It’s raining but I’m not getting wet

Here is a model of the USS Ford, CVN-78, the first of the Gerald R. Ford class Aircraft Carriers. This class of carriers is designed to replace the Nimitz class carriers that have been in service since the 1970’s. There are currently 11 Nimitz carriers in the fleet, so there will need to be at least 11 of these, but the last one does not need to be deployed until 2058. It takes at least 10 carriers for the US Navy to cover the world’s oceans effectively.

Its designation means; C for aircraft carrier; V that it has a compliment of fixed wing aircraft and N that it is nuclear powered, 78 denotes its hull number. The USS designation means that it is owned by the US Navy and manned by sailors of the US Navy.

Construction began in 2005 and its estimated cost was $8 billion with an additional $5 billion in research and development that would be spread over any additional ships built. At this time three Ford class carriers have been commissioned. It was originally scheduled for delivery in 2013 and the Navy just announced that it would take delivery in April of 2017. (hopefully) Its final cost is expected to be about $13 billion including research and development. Somebody please check my math, but I think that is about $39,000 per person in the US. (surely that is not right)

Do I really need to say that this is not only the largest, but also by far the most technologically advanced warship ever devised by the mind of man. I think I am glad it is a United States Naval Ship and not a ship belonging to a hostile country.

You want some of this Vladimir? No? I didn’t think so!

 

I was going to ask if we really need such a ship, but then I remembered something that happened last week. I saw Steve Bannon on my TV and heard him (with my own ears) say that 45 was the best public speaker since William Jennings Bryan. I assume he is talking about the William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Trail fame (another proud Tennessee moment). I never heard Mr. Bryan speak, he passed in 1925 but he did have a rep as being a great orator. This is something he said:

Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.

Yeah, that’s pretty good alright.

So I thought, I must have missed something here. Of all the things that popped into head  about 45 during the campaign, being a great public speaker did not make my list. I heard that 45 was giving a big speech last Tuesday to Congress so I decided I should check it out and maybe pay more attention because his spectacular speaking skills had so far eluded me. During the speech he said the time for trivial arguments is over. It’s a good line but I’m not sure it rises to the level of the best ever. History will decide I guess.

He is the President though so I’m not going to ask if we need such a ship as CVN-78. It seems like a trivial argument to have when we have such serious issues like inaugural crowd sizes and the Bowling Green and Sweden attacks to deal with.

The point of all this? It seems like I almost never argue with my conservative friends over issues like military spending, foreign policy or trade treaties. I guess both sides agree that Mexico has been bullying us for years. Some times we do discuss tax policy especially about folks that won’t work, but expect to get a hand out. Those poor people are a wacky bunch. This is America and if we all just worked harder we would all be rich. Not sure who would do the work when we all became bosses, but I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

What we do seem to disagree most on and what I think may be the root cause of our sad level of division is what I think they call the social issues. You know the usual suspects; a woman’s right to choose, gay rights, Mooslums ( that’s just how we spell it in Tennessee), healthcare and the overall moral decline of America. I think collectively these are known as family values. These seem to be the ones we refuse to compromise on and try the hardest to convince the other side they are wrong on. (I am told it is now OK to end a sentence with a preposition?)

These are serious issues, charged with emotion on both sides. People get downright angry when these topics come up if you disagree with their position. I confess here that I am as guilty as anyone when I hear some of these arguments. I can feel my blood beginning to boil. I have decided that this is not helpful and I am trying to be better about controlling this. I think it would serve us all well to subdue our passions a little. It is hard to hear when you are angry.

I do have a question though. I hear about a group of voters referred to as Evangelicals that embrace the traditional family values and lament the already mentioned moral decline of America. I must admit that I myself am sometimes confused by the moral relativism that seems to be the norm these days. I heard some guys on sports talk radio talking about driving on the interstate. I have no idea why they were talking about this instead of something important like NASCAR (love that 23 car) The were complaining about people that won’t get out of the left lane and saying everybody knows you are supposed to move over and let faster cars pass. Since when is it OK for you to get mad at me when you want to break the law? Is that an example of moral relativism?

Just so you know, that was not my main question. I was talking about family values. First among these is the idea that the family (Mom, Dad, Kids) is the foundation of civilized society and anything that challenges that is dangerous. As I understand it, family values also include such honorable ideas as a belief in the importance of religion and prayer, parents, not government know what is best for their children, development of self-reliance, the importance of being truthful and being responsible for one’s self.

Most of these values seem to be based on deeply held religious beliefs; the values and the teachings of centuries of Judeo – Christian traditions and worthy of respect and honor. I think attacking a person’s religious beliefs should always be off limits but this brings me to my big question.

If you truly want to live by these values, how do you vote for a self-described sexual predator?

My conservative friends say to me “he’s not a sexual predator.” I reply that I did not say he was; he said he was. This whole thing is very perplexing to me. They say, “I can’t vote for her, she’s so dishonest” Can’t tell you how many times I heard that one. Maybe she is, maybe not.

Seems to me though that the right is in danger of surrendering the moral high ground when they hitch their wagon to man that so clearly does not truly respect or live by their family values. Their hate for the other side must run extraordinarily deep and that is a real puzzler to me.

How can I give credence to the arguments from the right on issues such as gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, transgender issues, immigration, healthcare, voter fraud, etc. when it is so easy to abandon the principles that they want the rest of us to live by and that they want to institutionalize in our country through legislation, especially at the state level. (we got some real live wires in our Tennessee Legislature)

I am trying my best to understand this, but I admit to a mild case of cognitive dissonance on this one. If you think you can help, I would welcome it.

You can find the comment box at the bottom of the page!

Please!

Love to all.