are going to stop naming aircraft carriers after presidents and members of Congress. Hopefully the lobby that currently exists to get one named America will succeed. But otherwise we can look forward to yet more multibillion dollar warships having terrifying names like the ... USS Benjamin Harrison? The USS Leverett Saltonstall? The navy could do worse of course (I presume we'll be spared the USS Richard Nixon), but still, I really don't care for that naming norm.

Posted by: Armand at March 3, 2007 03:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'd take the USS Richard Nixon over the USS John C Stennis any day.

Posted by: jacflash at March 3, 2007 03:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm - Stennis or Nixon, Stennis or Nixon, Stennis or Nixon ... how about America instead? :)

Though this gets at something else odd about this naming norm - if you are going to insist on naming warships after politicians, why not go back a century or more when if the politicians have serious flaws (like an awful history on race), well, we can sort of excuse that and say it was as much a fault of "the times" as the man himself (and of course we'll always be talking about men here). And of course there are some quite positive politician names from earlier eras that aren't being used right now. How about the Benjamin Franklin or the Alexander Hamilton? Personally those names seem more appropriate to national symbols that the John Stennis and the Carl Vinson. And less divisive than the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Armand at March 3, 2007 05:40 PM | PERMALINK

Is the "USS America" lobby the same one that wants to change the national anthem to "America the Beautiful"?

Posted by: jacflash at March 3, 2007 05:44 PM | PERMALINK

Jeanette Rankin? Shirley Chisholm?

Posted by: binky at March 3, 2007 06:06 PM | PERMALINK

jacflash - No the "USS America" lobby is group (including many people who served on the last USS America - CV-66) that's trying to get the next carrier named after the Kitty Hawk-class USS America. They were hoping to get the ship that'll be the USS Gerald Ford named that, but supposedly now they are going to try and get the next one named that.

Binky - Well, again, in general I don't like naming US warships after politicians. So I really wouldn't like to see either one of those House members honored in that way. But beyond that ... how weird would that be? Naming an aircraft carrier after the only member of the US House to vote against entering World War II? But if we were to name one for a female politician, Margaret Chase Smith would seem to me to be the obvious one to honor in that way. She served on Armed Services for ages and was the ranking Republican member for several years.

And actually that's not a bad idea at all (again, presuming we stick with the current naming norms).

Btw, I checked Wikipedia and according to that there are only currently two ships in the Navy that are named for women that aren't support ships or scientific ships - specifically two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (one named for RADM Grace Murray Hopper and one named for Eleanor Roosevelt). So, yeah, let's name a carrier for former Sen. Smith.

Posted by: Armand at March 3, 2007 06:42 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?