_transits_alongside_USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN_76)_for_a_fueling_at_sea.jpg){kind=spacer} |
| USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) transits alongside the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan for a fueling at sea. (2011) U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Dylan McCord |
Originally, the Ticonderoga-class cruisers were all to be named after battles, not necessarily US victories, but battles. These are the original names of the 27 ships in this class -
- USS Ticonderoga (CG-47)
- USS Yorktown (CG-48)
- USS Vincennes (CG-49)
- USS Valley Forge (CG-50)
- *USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51)
- **USS Bunker Hill (CG-52)
- USS Mobile Bay (CG-53)
- USS Antietam (CG-54)
- USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)
- USS San Jacinto (CG-56)
- USS Lake Champlain (CG-57)
- USS Philippine Sea (CG-58)
- USS Princeton (CG-59)
- USS Normandy (CG-60)
- USS Monterey (CG-61)
- **USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
- USS Cowpens (CG-63)
- USS Gettysburg (CG-64)
- **USS Chosin (CG-65)
- **USS Hué City (CG-66)
- USS Shiloh (CG-67)
- USS Anzio (CG-68)
- USS Vicksburg (CG-69)
- USS Lake Erie (CG-70)
- USS Cape St. George (CG-71)
- USS Vella Gulf (CG-72)
- USS Port Royal (CG-73)
But the progressives aren't on the warpath for Revolutionary War, or Korean War, battles. No, they are up in arms about the Civil War (calm down, you know what I mean) and anything which might in some way, shape, or form "glorify" the Confederate States of America and those who fought/supported them.
Okay, I get it. I really do. As I've mentioned before I have mixed feelings about all of this renaming business. In my personal Weltanschauung, folks such as Robert E. Lee were guilty of treason as they sought to overturn the government by force. I understand it though, things were different back then. If Vermont decided that Sockpuppet, Cackler, and the rest of the current maladministration were beyond the pale and decided to go it alone by seceding and were I still on active duty, I might be hesitant about raising my hand against my home state. (Though the likelihood of the current Vermont being in disagreement with the current insane clown posse in DC is probably non-existent. Hell, they elected Bernie effing Sanders to the Senate!) But you get my point, yes?
People felt closer to where they were born and raised back then, Lee couldn't bear the thought of fighting his native state of Virginia. So he resigned his US commission, then later accepted a commission in the army of the Confederacy. So kinda by law (and common practice) he was guilty of treason. (Kinda because he did resign his commission in the US Army first.)
No doubt you have your own thoughts on that (and are welcome to share them in the comments, provided you "play nice") but I'm just illustrating a point.
So why was the ship named for a Confederate victory in the first place? No doubt to appease some southern politicians in order to get them to vote for the funds to build the ship and others like her. As Admiral Rickover said, when asked why the names of nuclear submarines would be for cities and not fish as they were traditionally, "Fish don't vote."
To be honest though, I don't feel all that bad about the renaming of Chancellorsville (though I think renaming a ship for political-correctness sake, for that's what this is, and the renaming of a ship being bad luck) I like the name chosen.
For Robert Smalls is one of my personal heroes, of whom I wrote here. His is a fine name, he was a fine sailor and a very brave man. He should be honored by naming a US warship after him. But why a renaming? Why not name an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer after him?
Well, that wouldn't appease the woke, now would it?
My fear is that a man whose name should be remembered, and honored, will now have that proud name attached to a shameful display of partisan politics, by a party which Captain Smalls personally despised.
I get it, but I find the whole business despicable and dishonorable.
Your thoughts?
Renaming a military ship, to me, has the feel of disrespect to those that served before. Renaming it to appease the whims of those that couldn't care less about honor is spitting in their face.
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteJess and Boat Guy from January have said it best, can't improve on them.
ReplyDelete👍
DeleteThere are not enough bits and bytes to hold the negative words and thoughts that I feel about all of this..... bullshit. There, I said it. It's over. It's done. The war was horrid, but it ended. It ended a rather deep cleft in our nation, for better or for worse.
ReplyDeleteThis disrespectful evil pandering scumsucking garbage of renaming and destroying and wiping of history is wrong and smacks of the socialism that it is. Outright international socialism levels of mind control and political stupidity and just wrongness.
And it's not just the Civil War of Northern Aggression and Southern Independence, no, next will be the Indian Wars, the Boxer Rebellion, the Spanish-American War, the this and that until nothing remains?
Why are all the statues of famous Americans disappearing while Lenin's statue is still standing in America? Why is Margret Sanger's statue still standing while great thinkers and minds and leaders have had their statues pulled down? Why the sudden urge to wrename everything for, in many cases, marginal idiots and losers and outright scum?
Don't like it. Don't agree with it. It's wrong. Just wrong.
And it needs to stop.
As you mentioned "rename everything for, in many cases, marginal idiots and losers and outright scum" I'll make the point here, and that is, all of you are missing the point of the post. Perhaps it's poorly written but I'm speaking of a specific instance here, the renaming of the USS Chancellorsville for a truly worthy individual, Robert Smalls.
DeleteMy main point being, "Was Robert Smalls not good enough to have a ship named for him in the first place?" My point is name an Arleigh-Burke after him.
Renaming Chancellorsville (a Confederate victory) for a black man smacks of the worst sort of pandering these woke bastards can do.
Captain Smalls deserves better, from history and from this nation.
FTW.
Smalls should have had a brand-new ship named after him. In a just and noble world, his name would be on an aircraft carrier, or an A-B, at least a FRAMM.
DeleteAnd, no, I didn't miss your point. It's just once they shove the dead horse's nose under the tent, then they'll use a bulldozer to cram the rest of it inside. While ruining any meaningful expression of gratitude or heroism. You know, typical Stalinism/Maoism/Khymer Rougeism.
Okay, maybe not a CVN, but there have been some real dunderheads who have had big ships named after them. And screw Rickover, the twisted little dwarf. What a colossal ego that whackadoodle had. Seriously, the whole 'my people shouldn't marry and have kids' thing (yes, a simplification, but...) was a tad weird and cultish.
DeleteBeans #1 - But, I was trying to make a particular point. Address the point, then rant, that's all I ask.
DeleteBeans #2 - Remember, I have an insider's view of the nuclear Navy. Hover, Rickover did get things done. We could use something like that these days. (But yes, he was weird and a freak. Even these days Nukes are a breed apart.)
DeleteYes, Rickover was odd, but got results. He did not tolerate fools or ever the mediocre. Something less known was that Rickover was aboard for the sea trials of every new sub. He had signed off that she was seaworthy. If he was wrong, he would go down with her along with the rest of her first crew.
DeleteNot many know that.
DeleteCrusty Old TV Tech here. Stupid, stupid, stupid. What's next, renaming Barksdale AFB because Lt Barksdale was found to be a (gasp, clutches pearls) Toxic Masculine WW1 Fighter Pilot? Heaven Forfend!
ReplyDeleteBTW, USS San Jacinto is not named for a US battle, but for a Texan battle. Texas became a Republic after that battle, before we were part of the USA. Maybe it deserves a big lone star notation?
Copy that on the San Jacinto.
DeleteWhile speaking of San Jacinto, for those who don't know.....Today is Texas Independence Day for it to become the Republic of Texas.
DeleteCletus Valvecore
DId not know that.
DeleteHuzzah to the Lonestar State!
DeleteSigh ...
DeleteTexas Independence Day? Who knew? But, I will hoist a Margarita in celebration the Republic of Texas, and her sons and daughters, natural or adopted.
DeleteJB
👍
DeleteTo avoid hashing things out about the name of the war I have been calling it The War of 1861. I find it odd that nobody gets upset about the three times New England states threatened to leave the Union. Also that simply wanting to leave the Union is somehow "overthrowing" the federal government. There is still nothing in the Constitution that says specifically it is a permanent and unbreakable union, you know, the way the unalterable Articles of Confederation did. There must be a reason that clause was left out when our government was overthrown by radical elements and the new Constitution promulgated .
ReplyDeleteEnough of that.
The Red Guards are solidly in control of our society and government and are dedicated to overthrowing our Constitution with their (relatively) bloodless Cultural Revolution.
Threatening and actually doing so are two different things. Opening fire on a Federal installation is an act of war.
DeleteBut your last point is valid.
Also see my comment in response to Beans, above.
Sorry Sarge; gotta part company with you here. Secession is NOT treason. The Confederates did NOT want to "overthrow" the government, but to separate from it. Robert Lee declined to be part of an invading force, rightfully so.
DeleteBoat Guy
Again, a side issue, has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the post.
DeleteMy point on bringing up the New England threats was to point out that before the War of 1861 secession was seen as constitutionally allowed, legal, and acceptable. And a goodly portion of the post was given over to the "treason" of the seceded states, which is also the reason giving for the Red Guards demans to rename everything.
DeleteMaybe we need to tear down Faneuil Hall since it was built with money earned in connection with the slave trade.
I contend that, had the delegates from Virginia (to include George Mason) known that joining the Union was irrevocable, they would not have signed. They were staunchly anti-Federalist.
DeleteOnce they seceded from the Union, the forces that remained in the secessionist states were an occupying force of a foreign army. Those who opposed that Army were not making war against their own country, nor did they seek to overthrow the government. It has been said many times that our Constitution is a contract, and why should those who live here today be bound forevermore by a contract that was signed nearly 200 years before they were born?
It was a huge oversight in the document that they outlined what it took to enter the union, but not what it would take to leave it.
Joe - I mentioned that I considered certain folks in the CSA traitors.
DeleteApparently the Civil War is still the "third rail" when talking with southerners.
Divemedic - Quite possible.
DeleteLee, as one example, did not start the Civil War. When war was declared, he was in the almost impossible position of serving in the armed services that was poised to attack his home and family. It was after the war was declared that he resigned.
DeleteBesides, the secession question was not yet answered in 1861. People commonly used the phrase "The United States are...", where we now say "The United States is..."
I served proudly in a couple of our country's wars. But of course it was fairly easy for me morally, because nobody expected me to call in artillery strikes on my home town and order a bayonet charge against my family members.
I've read about bitter enemies becoming friends after the hostilities were done. I can think of a few instances. All the shinola going on now is meant to cause problems. Very little different than the run up to last war of Northern Aggression. Only this time, it's a run up to the war of Ideological Progression. And the enemies will be neighbors, not so much regions. "Let sleeping dogs lie" was something I learned as a KID! Doesn't school teach any hard worn wisdom anymore?
ReplyDeleteI guess I've been reading the wrong history books. "...as they sought to overturn the government by force..." I thought they were fighting to be left alone. I thought Virginia rebelled at the idea of Lincoln marching the Army through them to attack South Carolina? I was pretty sure after the rebels won one of the first battles fought (that left DC unprotected), they just celebrated the victory and didn't press the advantage. Maybe my view point is colored by where my kin served and are buried. But it's all good. Welcome to the party. The South has been the battered wife before. For you guys up north, this is maybe the first time. It ain't no fun, either which way, when they piss down your back and tell you it's raining.
Never argue the Civil War with a Southerner.
DeleteEverybody so far has missed the point.
My lack of coffee was showing. Sorry. Part of the rambling above was a shadowy allusion to renaming a ship from a battle from the yuk of the 1860's to the name of a worthy individual for the sake of rubbing noses in something. I firmly believe that divide and conquer by Balkanization is the soup de jour of the District of Criminality. And I believe they firmly and completely want to cause actual bloodshed amongst neighbors here in the good ole'.
DeleteOn that we are in agreement. Completely!
DeleteSarge, two thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) As part of my Old English Research project, I came across the following quote in From Alfred to Henry III (871-1272) by Christopher Brooke: "Our first business as historians is to mark the contrasts; to make sure we are not reading the present into the past, making our forebears in our own image." The book is older (1961) but contains what used to be an understood part of the study of history: conflating our presence with their past (even if their past by our standards was quite wrong) denies us the fullness of understanding those times and makes all previous history into a two dimensional portrait of our modern world stamped across the timestream. It also presumes that this is the best and most advanced of all civilizations, which every period of time has believes itself to be (which does make me wonder 200 years from now how current social arguments and political trends will be viewed, should we be so fortunate as to have a future beyond the next five years).
2) I agree with your point that renaming a ship for a deserving individual because of this particular situation will denigrate the concept of giving that individual the recognition they deserve. Why not just name the next new ship after them and find some other, non-controversial battle to rename the current ship?
Kudos to TBB for being the first to get my point and not go off on an emotional rant.
DeleteI didn't start loading buck and ball, so no emotion here. Just because we differ on the constitutionality of enforced servitude to the Federal Government of 1860 isn't a bad thing. I would most definitely want the majority of my fellows here to be around my fire. Spirited discussion is it's own reward. ;)
DeleteAbsolutely!
DeleteTBB is right. It is difficult to view history without it reflecting through a fogged mirror of your own concepts. At least until history is old enough that one does not understand or care what the points of disagreement were all about.
DeleteAnd what comes down to us as "history," isn't always the whole story.
DeleteAmen
Delete👍
DeleteConcur on how this is despicable --it is also cowardly. I must disagree with the appellation of "Traitors" for those who chose to serve the Confederacy. Every officer who was in the US Army and chose to follow and serve his state honorably resigned their US commission and publically renounced their oath to the US. They in fact, change nationalities. Benedict Arnold was a traitor (tried to betray West Point to an enemy in time of war. Ted Kennedy was a traitor (negotiated with the USSR on how to cripple RRs Defense programs while a Senator.) R.E Lee and his ilk were not traitors.
ReplyDeleteWe can agree to disagree. See my comments to Beans and to STxAR above.
DeleteSomeone probably has already made the point. The South did NOT want to overthrow the Federal Government. They wanted to LEAVE the Federal Government. The point was, "If we joined voluntarily, we can leave when we want." In fact, I was reading about the war of 1812. The author talked about the founding of our constitution. Two states, if memory serves me, New Jersey and Virginia, expressly stated that they would join the US, but if this crazy experiment did not work, they could and would leave.
ReplyDeleteAnother author talked about the reasons for leaving. The South, by way of tariffs on manufactured goods, paid 75% of all tariffs that the Federal Government collected. All this money went for roads, canals, railroads and the like,...in the North. When the South seceded, a reporter asked Lincoln, "Why don't we let them go?" Lincoln replied, "But then, who will pay for the government?"
I suspect that secession was legal and we were kept in the arms of our loving government because we were a cash cow. By the way, Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. The suspicion now is that had this been brought up in court, the secession might have been legal, no treason involved, and a war that killed 750000 people might have been illegal. Not a good look.
And what does this have to do with the post above?
DeleteBut, but, but...what if I want to go off on an emotional rant? ;-)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I find many of the comments above to be good reads and allow me to learn a bit more about the personalities of those who peruse your blog. Personally, I regard the renaming of the USS Chancellorsville to Robert Smalls' as an insult to Smalls. It is as though he was the second choice. Place his name on a newly commissioned ship as the first choice.
FWIW and YMMV.
-Barry
Thanks Barry, you get the point.
DeleteExactly. The Navy has not been taking very god care of the TICOs, as they reaching the ends of their service lives. USS ROBERT SMALLS should be the name of a brand new BURKE, not an elderly cruiser. For on those who decided to do such a thing!
Delete👍
DeleteThat should be " Fie on ", not " For on ".
DeleteI figured that's what you meant.
DeleteI'm ok with renaming the ship as suggested. Mr. Smalls actions reflect the values of this country and should, therefore, be honored.
ReplyDeleteBack on the "Other" topic folks are talking about. I find it interesting that the same political party today is trying to change those values as they did in 1865-65. Hopefully, Prayerfully, they fail again and with much less loss of blood.
His actions warrant having a ship named for him, but not THIS ship. Smacks of an insult, a backhanded compliment if you will.
DeleteI'm good with that.
Delete👍
DeleteErasing history seems to insure that it will be repeated, until the lesson is burned into the genes, and humanity learns to read them.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
DeleteAgree, but...
Delete1. History (meā quidem sententiā in the United States) is not being taught.
2. Nobody seems to recall whatever it is was taught.
3. Nobody seems to be able equate whaat transpired previously to a current day situation.
True in some areas, not in all.
DeleteWhat would be a most proper USS SMALLS, would be for us to buy a Danish ABSALON, for use as a Special Ops APD. That would be a suitable ship, for a man that stole a Confederate ship.
ReplyDeleteStB,
DeleteStole is such a harsh word. Commandeered might be better.
StB - Disagree.
Deletejuvat - Liberated?
DeleteMade Off With?
DeleteI think all three fit. He took Command lliberated the ship and made off to the north.
Delete👍
DeleteAbsconded?
DeleteAs Sarge said "His actions warrant having a ship named for him, but not THIS ship. Smacks of an insult, a backhanded compliment if you will."
ReplyDeleteFor new construction, I would not object to USS ROBERT SMALLS for a CG. But, while a CG is a sexy big beast, the importance of salvage ships is (currently) not viewed as very sexy or useful, but are deserving of far greater recognition than they have received. Smalls' maritime experience on roughly comparable type of ships would make this a very suitable choice. Some might argue that he must have one of the big ships, customarily named for battle heroes (or sadly sometimes for unworthy politicians) but as inspirational as his history might be, this should be on actual performance, not color of skin.
I salute his maritime and wartime deeds as real accomplishments, and his reconstruction era activities seem to be admirable as well.
If the renaming of military stuff is to continue, I beg that they rid the fleet of the shameful names of hack politicians, and rename anything in West Virginia named for KKK leaders.
Concur with your last, most emphatically.
DeleteAs to the type of ship, we often forget the value of all the ships that support the actual fighting ships. Without those, a warship is good for one or two fights, then it's just another target. A salvage ship would be fitting in this case.
Okay, we all got off-topic according to you, our host, but this topic came up because of the very topic that we got off-topic about. There are two different topic: The renaming of Confederate things and peoples; and Small deserving a ship named after him.
ReplyDeleteYes, the whole naming thing is bullscat. See all my previous rants about naming ships using WWI to WWII naming practices and damn all the politicians (Hank Johnson got a ship? Really? USS Harvey Milk? Really? Gabby Giffords? Really?)
And, yes, what the man did deserves a ship named after him. In a just and good world that could have happened previous to 2008. But politics and the hijacking of the left by the extremely bat-guano-crazy ideologically-challenged idiots have tarnished everything the EBGCICI have touched, and that includes this renaming.
As to Chanceloreville, it was a historic battle, a loss for the Union but still a battle fought by the US of A. So, yes, keep the name. And teach the correct history about the battle and the events leading up to it, all the truths, about slavery AND the North's attempt to keep the South as an economic backwater, basically duplicating some of the very issues that caused the Colonies to bail from England. (Seriously, without using a textbook-thickness of paper, all the issues on both sides are hard to minimize in a short, concise manner.)
So, to concise this: Yes, the man deserves a ship named after him. Yes, the process of stripping all things Confederate (and expecting what will happen next) is wrong and badthink in a very Orwellian way, which is unAmerican.
Now that, boys and girls, is how you comment.
DeleteWell done, Beans!
Yaaay! Texas!
ReplyDeleteSarge, are you giving "C's" and "D's" out, or mostly "F's"?
Mostly "Fs," few "Cs," cuppla "Bs," and one "A" (TBB).
DeleteI would merely note the USNS Harvey Milk.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle Giffords ...
DeleteGOD, they were ugly ships. They beat the OHP into ugly hall of fame by a nautical mile.The single and double ended cruisers, they were nice.
ReplyDeleteI'm a classic. I liked the old ships. I liked the line of battle ships, the BB and the BC.Ships since 1970 just look horrible. Think, back to the classic warship designs we had in 1940s.
Now those WERE beautiful ships, magnifcent lines, an air of menace about them!
DeleteThen in WW2, there were those who sailed off to war in a ship without a name. Only a number three digits long on her bows like LST 325 because there more than a thousand like her built.
ReplyDeleteGerman U-Boats didn't have names, just a number, as well.
DeleteHey Old AFSarge;
ReplyDeleteIts what communist do, remove the names and institutions of a people, substitute the ones that are "acceptable" to the new order and the people forget their past. it is easier to rule a people that have no knowledge of their past and prior greatness to sustain them. I found the renaming of the U.S. Army post distasteful, the same people viewing the actions of the past through the prism of the present then they judge the people of the past by the same standards is foolhardy.
Yup.
DeleteIt also helps remove the memory of what Party the people being removed were associated with.
DeleteIndeed.
DeleteAre we proud of a Union loss and that's why we named it Chancellorsville? No. Happy for a Confederate win and that's why we named it? No again. Honoring the thousands of dead during a long and brutal battle which pitted American against American? Most definitely. These renaming commissions are so short-sighted.
ReplyDeleteComposed of idiots, thieves, and Communists.
DeleteI was thinking on my 40 mile drive to my first patient's house this morning about the entire renaming thing/"woke" ideology", and how the National Archive put a "trigger warning" (stupid term IMHO) on the copy of the Constitution that is on display, and about how publishing houses are going back through books they have been publishing for DECADES and editing out words. One recent example that fluffed my fur was the changes that are being made to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. There are others, books by Dr Seuss spring to mind right off the bat for example. The statues that have been torn down that memorialize the service and sacrifices made by men, now long dead, who fought for ideals that were important to them called Honor, Loyalty, Integrity; the high school teams who have had to change their names and mascots because they were called the Chiefs, or the Redskins, or the Warriors in recognition of the fact that a couple of centuries ago the Native American Indians lived in these places, and were respected, as well as feared.
ReplyDeleteIt occurred to me that the only person who should be upset at the wording of the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776, should have been King George, cause that who it was pointed at. For folks to be upset because in a book of fiction written in 1964, one child is singled out as "huge", and for great-great-grandchildren of the people who fought and died in the Civil War to pull down/destroy items meant to help remind those same great-great-grandchildren of the horrors of war, and of the ability of men to do extraordinary feats in war is just a reflection on those folks who are busy hunting up things to act offended about.
The only people who are offended are those who are upset that the entire nation doesn't instantly agree with them. It is their OPINION that those names, those books, those words and deeds are offensive. They do tend to be young adults--under the age of 30ish say--although not all are...but it is their opinion. To which, because they are living in these United States of America, they are entitled to both have an opinion, and to express it. Politely. In civil discourse. Not yelling, screaming, stamping their feet and generally throwing temper tantrums.
There is a First Amendment in that Constitution that so many are more than willing to rip up and throw away because it was written back in 1787 and has been in effect since 1789. "it's old" is the complaint. Yup. Two hundred thirty-four years old in fact. The world's oldest surviving written charter of any government!! And it guarantees that you can have an opinion that might not agree with mine. It also guarantees that I can hold an opinion that you might not agree with, nor like.
Yup, you might not like the mental picture of a fat kid falling into the river of chocolate. The point is that he fell in because he was greedy, he wanted more!! Back in the 1960's, according to the CDC, the percentage of children in the US who were obese was 5-7%; the percentage of adults who were obese was about 13%. Fast forward to 2023 and 82.3% of adults are either over weight, obese, or severely obese in the US. Children from 2-19 years old number about 55.6% according to the CDC. So, in my opinion, to get upset because someone 60 years ago wrote that being huge wasn't a good thing is being a bit ridiculous. Because, trust me, all of us who are in that 82.3%, have been told that being fat isn't good for us for a multitude of reasons. Higher risk of heart attack, stroke, cancers, arthritis, diabetes, the list is long and ever-growing. Maybe it would be a good thing for our kids and grandkids to learn that being "huge" is not a good thing.
Suz
Just like maybe if folks would explore some of the history of "these dead slave owners who oppressed" people, they might find more than a few who were not fans of slavery, but had, in their opinion, no other choice. Never mind that the Civil War a) wasn't, no war ever is and b) wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought over the issue of States rights. Further, although America led the way in abolishing slavery in this country, slavery still exists in the world. Maybe it would be a good thing for folks to see how horrible slavery is, and what it can lead to...because those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe folks who are all up in arms about their ancestors having been slaves, or about folks who owned slaves,--who are all dead now from the 1860's--maybe they would like to protest slavery in other parts of the world, like China for example, or many of the countries in Africa who are mining the tantalum from coltan that go into cell phones, personal computers, and automotive electronics that come from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Or the cobalt and copper that are mined in Congo and Zambia that go into the batteries that make electric vehicles possible. Maybe if slavery offends enough, folks will give up their cell phones, EV's and solar panels and we will go back to smushed dead dinosaurs as a fuel source. It's only my opinion, and like it or not, I am just as entitled to it as the "crazy woke types" are to theirs. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, and see how folks there like their opinions.
DeleteLike juvat said the other day " Don't California my Texas".
We need to be more considerate of ALL opinions, not just the ones being expressed by folks expressing their inner two year old. And we need to agree to disagree at times as in "I get it you didn't approve of slavery, but there are others out there who will never know how bad it is if all trace of it is erased from OUR history." If we don't understand where we came from, how can we go forward?
Suz--kicking away the soap box
👍
Delete