Agree with Shagnasty.
I much preferred the tradition of naming carriers after events or principals of national importance (historic battles like "Lexington" or "Tarawa", or guiding principals like "Independence" or "Enterprise"), battleships after states, cruisers after cities, escort vessels after dead people (well, not exactly, more like heroes, but only AFTER their passing), and submarines after fish (and, if running out of fish, then other animals).
The more current approach of naming carriers after pandering for favor with a voter base, and cruisers we don't know because what is a cruiser today anyway, and destroyers after big donors to somebody's campaign … eh, I just feel like it cuts the legs out from under a service that should be standing tall on it's history and traditions.
That said, I wonder if it will be a point of pride in the future for sailors to say they served aboard the USS McCool.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
examines another pre-painted building for WWII.