AMERICANA / OUR LATEST NATIONAL DISGRACE

 Spoken by Joseph N. Welch, the chief counsel for the U.S. Army during the Army–McCarthy hearings in 1954. He said it to Senator Joseph McCarthy during a nationally televised exchange that marked the beginning of McCarthy's public downfall.

Stripping Harvey Milk’s Name from a Navy Ship Is an Unforgivable Betrayal 

By Thomas Shess, Jr., founder of PillartoPost.org daily online magazine--There are moments in American history that reveal our character—not through what we build, but through what we tear down. The recent decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to strip the name of Harvey Milk from a U.S. Navy replenishment oiler is one such moment. 

Announced during Pride Month, no less, the move feels less like a policy shift and more like a personal rebuke—a calculated slap in the face to every gay citizen who has ever worn the uniform, served with honor, or died under our flag. This is not just a name being removed from a ship. This is a family throwing out one of its own. It’s Thanksgiving dinner with an empty chair where a son or daughter once sat—banished not for what they did, but for who they are. 

 Harvey Milk was a Navy veteran. He served this country during the Korean War. He was later forced out because he was gay—yet he continued to serve the American ideal in ways far deeper than military rank. As one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States, he stood for dignity, inclusion, and courage in the face of prejudice. 

Naming a ship in his honor in 2016 wasn’t just symbolic—it was redemptive. 

It said: You belong. We remember. We are better now. 

 And now? Now we erase? To rebrand this as part of a campaign to “re-establish warrior culture” is a hollow argument that rings with cowardice. 

The U.S. military is strongest when it reflects the full spectrum of the nation it defends. Courage is not defined by conformity. It is tested in the fight for equality. A band of brothers does not abandon its own on the battlefield. 

To strip Harvey Milk’s name from this vessel is to leave a brother behind. 

 Shame on us for allowing it. Let us not pretend this is merely a bureaucratic re-naming. This is an erasure of service, sacrifice, and legacy. 

It dishonors not only Harvey Milk but every LGBTQ+ veteran and service member who ever stepped forward when others stood back. We owe them more than silence. We owe them truth—and a place at the table. 

 The name must be reinstated. And an apology must follow. Only then can we begin to steer back toward the ideals we so loudly claim to uphold. 

What does the word Christening mean to you?

Hate took Harvey Milk's life.  As a nation are we so awash in hatred that we remove a veteran's name from a ship honoring him?  This single act anoints every slur our enemies around the world spew about the United States of America. Mea Culpa.

RETRO FILES / DID PICASSO HEIST THE MONA LISA

PillartoPost.org original illustration by F. Stop Fitzgerald.

Pablo Picasso was indirectly involved in the aftermath of the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre—but he was not responsible for the theft itself. 

Here's what happened: 

• In 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen by Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian handyman who believed the painting belonged in Italy. 

• During the investigation, the police arrested Guillaume Apollinaire, a poet and art critic who had once publicly called for the Louvre to be burned down (as part of an artistic manifesto).

 • Apollinaire implicated Pablo Picasso, his friend, who was then questioned by French police. Why Picasso was questioned: 

• Years earlier, Picasso and Apollinaire had purchased stolen sculptures (Iberian heads) that had also been taken from the Louvre by a thief named Géry Pieret, who was connected to their artistic circle. 

• Fearing prosecution, Picasso returned the stolen sculptures anonymously. 

• Picasso was never charged, and both he and Apollinaire were cleared of any involvement in the Mona Lisa theft. 

Conclusion: 

So yes, Picasso was briefly entangled in the investigation, but he had nothing to do with the actual theft of the Mona Lisa. The association is more a curious footnote in art history than a credible accusation. Whew!