Hegseth stripping Harvey Milk's name off Navy ship is weak and insecure
Hegseth stripping Harvey Milk's name off Navy ship is weak and insecure | Opinion Nothing says indomitable warrior quite like, 'I'm afraid of this boat's name.'
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Navy to change name of USNS Harvey Milk oil tanker
The U.S. Navy will be renaming the USNS Harvey Milk oil tanker, named after Navy veteran and first openly gay elected California official.
In a display of infantile weakness, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the U.S. Navy to remove iconic gay rights activist and Korean War veteran Harvey Milk's name from a naval ship.
A defense official told Military.com the ship renaming was intentionally announced during Pride Month, presumably because faux tough guys like Hegseth and others in the Trump administration mistakenly equate toughness with being a complete (expletive).
In a statement, a Pentagon spokesman said: 'Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander in chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.'
Hegseth's plan to scrub Harvey Milk's name from a ship is peak insecurity
The 'warrior ethos,' Secretary Hegseth? Are you an insecure 12-year-old boy?
Nothing says indomitable warrior quite like, 'I'm afraid of this boat's name.'
Opinion: Musk calls Trump's bill an 'abomination.' I hate it when our two weird dads fight.
A true warrior would be familiar with American history and would know that Milk served as a U.S. Navy operations officer on rescue submarines during the Korean War, then went on to become the first openly gay man elected to public office in California. He was serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors when he and the city's mayor were assassinated in 1978.
Milk served in the Korean War and earned his place in history
A true warrior would recognize that U.S. soldiers throughout history have proudly served, fought, and died for the rights of all Americans to speak and live freely.
A true warrior would be appalled to read the statement Milk's nephew Stuart Milk, who chairs the Harvey Milk Foundation, had to release in response to Hegseth's pathetic renaming plan, saying of the slain activist: 'His legacy has stood as a proud and bright light for the men and women who serve in our nation's military – including those who have served on the USNS Harvey Milk – and a reminder that no barriers of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or physical infirmity will restrain their human spirit.'
Hegseth apparently sees naval ship names as 'woke'
The New York Times reported that there are other ships named after civil rights leaders that might be renamed under Hegseth's feeble leadership. The names include Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman and Cesar Chavez.
Make no mistake that behind these decisions is an administration limply fighting back against any incursion on the power of straight, white men, wholly unaware that people with real power don't need to exert their will on others.
Announcing that you're stripping the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship at the start of Pride Month is, of course, a transparent provocation. To insecure, whiny, entitled men who spend their days listening to other insecure, whiny, entitled men, it's a show of strength. It's something they can smirk about as they exchange awkward high-fives.
Opinion: Joe Biden's decency will always outshine Donald Trump's cruelty
Hegseth and others in the Trump administration don't know true strength
But that's not strength. It's not a 'warrior ethos.' Heck, it's not even an ethos. It's just a bunch of unconfident losers trying to push others down to make themselves feel tall.
If Harvey Milk's name is scrubbed from a Navy ship, it won't alter his legacy. His name, decades upon decades from now, will still echo in the pages of history. the hearts of students of civil rights and the mind of any soldier with a true warrior ethos.
Pete Hegseth's name, on the other hand, will prompt only one response: 'Who's that? Never heard of him.'
Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @rexhuppke.bsky.social and on Facebook at facebook.com/RexIsAJerk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states, which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained," Bush said. "Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002, with a noticeable dip during the pandemic. Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades, said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report, Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms. Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. "There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers." ___
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Veterans remain central to D-Day anniversary ceremonies
The Brief D-Day marks the day allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy in Nazi-occupied France on June 6, 1944. D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion in military history. June 6 marks the anniversary of D-Day, the day allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and changed the course of World War II. The invasion was unprecedented in scale and audacity and implemented the largest-ever armada of ships, troops, planes and vehicles to punch a hole in Adolf Hitler's defenses in Western Europe. Today, though the D-Day generation of veterans are smaller, they remain a crucial reminder of what June 6 means as they continue to spread the message that they fought so hard for 81 years ago: Freedom is worth defending. About 66,143 of the 16.4 million Americans who served in World War II were alive as of 2024, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dig deeper At the Normandy American Cemetery that overlooks Omaha, the resting place for nearly 9,400 American war dead, workers and visitors rubbed sand from the beach onto the white gravestones, so the engraved names stand out. Wally King, a sprightly 101-year-old, shared a few words at the grave of Henry Shurlds Jr. Shurlds who flew P-47 Thunderbolt fighters like King and was shot down and killed on Aug. 19, 1944. What they're saying When "most veterans from World War II came home, they didn't want to talk about the war. So they didn't pass those experiences on to their children and grandchildren," King said. "In a way, that's good because there's enough unpleasantness, bloodshed, agony in war, and perhaps we don't need to emphasize it," he added. "But the sacrifice needs to be emphasized and celebrated." Jack Stowe, a 98-year-old who served in the Navy, shared that he still receives "the sweetest letters" from kids he has met on previous trips. "The French people here, they're so good to us … they want to talk to us, they want to sit down and they want their kids around us," he said. Jake Larson, 102, survived machine gunfire while storming Omaha beach on D-Day. "We are the lucky ones … They had no family. We are their family. We have the responsibility to honor these guys who gave us a chance to be alive," Larson said. What does "D" stand for in D-Day? It depends on who you ask. The backstory Some say it stands for designated day, decision day, doomsday or even death day, according to the U.S. military. Others also said it merely stands for "Day," as in Day-Day. There have been other instances in history which utilized D-Day as a coded designation for the day of any important invasion or military operation, the U.S. military said. Referencing Stephen Ambrose's book, "D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II," the U.S. Army's first use of D-Day was in 1918. "For military planners (and later historians), the days before and after a D-Day were indicated using plus and minus signs: D-4 meant four days before a D-Day, while D+7 meant seven days after a D-Day," according to the U.S. Army website. An unknown person allegedly wrote to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allied supreme commander for Operation Overlord, and asked what the "D" meant. His executive assistant at the time, Brigadier Gen. Robert Schultz answered: "General Eisenhower asked me to respond to your letter. Be advised that any amphibious operation has a 'departed date'; therefore the shortened term 'D-Day' is used," the Army's website reads. The sea landings started at 6:30 a.m., just after dawn, targeting five code-named beaches: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, Sword. The operation also included actions inland, including overnight parachute landings on strategic German sites and U.S. Army Rangers scaling cliffs to take out German gun positions. By the numbers Around 11,000 Allied aircraft, 7,000 ships and boats, and thousands of other vehicles were involved. A total of 4,414 Allied troops were killed on D-Day itself, including 2,501 Americans. More than 5,000 were wounded. In the ensuing Battle of Normandy, 73,000 Allied forces were killed and 153,000 wounded. The battle — and especially Allied bombings of French villages and cities — killed around 20,000 French civilians. The exact German casualties aren't known, but historians estimate between 4,000 and 9,000 men were killed, wounded or missing during the D-Day invasion alone. About 22,000 German soldiers are among the many buried around Normandy. The Source Information for this article was taken from previous reporting by The Associated Press, FOX News and previous reporting by FOX Local. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
