Eight Feet Deep

A disturbing trend has emerged in today’s high-tech Navy as evidenced by sailors on episodes of PBS’s 10-part Carrier series. Some swabbies are actually confused as to what is a ship and what is a boat.

It was understood back in the old days (the 1970s)when I was a young squid that in Navy terminology, a “boat” was a submarine and every other large floating vessel was a “ship.” There were exceptions of course. Small craft such as patrol boats and Swift boats (before it became a Republican-originated pejorative term)were boats as were motor whale boats and I suppose a Captain’s gig might be called a boat even though it was still a Captain’s gig.

Now some types of ships were further distinguished in Navy lingo. Carriers were called “bird” farms and destroyers were “tin cans.”

Terminology differed and I am sure it still does among the various “sectors” of the Navy such as the “black shoe” or surface warfare Navy, “brown shoe” aviation Navy and submariners. This is even though it is all one Navy (of which the Marines are a part.) However, I have heard “boat” for “ship” being something peculiar to the “black shoe” Navy and sailors who serve on carriers might technically be considered brown shoes even though some may transfer to a surface warfare ship or even (God forbid) shore duty.

But it seems the Navy still prefers “boats for subs etc. My reasoning is that this distinction is made in the Navy’s Style Guide for all of that branch’s writers. The guide goes on to point out such interesting nuggets as “SECNAV,” meaning the Secretary of the Navy is acceptable on first reference and, quite correctly right that “close proximity” is a redundancy redundancy.

What does all of this matter in terms of our national defense posture and command of the seas? Nada, zip, less-than-zero, not a damn thing. I just found it odd and had a few minutes to kill. Sorry. Geez, people are so sensitive these days.

Tropical Storm Edouard turned out to be not a lot even though it made landfall in my county. Luckily, I didn’t have to work so after confirming that with my supervisor, I crawled back under the cover for another two hours and slept until 10 a.m. It certainly made for good sleeping weather. In addition to a little rain, the temp in the low 70s was heaven after a couple of days right at the edge of 100 degrees.

I have things to do and no great thoughts or revelations, not that I ever do. So I think I better mosey. Actually, in the spirit of the Olympics, I intend to go practice my 300-kilometer mosey.

The mystery of the anthrax attacks may be solved in what U.S. News and World Report labels “An Unsatisfying End … “ Of course, would there ever be a satisfying outcome to this shocking saga in our post-9/11 history? Will history be the judge?

Just when you have the possible answer to one question up arises another.

It is unlikely Karl Rove will ever be “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs,” for which Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador and ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame’s husband, had expressed hope. Rove no longer works at the White House so that scenario is probably toast. But could Rove be locked in shackles and given a perp walk eventually?

In the real world, no. But it’s a nice thought and a federal judge’s ruling today makes such a wish at least a bit more possible.

U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington ruled that congressional subpoenas for former White House counsel Harriet Miers and current Bush chief of staff Josh Bolton must be honored. Congress wants to hear what the two top Bush aides have to say in ongoing investigations into whether politics were responsible for firing federal prosecutors in 2006. The decision, which will probably be appealed, did not include Rove but might eventually depending on which judges hear what. (Oh and the law, wink, wink.) Sigh. I shouldn’t be so cynical should I?

This comes as the House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday 20-14 to hold Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring his subpoena and failing to show for a hearing on the sacking of the prosecutors.

While the act of contempt of Congress seems like a trivial matter — not to mention that many Americans hold certain congressional members in contempt — a conviction could ultimately land one in the slammer for up to one year. The last person to be convicted was former EPA official Rita Lavelle, who received six months in prison, five subsequent years of probation and a $10,000 fine for lying to Congress, according to an article about the statute on Wikipedia.

Rove will likely never go to jail because he has the White House and probably a majority of the Supreme Court on his side (See Bush v. Gore.) But always remember that our great land was built on dreams by dreamers and sometimes dreams (and so one hears, fairy tales) can come true. They can happen to you …