 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / May 2004X-15 test pilot William J. "Pete" Knight diagnosed with an acute form of leukemia
Author of Calif. gay marriage ban diagnosed with leukemia Wednesday May 05, 2004 SACRAMENTO (AP) California Sen. William J. ``Pete'' Knight, the architect of the state's gay marriage ban, has been diagnosed with an acute form of leukemia and may not return to Sacramento before he is termed out of office in November, according to his Capitol office. Knight, R-Palmdale, has been absent from his seat since April 12 because of his illness and ongoing medical testing. Other senators have consented to shepherd his package of 24 bills, which includes a measure that would require courts to put in writing their reasons for ordering child support and another that would stiffen prison sentences for people who evade police. The 74-year-old senator, a retired Air Force colonel and record-setting test pilot who trained for the space program, is best known as author of the state's Defense of Marriage Act, a law that states only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized as valid in California. After twice failing to get similar legislation through the Legislature, Knight took it to voters, who passed it by more than 61 percent in 2000. More recently, a nonprofit group the senator leads, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, had been at the center of legal efforts to overturn the nearly 4,000 marriages that were performed in San Francisco earlier this year and to prevent a law granting expanding spousal rights for domestic partners from taking effect in January. Knight, a former Palmdale mayor, has served in the Legislature since 1992, when he was elected to the Assembly. He was elected to his first Senate term in 1996, and is slated to be termed out of office when his second term ends this year. Knight's office said he will be undergoing treatment for acute myelogenous leukemia, which develops when there is a defect in bone marrow. The disease is most frequently treated with chemotherapy, radiation and stem cell transplants. http://kcal9.com/california/CA--SenatorsIllness-kn/resources_news_html > Author of Calif. gay marriage ban diagnosed with leukemia > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > http://kcal9.com/california/CA--SenatorsIllness-kn/resources_news_html Sadly Pete Knight passed away Friday. My local newspaper The Baltimore Sun had very little to say the pilot's adventures in the X-15. They mostly concentrated on his stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly, they nearly demonized the man. Of course the Sunpapers has never had a good reputation when it comes to reporting events that don't fit its agenda. Gene DiGennaro Baltimore, Md. From Gene DiGennaro: > Sadly Pete Knight passed away Friday. My local newspaper The Baltimore > Sun had very little to say the pilot's adventures in the X-15. They > mostly concentrated on his stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly, > they nearly demonized the man. As much as I admire Pete's aerospace accomplishments (let's not forget X-20 selection) I certainly fault the man for disowning his own son for being homosexual (I can only imagine how Pete acted toward his own brother when he was dying of AIDS). Father/son relationship in a nutshell: -- Dad, I got selected to the Air Force Academy. - That's my boy. -- Dad, I'm a fighter pilot. - That's my boy. -- Dad, I've flown combat missions over the Gulf. - That's my boy. -- Dad, I've chosen a man as my life partner. - (Permanent silence.) Recent photo of Pete Knight's son during his marriage ceremony in San Francisco: http://tinyurl.com/2c8sx http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi?object=/chronicle/pictures/2004/03/10/ba_kn ight01.jpg&paper=chronicle&file=MNGCR5HRLD1.DTL&directory=/c/a/2004/03/10&type=n ews It will be interesting to see whether or not there will be photos of the son and his life partner attending Pete Knight's funeral as a couple. ~ CT > From Gene DiGennaro: > > Sadly Pete Knight passed away Friday. My local newspaper The Baltimore [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for being homosexual (I can only imagine how Pete acted toward his own > brother when he was dying of AIDS). <snip> OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? CT's done climbed right up there and is casting stones, as if he has no faults of his own. From stmx3: > > As much as I admire Pete's aerospace accomplishments (let's not forget > > X-20 selection) I certainly fault the man for disowning his own son > > for being homosexual (I can only imagine how Pete acted toward his own > > brother when he was dying of AIDS). > OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? CT's done > climbed right up there and is casting stones, as if he has no faults > of his own. Casting stones? There is a critical difference between making a judgement versus -passing- a judgement. Judgements in and of themselves cannot violate respect. It is judgements polluted with condemnation and judgements imposed onto others that cross the line. I have expressed no condemnation whatsoever toward Pete Knight (nor toward his son, for that matter) let alone voiced any attack. What I see to be a fault of his, he probably saw as a virtue. I am not saying that one is right and the other wrong. Whatever I may see as faults, I am not saying that anything he did was "bad". I look at his life... I see wonderful things that he's done, and I see not-so-wonderful things that he's done. These are my own judgements that I hold only for myself. In all of this, I strive to accept everything. Pete made his own judgements of his son. Imagine if parents would accept their children, with everything seen to be faults along with those facets that are seen to sparkle. ~ CT From stmx3: > OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? I'd also like to make a comment about morals and ladders... I don't criticize people for their efforts in climbing moral ladders. I congratulate them. Striving to improve the ideals we uphold and choose to incorporate into our lives is an endeavor that I see as worthy. If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but reevaluate their vector. I happen to admire Pete's efforts toward legislation to improve society. That's not to say whether I agree with the direction. In either case, I admire his effort. With an appropriate opportunity, this is the encouragement that I would have given to Pete Knight. Back when he was flying X-15s, if someone on the ground noticed that his flight path was not headed toward the landing site, the proper procedure is to radio a vector to him. But alas, his time has past and the best we can do now is to learn from the example that he lived. In short (akin to the glass-being-half-empty/half-full allegory): Given a situation of a person being in a lofty moral position, this can either be seen as a problem of a person who has climbed too high... ...or a problem with the others who aren't climbing. ~ CT > From stmx3: > > OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > legislation to improve society. That's not to say whether I agree > with the direction. In either case, I admire his effort. But who defines what that errant direction is? Do you? If not, why do they need to "reevaluate their vector"? In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously "radio a vector to him", presumably to land on your moral airstrip. What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational airman's notice: "Hey, ya'll...I'm aheadin' North. Now don't ya'll come 'twixt me an' mah destiny, cause then I'm gonna have to be admirin' you while I turn ya back on course!" I hope you can see that I'm not telling you which way to go. I'm just saying, "Keep your compass to yourself." > With an appropriate opportunity, this is the encouragement that I > would have given to Pete Knight. Back when he was flying X-15s, if [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ~ CT >tdadamemd@excite.com (Stuf4) <SNIP> ...stim3, a favor: please don't respond to this worthless troll anymore, at least not on this newsgroup. CT has proven he's nothing but a troll, dead set on polluting this group with his bullshit conspiracy theories. Please help us in our efforts to get rid of him by not responding. Your cooperation in this would be most appreciated by everyone here. Thanks! OM  Signature"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr > >tdadamemd@excite.com (Stuf4) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > OM On the same day that Pete Knight died a memorial plaque was installed at the crash site of X-15 #3 dedicated to Michael Adams: http://www.sierrafoot.org/ The story behind the memorial is at this URL: http://www.spacearchive.info/news-2004-05-09-di.htm The coordinates of the crash site are listed below: Here is a website that has an aerial photo of the X-15 #3 crash site: http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/X-15A_crash_site.htm See the photo in section titled "Crash Site Today". Another website describes the location of the crash: http://www.aleinn.com/forum/messages/11485.html "....crashed four miles northeast of Johannesburg, California, just west of Trona Road." Using Terraserver, the X-15 #3 crash site appears in this photo: http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/imageinfo.aspx?T=1&S=10&X=2227&Y=19598&Z=11 &W=2&P=163+km+N+of+Los+Angeles%2c+California%2c+United+States&D=28+May+1994&O=75 906&Lon=-117.6014&Lat=35.4192 The URL translated to Tiny URL is: http://tinyurl.com/2jlyz Using the color photo of the crash site in the first URL listed above as a reference, the crash site is just to the left of the two dirt roads crossing in the left - center of the Terraserver photo. The coordinates of the X-15 #3 crash site appear to be: 35N 25' 09" - 117W 36' 08" - Rusty Barton From stmx3: > > > OK...Who around here left the ladder by the moral pedestal? > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > But who defines what that errant direction is? Do you? If not, why > do they need to "reevaluate their vector"? I do. You do. They do. We all make our own judgements. I posted my evaluation on a particular subject. You posted your evaluation on my evaluation. Who are you to judge me? You are a freethinking person. You have not imposed your judgement onto me. I have not imposed my judgement onto anyone else. We have both expressed our views without being oppressive. Why do they need to reevaluate after learning that their direction is seen to be in error? They only need to if they see a need to. (Otherwise it is only the others who are in need.) > In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in > the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously > "radio a vector to him", presumably to land on your moral airstrip. Please be clear that the criticism I posted had nothing to do with whether or not my moral compass is aligned differently from his. I could be in total agreement with Pete's beliefs on homosexuality. I could be in total support of legislation that he pushed... I *still* focus on his decision to cut off communications with his son. That is not a method that I support (though you may feel differently). And I must wonder... How many thousands of little rejections did young David Knight get from his father when growing up, and did those rejections influence his decision to seek love from other males later in life... > What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when > their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I hope you can see that I'm not telling you which way to go. I'm just > saying, "Keep your compass to yourself." You are offering a correction for me to use as I see fit. Perhaps that is not so qualitatively different from me offering a vector to those who may be in Pete's previous situation. ~ CT > I do. You do. They do. We all make our own judgements. > > I posted my evaluation on a particular subject. You posted your > evaluation on my evaluation. Who are you to judge me? You are a > freethinking person. What you actually did was create a whole new subject to express your "judgement" about Pete Knight. I believe you judged him guilty. Now, who are you to make this judgement? > You have not imposed your judgement onto me. I have not imposed my > judgement onto anyone else. We have both expressed our views without > being oppressive. > Why do they need to reevaluate after learning that their direction is > seen to be in error? They only need to if they see a need to. > (Otherwise it is only the others who are in need.) So, your intent was to demonstrate that a "need to reevaluate" existed? In the midst of praise for an individual, it's also fitting to point out their "flaws"...is that it? (Of course, with you defining what is flawed.) > > In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in > > the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > son. That is not a method that I support (though you may feel > differently). But why focus on that? Why even bring it up? It certainly has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Perhaps, in another NG, under different lighting conditions, it might make sense to use Pete Knight as an example...a talking point. But in sci.space.history? > And I must wonder... > > How many thousands of little rejections did young David Knight get > from his father when growing up, and did those rejections influence > his decision to seek love from other males later in life... Whoa. Simply, whoa. > > What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when > > their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ~ CT There's a significant difference. What you're doing is preaching. What I'm doing is saying "Stop preaching." See the difference? From stmx3: > > I do. You do. They do. We all make our own judgements. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "judgement" about Pete Knight. I believe you judged him guilty. Now, > who are you to make this judgement? I created a whole new subject? This thread *started* with the posting of an article titled: "Author of Calif. gay marriage ban diagnosed with leukemia". I judged him guilty? I'm not sure how guilt came into this. > > You have not imposed your judgement onto me. I have not imposed my > > judgement onto anyone else. We have both expressed our views without [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to point out their "flaws"...is that it? (Of course, with you > defining what is flawed.) I am getting an impression that your problem with my post is that you are coming from a position that: "I don't want to see Pete Knight's reputation tarnished with facts." If you look back you can see that I joined this thread to give a direct response to the statement: "My local newspaper The Baltimore Sun...mostly concentrated on his stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly, they nearly demonized the man." My intent was to provide some background as to why some people choose not to deify Pete Knight. > > > In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in > > > the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > different lighting conditions, it might make sense to use Pete Knight > as an example...a talking point. But in sci.space.history? Pete Knight is a part of space history. The life he lived before and after his flying career is part of that history. I expect that there are others here who appreciate learning that Pete Knight had a son who went to the Air Force Academy, became a fighter pilot and went on to become a combat veteran... If nothing else. Part of the story about David Knight's wedding is that the ring he gave to his partner had a diamond in it. That diamond was given to David when he was 21. It was Pete Knight who gave it to him. If you were to learn that Joseph Lazarro is wearing a diamond that has been to Mach 6.7, maybe then you would agree that this topic is part of space history. (For anyone who may be interested: "During the ceremony at City Hall, the two men, who were introduced by David Knight's late gay uncle, re-exchanged the rings they have worn since their civil union as a sign of their mutual commitment. The one worn by Lazzaro held a diamond that had been passed down to Knight by his father when he was 21." From http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1692_0_1_0) > > > What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when > > > their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > that is not so qualitatively different from me offering a vector to > > those who may be in Pete's previous situation. > There's a significant difference. What you're doing is preaching. > What I'm doing is saying "Stop preaching." See the difference? I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I don't see how anything I've stated here constitutes preaching. ~ CT > > If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want > > them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but > > reevaluate their vector. You first. Lead by example. From Scott Hedrick: > > > If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want > > > them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but > > > reevaluate their vector. > > You first. Lead by example. While it is important to be open to correction, I do not advocate doing so blindly. Weathervanes cannot chart any course. ~ CT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.