NanoEngineering: People – MIT – Massachusetts Institute of …

Xiaopeng obtained his PhD from Mechanical Engineering at Iowa State University in 2011. His PhD work focused on thermal transport in low-dimensional complex structures including thermoelectric nanocomposites, carbon nanotube and biomaterials like spider silk. He joined the nanoengineering group at MIT as a postdoctoral associate in 2012. He received his M.S. degree from the Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2008 and B.S. degree from Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) in 2005. His research interests include thermoelectric energy conversion, multi-scale simulation and characterization of thermal transport. Currently he focuses on the scale-up of high thermally conductive polymers.

Te-Huan Liu got his Ph.D. degree in Institute of Applied Mechanics from National Taiwan University in 2012. His Ph.D. work focused on the thermal and mechanical properties of graphene grain boundaries as well as the kinetics of graphene growth processes by using molecular dynamics simulations. He has also studied the thermal transport in two-dimensional materials through first-principles calculations. Te-Huan joined the Nanoengineering Group at MIT as a postdoc in January 2015. He is interested in electron-phonon interactions with applications in thermoelectric materials.

James Loomis is a Postdoctoral Associate in the NanoEngineering Group at MIT. He received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Louisville in 2013. His Ph.D. work focused on characterization and applications of photomechanical actuation in nanocarbon/elastomer composites. He obtained his B.S. and M.S. in Engineering from the University of Michigan and Old Dominion University respectively. His research interests include nanoscale heat transfer in composites and applications towards soft actuators and micro/nanopositioning. Currently he is focused on the scale-up and automation of manufacturing processes for large-area polymer sheets with tunable thermally conductivity.

Yanfei is a postdoc in the NanoEngineering group at MIT. She got her Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from Nankai University in 2010. Her Ph.D. research topics were synthesis of functionalized graphene and development of optical/electronic/optoelectronic devices using these materials. Prior to joining NanoEngineering group, she worked as a Marie Curie Fellow for European FP7 GENIUS project at BASF & Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research Joint Lab in Germany. Her GENIUS work focused on functionalized graphene ink formulation and graphene-based energy storage device via printing procedures. Currently she focuses on development of high electrically, thermally conductive materials and efficient solar energy conversion device.

Yuan Yang is currently an assistant professor in department of applied physics and applied mathematics at Columbia University. He received B.S. (2003) of physics from Peking University in China, and his Ph.D. in materials science from Stanford in 2012. While at MIT, Yuan studied electrochemical approaches for thermal energy harvesting and thermal management of electrochemical devices.

John obtained his B.Sc. Physics degree from University College Cork (UCC), Ireland in 2007 and received his Ph.D degree jointly between UCC and the Catalan Institute of Nanotechnology (ICN) in 2011. His research interests include phonon propagation in nanostructures and how these may be investigated by phonon-photon interactions. He is particularly interested in nanoscale thermal conductivity and the frequency/wavevector-dependence of phonon properties, and how these properties may be studied by Pump-Probe, Brillouin, and Raman spectroscopy.

Yongjie joined the Nanoengineering group in the summer of 2011. His research involved nanoscale thermal transport, phonon spectra analysis, and ultrafast optical spectroscopy study for energy applications. Before that, Yongjie completed his Ph.D. from Harvard University with a research focus on the design, synthesis, and manufacturing of nanomaterials, and the electronic and quantum transport study for integrated device systems. Yongjie is currently an assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Hadi was a postdoctoral associate in the department of mechanical engineering at MIT. He graduated from University of Toronto with a Ph. D. in mechanical engineering in 2011. His Ph. D. research was focused on interface energies and energy transport mechanisms during evaporation of a water sessile droplet. After, he conducted a research on modeling of geothermal-solar energy systems with an emphasis on optimization and new conceptual designs for hybrid energy systems with Prof. Alexander Mitsos. His research interests focuses on thermodynamics and energy transport both in nano and micro scales. Hadi is now part of the Mechanical Engineering faculty at the University of Houston.

Nenad received his BASc in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Waterloo in 2009. He obtained his M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT in 2011 for research on hybrid solar thermoelectric technologies, and PhD from MIT in 2013 for research on development and characterization of micro/nanostructured surfaces for enhanced condensation heat transfer, both at the Device Research Lab (DRL). He then continued on as a postdoctoral associate in the DRL for 4 months prior to joining the NanoEngineering lab, where he worked on smart materials with tunable optical properties, and novel volumetric absorber technologies. More broadly, his research interests focus on the intersection of heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and energy technologies. He is now part of the Mechanical Engineering faculty at UIUC.

Xiaobo Li received his B.S. from the University of Science and Technology of China in 2004 and his M.S. from the Institute of Engineering Thermophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2007. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2012 and then joined the NanoEngineering Group of MIT as a PostDoc. He is interested in research in thermophysical properties and nanoscale heat transfer with applications in thermal storage, thermoelectric energy conversion, and thermal management.

Bo was a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. He received his Ph.D. from the School of Mechancial Engineering at Purdue University in 2012. He obtained his M.S. and B.S. in Physics at Purdue University in 2008 and at University of Science and Technology of China in 2006, respectively. His interests are nanoscale energy conversion systems and carrier transport/interactions. Bo is now working at Qualcomm.

Cheng-Te obtained his degrees in Applied Chemistry (B.S.) and Mechanical Engineering (B.E.) at National Chiao Tung University (Taiwan) in 2000. He received his Ph.D. degree in Materials Science and Engineering at National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan) in 2008. His academic interests include synthesis of graphene and other 2D atomic materials, as well as development of their applications such as biosensors, lithium-ion batteries, transparent conducting films, and electrochemical catalysis. Since 2012, he started his second postdoc position at MIT and has focusing on making ultra-high surface area graphene aerogels. At MIT he was involved in the projects of high thermally conductive polymers and advanced thermal switches.

Seluk Yerci received his B.S. and M.S. in Physics at Middle East Technical University, where his research focused on spectroscopic investigation of silicon nanocrystals, and his Ph.D. in Computer and Electrical Engineering at Boston University, where his research was mainly on silicon-compatible on-chip light emitters. He is currently a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. His interests are efficient thermoelectric materials and solar cells on a silicon platform. Seluk is now part of the Micro and Nanotechnology faculty at Middle East Technical University.

Maha Mohammed Khayyat is a faculty member of Umm Al-Qura University (UQU), Makkah, KSA where she received her BSc and MPhil in physics. Then she received her PhD from Cavendish laboratory where she worked under the supervision of Dr M. Munawar Chaudhri (Reader, Emeritus in physics, University of Cambridge) on structural phase transformations of semiconductor materials due to micro & nano indentations where she got her PhD in less than three years. "Dr Khayyat worked in T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM in Nov 2008 for more than two years. She worked in solar cells based on Si nanowires then start making innovative and breakthrough contributions to improve the nanowire technology by replacing the conventional gold seed by aluminum seed which was quite challenging. Dr. Khayyat further applied this technology to patterned silicon substrate for potential use in silicon CMOS technology. She then started a completely new field of controlled spalling for flexible solar cell application as part of IBM-KACST new project. Her original contribution included the concept of performing controlled spalling at liquid nitrogen temperature rather than room temperature. She reduced her concept to practice and demonstrated a factor of two or more increased thickness of the spalled samples." as described by Dr Tze-Chiang Chen (IBM Fellow and Vice President of Science and Technology).

Amy Marconnet received her PhD in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University in August 2012. Her dissertation focused on thermal phenomena in nanostructured materials including carbon nanotubes and silicon-based nanostructures. She received her MS in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford (2009) and BS in Mechanical Engineering (2007) from University of Wisconsin at Madison. Her postdoctoral research focused on understanding the mechanisms governing the variation in thermal, electrical, and optical properties of nanofluids during the solid-liquid phase transition. Amy joined the Mechanical Engineering faculty at Purdue University in August 2013.

Yuan Dong was a visiting student from Tsinghua University, Beijing. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Tsinghua University in 2008 and stayed at Tsinghua for his PhD studies in the same department. His research field is nano-scale heat conduction and non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Nagarajan Thoppey was a postdoctoral associate in the NanoEngineering group at MIT. He received his PhD in Fiber and Polymer Science (2012) & M.S. in Textile Engineering (2010) from North Carolina State University (NCSU). During his M.S. and PhD research work, he developed novel electrospinning configurations for high throughput production of quality nanofibers. He also investigated the effect of solution parameters on spontaneous jet formation and throughput in edge electrospinning from a fluid-filled bowl. Prior to joining NCSU, Nagarajan obtained his B. Tech in Textile Technology (2004) from University of Madras & Diploma in Textile Technology (1996) from Directorate of Technical Education and gained experience in different fields, including spun yarn manufacturing, product development, social and quality compliance, marketing, and academia. His work in NanoEngineering group was on developing a continuous process for producing aligned polymer chains in the form of sheets or nanofiber bundles with high thermal conductivity values.

Lei Ma, a visiting student from Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST), China, got his bachelor's degree in Engineering School from HUST in 2009. At HUST, his research was focused on heat transfer enhancement in tubes with application to various kinds of heat exchangers. His work at MIT involved utilizing thermoelectric techniques to recover waste heat from various heat sources.

Kazuki Ihara was a visiting scholar from Smart Energy Research Laboratories at NEC Corporation in Japan. He received his B.Eng. and M.Eng. in applied chemistry, and Doctor of Engineering in chemical system engineering from Kyushu University in 2002, 2004 and 2007 respectively. His research interests are in the interaction between materials and photon, surface science on nano materials and a development of novel electronic devices. He'd like to understand the behavior of thermal conductance in nano-region for the development of electronic devices with eco-friendly, energy-harvesting and nano-technology.

Zhichun was a visiting scholar from the School of Energy and Power Engineering of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST). He received his Ph.D in Engineering Thermophysics in 2006 and became an associate professor in HUST in 2009. His research covers theory and experimental studies in Loop Heat Pipe (LHP) and Capillary Pumped Loop (CPL), application and theory of convective heat transfer enhancement, and heat and mass transfer in PEM fuel cells. At MIT, he worked on Monte Carlo simulations of phonon transport in nanostructured dielectric materials.

Mona Zebarjadi was a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. She has defended her Ph.D. at the University of California, Santa Cruz in November 2009. She was working with the quantum electronic group supervised by Prof. Ali Shakouri on characterization and simulation of thermoelectric materials. Prior to UCSC, she received her B.S. and M.S. in physics from Sharif University of Technology, Iran in 2002 and 2004, respectively. Her research interests are energy conversion systems both in nano- and micro-scales, especially thermoelectrics, solar cells, and diffusion cells.

Anastassios Mavrokefalos was a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. He received his B.S., M.S and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin in the field of micro/nano scale heat transfer and thermoelectrics. His research at MIT focused on solar/thermal electrical conversion systems.

Brian Burg was a postdoctoral fellow in the NanoEngineering Group of MIT. He earned his Doctor of Sciences from ETH Zurich in Switzerland in October 2010. His research focused on the guided assembly of carbon nanostructures with parallel sensor assembly. During his Master's, which he jointly completed at ETH Zurich and MIT, his studies focused on Thermodynamics in Emerging Technologies and Renewable Energy Carriers. In the NanoEngineering Group Brian worked on ultrasensitive cantilevers for micro- and nanoscale heat transfer measurements.

Sang Eon received his B.S. and M.S. from Seoul National University and his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Chemical Engineering. Prior to his Ph.D, he was a research scientist at LG Chem working on thin films for liquid crystal displays. Sang Eon's research in the NanoEngineering Group focused on the theory of photonic crystals and plasmonics with applications in solar energy harvesting.

Mengyun Zhang was a visiting student from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology. She came to the NanoEngineering Group at MIT to finish her final project to earn her bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from HUST. She made a DC-DC converter which transforms high currents into high voltages, a project which is important for thermoelectric devices.

Amador was a visiting scholar from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Universidad de Santiago de Chile, where he is currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Amador earned his Mechanical Engineer degree from Universidad de Santiago de Chile and his Ph.D. (1995) from Carnegie Mellon University. His research interests are in the field of solar (and other sources of) energy conversion to thermal and electric energy by thermoelectric materials. His main interests are the use of theoretical and numerical techniques for determining thermoelectric properties such as thermal conductivity in composites and other nanostructures. In the NanoEngineering Group, Amador worked on understanding theoretical models based on an effective medium theory for predicting and determining effective properties, and its correlation to experimental means and data for determining effective properties.

Tengfei Luo was a postdoctoral associate in Mechanical Engineering at MIT. He received his B.S. (2005) from Xi'an Jiaotong University and his Ph.D. (2009) from Michigan State University. At MIT, Tengfei worked on Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations of thermal energy transport across different materials interfaces, as well as MD simulations of thermal energy transport across polymer-solid interfaces.

Nitin obtained his Ph.D. from Virginia Tech in 2009. His doctoral research involved studying thermal transport across solid-solid and solid-liquid interfaces. In the NanoEngineering Group, Nitin's research focused mainly on nanoscale heat transport and pump-probe measurements

Weitao Dai received his B. S. degree in Optics from the University of Science & Technology of China (2000) and Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University (2009). He was a post-doc with the NanoEngineering Group at MIT, focusing on numeric simulations of electromagnetic waves. After the NanoEngineering Group, Weitao became a post-doc at Boston College, working with Prof. Willie Padilla.

Shuo Chen was a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. She received her M.S. (2002) from Peking University and Ph.D. (2006) from Boston College in Physics. In 2006-2009 she worked as a postdoctoral associate in the electrochemical energy lab at MIT. In the NanoEngineering group she worked on synthesis and electron microscopy studies of nanomaterials, and structural and transport properties of thermoelectric materials. Shuo has moved on to a research associate position at Boston College, where she is working on synthesis, structural and electrical and thermal properties of thermoelectric nanocomposites. Her other research fields include fundamental studies and applications of energy conversion and storage materials and devices such as electrocatalysis in fuel cells and electrodes for batteries and supercapacitors.

Shien-Ping Feng received his Ph.D. in electrochemistry and chemical mechanical polishing in chemical engineering from National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan (2003-2008). He also worked on the fabrication of semiconductors via thin film processes at the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (2001-2008). After that, he attended Tripod Hsinchu Lab, where he worked on nano-particle research for dye-sensitized solar cells (2008-2009). Shien-Ping Feng has recently been appointed as an assistant professor at Hong Kong University. He works on electrochemical nanoengineering to solve the interface contact problem in thermoelectric devices and supercapacitors.

Stephan received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich in 2009. During his Master's studies, Stephan worked in the Laboratory for Thermodynamics in Emerging Technologies (LTNT) under Prof. Dimos Poulikakos in the field of submicron printing. As a visiting student, Stephan explored a solvent-based desalination technique. After his time at MIT, Stephan returned to ETH to pursue his Ph.D.

Prof. Junichiro Shiomi was a visiting scholar from 2010 to 2011. He received the B.E. from Tohoku University, and Ph. D. from Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden. He is an Associate Professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tokyo. His research interests include heat conduction of nanomaterials, polymer composites, and thermoelectrics, phase change and fluidics in nanoscale, interfacial thermofluid dynamics, and thermal convections.

Dr. Bhaskaran Muralidharan completed his M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University. His Ph.D. work was in the area of non-equilibrium quantum transport in the strongly correlated regime. His research interests in the NanoEngineering group focused on the fundamental understanding of non-equilibrium phenomena such as charge and heat flow in nanoscale systems, and their applications to thermoelectric energy conversion.

Jae Sik Jin was a member of the NanoEngineering Group at MIT as a postdoctoral associate from October 2009 until January 2011. He received his Ph.D. degree in numerical analysis of micro/nanoscale energy transport in silicon devices from Seoul National University in 2007. His research focused on establishing theoretical models and numerical simulations of thermal energy transfer in thermal interface materials and nanostructures.

Nuo Yang was a postdoctoral associate from 2009 to 2010 in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. He earned his B.S. degree in applied physics from the University of Science & Technology of China (2000), his M.E. in accelerator physics from the Chinese Academy of Science (2003), and his Ph. D in Physics from the National University of Singapore (2009). His research is focused on thermoelectrics and thermal transportation in low-dimensional structures and thermal interface materials.

Yann Chalopin was a postdoctoral associate from 2009 to 2010 with the NanoEngineering Group. He received his M.S. (2006) in solid state physics and Ph.D. (2009) from Ecole Centrale Paris. Yann is currently a CNRS research scientist at Ecole Centrale Paris. His research interests include the theoretical aspects of nanoscale energy transport and conversion (nano-optics, nanoscale heat transport) and the development of computational methods to study physical properties of low-dimensional systems.

Yiqun Zhang was a visiting student (01/2009-06/2010) from the department of physics, Nanjing University, China. He received his B.S. in 2005 in Nanjing University. His research focused on the thermoelctric properties of nanostructures.

Christine was a visiting student from the Institute of Thermodynamics, TU Braunschweig, Germany. She received her diploma in biological engineering at the TU Braunschweig in 2006. Her current research is focused on the application of thermoelectric systems.

Professor Ruiting Zheng was a visiting scholar from the Institute of Low Energy Nuclear Physics, Beijing Normal University, China. His research field covers preparation nanowires, thin films and materials modification with the aid of ion beams. In the NanoEngineering Group, he worked on heat transfer enhancement in nanofluids systems and nanowire measurement.

Professor Huanxin Chen is a visiting scholar (Oct. 2008 - Oct. 2009) from the School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China. His current research is focused on thermoelectric refrigeration and energy savings.

Jinwei Gao was a visiting student (9/2007~9/2009) from the School of Chemical & Energy Engineering at the South China University of Technology (Guangzhou. P.R.China). Jinwei worked on nanofluid heat transfer enhancement and thermal characterization of polymers.

Aaron has a B.S. (2002), M.S. (2004), and Ph.D. (2008) in mechanical engineering from MIT. He is a recipient of the Warren M. Rohsenow Fellowship from the Mechanical Engineering Department at MIT, and graduate research fellowships from the NSF and Department of Defense. His Ph.D. research was on the development of ultrafast optical methods for characterizing thermal transport in solids, liquids and nanostructures. Aaron will be joining the faculty at Boston University after a collaboration with the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (MIST) in Abu Dhabi and a post-doc at the University of Michigan.

Matteo Chiesa has recently been appointed as an assistant professor at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (MIST) in Abu Dhabi. Matteo has worked for SINTEF Petroleum and Energy, as well as for Vetco Aibel where he was a Senior Technical Advisor. Matteo Chiesa received his PhD in the field of Applied Mechanics from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in 2001.

Shinichiro Nakamura is a visiting scientist from Japan. He has a Master's degree in the field of polymer science from Hokkaido University. He studied low-dimensional thermoelectric and energy conversion technology and nanowire growth and measurement.

Daryoosh Vashaee is a postdoctoral associate in mechanical engineering at MIT. He received his Ph.D. on nanoscale charge and energy transport in electrical engineering from the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC) in September, 2004. Prior to UCSC, he earned his BS in electrical engineering (electronics) from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran in 1993 and his MS in electrical engineering (communications) from Amirkabir University of Technology in 1995. After three years of experience working on RF Engineering, Daryoosh joined UC-Santa Barbara and worked on the fabrication and processing of InGaAs/InGaAsP based thin film thermoelectric devices. His research interests are on theoretical and experimental investigation of energy materials and devices, nano and micro-scale charge and energy transport, thermoelectric/thermionic energy conversion, and integrated micro-refrigeration. He is the winner of the 2004 Goldsmid Award for Research Excellence in Thermoelectrics from the International Thermoelectric Society (ITS News).

Professor Yong Tae Kang is a visiting scholar (Sep. 01, 2006 - Aug. 31, 2007) from the School of Mechanical and Industrial Systems Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Korea. He works on nanofluids, heat and mass transfer enhancement in binary mixtures and micro/nano scale energy conversion systems.

From June 2006 to December 2006, Professor Dongsheng Zhu is a senior visiting scholar from the School of Chemical & Energy Engineering at the South China University of Technology (Guangzhou. P.R.China), working on nanofluids heat transfer enhancement and Saving Energy.

Masayuki Takashiri was a visiting scientist from the Komatsu Corporation in Japan, from March 2002 until September 2003. He was involved in the development of thin film power generators.

Ming-Shan Jeng was a visiting scholar from the Industrial Technology Research Institute in Taiwan. He worked on Monte Carlo simulations of nanocomposites.

Professor Jinbo Wang is the Vice Dean at the School of Environmental Engineering in the Huzahong University of Science and Technology. He was a visiting scholar from April 2002 until June 2004, working on electrostatic cooling and transport in nanofluids.

De-Kui Qing was a postdoctoral researcher, studying electromagnetic metamaterials and the optical properties of nanostructures.

Sebastian Volz was a postdoctoral researcher from France. His research was on molecular dynamics simulations of the thermal conductivity of silicon crystal.

From September 2000 and August 2002, Professor Koji Miyazaki was a visiting scholar from the mechanical engineering department at the Kyushu Institute of Technology. Koji's research was on microbubble generation.

Alexandre Jacquot was a visiting Ph.D. student from Laboroire de Physique des Materiaux (LPM), Ecole Nationale Superieur des Mines de Nancy. He worked on the fabrication of thermoelectric thin film devices.

More:

NanoEngineering: People - MIT - Massachusetts Institute of ...

Academics | Official Page | Liberty University

Academic overview

Liberty University offers hands-on learning, flexible study options and advanced academic facilities like the Jerry Falwell Library.

Liberty offers undergraduate degreesandgraduate degrees, through residential or online programschoose from more than 520programs of study.

Once youre in the classroom, you can have peace of mind about your professors. In addition to their impressive doctorates and advanced degrees, every Liberty professor goes through a rigorous interview process that confirms a born-again relationship with Christ and a commitment to teaching excellence.

Liberty University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to award associate, bachelors, masters, specialist, and doctoral degrees. Contact the Commission on Colleges at 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097 or call (404)679-4500 for questions about the accreditation of Liberty University.

The Commission requests that it be contacted to learn about the accreditation status of Liberty University, to file a third-party comment at the time of Libertys decennial review, or to file a complaint against Liberty University for alleged non-compliance with a standard or requirement.Normal inquiries about the institution, such as admission requirements, financial aid, educational programs, etc., should be addressed directly to Liberty University.

A number of programs are approved by accrediting and licensing bodies for specific disciplines. For more information see: Institutional and Program Accreditation.

Liberty is a member of the Association of Christian Schools International.

More:

Academics | Official Page | Liberty University

Health Information – National Institutes of Health (NIH)

NIH Home

Sign up to receive the NIH Health Information newsletter and get email updates twice a month about healthy living and wellness from across NIH.

Too much heat isnt safe. Its even riskier if youre older or have health problems. Learn the signs of heat stroke and how to lower your risk.

As you age, you may notice you have less muscle and energy and more fat. Explore steps you can take to help fight the flab that can come with age.

Brain Health Resource This toolkit offers current, evidence-based information and resources that can help people keep their brains functioning their best. Its designed for use at senior centers and in other community settings to promote conversations about brain health.

Check out these popular recent stories from our monthly newsletter, which brings you practical health news and tips based on NIH research:

Editor: Carol Torgan, Ph.D., Science Communication Branch, Office of Communications and Public Liaison, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health.

This page last reviewed on Monday, August 17, 2015

Read the original post:

Health Information - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

NIH Clinical Center: Graduate Medical Education (GME …

Graduate Medical Education (GME): Medical Genetics

Maximilian Muenke, MD

Eligibility CriteriaCandidates with the MD degree must have completed an accredited U.S. residency training program and have a valid U.S. license. Previous training is usually in, but not limited to, Pediatrics, Internal Medicine or Obstetrics and Gynecology.

OverviewThe NIH has joined forces with training programs at the Children's National Medical Center, George Washington University School of Medicine and Washington Hospital Center. The combined training program in Medical Genetics is called the Metropolitan Washington, DC Medical Genetics Program. This is a program of three years duration for MDs seeking broad exposure to both clinical and research experience in human genetics.

The NIH sponsor of the program is National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). Other participating institutes include the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Eye Institute (NEI), the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Metropolitan area participants include Children's National Medical Center (George Washington University), Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and the Department of Pediatrics, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington Hospital Center. The individual disciplines in the program include clinical genetics, biochemical genetics, clinical cytogenetics, and clinical molecular genetics.

The primary goal of the training program is to provide highly motivated physicians with broad exposure to both clinical and research experiences in medical genetics. We train candidates to become effective, independent medical geneticists, prepared to deliver a high standard of clinical genetics services, and to perform state-of-the-art research in the area of genetic disease.

Structure of the Clinical Training Program

RotationsThis three year program involves eighteen months devoted to learning in clinical genetics followed by eighteen months of clinical or laboratory research.

Year 1Six months will be spent on rotation at the NIH. Service will include time spent on different outpatient genetics clinics, including Cancer Genetics and Endocrine Disorders and Genetic Ophthalmology; on the inpatient metabolic disease and endocrinology ward; on inpatient wards for individuals involved in gene therapy trials; and on the NIH Genetics Consultation Service.

Three months will be spent at Children's National Medical Center and will be concentrated on pediatric genetics. Fellows will participate in outpatient clinics, satellite and outreach clinics. They will perform consults on inpatients and patients with metabolic disorders and on the neonatal service. Fellows will be expected to participate in the relevant diagnostic laboratory studies on patients for whom they have provided clinical care.

One month will be spent at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and will concentrate on adult and pediatric clinical genetics. One month will be spent at Washington Hospital Center on rotations in prenatal genetics and genetic counseling.

Year 2 Fellows will spend one month each in clinical cytogenetics, biochemical genetics, and molecular diagnostic laboratories. The remaining three months will be devoted to elective clinical rotations on any of the rotations previously mentioned. The second six months will be spent on laboratory or clinical research. The fellow will spend at least a half-day per week in clinic at any one of the three participating institutions.

Year 3This year will be devoted to research, with at least a half day per week in clinic.

NIH Genetics Clinic (Required)Fellows see patients on a variety of research protocols. The Genetics Clinic also selectively accepts referrals of patients requiring diagnostic assessment and genetic counseling. Areas of interest and expertise include: chromosomal abnormalities, congenital anomalies and malformation syndromes, biochemical defects, bone and connective tissue disorders, neurological disease, eye disorders, and familial cancers.

Inpatient Consultation Service (Required)Fellows are available twenty-four hours daily to respond to requests for genetics consultation throughout the 325-bed hospital. Written consultation procedures call for a prompt preliminary evaluation, a written response within twenty-four hours, and a subsequent presentation to a senior staff geneticist, with an addendum to the consult, as needed. The consultant service fellow presents the most interesting cases from the wards during the Post-Clinic Patient Conference on Wednesday afternoons during which Fellows present interesting clinical cases for critical review. Once a month the fellow presents relevant articles for journal club.

Metropolitan Area Genetics Clinics

Other Clinical Opportunities: Specialty Clinics at NIHThe specialty clinics of NIH treat a large number of patients with genetic diseases. We have negotiated a supervised experience for some of the fellows at various clinics; to date, fellows have participated in the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic, the Lipid Clinic, and the Endocrine Clinic.

Lectures, Courses and SeminarsThe fellowship program includes many lectures, courses and seminars. Among them are a journal club and seminars in medical genetics during which invited speakers discuss research and clinical topics of current interest. In addition, the following four courses have been specifically developed to meet the needs of the fellows:

Trainees are encouraged to pursue other opportunities for continuing education such as clinical and basic science conferences, tutorial seminars, and postgraduate courses, which are plentiful on the NIH campus.

Structure of the Research Training ProgramFellows in the Medical Genetics Program pursue state-of-the-art research related to genetic disorders. Descriptions of the diverse interests of participating faculty are provided in this catalog. The aim of this program is to provide fellows with research experiences of the highest caliber and to prepare them for careers as independent clinicians and investigators in medical genetics.

Fellows entering the program are required to select a research supervisor which may be from among those involved on the Genetics Fellowship Faculty Program. It is not required that this selection be made before coming to NIH.

In addition to being involved in research, all fellows attend and participate in weekly research seminars, journal clubs and laboratory conferences, which are required elements of each fellow's individual research experience.

Program Faculty and Research Interests

Examples of Papers Authored by Program Faculty

Program GraduatesThe following is a partial list of graduates including their current positions:

Application Information

The NIH/Metropolitan Washington Medical Genetics Residency Program is accredited by the ACGME and the American Board of Medical Genetics. Upon successful completion of the three year program, residents are eligible for board certification in Clinical Genetics. During the third residency year, residents may elect to complete either (a) the requirements for one of the ABMG laboratory subspecialties, such as Clinical Molecular Genetics, Clinical Biochemical Genetics or Clinical Cytogenetics, or (b) a second one year residency program (e.g., Medical Biochemical Genetics).

Candidates should apply through ERAS, beginning July 1 of the year prior to their anticipated start date. Candidates with the MD or MD and PhD degree must have completed a U.S. residency in a clinically related field. Previous training is usually in, but not limited to, Pediatrics, Internal Medicine or Obstetrics and Gynecology. Four new positions are available each year. Interviews are held during August and September.

Electronic Application The quickest and easiest way to find out more about this training program or to apply for consideration is to do it electronically.

The NIH is dedicated to building a diverse community in its training and employment programs.

NOTE: PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader.

The rest is here:

NIH Clinical Center: Graduate Medical Education (GME ...

Futurism, explained in meaning facts & art characteristics

Futurism, described by art quotes on the Futurist artists ideas, their many Manifestos, the meaning of the Futurism art movement, the art characteristics and some history facts.

short introduction: Futurism was a very dynamic art movement of Italian origin; it started circa 1910 by Marinetti. Bendien explains Futurism essentially as an art & LIFE movement. Bendien describes here the main ideas of the Futurist artists and the meaning of the famous Futurist Manifesto.The Futurist artists were longing for a dynamic modern city-life, full of movement, vitality, power and energy. The roots of Futurism origin was this dynamic, modern city with its many cars, busy traffic movements, early airplanes, the daily noise, etc. Starting-point was the Futurist Manifesto in 1908, by poet and writer Marinetti; Futurist artists who followed him were Carra, Boccioni, Severini, Luigo Russolo, Balla etc.. These selected art-quotes on Futurism are taken from Trends in the Present Day Art of Painting, by Dutch art-critic Jacob Bendien. Editor, Fons Heijnsbroek translation, Anne Porcelijn.

Noise of the Street (detail), Boccioni 1911

Futurism starts its theoretical manifestation more or less like other dogmatic movements, with all other expressions (art movements) encompassing just a few sentences. In fact, even more radically than did Neo Plasticism (= De Stijl).

The first demand made by the Futurists is that the lazy spectator leave his comfortable chair, from which he can view the painting and be drawn into the centre of the painting ( the basic concept of Futurist ideas, fh!). This way the spectator will be less critical but experience the painting more spontaneously.

Futurist art makes us ask ourselves whether we are capable of surrendering to a painting without criticizing it beforehand, and only passing judgment afterwards.

In the first place Futurism is a philosophy of life, based on the question of how to push life to its greatest possible force and fullness. It asks itself only: what creates the most turbulence?

Futurists idealize war as well as revolution as being practical instruments for inducing a greater activity in life. Why and what for were questions never asked.

They (the artists in Futurism, ed) see tradition only as a hindrance to all originality in life /living. Brulons les musee (Burn down the museums) is one of their phrases. Perhaps our overly refined culture needs nothing other than this young, simple courage and recklessness.

Anything referring to peace or harmony is only an irritant to them, just as the notions of good taste and moderation. They (the artists in Futurism, ed) put life in all its extremes above art.

Their reality is: cars, dance halls, street fights. Factors in this reality compete with one another in the artist through their emotional force. This is the way a Futuristic painting comes about, inharmonious but brave and bold.

Futurists have a primitive respect for quantity. They talk of the speed capacity of a car with veneration. They revere the tension in danger.

Futurists put their own passion before anything else and activate and exaggerate this in their art. They systematically exaggerate to the extreme.

As with all primitive people, for the Futurist life is: movement. In his artwork he stresses this. He seems to be unaware of a static, contemplative life; therefore, according to him this does not exist. Anything that doesnt move is dead (for artists in Futurism, fh).

Their conclusion is that the more movement there is, the richer the life expressed in the painting. This intellectual abstraction and exaggeration of movement (by Futurism style) also gives a slightly cerebral character to Futuristic art. We can however see this as an unnecessary digression .

The action of a line, that in nature can also influence space outside its border, is a given that they try to extend, they continue the painting outside the frame and continue endlessly.

This way the painting becomes the center of offshoots of strong lines and planes, as they are called by Futurists, going off in all directions. Faced by this center of excessive expression of strength, the spectator forgets his level-headed criticism. He is drawn into the painting and forced to participate ( a unique invention of Futurism, repeated later by Theo van Doesburg, Pollock, even Rothko and many other modern artists, fh).

Real Futurism is constantly testing itself against real life. For instance, when we perceive a man, for a second we see his collar, tie and the lower part of his chin, and, at the same time, a passing tram. The next moment we see his left ear with some hair and a vase behind him.

The Futurist is searching for a total of dynamic sensations as they are felt by him, through the rhythm of the various fragmented impressions and their movements, or rather their inner strength.

He (the artist in Futurism art movement, fh) portrays on-going actions as simultaneous but also as the elapsing of time.

Even so, the Futuristic synthesis is not created in superficial contact with reality. It is often more securely based in reality than the construction of Impressionistic paintings.

Futurism approaches reality with active analysis, dividing it into as many different factors as possible. Everything that decomposes and dematerializes reality, such as light and movement, is welcome. A galloping horse does not have four legs but twenty he cries enthusiastically.

The inner strengths, activities, rhythms and poses are of specific interest to Futurists. He allows all these factors to influence him. The more they contrast the better. Only subjects that call forth new and strong emotions are accepted. Their reality is cars, dance halls, and street fights.

In Futuristic art the subject plays a major part, without however, in any way limiting the art itself. In Cubism art has achieved its own place but at the cost of the subject.

In the absolute art of painting as in Neo Plasticism (= De Stijl, ed.), the entire manifestation of reality as a subject has disappeared.

Futurism wants to respect the subject as in (art movement, ed.) New Objectivity. They accuse the Cubists and other modern artists, saying that they have no respect for life and reality, in the same way the New Objectivists scorned them.

The voracious, primitive Futurist has instant contact with reality, even if it is somewhat rough and ready, rather like a farmer with his land.

The faith of the Futurists is in the ability of the spectator to feel the dynamic connection as they experience it in reality and have painted. The Dadaists took this even further.

The discovery of the mystical relationship of inner strengths is of such importance (quite strange for realistic primitives like the Futurists) that for this reason alone Futurism deserves more recognition than it generally receives.

Dadaism shares many similarities with Futurism. Both attempt to actively involve the spectator, each in his own way. Both aspire to an intimate contact with everyday life and, both resist the norm of good taste.

They are also both destructive, Dadaism and Futurism, Futurism only on the exterior. In Dadaism this is deeper they want to dismantle our inner, spiritual and moral constructions.

* more concepts and ideas from artists in the modern Italian art movement Futurism, on Wikipedia

* many images of modern art, created in Italian Futurism, on Google

* Futurist concepts and ideas, described in quotes o the famous artists of Italian Futurism, by Carra, Boccioni, Marinetti, Severini and Russolo, co-operating in writing the famous Manifesto of Futurist Painters.

More here:

Futurism, explained in meaning facts & art characteristics

Space Center Houston – Visit Houston Texas

Space Center Houston, the official visitors center for NASA's Johnson Space Center, is the only place on earth where guests can embark on an out-of-this-world journey through human adventures in space.

Space Center Houston features a multitude of permanent exhibits, attractions and theaters. In addition, the venue presents an array of traveling exhibits and events created exclusively by Space Center Houston's creative exhibit team.

NEW: The space shuttle replica Independence is now on display at Space Center Houston. The 122-foot, 130,000-pound wooden replica is being restored so the public can go inside the capsule and it's NASA 747 carrier aircraft as part of a behind-the-scenes look at life inside a space shuttle, an experience only available at Space Center Houston. The exhibit is currently under construction and will be open to the public January 23, 2016. Guests can currently see the outside of the replica, which is positioned in front of the Space Center building.

Both the shuttle and carrier will feature interior exhibits featuring the flight deck and cockpit of the shuttle, astronaut living quarters mid-deck, history on the development of the shuttle program, and how the carrier aircraft docks with shuttles. Visitors walking through the payload bay will even get to see a recently returned artifact from STS-49, a space satellite rescue mission.

Independence Plaza will be the worlds first and only shuttle/carrier replica open to the public when it debuts January 23. The exhibit is the largest project Space Center Houston has taken on since it was founded in 1992. Along with original artifacts and history, the complex will offer educational workshops and problem-solving activities for those interested in science, mathematics, and engineering careers. At the final leg, guests will see a film covering the history of space shuttle program as well as a special tribute to the crew members of the Challenger and Columbia missions.

Visitors to Space Center Houston can experience the monumental exhibit at no extra charge as part of museum general admission. Timed ticketing will ensure that a manageable number of guests can access the shuttles smaller space at different intervals.

Permanent Exhibits Blast Off Blast-Off is an unparalleled multi-media sensory experience. Visitors encounter a dramatic high-definition audio/video extravaganza culminating in a dynamic space shuttle blast off.

Living in Space Living in Space is a hands-on exhibit where guests can test their skills at landing the shuttle or retrieving a satellite through interactive computer simulators. A Mission Briefing Officer receives help from an audience participant in a live presentation showing how astronauts handle daily activities like showering, sleeping and preparing meals in space.

The NASA Tram Tour With this behind-the-scenes journey through NASA's Johnson Space Center, you may visit the Historic Mission Control Center, the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility or the current Mission Control Center. Before returning to Space Center Houston, you can visit the "all new" Saturn V Complex at Rocket Park. Occasionally, the tour may visit other facilities, such as the Sonny Carter Training Facility or Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. You may even get to see astronauts training for upcoming missions.

The Astronaut Gallery This unparalleled exhibit features spacesuits dating back to the first American trip to space and a wall that contains portraits and crew photos of every U.S. astronaut who has flown in space.

Mission Status Mission briefing officers provide live updates on current space flights and astronaut training activities. Guests can listen to communications between Mission Control and astronaut crews aboard the space shuttle. A live video shows a behind-the-scenes view of activities in the Johnson Space Center and a satellite link of a shuttle launch via Kennedy Space Center of Florida.

The Martian Matrix Four stories of out-of-this-world fun for kids, Pepsi's Martian Matrix is an action-packed play area with a space theme. Slides, swings and foam ball battles are just a few of the featured activities.

Kids Space Place Interactive stations and themed areas give children a chance to explore and investigate the different aspects of space exploration. Jumping on the Moon, manning the space shuttle, building a rocket and flying in space are all a part of the growing exhibit.

Starship Gallery On Human Destiny is shown in the Starship Gallery, which highlights great moments in space exploration. The gallery contains artifacts and hardware from the Mercury program through Apollo-Soyuz, including a special Lunar Vault. The New Explorers video wall shares the visions of today's NASA engineers and scientists.

Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau - Member

See the article here:

Space Center Houston - Visit Houston Texas

Virginia Eugenics – University of Vermont

Number of victims

In total, 7325 individuals were sterilized in Virginia under its sterilization law. Of those sterilized about half were deemed mentally ill and the other half deemed mentally deficient. Approximately 62% of total individuals sterilized were female. Some estimate the total number of sterilizations as high as 8,300 individuals (Dorr 2006, p. 382).

Period during which sterilization occurred

Sterilization in Virginia occurred under state law between 1924 and 1979. It thus appeared to have continued such sterilizations longer than any other state (Landman 1932, pp. 83-4; Largent 2008, p. 80). There are known instances of eugenic sterilization before 1924 (Dorr 2008, p. 116).

Temporal pattern of sterilization and rate of sterilization

Although Virginia formally adopted a sterilization law in 1924, sterilization was not practiced widely until after the United State Supreme Court ruling against Carrie Buck in 1927. This ruling set a precedent on the legality of sterilization not only in Virginia but also throughout the nation. During the 1930s, immediately after this Supreme Court ruling, sterilization in Virginia occurred at its highest rate with approximately 13 sterilizations per 100,000 state residents. A 1938 report stated that 632 of the first 1,000 patients sterilized had been paroled, and that 812 of the same group were from impoverished families (Trent 1994, 217). After the 1930s prior to, during, and following WWII sterilization initially decreased and thereafter maintained a fairly constant rate. After this, sterilization rates dropped dramatically until the practice faded out and then was subsequently forced out of practice with the repeal of the 1924 act in 1974 and the additional removal of all mention of eugenic sterilization to prevent hereditary forms of mental illness that are recurrent from being passed on from Virginia code in 1979 (Dorr 2008, p. 221, Lombardo 2008b, p. 250). Compulsory sterilizations for non-eugenic purposes continue today, but under very strict regulations. A compulsory sterilization patient must be unable to give informed consent, in need of contraception, unable to use any other form of contraception, and permanently unable to raise a child (Lombardo 2008b, p. 267).

Passage of law(s)

On March 20, 1924, Virginia SB 281, the Eugenical Sterilization Act, was signed into law (Landman 1932, pp. 83-4).

Groups identified in the law

Under the Eugenical Sterilization Act, individuals confined to state institutions afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy could be sterilized (Landman 1932, p. 84).

Process of the law

In order for a sterilization to take place under the 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Act the superintendent of a colony or hospital had to present the case for each individual to be sterilized in the form of a petition to a special board of directors at said institution. A copy of this petition was also required to be presented to the patient and the legal guardian of the patient. Thirty days after the board deemed an individual fit for sterilization, the sterilization was permitted to occur. Appeals were heard but rarely considered. No individual involved in this process could be held civilly or criminally liable. Additionally, nothing in the Eugenical Sterilization Act could prevent a legally licensed doctor from partaking in a medical procedure that could incidentally involve the nullification or destruction of reproductive functions (SB 281, Virginia Sterilization Act; (Landman 1932, p. 84).

Precipitating factors and processesThe white, Virginia elite of the time was immersed in the idea of perpetuating and protecting the purity of the American race (i.e., Anglo-Saxon Whites). This socioeconomic elite group wanted to maintain their traditional Southern identity while also embracing modern progressive ideology. The eugenic movement offered an avenue to pursue both of these notions simultaneously. Through the embrace of eugenics as a progressive science and ideology, Virginians were able to modernize their identity while maintaining the purity of their state through the coerced sterilization of minorities and undesirable whites alike (Dorr 2000, p. 262). Often, mongrels and worthless whites were collected in mountain sweeps. This involved a sheriff of a nearby town driving into mountain villages and forcibly removing individuals and taking them to institutions where they would only be released upon submission to sterilization (Black 2003, pp. 3-8). More often than not these individuals were unaware of the consequences of the procedures that they underwent.

On March 20, 1924 (the same day as the passage of SB 281, the Eugenical Sterilization Act) Virginia signed into law SB 219, the Racial Integrity Act. Under this piece of legislation it became unlawful for any white person in [Virginia] to marry any [person] save a white person (SB 219, Racial Integrity Act). The Racial Integrity Act garnered lots of public attention, allowing the Sterilization Law (written by Carrie Bucks defense lawyer) to pass without much public notice (Lombardo 2008b, p. 100).

The Virginia sterilization law was paramount to the perceived legality of sterilization throughout the country. With the Carrie Buck Supreme Court case of 1927, the American eugenics movement gained the legitimacy necessary to avoid adversity in various courts (Paul 1965, p. 497). This ruling precipitated high rates of sterilization in Virginia and throughout the rest of the United States. This sterilization pattern continued throughout the first half of the twentieth century until rates began to decline in the mid-1950s (Paul, p. 504). In both 1956 and 1962, bills were proposed that allowed for compulsory sterilization of women with multiple illegitimate children. Both bills failed (Lombardo 2008b, p. 242-243). Furthermore, with the issue of Recommendation 6 of the Commission to Study Problems Relating to Children Born Out of Wedlock in 1959, compulsory sterilization was seriously questioned for the first time since its legalization (Paul 1965, pp. 504-6). Even in the presence of such concern, the 1961 report of the Virginia Advisory Legislative Council recommended no change to the sterilization statute because there had been no substantial complaint (Dorr 2008, p. 213). At this time every other state in the Nation, with the exception of North Carolina, had found reason to stop or slow sterilization (Paul 1965, pp. 506-9). Virginia enacted additional voluntary sterilization legislation in 1962 (Windle 1965, p. 307), which allowed women to volunteer to be sterilized as a birth control measure (Lombardo 2008b, p. 243). In order to qualify for voluntary sterilization, women needed to be married and to have obtained spousal consent. Virginias current law, enacted in the early 1980s, only allows for those with a need for contraception, who have no other options in obtaining it, to be sterilized. Patients can be sterilized involuntarily, but the process one must go through before gaining permission to involuntarily sterilize a patient is very protective (Lombardo 2008b, p. 267).

Groups targeted and victimized

After Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, racist eugenics became more prominent. The 1954 Supreme Court case brought a resurgence of racist eugenics called Massive Resistance to prevent desegregation (Dorr 2008, p. 196).

Racist eugenics once again came into discussion with the 1962 and 1964 proposed laws for punitive sterilization of welfare mothers with illegitimate children. There was some fear that African, Far eastern, Indian, and African American populations were expanding far more rapidly than others, and these proposed laws were in part to target such communities (Dorr 2008, p. 196, 211). Even with the voluntary sterilization law, there was some concern that a woman might consent to being sterilized if strongly advised by a physician to do so. This trust in physicians could have given them the power to influence women to undergo sterilization for ultimately eugenic purposes (Dorr 2008, p. 214).

Other restrictions placed on those identified in the law

On March 20, 1924 (the same day as the passage of SB 281, the Eugenical Sterilization Act) Virginia signed into law SB 219, the Racial Integrity Act. Under this piece of legislation to became unlawful for any white person in [Virginia] to marry any [person] save a white person (SB 219, Racial Integrity Act).

(Photo origin: University of Virginia Health Systems' Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, available athttp://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/eugenics/3-buckvbell.cfm)

After the 1924 act was passed, Priddy was a key proponent in the sterilization of a Virginia Colony patient, Carrie Buck, in order to test the strength of sterilization legislation and set a precedent of its legality. (The court case Buck v. Bell was originally Buck v. Priddy, however; Albert Priddy died before the case went into the appeals process and the Virginia Colonys new Superintendent Dr. J.H. Bell replaced Priddy in the case during appeals.) Priddys power and eugenic ideology was a key factor in the success of eugenics throughout Virginia (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library). While there were many major other proponents of eugenics and sterilization in Virginia, it is important to note the influence of Walter Plecker, the University of Virginia, and of the journal Virginia Medical Monthly. Walter Plecker, in his role as State Registrar at the Bureau of Vital Statistics, intended to maintain the purity of the states white race by classifying all residents in the state of Virginia by their race to prevent any intermarriage through the threat of prosecution of those who dissented (Black 2003, pp. 165-70). It was under the great influence of Plecker and his racist rhetoric that the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 became law (Lombardo 1996, p. 9).

Additionally, the University of Virginia acted as a highly respected educational institution that pushed the thought and science of eugenics through research and education. In the words of Dr. H.E. Jordan, Dean of the Department of Medicine at the University of Virginia, eugenics will work the greatest social revolution the world has yet known [for] it aims at the production and the exclusive prevelancy of the highest type of physical, intellectual and moral man within the limits of human protoplasm (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library).Having asimilar influence, the Virginia Medical Monthly published medical reports from superintendents of various Virginia institutions as a method to increase the loathing toward those deemed feeble-minded while also spreading eugenics theory and practice. These proponents continued to condemn the unfit to sterilization and with their continual insistence of the necessity of sterilization, public support grew (Noll 1995, p. 61).

Feeder institutions and institutions where sterilizations were performed

(Photo origin: University of Virginia Health Systems' Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, available athttp://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/eugenics/3-buckvbell.cfm)

In Virginia, state hospitals and institutions were used both to institutionalize and to sterilize patients. Most infamous throughout Virginia is the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and Feebleminded in Lynchburg, Virginia, which started as a place to house epileptics, who had previously been put into prisons with criminals (Lombardo 2008b, p. 13). Pictured above is the Hasley Jennings building at the Virginia Colony where many individuals, including Carrie Buck, were sterilized (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library). Its name has been changed to Central Virginia Training Center (CVTC; Noll 2005, p. 29).

While Steven Noll noted in a 2005 article that the CVTC does not address its role in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case (p. 39), it does so now withremarkable candor about its past on its website under "History" (http://www.cvtc.dmhmrsas.virginia.gov/feedback.htm). Its cemetery is open to the public; however,archival material is not maintained in a manner that permits public viewing (Noll 2005, p. 37).

(Photo origin: http://www.wsh.dmhmrsas.virginia.gov/images/photoofoldsite.jpg)

Patients were also sterilized the Western State Hospital in Staunton, Virginia under the supervision of Joseph S. DeJarnette. The hospital opened in 1825 as the Western Lunatic Asylum, but its name was changed in 1894 to the Western State Hospital. Western State was the second largest sterilization institution, after Lynchburg (Brocato 2008, p. 113). There is no mention of sterilization on any official webpages, but the Western State Hospital still functions as a psychiatric hospital.

(Photo origin: http://www.gotghost.net/images/P3010134.JPG)

With less frequency, sterilization occurred at Virginias Central State Mental Hospital in Petersburg, which stopped treating intellectual disability patients in 1971, but continues as a rehabilitation facility under the name Central State Hospital.

(Photo origin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_State_Hospital)

Sterilizations also took place at Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, which is still functioning and claims to be America's first psychiatric hospital, and at Southwestern State Hospital in Marion as well (Black 2003, p. 4). Now a museum, the original hospital built in 1773 has been rebuilt on excavated foundations.

Southwestern State Hospital, originally called Southwestern Lunatic Asylum, is now called Southwestern Virginia Mental Health Institute. These institutions make no reference to their history in sterilization.

Commemoration

In 2002, a marker was erected to commemorate those sterilized under the Virginia sterilization law. The marker was erected by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The marker number is Q-28. It reads: In 1924, Virginia, like a majority of states then, enacted eugenic sterilization laws. Virginias law allowed state institutions to operate on individuals to prevent the conception of what were believed to be genetically inferior children. Charlottesville native Carrie Buck (19061983), involuntarily committed to a state facility near Lynchburg, was chosen as the first person to be sterilized under the new law. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, on 2 May 1927, affirmed the Virginia law. After Buck more than 8,000 other Virginians were sterilized before the most relevant parts of the Act were repealed in 1974. Later evidence eventually showed that Buck and many others had no hereditary defects. She is buried south of here (Lombardo 2008a).

Thelocation of the marker is 382.202N, 7829.303W. It is located in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Preston Avenue (U.S. 250) 0.2 miles south of Grady Avenue (U.S. 250), on the left when traveling north. The approx. address is 800 Preston Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Opposition

Opposition outside of the Catholic Church appears to have been minimal throughout Virginia. While Catholics opposed sterilization in any form because such mutilation is in direct violation of Natural Law, it seems that the strong Protestant, white supremacist ideology present throughout much of the South allowed for eugenic sterilizations to go nearly unquestioned (Windle 1965, p. 308). Very little information pertaining to the opposition to sterilization is available prior to Charles Windles case study on the passage of sterilization legislation in Virginia during the 1962 legislative session. During this session, a bill requiring the compulsory sterilization of women with more than one illegitimate child who is also receiving welfare benefits died in committee debate (Windle 1965, pp. 306-7). While the compulsory sterilization proposal failed, a voluntary sterilization bill during the same session passed by a large margin (Windle 1965, p. 307). It is important to note that this legislation was considered nearly forty years after sterilization was first legalized in Virginia and public opinion allowed for compulsory sterilization in 1924. Additionally, at the time these bills were considered, sterilization legislation was still on the books in Virginia. Even the Buck v. Bell case had little to do with any opposition to sterilization. Rather, this case was a ploy by eugenicists to set a nationwide standard of sterilization legality by taking appeals to the United States Supreme Court (Claude Moore Health Sciences Library).Moreover, Virginia is a traditionally agrarian state and sterilization legislation (when considered in 1962) was widely supported by individuals concerned with race relations and welfare in poorer, nonurban areas with high proportions of nonwhites and of agricultural and manufacturing employment (Windle 1965, p. 314). The number of sterilizations that continued to occur into the 1970s is a testament to the stronghold of eugenic ideology throughout the state.

Bibliography:

Brocato, Amanda D. 2008. The Campaign for Eugenics in Virginia: The Influence of Dr. J.S. DeJarnette. Augusta Historical Bulletin. pp 105-117. Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia Health System. "Eugenics: Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Virginia, Eugenics, and Buck v. Bell." Available at . Dorr, Gregory M. 2006. Defective or Disabled?: Race, Medicine, and Eugenics in Progressive Era Virginia and Alabama. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 5, 4: 359-92. Dorr, Gregory Michael. 2000. "Assuring America's Place in the Sun: Ivery Foreman Lewis and the Teaching of Eugenics at the University of Virginia, 1915-1953." Journal of Southern History 66, 2: 257-96.

Dorr, Gregory Michael. 2008. Segregations Science: Eugenics and Society in Virginia. Rev Ed: Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press. Landman, J. H. 1932. Human Sterilization: The History of the Sexual Sterilization Movement. New York: MacMillan. Largent, Mark A. 2008. Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilizatioin in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Lombardo, Paul. "Eugenic Sterilization Laws." Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement. Available at . Lombardo, Paul A. 2008a. The Historical Marker Database: Buck v. Bell. Available at Lombardo, Paul A. 2003. "Facing Carrie Buck." Hastings Center Report 33, 2: 14-17. Lombardo, Paul A. 1996. "Medicine, Eugenics, and the Supreme Court: >From Coercive Sterilization to Reproductive Freedom." Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 13, 1: 1-25.

Lombardo, Paul A. 2008b. Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Rev. Ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Noll, Steven. 2005. The Public Face of Southern Institutions for the Feeble-Minded. The Public Historian 27, 2: 25-42.

Noll, Steven. 1995. Feeble-Minded in Our Midst: Institutions for the Mentally Retarded in the South, 1900-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Paul, Julius. 1965. Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough: State Eugenic Sterilization Laws in American Thought and Practice. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Trent, James W. Jr. 1994. Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Windle, Charles. 1965. "Factors in the Passage of Sterilization Legislation: The Case of Virginia." The Public Opinion Quarterly 29, 2: 306-14.

Visit link:

Virginia Eugenics - University of Vermont

Racial Integrity Act of 1924 – Wikipedia, the free …

On March 20, 1924 the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws that had arisen out of contemporary concerns about eugenics and race: SB 219, titled "The Racial Integrity Act[1]" and SB 281, "An ACT to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of State institutions in certain cases", henceforth referred to as "The Sterilization Act". The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was one of a series of laws designed to prevent inter racial relationships.

The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (essentially all other, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as "colored" persons with any African or Native American ancestry. It also expanded the scope of Virginia's ban on interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation law) by criminalizing all marriages between white persons and non-white persons. In 1967 the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on Loving v. Virginia.

The Sterilization Act provided for compulsory sterilization of persons deemed to be "feebleminded," including the "insane, idiotic, imbecile, or epileptic."[2]

These two laws were Virginia's implementation of Harry Laughlin's "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law",[3] published two years earlier in 1922. The Sterilization Act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927). This had appealed the order for compulsory sterilization of Carrie Buck, who was an inmate in the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, and her daughter and mother.

Together these laws implemented the practice of "scientific eugenics" in Virginia.

In the 1920s, Virginia's registrar of statistics, Dr. Walter Ashby Plecker, was allied with the newly founded Anglo-Saxon Club of America in persuading the Virginia General Assembly to pass the Racial Integrity Law of 1924.[4] The club was founded in Virginia by John Powell of Richmond in the fall of 1922; within a year the club for white males had more than 400 members and 31 posts in the state.[5]

In 1923, the Anglo-Saxon Club founded two posts in Charlottesville, one for the town and one for students at the University of Virginia. It sought (and was successful in gaining) passage of legislation to classify all persons as belonging either to the "white" or "Negro" races. A major goal was to end "amalgamation" by racial intermarriage. Members claimed also to support Anglo-Saxon ideas of fair play. Later that fall, a state convention of club members was to be held in Richmond.[6]

The Virginia assembly's 21st-century explanation for the laws summarizes their development:

The now-discredited pseudo-science of eugenics was based on theories first propounded in England by Francis Galton, the cousin and disciple of famed biologist Charles Darwin. The goal of the "science" of eugenics was to improve the human race by eliminating what the movement's supporters considered hereditary disorders or flaws through selective breeding and social engineering. The eugenics movement proved popular in the United States, with Indiana enacting the nation's first eugenics-based sterilization law in 1907.[7]

In the following five decades, other states followed Indiana's example by implementing the eugenic laws. Wisconsin was the first State to enact legislation that required the medical certification of persons who applied for marriage licenses. The law that was enacted in 1913 generated attempts at similar legislation in other states.

The Racial Integrity Act cited "scientific" eugenics arguments for prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. However, anti-miscegenation laws, banning interracial marriage between whites and non-whites, had existed long before the emergence of eugenics. First enacted during the Colonial era when slavery had become essentially a racial caste, such laws were in effect in Virginia and in much of the United States until the 1960s.

The first law banning all marriage between whites and blacks was enacted in the colony of Virginia in 1691. This example was followed by Maryland (in 1692) and several of the other Thirteen Colonies. By 1913, 30 out of the then 48 states (including all Southern states) enforced such laws.

During the early 20th century, Harry H. Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, became concerned that states were not enforcing their eugenics laws. In 1922, he published his book, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, which included a "MODEL EUGENICAL STERILIZATION LAW" in Chapter XV.[8]

By 1924, 15 states had enacted similar legislation; however, unlike Virginia, many or most or all of those states failed to rigidly enforce their laws requiring specific qualities in all persons seeking to marry. Forced sterilization, however, was much more common. By 1956, twenty-four states had laws providing for involuntary sterilization on their books. These states collectively reported having forcibly sterilized 59,000 people over the preceding 50 years.[9]

Virginia implemented Laughlin's "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" with little modification two years after it was published. New York eugenicist Madison Grant worked to ensure his model of the "one-drop rule" was implemented by the Virginia registrar of statistics, Walter Ashby Plecker, who developed the racial criteria behind the act.[10]

The Racial Integrity Act was subject to the "Pocahontas exception"since many influential "First Families of Virginia" (FFV) claimed descent from Pocahontas, a daughter of the Powhatan, the legislature declared that a person could be considered white even if he or she had as much as one-sixteenth Native American ancestry.[11] By comparison, during the 19th century, the legislature had defined that a person with one-eighth or less African ancestry could be considered white. During the years when slavery was in effect, white citizens of Virginia were less concerned with non-European ancestry than people had become by the early 20th century, more than 50 years after emancipation.

Dr. Plecker, a leading eugenicist physician who was the registrar of vital statistics from 1912 to 1946, lobbied for years to get the eugenics laws passed in Virginia. Once these laws were passed, Dr. Plecker was in the position to enforce them.

Gov. E. Lee Trinkle, a year after signing the act, asked Plecker to ease up on the Indians and not embarrass them any more than possible.

Plecker responded, I am unable to see how it is working any injustice upon them or humiliation for our office to take a firm stand against their intermarriage with white people, or to the preliminary steps of recognition as Indians with permission to attend white schools and to ride in white coaches.[12]

Unsatisfied with the "Pocahontas Exception", eugenicists introduced an amendment to narrow loopholes to the Racial Integrity Act. This was considered by the Virginia General Assembly in February 1926 but it failed to pass.[13] If adopted, the amendment would have reclassified thousands of "white" people as "colored" by more strictly implementing the "one-drop rule" of ancestry as applied to American Indian ancestry.[14]

The combined effect of these two laws adversely affected the continuity of Virginia's American Indian tribes. The Racial Integrity Act called for only two racial categories to be recorded on birth certificates, rather than the traditional six: "white" and "colored" (which now included Indian and all discernible mixed race persons.)[15] The effects were quickly seen. In 1930, the US Census for Virginia recorded 779 Indians; by 1940, that number had been reduced to 198. In effect, Indians were being erased as a group from official records.[4]

In addition, as Plecker admitted, he enforced the Racial Integrity Act extending far beyond his jurisdiction in the segregated society.[16] For instance, he pressured school superintendents to exclude mixed-race (then called mulatto) children from white schools. Plecker ordered the exhumation of dead people of "questionable ancestry" from white cemeteries to be reinterred elsewhere.[15]

As registrar, Plecker directed the reclassification of nearly all Virginia Indians as colored on their birth and marriage certificates, because he was convinced that most Indians had African heritage and were trying to "pass" as Indian to evade segregation. Consequently, two or three generations of Virginia Indians had their ethnic identity altered on these public documents. Fiske reported that Plecker's tampering with the vital records of the Virginia Indian tribes made it impossible for descendants of six of the eight tribes recognized by the state to gain federal recognition, because they could no longer prove their American Indian ancestry by documented historical continuity.[16]

Historians have not estimated the impact of the miscegenation laws. There are records, however, of the number of people who were involuntarily sterilized during the years these two laws were in effect. Of the involuntary sterilizations reported in the United States prior to 1957, Virginia was second, having sterilized a total of 6,683 persons. Many more women than men were sterilized: 4,043 to 2,640. Of those, 2,095 women were sterilized under the category of "Mentally Ill"; and 1,875 under the category "Mentally Deficient." The remainder were for "Other" reasons. (California was first, having sterilized 19,985 people without their consent.) Other states reported involuntary sterilizations of similar numbers of people as Virginia.[17]

The intention to control or reduce ethnic minorities, especially "Negroes," can be seen in writings by some leaders in the eugenics movement:

In an 1893 "open letter" published in the Virginia Medical Monthly, Hunter Holmes McGuire, a Richmond physician and president of the American Medical Association, asked for "some scientific explanation of the sexual perversion in the Negro of the present day." McGuire's correspondent, Chicago physician G. Frank Lydston, replied that African-American men raped white women because of "[h]ereditary influences descending from the uncivilized ancestors of our Negroes." Lydston suggested as a solution to perform surgical castration, which "prevents the criminal from perpetuating his kind."[18]

In 1935, a decade after the passage of Virginia's eugenics laws, Plecker wrote to Walter Gross, director of Nazi Germanys Bureau of Human Betterment and Eugenics. Plecker described Virginia's racial purity laws and requested to be put on Gross' mailing list. Plecker commented upon the Third Reich's sterilization of 600 children in the Rhineland (the so-called Rhineland Bastards, who were born of German women by black French Colonial fathers): "I hope this work is complete and not one has been missed. I sometimes regret that we have not the authority to put some measures in practice in Virginia."[19]

Despite lacking the statutory authority to sterilize black, mulatto and American Indian children simply because they were "colored", a small number of Virginia eugenicists in key positions found other ways to achieve that goal. The Sterilization Act gave State institutions, including hospitals, psychiatric institutions and prisons, the statutory authority to sterilize persons deemed to be "feebleminded" a highly subjective criterion.

Dr. Joseph DeJarnette, director of the Western State Hospital in Staunton, Virginia, was a leading advocate of eugenics. DeJarnette was unsatisfied with the pace of America's eugenics sterilization programs. In 1938 he wrote:

"Germany in six years has sterilized about 80,000 of her unfit while the United States with approximately twice the population has only sterilized about 27,869 in the past 20 years. ... The fact that there are 12,000,000 defectives in the U.S. should arouse our best endeavors to push this procedure to the maximum... The Germans are beating us at our own game."[20]

By "12 million defectives", DeJarnette was almost certainly referring to ethnic minorities[citation needed], as there have never been 12 million mental patients in the United States.

According to historian Gregory M. Dorr, the University of Virginia School of Medicine (UVA) became "an epicenter of eugenical thought" that was "closely linked with the national movement." One of UVA's leading eugenicists, Harvey Ernest Jordan, Ph.D. was promoted to dean of medicine in 1939 and served until 1949. [21] He was in a position to shape the opinion and practice of Virginia physicians for several decades. This excerpt from a 1934 UVA student paper indicates one student's thoughts: "In Germany, Hitler has decreed that about 400,000 persons be sterilized. This is a great step in eliminating the racial deficients."[22]

The racial effects of the program in Virginia can be seen by the disproportionately high number of black and American Indian women who were given forced sterilizations after coming to a hospital for other reasons, such as childbirth. Doctors sometimes sterilized the women without their knowledge or consent in the course of other surgery.[23]

In the early twentieth century minorities in everyday southern society feared to voice their opinions due to severe oppression. Magazines such as the Richmond Planet marked the beginning for minorities to have a voice and have their voice heard all over the community. The Richmond Planet blindly made a difference in society by openly expressing the opinions of minorities in society[citation needed]. After the passing of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 the Richmond Planet published the article Race Amalgamation Bill Being Passed in Va. Legislature. Much Discussion Here on race Integrity and Mongrelization Bill Would Prohibit Marriage of Whites and Non-whites Skull of Bones Discusses race question..[24] The journalist opened the article with Racial Integrity Act and gave a brief synopsis of the act. Then followed statements from the creators of the Racial Integrity Act John Powell and Earnest S. Cox. Mr. Powell believed that racial integrity act was needed as maintenance of the integrity of the white race to preserve its superior blood and Cox believed in what he called the great man concept which means that if the races were to intersect that it would lower the rate of great white men in the world. Surprisingly enough the minorities agreed with racial integrity act the author states:

"The sane and educated Negro does not want social equality They do not want intermarriage or social mingling any more than does the average American white man wants it. They have race pride as well as we. They want racial purity as much as we want it. There are both sides to the question and to form an unbiased opinion either way requires a thorough study of the matter on both sides."

Racial minorities were not the only people affected by these laws. About 4,000 poor white Virginians were involuntarily sterilized by government order. When Laughlin testified before the Virginia assembly in support of the Sterilization Act in 1924, he argued that the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South," created social problems for "normal" people. He said, "The multiplication of these 'defective delinquents' could only be controlled by restricting their procreation."[25]Carrie Buck was the most widely known white victim of Virginia's eugenics laws. She was born in Charlottesville to Emma Buck. After her birth, Carrie was placed with foster parents, John and Alice Dobbs. She attended public school until the sixth grade. After that, she continued to live with the Dobbses, and did domestic work in the home.

Carrie became pregnant when she was 17, as a result of being raped by the nephew of her foster parents. To hide the act, on January 23, 1924, Carries foster parents committed the girl to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded on the grounds of feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity. They did not tell the court the true cause of her pregnancy. On March 28, 1924, Buck gave birth to a daughter, whom she named Vivian. Since Carrie had been declared mentally incompetent to raise her child, her former foster parents adopted the baby.

On September 10, 1924, Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded and a eugenecist, filed a petition with his board of directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient. He claimed she had a mental age of 9. Priddy said that Buck represented a genetic threat to society. While the litigation was making its way through the court system, Priddy died and his successor, Dr. James Hendren Bell, came on the case. When the directors issued an order for the sterilization of Buck, her guardian appealed the case to the Circuit Court of Amherst County. It sustained the decision of the board. The case then moved to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, where it was upheld. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell, which upheld the order.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the ruling. He argued the interest of the states in a "pure" gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in bodily integrity:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

Holmes concluded his argument with the phrase: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Carrie Buck was paroled from the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded shortly after she was sterilized. Under the same statute, her mother and three-year-old daughter were also sterilized without their consent. In 1932, her daughter Vivian Buck died of "enteric colitis."

When hospitalized for appendicitis, Doris Buck, Carrie's younger sister, was sterilized without her knowledge or consent. Never told that the operation had been performed, Doris Buck married and with her husband tried to have children. It was not until 1980 that she was told the reason for her inability to get pregnant.[citation needed]

Carrie Buck went on to marry William Eagle. They were married for 25 years until his death. Scholars and reporters who visited Buck in the aftermath of the Supreme Court case reported that she appeared to be a woman of normal intelligence.

The effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in Buck v. Bell was to legitimize eugenic sterilization laws in the United States. While many states already had sterilization laws on their books, most except for California had used them erratically and infrequently. After Buck v. Bell, dozens of states added new sterilization statutes, or updated their laws. They passed statutes that more closely followed the Virginia statute upheld by the Court.

In 1967 the US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that the portion of the Racial Integrity Act that criminalized marriages between "whites" and "nonwhites" was found to be contrary to the guarantees of equal protection of citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1975, Virginia's Assembly repealed the remainder of the Racial Integrity Act. In 1979, it repealed its state Sterilization Act. In 2001, the legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill (HJ607ER[26]) to express the assembly's profound regret for its role in the eugenics movement. On May 2, 2002, Governor Mark R. Warner issued a statement also expressing "profound regret for the commonwealth's role in the eugenics movement," specifically naming Virginia's 1924 compulsory sterilization legislation. [27]

Read the rest here:

Racial Integrity Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free ...

Planned Parenthood, Fetal Body Parts, and Eugenics …

Todays medical innovation amid moral ambiguity echoes that of a century ago.

There is a haunting familiarity to the arguments defending Planned Parenthoods sale of body parts from aborted babies for medical research: an echo of another era of medical innovation amid moral ambiguity. Then, as now, the response of cultural leaders especially religious leaders is a story about the corruption, and potential renewal, of Western civilization.

Today were told there is no other way to achieve the research results we desire, because fetal tissue is a uniquely rich source of stem cells, which provide invaluable clues to human development. Second, were led to believe that research on aborted babies will heal diseases, eradicate physical defects, and greatly enhance the human condition. And finally, were warned that prohibiting medical experimentation of this kind would mean subordinating science to religion.

Well, now. It ought to give us pause that each of these claims was enlisted a century ago when it was believed that the tools of evolutionary science could be applied to improve the human species. What Nature does blindly, slowly, ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly, English anthropologist Francis Galton told a learned society in London in 1909. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.

What duty did Galton have in mind? It was the obligation to improve the human gene pool through the scientific methods of selective breeding and sterilization. Galton coined the term eugenics good birth to promote his social vision. What began as a fringe, pseudo-scientific exercise became, in barely a generation, mainstream thinking among scientific and academic elites. It must be introduced into the national conscience, Galton said, like a new religion.

And so it was. Beginning in 1912, a series of international conferences were held in London and New York, creating a global venue for a burgeoning class of eugenicists and their supporters. No longer on the margins of respectability, they were affiliated with institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia; they became leaders in Americas premier scientific organizations.

RELATED: What Ben Carson Knows About Planned Parenthood

Religious authorities, especially those in the liberal wing of the Christian church, did not want to be seen as the enemies of science. As Christine Rosen explains in her insightful book Preaching Eugenics, many ministers became zealous evangelists for the new gospel of genetic engineering. Prompted by the American Eugenics Society, hundreds of American clergymen participated in a national eugenics sermon contest. The Reverend Kenneth Arthur declared in his winning entry: If we take seriously the Christian purpose of realizing on earth the ideal divine society, we shall welcome every help which science affords.

Poverty, crime, family disintegration there were indeed reasons to worry about the quality of the genetic stock of Western societies, thanks to the social breakdown instigated by the Industrial Revolution. Add to this the psychological trauma of the First World War. The supposedly Christian nations of Europe among the most advanced in human history had nearly destroyed one another in a global suicide pact. In the postwar years, books with titles like The Twilight of the White Races (1926) and Sterilization of the Unfit (1929) typified the mood.

RELATED:The Planned Parenthood Videos Expose Our Countrys Silent Pact with the Abortion Industry

Meanwhile, many Americans watched with deep anxiety as millions of undesirable immigrants from southern Europe (including my Italian grandparents) washed across Americas shores in the aftermath of the Great War. Eugenics advocates got the attention of Congress in 1920, when the House held hearings on the Biological Aspects of Immigration. The testimony of eugenicist Harry Laughlin included these chilling lines: Our failure to sort immigrants on the basis of natural worth is a very serious national menace. By setting up a eugenical standard for admission demanding a high natural excellence of all immigrants...we can enhance and improve the national stamina and ability of future Americans.

Establishing and enforcing a genetic threshold for immigrants proved implausible. So how to best identify and isolate the biological defectives among them? Marriage laws were considered ineffective; immigration restrictions couldnt stop defective people who were already here from procreating.

Thus the United States with its passion for technological and scientific advances earned the noxious distinction of becoming the first nation in the West to legalize compulsory sterilization. Beginning with Indiana in 1907, many states passed sterilization laws to prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a political progressive and eugenics advocate, authored the 1927 Court decision upholding Virginias sterilization laws: Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Not everyone succumbed to the siren song of human perfectionism. For conservative and orthodox Christians, the eugenics movement represented a frontal assault on the Bibles teaching about human nature: a reduction of the individual to mere biology.

Two of the 20th centurys greatest Christian authors, C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, used their literary imagination to launch a counterattack. Both men began their academic careers at Oxford in the 1920s, when the eugenics movement was in full swing. They came to share a deep distrust of scientific progress the kind of progress that threatened to degrade or enslave human beings.

In their epic works of heroic fiction, Lewis and Tolkien depict their characters as physical and spiritual beings, responsible for their eternal souls even as they are constrained by their earthly nature. The worlds of Narnia and Middle-earth are also filled with non-human races elves, dwarves, hobbits, centaurs, etc. who nonetheless share this human attribute. The point must not be missed: No creature no matter how small or apparently insignificant deserves to be treated as a means to an end. Like no other authors of their postwar generation, Lewis and Tolkien insisted on the unique moral status of the human person.

RELATED: Cecil and Cecile: Humanness, but Not for the Human

At its heart, Tolkiens War of the Ring is a struggle to preserve the essential freedom and humanity of the inhabitants of Middle-earth. Thus, in The Lord of the Rings, we glimpse the frightful prospect of genetic engineering the creation of robotic orcs in an effort to extend the dictatorship of Mordor throughout the world. In Lewiss Perelandra, the second novel in his Space Trilogy, we meet Professor Weston, a physicist and devotee of emergent evolution, a quasi-scientific process by which the human species thrusts its way upward and ever upward toward physical and mental perfection. Man in himself is nothing, Weston explains. The forward movement of Life the growing spirituality is everything. Weston becomes an essentially satanic figure.

But, some will ask, isnt conservative Christianity an enemy of scientific progress if it seems to challenge the authority of the Bible? Isnt the debate over fetal tissue really just another conflict between reason and revelation?

It is true that Christian fundamentalists have sometimes discredited themselves in their approach to scientific controversies. But we shouldnt blame the traditional teachings of the Bible for bad behavior. Its worth remembering that the Bible thumpers at the Scopes Monkey Trial were also some of the most vigorous opponents of human eugenics; they were dead right about the morally debased agenda of the eugenicists. As Rosen points out, it was progressive Christianity that portrayed the eugenics movement as a mandate from heaven. The evidence yields a clear pattern about who elected to support eugenic-style reforms and who did not, she writes. Religious leaders pursued eugenics precisely when they moved away from traditional religious tenets.

The eugenics agenda eventually fell out of favor: The conscience of the West was quickened by the sight of the ovens at Auschwitz, the ultimate manifestation of the logic of eugenics. Yet the scientific community, with its rising cultural authority, had helped to persuade a generation of an urgent biological necessity. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was among the ranks of the true believers. Speaking at Vassar College in 1926, Sanger warned of a social crisis an increasing race of morons unless sterilization policies were widely implemented.

In that worldview, there are few restraints on what science can do must do in order to improve mankinds physical well-being. This is what C. S. Lewis meant when he warned of the abolition of man the negation of human dignity in the name of progress, or compassion, or humanity, or science itself. Lewis lived long enough to witness firsthand the dreadful progeny of this idea: For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please.

The passage of time, it seems, has only strengthened this power and the fearsome temptation to use it.

Joseph Loconte is an associate professor of history at the Kings College in New York City and the author of A Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War: How J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis Rediscovered Faith, Friendship, and Heroism in the Cataclysm of 19141918.

The rest is here:

Planned Parenthood, Fetal Body Parts, and Eugenics ...

Frank Salter – Eugenics, Ready or Not – Hour 1 – YouTube

Frank Salter is an Australian academic and researcher at the former Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology. He is a political ethologist, studying political phenomena using the methods and theories of behavioral biology in addition to conventional methods. Franks recent essay, Eugenics, Ready or Not is the platform for our conversation, which begins with clarification of the definition and background of eugenics, along with its links to genetics and the rapidly advancing field of reproductive technology. Frank details some points in history that have given eugenics a bad name, underscoring instances where the state has stepped in and taken authority over individual sovereignty, an action he declares is extremely dangerous. We discuss where eugenics gets mixed up in the utopian dreams of the left, with social engineering schemes based largely on the denial of science and technology. Frank gives examples of positive, negative and coercive eugenics, and we look at the conditions that have created a consumer-driven eugenics industry via the expanding utilization of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In the members segment, Frank explains where the field of eugenics is receiving major influence from the cultural left, and we look at the myriad of moral, ethical and societal dilemmas that have sprung up because of the classic utopian socialist ideology that is being thrust forth into civilization by the social sciences and university system. He points to the war against Western society that is being waged through strong anti-white arguments involving the notion of breeding out ethnocentrism and the desire for self-preservation. We talk about the effects of the skewed drive for diversity across European and American lands, and we consider how the corroding weight of mass immigration could be clearing the way for a renewed interest in maintaining traditional rights. Frank highlights issues in the study of genetics involving gene editing that are posing dangerous implications for pushing biology out of the social sciences and humanities. To wrap things up, we size up the mad upsurge of asylum seekers looking to settle in the west along with the decline in native European populations and what this means for our genetic continuity.

Authors website: http://socialtechnologies.com.au/

http://www.redicecreations.com http://www.redicemembers.com https://twitter.com/rediceradio https://plus.google.com/+Redicecreati... https://www.facebook.com/RedIceCreations Subscribe to Red Ice Radio in iTunes: itpc://www.redicecreations.com/radio/radio.xml Subscribe to Red Ice Radio

See the rest here:

Frank Salter - Eugenics, Ready or Not - Hour 1 - YouTube

Near-Earth Object Program

Earth Flyby of 'Space Peanut' Captured in New Video (1999 JD6) July 31, 2015

NASA scientists have used two giant, Earth-based radio telescopes to bounce radar signals off a passing asteroid and produce images of the peanut-shaped body as it approached close to Earth this past weekend. The images show the rotation of the asteroid, named 1999 JD6, which made its closest approach on July 24 at 9:55 p.m. PDT (12:55 a.m. EDT on July 25) at a distance of about 4.5 million miles (7.2 million kilometers, or about 19 times the distance from Earth to the moon).

Full Story

Asteroid Icarus will safely pass by Earth at more than 21 times the distance of Earth to the moon on June 16. To put it another way, Icarus, one of the first near-Earth asteroids ever discovered (1949), will approach no closer than five million miles away (eight million kilometers).

Full Story

An asteroid, designated 1999 FN53, will safely pass more than 26 times the distance of Earth to the moon on May 14. To put it another way, at its closest point, the asteroid will get no closer than 6.3 million miles away (10 million kilometers). It will not get closer than that for well over 100 years. And even then, (119 years from now) it will be so far away it will not affect our planet in any way, shape or form. 1999 FN53 is approximately 3,000 feet (1 kilometer) across.

Full Story

NASA announced more details on its plan for its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), which in the mid-2020s will test a number of new capabilities needed for future human expeditions to deep space, including to Mars. NASA also announced it has increased the detection of near-Earth asteroids by 65 percent since launching its asteroid initiative three years ago. For ARM, a robotic spacecraft will capture a boulder from the surface of a near-Earth asteroid and move it into a stable orbit around the moon for exploration by astronauts, all in support of advancing the nation's journey to Mars.

Full Story

On January 18, 2015 - a little over four years since the NHATS assessments began - the 1332nd NHATS-compliant asteroid was identified, doubling the number of known accessible NEAs.

Full Story

Scientists working with NASA's 230-foot-wide (70-meter) Deep Space Network antenna at Goldstone, California, have released the first radar images of asteroid 2004 BL86. The images show the asteroid, which made its closest approach today (Jan. 26, 2015) at 8:19 a.m. PST (11:19 a.m. EST) at a distance of about 745,000 miles (1.2 million kilometers, or 3.1 times the distance from Earth to the moon), has its own small moon.

Full Story

Updated Animation (January 30, 2015)

New orbital chart and star charts are now available.

Full Story

An asteroid, designated 2004 BL86, will safely pass about three times the distance of Earth to the moon on January 26. From its reflected brightness, astronomers estimate that the asteroid is about a third of a mile (0.5 kilometers) in size. The flyby of 2004 BL86 will be the closest by any known space rock this large until asteroid 1999 AN10 flies past Earth in 2027.

Full Story

Some recent press reports have suggested that an asteroid designated 2014 UR116 represents an impact threat to the Earth. The asteroid does not represent a threat because it's orbital path does not pass sufficiently close to the Earth's orbit.

Full Story

Small asteroids near Earth, with sizes of only about a meter, hit the atmosphere and disintegrate with surprising frequency - around every other week, new data show.

Full Story

Small meteorite impact reported in Nicaragua is unrelated to Asteroid 2014 RC. 2014 RC has a rotation rate of 15.8 seconds - the fastest rotating asteroid ever observed.

Full Story

A small asteroid, designated 2014 RC, will safely pass very close to the Earth on Sunday, 7 September 2014. From its brightness, astronomers estimate that the asteroid is about 20 meters (60 feet) in size

Full Story

Agency officials announced on Thursday, June 19, recent progress to identify candidate asteroids for its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), increase public participation in the search for asteroids, and advance the mission's design.

Full Story

NASA scientists using Earth-based radar have produced sharp views of a recently discovered asteroid 2014 HQ124 as it slid silently past our planet. The new views are some of the most detailed radar images of a near-Earth asteroid ever obtained.

Full Story

A large newfound asteroid - 2014 HQ124 - will safely pass Earth on June 8 from a distance of about 777,000 miles (1.25 million kilometers), more than three times farther away than our moon.

Full Story

NASA is sponsoring a series of virtual seminars on the properties of Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) and what is being done to learn more about the hazards and the opportunities they may pose for us here on Earth.

Seminars Link

Recent observations have removed from NASA's asteroid impact hazard list the near-Earth object (NEO) known to pose the most significant risk of Earth impact over the next 100 years.

Full Story

An asteroid about 25 feet (8 meters) across will safely pass Earth at about 1:21 p.m. PST (4:21 p.m. EST) today, March 6, approaching us six times closer than the moon.

Full Story

As happens about 20 times a year with current detection capabilities, a known asteroid will safely pass Earth Wednesday closer than the distance from Earth to the moon.

Full Story

Radar images of asteroid 2006 DP14 reveal it is a peanut-shaped space rock.

Full Story

As the next step in advancing NASA's asteroid initiative, the agency will host an Opportunities Forum March 26, 2014 at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

Full Story

NASA is developing an Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) -- a first-ever mission to identify, capture and redirect an asteroid to a safe orbit of Earth's moon for future exploration by astronauts in the 2020s.

Full Story

NASA's Near-Earth Object Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (NEOWISE) spacecraft has spotted a never-before-seen asteroid -- its first such discovery since coming out of hibernation last year.

Full Story

Several sources confirm that the first discovered asteroid of 2014, designated 2014 AA, entered the Earth's atmosphere late January 1 EST over the mid-Atlantic Ocean.

Full Story

The first asteroid discovered in 2014 has entered Earth's atmosphere on January 2nd over the ocean off the coast of West Africa.

Full Story

Two surprisingly large Near-Earth Asteroids have been discovered in just the last week or so, as well as a third moderately large asteroid which surprisingly has also gone undetected until now, even though it can pass close enough to the Earth to be classified as "potentially hazardous".

Full Story

Link:

Near-Earth Object Program

Latest Updates | Young Americans for Liberty

Too often I see newly forming YAL chapters struggle to achieve official school recognition. Although being officially recognized by your school is not a requirement for creating an awesome YAL chapter, it definitely helps when it comes time to reserve space for meetings or events, request school funding, and ultimately add more legitimacy. The First Amendment legally binds public colleges and universities, therefore if you attend a school that accepts tax-payer money in order to function, then your school is legally not allowed to deny the recognition of your YAL chapter based off of ideology alone.

Each school is different, but most institutions will require that a student organization have a faculty advisor and a certain number of members in order to achieve official recognition. To be clear, you must adhere to your school's requirements to be officially recognized. However, sometimes schools won't even give you the opportunity to meet those requirements, but instead deny you official recognition before you have a chance to play by their rules.

If you apply for official recognition from your school, and the administration denies your request, it is essential that you ask the administration to supply you with a copy of the specific policy that they are referencing which gives them 'legitimacy' to deny official recognition of your YAL chapter.If your school's administration is unable to point you to a specific policy, then politely remind them that there are not reasonable grounds for denying official recognition. Make sure all exchanges with your school's administration are done through email so you can have concrete evidence of all communications.

Commonly, I see schools deny YAL chapters official recognition because they believe the student organization will be 'politically affiliated'. If this is the case, it is important to remind the administration that YAL is a non-partisan student organization that aims to identify, educate, train, and mobilize student activists dedicated to winning on principle. As a 501(c)3 non-profit, YAL does not endorse any candidates, political parties, or specific legislation.

Other times, a school will try to claim that there are 'too many existing political groups on campus' or that YAL's views align too closely with another student organization with an already established presence. This is considered viewpoint discrimination, and is completely unconstitutional.

It is important to remember that private colleges and universities do not necessarily have to adhere toConstitution(although, I think we can all agree that they absolutely should), unless they make an explicit promise to freedom of speech or freedom of expression within their policies.

If you attend a public college or university and have gone through the necessary steps to get officially recognized, but your school stillrefuses to give your YAL chapter official recognition, then contact YAL's Free Speech Director at elizabeth.hayes@yaliberty.org for further assistance.

Also, be sure to check out YAL's handy resource on obtaining school recognition!

Here is the original post:

Latest Updates | Young Americans for Liberty

USS Liberty incident – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USSLiberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5nmi (29.3mi; 47.2km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[6] Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity,[2] though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7]

In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$22.5 million 2015) in compensation to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to Liberty herself plus 13 years' interest.[8]

USSLiberty was originally the 7,725 long tons (7,849t) (light) civilian cargo vessel Simmons Victory, a mass-produced, standard-design Victory Ship, the follow-on series to the famous Liberty Ships, which supplied the United Kingdom and Allied troops with cargo. it was acquired by the United States Navy, converted to an Auxiliary Technical Research Ship (AGTR),[9] and began her first deployment in 1965, to waters off the west coast of Africa. it carried out several more operations during the next two years.

During the Six-Day War between Israel and several Arab nations, the United States of America maintained a neutral country status.[10] Several days before the war began, the USS Liberty was ordered to proceed to the eastern Mediterranean area to perform a signals intelligence collection mission in international waters near the north coast of Sinai, Egypt.[11] After the war erupted, due to concerns about her safety as she approached her patrol area, several messages were sent to Liberty to increase her allowable closest point of approach (CPA) to Egypt's and Israel's coasts from 12.5 and 6.5nmi (14.4 and 7.5mi; 23.2 and 12.0km), respectively, to 20 and 15nmi (23 and 17mi; 37 and 28km), and then later to 100nmi (120mi; 190km) for both countries.[12] Unfortunately, due to ineffective message handling and routing, the CPA change messages were not received until after the attack.[12]

According to Israeli sources, at the start of the war on 5 June, General Yitzhak Rabin (then IDF Chief of Staff) informed Commander Ernest Carl Castle, the American Naval Attach in Tel Aviv, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal, including sinking unidentified ships. Also, he asked the U.S. to keep its ships away from Israel's shore or at least inform Israel of their exact position.[13][14]

American sources said that no inquiry about ships in the area was made until after the Liberty attack ended. In a message sent from U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk to U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Rusk asked for "urgent confirmation" of Israel's statement. Barbour responded: "No request for info on U.S. ships operating off Sinai was made until after Liberty incident." Further, Barbour stated: "Had Israelis made such an inquiry it would have been forwarded immediately to the chief of naval operations and other high naval commands and repeated to dept [Department of State]."[15]

With the outbreak of war, Captain William L. McGonagle of Liberty immediately asked Vice Admiral William I. Martin at the United States Sixth Fleet headquarters to send a destroyer to accompany Liberty and serve as its armed escort and as an auxiliary communications center. The following day, 6 June, Admiral Martin replied: "Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters, not a participant in the conflict and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation. Request denied."[16] He promised, however, that in the unlikely event of an inadvertent attack, jet fighters from the Sixth Fleet would be overhead in ten minutes.

Meanwhile, on 6 June, at the United Nations, in response to United Arab Republic complaints that the United States was supporting Israel in the conflict, U.S. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg said to the Security Council that aircraft of the Sixth Fleet were several hundred miles from the conflict,[12] indicating that elements of the Sixth Fleet itself were far from the conflict. When the statement was made this was the case, since Liberty, now assigned to the Sixth Fleet, was in the central Mediterranean Sea, passing between Libya and Crete;[17] but she would ultimately steam to about 13nmi (15mi; 24km) north of the Sinai Peninsula.[18]

On the night of 7 June Washington time, early morning on 8 June, 01:10Z or 3:10am local time, the Pentagon issued an order to Sixth Fleet headquarters to tell Liberty to come no closer than 100nmi (120mi; 190km) to Israel, Syria, or the Sinai coast (Oren, p.263).[19]:5, 58 (Exhibit N)

According to the Naval Court of Inquiry[20]:23 ff, 111 ff and National Security Agency official history,[21] the order to withdraw was not sent on the radio frequency that Liberty monitored for her orders until 15:25 Zulu, several hours after the attack, due to a long series of administrative and message routing problems. The Navy said a large volume of unrelated high-precedence traffic, including intelligence intercepts related to the conflict, were being handled at the time; and that this combined with a shortage of qualified Radiomen contributed to delayed sending of the withdrawal message.[20]:111 ff

Official testimony combined with Liberty's deck log say that throughout the morning of the attack, 8 June, the ship was overflown, at various times and locations, by Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft.[18] The primary aircraft type was the Nord Noratlas; there were also two unidentified delta-wing jets at about 9:00am Sinai time (GMT+2).[18]Liberty crewmembers say that one of the Noratlas aircraft flew so close to Liberty that noise from its propellers rattled the ship's deck plating, and that the pilots and crewmembers waved to each other.[22] It was later reported, based on information from Israel Defense Forces sources, that the over-flights were coincidental, and that the aircraft were hunting for Egyptian submarines that had been spotted near the coast.[23]

At about 5:45am Sinai time, a ship-sighting report was received at Israeli Central Coastal Command (CCC) about Liberty, identified by an aerial naval observer as "apparently a destroyer, sailing 70 miles [110km] west of Gaza."[24] The vessel's location was marked on a CCC Control Table, using a red marker, indicating an unidentified vessel.[25] At about 6:00am, the aerial naval observer reported that the ship appeared like a U.S. Navy supply ship; the red marker was replaced with a green marker to indicate a neutral vessel, at about 9:00am.[25] At that same time, an Israeli jet fighter pilot reported that a ship 20 miles (32km) north of Arish had fired at his aircraft after he tried to identify the vessel.[25] Israeli naval command dispatched two destroyers to investigate, but they were returned to their previous positions at 9:40am after doubts emerged during the pilot's debriefing.[25] After the naval observer's Noratlas landed and he was debriefed, the ship he saw was further identified as the USS Liberty, based on its "GTR-5" hull markings.[26] USS Liberty's marker was removed from CCC's Control Table at 11:00am, due to its positional information being considered stale.[27]

At 11:24am, Israeli Chief of Naval Operations received a report that Arish was being shelled from the sea.[27] An inquiry into the source of the report was ordered to determine its validity.[27] The report came from an Air Support Officer in Arish.[28] Additionally, at 11:27am Israeli Supreme Command Head of Operations received a report stating that a ship had been shelling Arish, but the shells had fallen short.[28] (Investigative journalist James Bamford points out that Liberty had only four .50 caliber machine guns mounted on her decks and, thus, could not have shelled the coast.[29] ) The Head of Operations ordered that the report be verified, and determine whether or not Israeli Navy vessels were off the coast of Arish.[28] At 11:45am, another report arrived at Supreme Command saying two ships were approaching the Arish coast.[28]

The shelling and ships reports were passed from Supreme Command to Fleet Operations Control Center.[28] The Chief of Naval Operations took them seriously, and at 12:05pm torpedo boat Division 914 was ordered to patrol in the direction of Arish.[28]

Division 914, codenamed "Pagoda", was under the command of Commander Moshe Oren.[28] It consisted of three torpedo boats numbered: T-203, T-204 and T-206.[28] At 12:15pm, Division 914 received orders to patrol a position 20 miles (32km) north of Arish.[28] As Commander Oren headed toward Arish, he was informed by Naval Operations of the reported shelling of Arish and told that IAF aircraft would be dispatched to the area after the target had been detected.[28]

Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin was concerned that the supposed Egyptian shelling was the prelude to an amphibious landing that could outflank Israeli forces. Rabin reiterated the standing order to sink any unidentified ships in the area, but advised caution, as Soviet vessels were reportedly operating nearby.[23]

At 1:41pm, the torpedo boats detected an unknown vessel 20 miles northwest of Arish and 14 miles (23km) off the coast of Bardawil.[1][30] The ship's speed was estimated on their radars.[30] The Combat Information Center officer on T-204, Ensign Aharon Yifrah, reported to the boat's captain, Commander Moshe Oren, that the target had been detected at a range of 22 miles (35km), that her speed had been tracked for a few minutes, after which he had determined that the target was moving westward at a speed of 30 knots (56km/h; 35mph). These data were forwarded to the Fleet Operations Control Center.[30]

The speed of the target was significant because it indicated that the target was a combat vessel.[30] Moreover, Israeli forces had standing orders to fire on any unknown vessels sailing in the area at over 20 knots (37km/h; 23mph), a speed which, at the time, could only be attained by warships. The Chief of Naval Operations asked the torpedo boats to double-check their calculations. Yifrah twice recalculated and confirmed his assessment.[23][30] A few minutes later, Commander Oren reported that the target, now 17 miles (27km) from his position, was moving at a speed of 28 knots (52km/h; 32mph) on a different heading.[31] Bamford, however, points out that Liberty's top speed was far below 28 knots. His sources say that at the time of the attack Liberty was following her signal-intercept mission course along the northern Sinai coast, at about 5 knots (9.3km/h; 5.8mph) speed.[29]

The data on the ship's speed, together with its direction, indicated that it was an Egyptian destroyer fleeing toward port after shelling Arish. The torpedo boats gave chase, but did not expect to overtake their target before it reached Egypt. Commander Oren requested that the Israeli Air Force dispatch aircraft to intercept.[23][30] At 1:48pm, the Chief of Naval Operations requested dispatch of fighter aircraft to the ship's location.[32]

The IAF dispatched two Mirage III fighter jets that arrived at Liberty at about 2:00 pm.[33] The formation leader, Captain Iftach Spector, attempted to identify the ship.[33] He communicated via radio to one of the torpedo boats his observation that the ship appeared like a military ship with one smokestack and one mast.[34] Also, he communicated, in effect, that the ship appeared to him like a destroyer or another type of small ship.[34] In a post-attack statement, the pilots said they saw no distinguishable markings or flag on the ship.[34]

At this point, a recorded exchange took place between a command headquarters weapons systems officer, one of the air controllers, and the chief air controller questioning a possible American presence. Immediately after the exchange, at 1:57pm, the chief air controller, Lieutenant-Colonel Shmuel Kislev, cleared the Mirages to attack.[23][35]

After being cleared to attack, the Mirages dived on the ship and attacked with 30-mm cannons and rockets.[36] The attack came a few minutes after the crew completed a chemical attack drill, with Captain McGonagle on the command bridge.[37] The crew was in "stand-down mode", with their helmets and life jackets removed,[23] except battle readiness "modified condition three" was set which meant that the ship's four .50 caliber machine guns were manned and ammunition ready for loading and firing.[38][39] Eight crewmen were either killed immediately or died later, and 75 were wounded.[40] Among the wounded was McGonagle, who was hit in the right thigh and arm.[41] During the attack, antennas were severed, gas drums caught fire, and the ship's flag was knocked down. McGonagle sent an urgent request for help to the Sixth Fleet, "Under attack by unidentified jet aircraft, require immediate assistance."

The Mirages left after expending their ammunition, and were replaced by two Dassault Mysteres armed with napalm bombs. The Mysteres released their payloads over the ship and strafed it with their cannons. Much of the ship's superstructure caught fire.[23][33] The Mysteres were readying to attack again when the Israeli Navy, alerted by the absence of return fire, warned Kislev that the target could be Israeli. Kislev told the pilots not to attack if there was any doubt about identification, and the Israeli Navy quickly contacted all of its vessels in the area. The Israeli Navy found that none of its vessels were under fire, and the aircraft were cleared to attack. However, Kislev was still disturbed by a lack of return fire, and requested one last attempt to identify the ship. Captain Yossi Zuk, leader of the Mystere formation, made an attempt at identification while strafing the ship. He reported seeing no flag, but saw the ship's GTR-5 marking. Kislev immediately ordered the attack stopped. Kislev guessed that the ship was American.[23]

The fact that the ship had Latin alphabet markings led Chief of Staff Rabin to fear that the ship was Soviet. Though Egyptian warships were known to disguise their identities with Western markings, they usually displayed Arabic letters and numbers only. Rabin ordered the torpedo boats to remain at a safe distance from the ship, and sent in two Hornet (Arospatiale Super Frelon) helicopters to search for survivors. These radio communications were recorded by Israel. The order also was recorded in the torpedo boat's log, although Commander Oren alleged not to have received it. The order to cease fire was given at 2:20pm, twenty-four minutes before the torpedo boats arrived at the Liberty's position.[42] At 2:35pm, Liberty was hit by a torpedo launched from one of the torpedo boats.[43]

During the interval, crewmen aboard Liberty hoisted a large American flag. During the early part of the air attack and before the torpedo boats were sighted, Liberty sent a distress message that was received by Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier USS Saratoga.[40] Aircraft carrier USS America dispatched eight aircraft. The carrier had been in the middle of strategic exercises. Vice-Admiral William I. Martin recalled the aircraft minutes later.[23]

McGonagle testified at the naval court of inquiry that during "the latter moments of the air attack, it was noted that three high speed boats were approaching the ship from the northeast on a relative bearing of approximately 135 [degrees] at a distance of about 15 [nautical] miles. The ship at the time was still on [westward] course 283 [degrees] true, speed unknown, but believed to be in excess of five knots."[20]:38 McGonagle testified that he "believed that the time of initial sighting of the torpedo boats ... was about 14:20 [2:20 pm]", and that the "boats appeared to be in a wedge type formation with the center boat the lead point of the wedge. Estimated speed of the boats was about 27 to 30 knots [50 to 56km/h]," and that it "appeared that they were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude."[20]:38

When the torpedo boats arrived, Commander Oren could see that the ship could not be the destroyer that had supposedly shelled Arish or any ship capable of 30 knots (56km/h) speed. Oren believed it was a slower-moving vessel that had either serviced the destroyer or evacuated enemy soldiers from the beach.[citation needed] He ordered the squadron not to attack pending better identification "although this was difficult due to the billowing clouds of smoke that enveloped the vessel; only her bow, part of her bridge and the tip of her mast could be discerned."[citation needed] At 6,000 meters (20,000ft), T-204 paused and signalled "AA" "identify yourself."[citation needed] Due to damaged equipment, McGonagle could only reply with "AA" using a handheld Aldis lamp.[citation needed] Oren recalled receiving a similar response from the Ibrahim el Awal, an Egyptian destroyer captured by Israel during the Suez Crisis, and was convinced that he was facing an enemy ship.[citation needed]

He consulted an Israeli identification guide to Arab fleets and concluded the ship was the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir, based on observing its deckline, midship bridge and smokestack. The captain of boat T203 reached the same conclusion independently. The boats organized into battle formation, but did not attack.[42][44]

As the torpedo boats rapidly approached, Captain McGonagle ordered a sailor to proceed to machine gun Mount 51 and open fire.[20]:38 However, he noticed that the boats appeared to be flying an Israeli flag, and "realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error."[20]:39 Captain McGonagle ordered the man at gun mount 51 to hold fire, but a short burst was fired at the torpedo boats before the man was able to understand the order.[20]:39 McGonagle observed that machine gun Mount 53 began firing at the center torpedo boat at about the same time gun mount 51 fired, and that its fire was "extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat."[20]:39 Machine gun mount 53 was located on the starboard amidships side, behind the pilot house.[20]:16 McGonagle could not see or "get to mount 53 from the starboard wing of the bridge."[20]:39 So, he "sent Mr. Lucas around the port side of the bridge, around to the skylights, to see if he could tell [Seaman] Quintero, whom [he] believed to be the gunner on Machine gun 53, to hold fire."[20]:39

Ensign Lucas "reported back in a few minutes in effect that he saw no one at mount 53."[20]:39 Lucas, who had left the command bridge during the air attack and returned to assist Captain McGonagle immediately before a torpedo hit the ship,[20]:14 believed that the gunfire sound was likely from ammunition cooking off, due to a nearby fire.[20]:16 Prior to this time, after a torpedo hit the ship, Lucas had granted a request from Quintero to fire at the torpedo boats before heat from a nearby fire chased him from gun mount 53.[20]:26,27 (McGonagle later testified, at the Court of Inquiry, that this was likely the "extremely effective" firing event he had observed.[20]:49)

After coming under fire, Commander Oren repeatedly requested permission from naval headquarters to return fire, and chief naval controller Izzy Rahav finally approved.[citation needed] Shelling by the torpedo boats killed Liberty's helmsman.[43] The torpedo boats then launched five torpedoes at the Liberty.[45] At 1235Z (2:35 local time)[43] a torpedo hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a 40ft (12m) wide hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ship's research spaces and killing 25 servicemen, almost all of them from the intelligence section, and wounding dozens.[23][46] It has been said the torpedo hit a major hull frame that absorbed much of the energy; crew members reported that if the torpedo had missed the frame the Liberty would have split in two. Russian linguist and U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Bryce Lockwood later commented: "I would never deny that it was God that kept the Liberty afloat!".[7] The other four torpedoes missed the ship.

The torpedo boats then closed in and strafed the ship's hull with their cannons and machine guns.[citation needed] According to some crewmen, the torpedo boats fired at damage control parties and sailors preparing life rafts for launch. (See disputed details below.) A life raft which floated from the ship was picked up by T-203 and found to bear US Navy markings. T-204 then circled Liberty, and Oren spotted the designation GTR-5, but saw no flag.[citation needed] It took until 3:30pm to establish the ship's identity. Shortly before the Liberty's identity was confirmed, the Saratoga launched eight aircraft armed with conventional weapons towards Liberty. After the ship's identity was confirmed, the General Staff was notified and an apology was sent to naval attach Castle. The aircraft approaching Liberty were recalled to the Saratoga.[23]

According to transcripts of intercepted radio communications, published by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), at about 2:30pm, near the beginning of the torpedo boat attack, two IAF helicopters were dispatched to Liberty's location. The helicopters arrived at about 3:10pm, about 35 minutes after a torpedo hit the ship. After arriving, one of the helicopter pilots was asked, by his ground-based controller, to verify that the ship was flying an American flag. The helicopters conducted a brief search for crew members of the ship who may have fallen overboard during the air attack. No one was found. The helicopters left the ship at about 3:20pm.

At about 4pm, two hours after the attack began, Israel informed the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv that its military forces had mistakenly attacked a U.S. Navy ship. When the ship was "confirmed to be American" the torpedo boats returned at about 4:40pm to offer help;[47] it was refused by the Liberty. Later, Israel provided a helicopter to fly U.S. naval attach Commander Castle to the ship.[48] (pp.32,34)

In Washington, President Lyndon B. Johnson had received word from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Liberty had been torpedoed by an unknown vessel at 9:50am eastern time. Johnson assumed that the Soviets were involved, and hotlined Moscow with news of the attack and the dispatch of jets from Saratoga. He chose not to make any public statements and delegated this task to Phil G. Goulding, who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs at a time.[49]

Soon afterward, the Israelis said that they had mistakenly attacked the ship. The Johnson administration conveyed "strong dismay" to Israeli ambassador Avraham Harman. Meanwhile, apologies were soon sent by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Foreign Minister Abba Eban, and charg d'affaires Efraim Evron. Within 48 hours, Israel offered to compensate the victims and their families.[42]

Though Liberty was severely damaged, with a 39ft wide by 24ft high (12 m x 7.3 m) hole and a twisted keel, her crew kept her afloat, and she was able to leave the area under her own power. Liberty was later met by the destroyers USS Davis and USS Massey, and the cruiser USS Little Rock. Medical personnel were transferred to Liberty, and she was escorted to Malta, where she was given interim repairs. After these were completed in July 1967, Liberty returned to the U.S. She was decommissioned in June 1968 and struck from the Naval Vessel Register. Liberty was transferred to United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) in December 1970 and sold for scrap in 1973.

From the start, the response to Israeli statements of mistaken identity ranged between frank disbelief and unquestioning acceptance within the administration in Washington. A communication to the Israeli Ambassador on 10 June, by Secretary Rusk stated, among other things: "At the time of the attack, the USS Liberty was flying the American flag and its identification was clearly indicated in large white letters and numerals on its hull. ... Experience demonstrates that both the flag and the identification number of the vessel were readily visible from the air.... Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that the USS Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. ... The subsequent attack by the torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life."[50]

George Lenczowski notes: "It was significant that, in contrast to his secretary of state, President Johnson fully accepted the Israeli version of the tragic incident." He notes that Johnson himself only included one small paragraph about the Liberty in his autobiography,[51] in which he accepted the Israeli explanation of "error", but also minimized the whole affair and distorted the actual number of dead and wounded, by lowering them from 34 to 10 and 171 to 100, respectively. Lenczowski further states: It seems Johnson was more interested in avoiding a possible confrontation with the Soviet Union, ...than in restraining Israel.[52]

McGonagle received the Medal of Honor, the highest U.S. medal, for his actions.[53][54] The Medal of Honor is generally presented by the President of the United States in the White House,[54][55] but this time it was awarded at the Washington Navy Yard by the Secretary of the Navy in an unpublicized ceremony, breaking with established tradition.[54]

Other Liberty sailors received decorations for their actions during and after the attack, but most of the award citations omitted mention of Israel as the perpetrator. In 2009, however, a Silver Star awarded to crewmember Terry Halbardier, who braved machine-gun and cannon fire to repair a damaged antenna that restored the ship's communications, in the award citation named Israel as the attacker.[56]

American inquiries, memoranda, records of testimony, and various reports involving or mentioning the Liberty attack include, but are not limited to, the following:

The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record contains testimony by fourteen Liberty crew members and five subject matter experts; exhibits of attack damage photographs, various messages and memoranda; and findings of fact. The testimony record reveals "a shallow investigation, plagued by myriad disagreements between the captain and his crew."[57] As to culpability, "It was not the responsibility of the court to rule on the culpability of the attackers, and no evidence was heard from the attacking nation", the court concluded that "available evidence combines to indicate ... (that the attack was) a case of mistaken identity." Additionally, the Court found that "heroism displayed by the Commanding Officer, officers and men of the Liberty was exceptional."

The Joint Chief of Staff's Report contains findings of fact related only to communication system failures associated with the Liberty attack. It was not concerned with matters of culpability, nor does it contain statements thereof.

The CIA Memoranda consist of two documents: one dated June 13, 1967, and the other dated June 21, 1967. The June 13 memorandum is an "account of circumstances of the attack ... compiled from all available sources." The June 21 memorandum is a point-by-point analysis of Israeli inquiry findings of fact. It concludes: "The attack was not made in malice toward the U.S. and was by mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence."

The Clark Clifford Report consists of a review of "all available information on the subject" and "deals with the question of Israeli culpability", according to its transmittal memorandum. The report concludes: "The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony contains, as an aside matter during hearings concerning a foreign aid authorization bill, questions and statements from several senators and responses from then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, about the Liberty attack. For the most part, the senators were dismayed about the attack, as expressed by Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper: "From what I have read I can't tolerate for one minute that this [attack] was an accident." Also, there was concern about obtaining more information about the attack, as expressed by Committee chairman J. William Fulbright: "We asked for [the attack investigation report] about two weeks ago and have not received it yet from Secretary Rusk. ... By the time we get to it we will be on some other subject." Secretary McNamara promised fast delivery of the investigation report ("...you will have it in four hours."), and concluded his remarks by saying: "I simply want to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel."[58]

The House Armed Services Committee investigation report is titled, "Review of Department of Defense Worldwide Communications". It was not an investigation focused on the Liberty attack; although, the committee's report contains a section that describes communications flow involved with the Liberty incident.

The NSA History Report is, as its name connotes, a historical report that cited the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry record, various military and government messages and memorandum, and personal interviews for its content. The report ends with a section entitled, "Unanswered Questions", and provides no conclusion regarding culpability.

The Liberty Veterans Association (composed of veterans from the ship) states that U.S. congressional investigations and other U.S. investigations were not actually investigations into the attack, but rather reports using evidence only from the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, or investigations unrelated to culpability that involved issues such as communications. In their view, the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry is the only actual investigation on the incident to date. They say it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court's president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take six months to conduct properly. The inquiry's terms of reference were limited to whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack.[59] According to the Navy Court of Inquiry's record of proceedings, four days were spent hearing testimony: two days for fourteen survivors of the attack and several U.S. Navy expert witnesses, and two partial days for two expert U.S. Navy witnesses. No testimony was heard from Israeli personnel involved.

The National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes in its files on casualties from the Liberty copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to family members. The telegrams called the attack accidental. The telegrams were sent out June 9, the day before the Navy Court of Inquiry convened.

Two subsequent Israeli inquiry reports and an historical report concluded the attack was conducted because Liberty was confused with an Egyptian vessel and because of failures in communications between Israel and the U.S. The three Israeli reports were:

In the historical report, it was acknowledged that IDF naval headquarters knew at least three hours before the attack that the ship was "an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy" but concluded that this information had simply "gotten lost, never passed along to the ground controllers who directed the air attack nor to the crews of the three Israeli torpedo boats."

The Israeli government said that three crucial errors were made: the refreshing of the status board (removing the ship's classification as American, so that the later shift did not see it identified), the erroneous identification of the ship as an Egyptian vessel, and the lack of notification from the returning aircraft informing Israeli headquarters of markings on the front of the hull (markings that would not be found on an Egyptian ship). As a common root of these problems, Israel blamed the combination of alarm and fatigue experienced by the Israeli forces at that point of the war when pilots were severely overworked.

After conducting his own fact-finding inquiry and reviewing evidence, Judge Yerushalmi's decision was: "I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify committal of anyone for trial." In other words, he found no negligence by any IDF member associated with the attack.

Some intelligence and military officials dispute Israel's explanation.[63]

Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:

I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[64]

Retired naval Lieutenant Commander James Ennes, a junior officer (and off-going Officer of the Deck) on Liberty's bridge at the time of the attack, authored a book titled Assault on the Liberty describing the incident during the Six Day War in June 1967 and saying, among other things, that the attack was deliberate.[65] Ennes and Joe Meadors, also survivors of the attack, run a website about the incident.[66] Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the USS Liberty Veterans Association,[67] to which survivors and other former crew members belong. Other survivors run several additional websites. Citing Ennes's book, Lenczowski notes: Liberty's personnel received firm orders not to say anything to anybody about the attack, and the naval inquiry was conducted in such a way as to earn it the name of "coverup".[52]

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, said that the Court of Inquiry's findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship that the Israelis knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of A. Jay Cristol's book The Liberty Incident, which Boston said was an "insidious attempt to whitewash the facts", Boston prepared and signed an affidavit in which he said that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that Boston and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate.[68] On the issue Boston wrote, in part:

The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as 'murderous bastards.' It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.

Cristol wrote about Boston's professional qualifications and integrity, on page 149 of his book:

Boston brought two special assets in addition to his skill as a Navy lawyer. He had been a naval aviator in World War II and therefore had insight beyond that of one qualified only in the law. Also, Kidd knew him as a man of integrity. On an earlier matter Boston had been willing to bump heads with Kidd when Boston felt it was more important to do the right thing than to curry favor with the senior who would write his fitness report.

Cristol believes that Boston is not telling the truth about Kidd's views and any pressure from the U.S. government.[69] Cristol, who also served as an officer of the U.S. Navy's Judge Advocate General, suggests that Boston was responsible in part for the original conclusions of the Court of Inquiry and, that by later declaring that they were false, Boston has admitted to "lying under oath." Cristol also notes that Boston's statements about pressure on Kidd were hearsay, and that Kidd was not alive to confirm or deny them. He also notes that Boston did not maintain, prior to his affidavit and comments related to it, that Kidd spoke of such instructions to Boston or to others. Finally, Cristol provides a handwritten 1991 letter from Admiral Kidd[70] that, according to Cristol, "suggest that Ward Boston has either a faulty memory or a vivid imagination".

The Anti-Defamation League supports Cristol's opinion:

... according to his own account, Boston's evidence of a cover-up derives not from his own part in the investigation but solely on alleged conversations with Admiral Kidd, who purportedly told him he was forced to find that the attack was unintentional. Kidd died in 1999 and there is no way to verify Boston's statements. However, Cristol argues that the 'documentary record' strongly indicated that Kidd 'supported the validity of the findings of the Court of Inquiry to his dying day.'[71]

According to James Ennes, however, Admiral Kidd urged Ennes and his group to keep pressing for an open congressional probe.[72]

The following arguments, found in official reports or other sources, were published to support that the attack was due to mistaken identity:

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[75] However, Syria did not accept the cease fire until 9 June, after the attack on Liberty.[76] Russian author Joseph Daichman, in his book History of the Mossad, states Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty.[77] Israel knew that American radio signals were intercepted by the Soviet Union and that the Soviets would certainly inform Egypt of the fact that, by moving troops to the Golan Heights, Israel had left the Egyptian border undefended.[78]

Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to "attack and destroy" the ship "may appear puzzling", the explanation seems to be found in Liberty's nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, "Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for 8 June, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on Liberty occurred on 8 June, whereas on 9 June at 3am, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7am, that is, four hours later, Israel's minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, "gave the order to go into action against Syria."[79] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it "might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria's Golan Heights" and, in the sense of Ennes's accusations, provides "a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack."[80]

U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Barbour, had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and the IDF Intelligence chief told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow."[81]

The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe says that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris ballistic missile-armed Lafayette-class submarine USSAndrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."[82]

James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his 2001 book Body of Secrets,[83] says Israel deliberately attacked Liberty to prevent the discovery of what he described as war crimes, including the killing of Egyptian prisoners of war by the IDF that he alleges was taking place around the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish.[84] However according to CAMERA his claim that 400 were executed has been cast into doubt since reporters present in the town claimed that there had in fact been a large battle and this was the main cause of casualties.[85] Bamford also claimed that eyewitness Gabi Bron had claimed he saw 150 people executed by Israeli troops at El-Arish.[83] However Gabi Bron claimed to have only seen 5 people executed by Israeli troops.[86][87]

The press release for the BBC documentary film Dead in the Water states that new recorded and other evidence suggests the attack was a "daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack" to give America a reason to enter the war against Egypt. Convinced that the attack was real, President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson launched allegedly nuclear-armed aircraft targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The aircraft were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk and that Israel had carried out the attack. An information source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated:

Although America could not send conventionally armed jets, reports still come in that four jet bombers were catapulted from the carrier America with nuclear bombs aboard. Even today there is no official confirmation of that launch and much high-level denial. A nuclear launch has been strongly denied by Secretary McNamara, Admiral Martin (now deceased), Admiral Geis (deceased), Admiral Moorer, and Americas skipper, Admiral David Engen (deceased) and others. Yet eyewitness reports persist. Clearly no such launch could have been intended for offensive purposes. Surely nuclear weapons would not have been used in defense of the USS Liberty.

It is clear that I was mistaken about the aircraft involved, as F4s do not carry nuclear weapons. Others tell me that the aircraft that were launched carried Bullpup missiles, which might easily be mistaken for nuclear bombs. And we learned much later that the USS America was involved in a nuclear weapons loading drill at the very time the ship learned of the attack on the Liberty and that this drill is one factor that delayed America's response to our call for help. It is also possible that those were the weapons seen by our sources.

Also confusing this issue is an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, now in the LBJ Library, which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was about to be bombed by US forces, presumably in mistaken retaliation for the USS Liberty attack. That strange message was never explained or cancelled.[88]

The video also provides hearsay evidence of a covert alliance of U.S. and Israel intelligence agencies.[89]

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a critic of the official United States Government version of events, chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty in 2003. The committee, which included former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James E. Akins, held Israel to be culpable and suggested several theories for Israel's possible motives, including the desire to blame Egypt and bring the U.S. into the Six Day War.[90]

According to John Loftus and Mark Aarons in their book, The Secret War Against the Jews, USS Liberty was attacked because the Israelis knew that Liberty's mission was to monitor radio signals from Israeli troops and pass troop movement information to the Egyptians.[91][unreliable source?]

Within an hour of learning that the Liberty had been torpedoed, the director of the U.S. National Security Agency, LTG Marshall S. Carter, sent a message to all intercept sites requesting a special search of all communications that might reflect the attack or reaction. No communications were available. However, one of the airborne platforms, a U.S. Navy EC-121 aircraft that flew near the attacks from 2:30pm to 3:27pm, Sinai time (1230 to 1327 Z), had collected voice conversations between two Israeli helicopter pilots and the control tower at Hatzor Airfield following the attack on the Liberty.[92]

On 2 July 2003, the NSA released copies of the recordings made by the EC-121 and the resultant translations and summaries.[93] These revelations were elicited as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Florida bankruptcy judge and retired naval aviator Jay Cristol. Two linguists who were aboard the EC-121 when the recordings were made, however, said separately that at least two additional tapes were made that have been excluded from the NSA releases up to and including a 8 June 2007, release.[7]

English transcripts of the released tapes indicate that Israel still spoke of hitting an Egyptian supply ship even after the attack had stopped.[94][95] After the attack, the rescue helicopters are heard relaying several urgent requests that the rescuers ask the first survivor pulled out of the water what his nationality is, and discussing whether the survivors from the attacked ship will speak Arabic.[96]

A summary report of the NSA-translated tapes[97] indicates that at 1234Z Hatzor air control began directing two Israeli Air Force helicopters to an Egyptian warship, to rescue its crew: "This ship has now been identified as Egyptian." The helicopters arrived near the ship at about 1303Z: "I see a big vessel, near it are three small vessels..." At 1308Z, Hatzor air control indicated concern about the nationality of the ship's crew: "The first matter to clarify is to find out what their nationality is." At 1310Z, one of the helicopter pilots asked the nearby torpedo boats' Division Commander about the meaning of the ship's hull number: "GTR5 is written on it. Does this mean something?" The response was: "Negative, it doesn't mean anything." At 1312Z, one of the helicopter pilots was asked by air control: "Did you clearly identify an American flag?" No answer appears in the transcript, but the air controller then says: "We request that you make another pass and check once more if this is really an American flag." Again, no response appears in the transcript. At about 1314Z, the helicopters were directed to return home.

The NSA reported that there had been no radio intercepts of the attack made by the Liberty herself, nor had there been any radio intercepts made by the U.S. submarine USSAmberjack.

On 10 October 2003, The Jerusalem Post ran an interview with Yiftah Spector, one of the pilots who participated in the attack,[98] and thought to be the lead pilot of the first wave of aircraft. Spector said the ship was assumed to be Egyptian, stating that: "I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag." The interview also contains the transcripts of the Israeli communications about the Liberty. The journalist who transcribed the tapes for that article, Arieh O'Sullivan, later confirmed that "the Israeli Air Force tapes he listened to contained blank spaces."[7]

The Liberty's survivors contradict Spector. According to subsequently declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flagand, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."[99]

On 8 June 2005, the USS Liberty Veterans Association filed a "Report of War Crimes Committed Against the U.S. Military, June 8, 1967" with the Department of Defense (DoD). They say Department of Defense Directive 2311.01E requires the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations contained in their report. DoD has responded that a new investigation will not be conducted since a Navy Court of Inquiry already investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding the attack.

As of 2006, the NSA has yet to declassify "boxes and boxes" of Liberty documents. Numerous requests under both declassification directives and the Freedom of Information Act are pending in various agencies including the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency. "On 8 June 2007, the National Security Agency released hundreds of additional declassified documents on the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, a communications interception vessel, on 8 June 1967."[100]

On 2 October 2007, The Chicago Tribune published a special report[7] into the attack, containing numerous previously unreported quotes from former military personnel with first-hand knowledge of the incident. Many of these quotes directly contradict the NSA's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots, saying that not only did transcripts of those communications exist, but also that it showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

Two diplomatic cables written by Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador in Washington, to Abba Eban Israel's minister of foreign affairs, have been declassified by Israel and obtained from the Israel State Archive. The first cable, sent five days after the attack, informs Eban that a U.S. informant told him (Harman) that there was "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."[15] The second cable, sent three days later, added that the White House is "very angry" because "the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."[7]

Documents of the Israeli General Staff meetings, declassified in October 2008, show no discussion of a planned attack on an American ship.[101]

On 30 October 2014, Al Jazeera English broadcast a documentary film containing recent first-hand accounts by several survivors of the incident.[102]

Many of the events surrounding the attack are the subject of controversy:

We learned that the ship had been attacked in error by Israeli gunboats and aircraft. Ten men of the Liberty crew were killed and a hundred were wounded. This heartbreaking episode grieved the Israelis deeply, as it did us.

Survivors of the attack

Sources other than survivors

Coordinates: 312324N 332248E / 31.3900N 33.3800E / 31.3900; 33.3800

Link:

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closest Beach to Memphis…NO DESTIN :) Please …

Reputation: 14

Location: Jacksonville, FL

Reputation: 43

Try the Mississippi Gulf Coast---Gulfport/Biloxi. There was still residual damage from Katrina but it was being cleaned up when I went thru there a year and a half ago. There are available hotels/motels, and it's a straight shot south and closer. Take I-55 south to Jackson to US49 south. You can get the exact directions and distance from mapquest. US90 is the east-west road along the beach "Beach Road." Check it out, it may be the alternative that you're looking for.

Reputation: 79

Gulf Shores, AL is very nice and an easy drive. It can be as secluded as you want, or full of 'excitement.' I never notice a bunch of Memphians when there. Seems like people come from all areas....just like any beach in the U.S.

Location: Middleburg, FL

Reputation: 425

St. George Island Vacation Rentals and Real Estate - Suncoast Realty & Property Management Inc.

The above link is one of plenty of vacation property rental places. I use them because their rates are usually lower than anyone else on the island. I am in NO WAY affiliated with or related to them, so feel free to Google "St. George Island, FL" for more info.

Reputation: 889

My favorite beach is Corpus Christi / Padre Island, which is a 13-hour drive from Memphis, four hours longer than Panama City Beach.

Location: East Nashville, TN

Reputation: 27

MS and even AL are too dirty for my taste. The MS river dumps everything practically at your feet that far west.

Reputation: 79

MMMMMMMMMMM--Mississippi waste water.....

Reputation: 14

Thanks all for your advice!!

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Data:

Read the original post:

Closest Beach to Memphis...NO DESTIN 🙂 Please ...

Apatheism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apatheism ( a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity.

An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[1]

In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life. Some apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God does or does not exist, their behavior would not change.[2]

Practical atheism can take various forms:

A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalismthe "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[4]

Apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[5]

Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure, willful ignorance, and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics, and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism.

According to the French Catholic philosopher tienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law." In response to Voltaire, French philosopher Denis Diderot wrote: "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God."[6][7]

In the 21st century, pragmatic atheism has been seen in a more positive light. The journalist Jonathan Rauch believes that "apatheism is to be celebrated as nothing less than a major civilizational advance. Religion, as countless acts of violence in the name of God have underscored, remains the most divisive and volatile of social forces... Apatheism, therefore, should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency... Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement."[8]

An apatheist may justify their position using one of these perspectives, or they may combine all of the below to create their own attitude towards belief in deities.

This apatheistic argument states that morals are present in human society and do not rely on religion to be a part of the human experience. Apatheists recognize that religion may provide a "comfort" for many people around the world, but apatheists do not need religion to be content with the morality of their lives and therefore live without it.[citation needed] This is known as "moral apatheism". This opinion is often expressed by The Atheist Experience co-host Jeff Dee.[citation needed]

Indifference is better known as indifferentism, the belief that all religions are equal in value. Use of indifferentism in this context was popularized by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.[9] Kant argues that indifferentism represents an extreme form of skepticism that argues that there is no rational ground for accepting any philosophical position.[9] It is often associated with moral relativism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia ascribes indifferentism to all atheistic, materialistic, pantheistic, and agnostic philosophies, as well as religious pluralist philosophy, such as that espoused by Rousseau.[10]

Philosopher Daniel Dennett has postulated that a significant percentage of adherents of popular faiths only participate socially and are philosophically apatheistic. Journalist Jonathan Rauch described apatheism as "a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's".[11]

This argument takes a more scientific perspective, criticizing blind faith (faith without logical evidence to support it). It argues that if a deity or deities truly wanted people to believe in them, then said deity or deities could demonstrate their existence with miracles, and explain their plan(s) for humanity or the lack thereof. Being all-powerful, if they truly wanted humans to believe, they could send a divine sign not left up to interpretation. This is also a popular argument with antitheists; Matt Dillahunty makes it with great frequency.

Since they do not seem to care if humans believe or not, apatheists will not care until they show them a reason to, and perhaps not even if such an event occurred. Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to claim this position in interviews[12] (this is in essence the argument from nonbelief).

See the original post:
Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Center for Drug Delivery and Nanomedicine (CDDN)

The need for the discovery and development of innovative technologies to improve the delivery of therapeutic and diagnostic agents in the body is widely recognized. The next generation therapies must be able to deliver drugs, therapeutic proteins and recombinant DNA to focal areas of disease or to tumors to maximize clinical benefit while limiting untoward side effects. The use of nanoscale technologies to design novel drug delivery systems and devices is a rapidly developing area of biomedical research that promises breakthrough advances in therapeutics and diagnostics.

Center for Drug Delivery and Nanomedicine (CDDN) serves to unify existing diverse technical and scientific expertise in biomedical and material science research at the University of Nebraska thereby creating a world class interdisciplinary drug delivery and nanomedicine program. This is realized by integrating established expertise in drug delivery, gene therapy, neuroscience, pathology, immunology, pharmacology, vaccine therapy, cancer biology, polymer science and nanotechnology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL) and Creighton University.

CDDNs vision is to improve health by enhancing the efficacy and safety of new and existing therapeutic agents, diagnostic agents and genes through the discovery and application of innovative methods of drug delivery and nanotechnology. CDDNs mission is to discover and apply knowledge to design, develop and evaluate novel approaches to improve the delivery of therapeutic agents, diagnostic agents and genes.

The COBRE Nebraska Center for Nanomedicine is supported by the National Institute of General Medical Science(NIGMS) grant 2P20 GM103480-07.

See the original post here:

Center for Drug Delivery and Nanomedicine (CDDN)

Youll Probably Never Upload Your Mind Into A Computer

Many futurists predict that one day we'll upload our minds into computers, where we'll romp around in virtual reality environments. That's possible but there are still a number of thorny issues to consider. Here are eight reasons why your brain may never be digitized.

Indeed, this isnt just idle speculation. Many important thinkers have expressed their support of the possibility, including the renowned futurist Ray Kurzweil (author of How to Create a Mind), roboticist Hans Moravec, cognitive scientist Marvin Minsky, neuroscientist David Eagleman, and many others.

Skeptics, of course, relish the opportunity to debunk uploads. The claim that well be able to transfer our conscious thoughts to a computer, after all, is a rather extraordinary one.

But many of the standard counter-arguments tend to fall short. Typical complaints cite insufficient processing power, inadequate storage space, or the fear that the supercomputers will be slow, unstable and prone to catastrophic failures concerns that certainly dont appear intractable given the onslaught of Moores Law and the potential for megascale computation. Another popular objection is that the mind cannot exist without a body. But an uploaded mind could be endowed with a simulated body and placed in a simulated world.

To be fair, however, there are a number of genuine scientific, philosophical, ethical, and even security concerns that could significantly limit or even prevent consciousness uploads from ever happening. Here are eight of the most serious.

Proponents of mind uploading tend to argue that the brain is a Turing Machine the idea that organic minds are nothing more than classical information-processors. Its an assumption derived from the strong physical Church-Turing thesis, and one that now drives much of cognitive science.

But not everyone believes the brain/computer analogy works. Speaking recently at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston, neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis said that, The brain is not computable and no engineering can reproduce it. He referred to the idea of uploads as bunk, saying that itll never happen and that [t]here are a lot of people selling the idea that you can mimic the brain with a computer. Nicolelis argues that human consciousness cant be replicated in silicon because most of its important features are the result of unpredictable, nonlinear interactions among billions of cells.

You cant predict whether the stock market will go up or down because you cant compute it, he said. You could have all the computer chips ever in the world and you wont create a consciousness. Image credit: Jeff Cameron Collingwood/Shutterstock.

The computability of the brain aside, we may never be able to explain how and why we have qualia, or whats called phenomenal experience.

According to David Chalmers the philosopher of mind who came up with the term hard problem well likely solve the easy problems of human cognition, like how we focus our attention, recall a memory, discriminate, and process information. But explaining how incoming sensations get translated into subjective feelings like the experience of color, taste, or the pleasurable sound of music is proving to be much more difficult. Moreover, were still not entirely sure why we even have consciousness, and why were not just philosophical zombies hypothetical beings who act and respond as if theyre conscious, but have no internal mental states.

In his paper, Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness, Chalmers writes:

How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, argues Chalmers, it is this one. Image: blog.lib.umn.edu.

And even if we do figure out how the brain generates subjective experience, classical digital computers may never be able to support unitary phenomenal minds. This is whats referred to as the binding problem our inability to understand how a mind is able to segregate elements and combine problems as seamlessly as it does. Needless to say, we dont even know if a Turing Machine can even support these functions.

More specifically, we still need to figure out how our brains segregate elements in complex patterns, a process that allows us to distinguish them as discrete objects. The binding problem also describes the issue of how objects, like those in the background or in our peripheral experience or even something as abstract as emotions can still be combined into a unitary and coherent experience. As the cognitive neuroscientist Antti Revonsuo has said, Binding is thus seen as a problem of nding the mechanisms which map the objective physical entities in the external world into corresponding internal neural entities in the brain.

He continues:

No one knows how our organic brains perform this trick at least not yet or if digital computers will ever be capable of phenomenal binding. Image credit: agsandrew/Shutterstock.

Though still controversial, theres also the potential for panpsychism to be in effect. This is the notion that consciousness is a fundamental and irreducible feature of the cosmos. It might sound a bit New Agey, but its an idea thats steadily gaining currency (especially in consideration of our inability to solve the Hard Problem).

Panpsychists speculate that all parts of matter involve mind. Neuroscientist Stuart Hameroff has suggested that consciousness is related to a fundamental component of physical reality components that are akin to phenomenon like mass, spin or charge. According to this view, the basis of consciousness can be found in an additional fundamental force of nature not unlike gravity or electromagnetism. This would be something like an elementary sentience or awareness. As Hameroff notes, "these components just are." Likewise, David Chalmers has proposed a double-aspect theory in which information has both physical and experiential aspects. Panpsychism has also attracted the attention of quantum physicists (who speculate about potential quantum aspects of consciousness given our presence in an Everett Universe), and physicalists like Galen Strawson (who argues that mental/experiential is physical).

Why this presents a problem to mind uploading is that consciousness may not substrate neutral a central tenant of the Church-Turing Hypothesis but is in fact dependent on specific physical/material configurations. Its quite possible that theres no digital or algorithmic equivalent to consciousness. Having consciousness arise in a classical Von Neumann architecture, therefore, may be as impossible as splitting an atom in a virtual environment by using ones and zeros. Image credit: agsandrew/Shutterstock.

Perhaps even more controversial is the suggestion that consciousness lies somewhere outside the brain, perhaps as some ethereal soul or spirit. Its an idea thats primarily associated with Rene Descartes, the 17th century philosopher who speculated that the mind is a nonphysical substance (as opposed to physicalist interpretations of mind and consciousness). Consequently, some proponents of dualism (or even vitalism) suggest that consciousness lies outside knowable science.

Needless to say, if our minds are located somewhere outside our bodies like in a vat somewhere, or oddly enough, in a simulation (a la The Matrix) our chances of uploading ourselves are slim to none.

Philosophical and scientific concerns aside, there may also be some moral reasons to forego the project. If were going to develop upload technologies, were going to have to conduct some rather invasive experiments, both on animals and humans. The potential for abuse is significant.

Uploading schemas typically describe the scanning and mapping of an individuals brain, or serial sectioning. While a test subject, like a mouse or monkey, could be placed under a general anesthetic, it will eventually have to be re-animated in digital substrate. Once this happens, well likely have no conception of its internal, subjective experience. Its brain could be completely mangled, resulting terrible psychological or physical anguish. Its reasonable to assume that our early uploading efforts will be far from perfect, and potentially cruel.

And when it comes time for the first human to be uploaded, there could be serious ethical and legal issues to consider especially considering that were talking about the re-location of a living, rights-bearing human being. Image credit: K. Zhuang.

Which leads to the next point, that of post-upload skepticism. A person can never really be sure they created a sentient copy of themselves. This is the continuity of consciousness problem the uncertainty well have that, instead of moving our minds, we simply copied ourselves instead.

Because we cant measure for consciousness either qualitatively or quantitatively uploading will require a tremendous leap of faith a leap that could lead to complete oblivion (e.g. a philosophical zombie), or something completely unexpected. And relying on the advice from uploaded beings wont help either (Come on in, the waters fine...).

In an email to me, philosopher David Pearce put it this way:

In other words, the quality of conscious experience in digital substrate could be far removed from that experienced by an analog consciousness. Image: Rikomatic.

Once our minds are uploaded, theyll be physically and inextricably connected to the larger computational superstructure. By consequence, uploaded brains will be perpetually vulnerable to malicious attacks and other unwanted intrusions.

To avoid this, each uploaded person will have to set-up a personal firewall to prevent themselves from being re-programmed, spied upon, damaged, exploited, deleted, or copied against their will. These threats could come from other uploads, rogue AI, malicious scripts, or even the authorities in power (e.g. as a means to instill order and control).

Indeed, as we know all too well today, even the tightest security measures can't prevent the most sophisticated attacks; an uploaded mind can never be sure its safe.

Special thanks to David Pearce for helping with this article.

Top image: Jurgen Ziewe/Shutterstock.

See the original post here:

Youll Probably Never Upload Your Mind Into A Computer

GNU/Linux Distribution Timeline

After a short essay on methodology were curious to find out whether there are any master-snoops among our audience. We present exhibit M, a rare specimen we know nothing about but for the fact that it was compiled from bits of Gentoo. Hence we call publicly for any hints or leads regarding this elusive distribution!

Meanwhile, a gentle reader has drawn to our attention the fact that Damn Vulnerable Linux is currently listed as a Slax derivate by the major pundit places, while it certainly boasted a Damn Small Linux pedigree in its very beginnings. The switch has happened, but everyone claims not to have seen when it did! Have you?

And just in case anyone needs more material, heres our current ToDo buffer.

Greenie. An Ubuntu-based distribution that seems to be pretty popular in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and thus probably a good addition to the GLDT. Quick googling leads us to the official page and to DistroWatch. The latter hints at a game oriented Xubuntu fork in early 2008, rebasing to Ubuntu in mid-2008. The official page doesnt seem to sport any change logs or release announcements (while my Slovak is very poor, this isnt much of a problem thanks to Google Translate). The oldest downloads (mirror) seem to have been purged. The forums also only hold comparatively recent posts. Googling a bit further reveals that Greenie was known in 2007. Time to power up the Wayback Machine: voil. Since my Slovak hasnt improved much in the meantime, lets feed again the earliest archive link to the translator The beginning of the project [...] 14th September 2007 and Greenie Linux 1.0 is based directly on Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn. (on a second look, that page was available in English anyway!) Job done.

While checking out the page DW links to Greenie, Newtoos catches the eye. The Slovakian Wikipedia says something about it forking off of Ubuntu in Nov 2008. Researching further, we see that the download ISOs share a common folder. Extracting the URL from the link address, we quickly reveal Newtoos release date: 2008.11.13.

If only project sites had a nicely visible change log / history section Two distributions for the GLDT 11.7 are done, eight still to go!

Original post:

GNU/Linux Distribution Timeline

Manor House Golf Hotel | Country House in Wiltshire, Cotswolds

Breathtakingly situated in Wiltshire andon the outskirts of Bath lies Castle Combe village. Untouched since the 17th century, this chocolate box Cotswold village is home to the definitive country retreat, The Manor House...

View The Manor House Leisure Brochure

Call for more information on 01249 782206

Or email enquiries@manorhouse.co.uk

We are delighted to have been nominated for the World Golf Awards 'England's Best Golf Hotel 2015'award. Please do vote for us!

vOTE FOR US

Find out about upcoming events at The Manor House including the Family and Food Festival, Theatre on the Lawns, wine dinners, garden tours, ladies' lunches and charitable events... there's muchmore to The Manor Housethan meets the eye!

Tell me more about the Manor House Event Diary

Perfectly situated for those wanting to visit the Cotswolds, Bath and Wiltshire, the five star Manor House boasts 48 individually designed bedrooms each with their own unique feature includingfour poster beds, separate seating areas, open fire places androll top, whirlpool and infinity baths.

Tell me more about luxury five star accommodation

Home to the Michelin star Bybrook restaurant and award-winning Executive Chef Richard Davies, The Manor House is the number one destination for a fine dining dinner, Sunday lunch with the family or a light lunch in the week.

Tell me more about Michelin Star Dining

Nestledalongside the Cotswold village ofCastle Combe village with a choice of twovenues and abreathtaking setting in the Cotswolds and close to Bath,there is no more idyllic or romantic a setting in which to celebrate your marriage.

Tell me more about weddings

Set in 365 acres of beautiful grounds, The Manor House is conveniently positioned for the M4/M5 placing it within easy reach ofBristol, Bath, Swindon and Cardiff and is under 90 minutes from Paddington Station in London.

Tell me more about conference and meetings

Call for more informationon 01249 782206

Or email enquiries@manorhouse.co.uk

Visit link:

Manor House Golf Hotel | Country House in Wiltshire, Cotswolds

Ronda Rousey’s coach rejects catchweight bout with ‘Cyborg …

WhenRonda Rouseybegan fighting MMA just a few years ago, she fought at 145 pounds. Now, of course, she is the UFC's 135-pound champion.

The difference between 145 and 135 pounds (and everything in between) has been hotly debated recently as fans clamor for her to fight Invicta FC 145-pound titleholderCris "Cyborg" Justino.

Justino fights at or around 170 pounds, after cutting to 145 pounds the day before. Rousey insists that there's no reason for her to go up in weight to fight a non-UFC champion with no bargaining power.

Justino's partisans argue that Rousey is fully capable of fighting and fighting well at 145 pounds, as evidenced by her early MMA career. Rousey's coach Edmond Tarverdyan recently explained toSubmission Radiowhy Ronda used to fight at 145 and why he doesn't have an interest in her moving up past 135 pounds, for "Cyborg" or anyone else.

"Ronda, when she gets in training, she walks around at 148 pounds. So 145, I don't want her to fight at 145. Before when she fought [at a higher weight class] the reason was, one, she was just starting her career in MMA. And number two is that we were ready to fightevery day. Ronda couldn't have fights. It wasn't like Ronda's choice of fighting of 145 or 135; people didn't want to fight Ronda," he began.

"Ronda fought every time undefeated opponents in her amateur career also. Anybody that wanted to fight her, we said [to the] promotional company, 'Hey, one day before, just let us know. We'll jump into the fight.' So that's why we didn't care about the weight, whether it was 150, 148, it didn't really matter because people were not fighting her. It was a problem for us to find people to fight her. She was ready to fight every day. And whenever she was ready to fight every day, if they gave us one day's notice 'Hey, possible opponent, yes this person picked up the fight' you know, we wouldn't be healthy to make 135, but we said, 'No problem.' And those girls did not do what Cyborg has done, those girls did not cheat. Cyborg has cheated. People have to understand that. And now, no f---ing exceptions. I don't want exceptions, I want it at 135."

Tarverdyan's answer seems fair enough. He's not saying that Rousey couldn't be healthy and good at 145 pounds, he simply says that she's best at 135, and that now as UFC champion she has no reason to cater to opponents' needs any longer.

Hypothetically, of course, Rousey and Justino could fight at a catchweight that is, a weight in between their respective classes. The Brazilian has called for a fight at 140 pounds, but Ronda's coach used the same preceding rationale to reject the notion, out of hand.

"I honestly don't understand what she's even talking about. [Justino] needs to make the weight to fight," he insisted.

"I don't understand catchweights. I don't like catchweights. I don't understand what she's talking about [with] catchweights. I don't even like it in boxing. There is a weight division and everybody should follow the weight divisions and fight at that weight for the title . . . Ronda is a champion at 135 right now. [Justino] has done things in her past to put fighters' lives in danger [using banned steroids]."

Tarverdyan echoed Rousey's own idea that if Justino could fight at 145 on steroids at her most well-muscled self, getting off the banned gear could allow her to make the 135-pound division. That implies, of course, that Justino still uses banned steroids, and it is a charge that "Cyborg" has threatened legal action over, since she says she has passed multiple drug tests in recent years.

"If [Justino] is off what she was doing, she should be able to make 135," Tarverdyan said.

"[Bantamweight] is the weight for the UFC title. So, she's been saying 140 or something like that, or 'the fans deserve to see the fight.' Definitely they deserve to see the fight. So, make the weight and the fight will happen. No problem."

If Rousey and Justino ever do fight, most observers will look it largely as a grappler vs. striker type of bout since Rousey's background is in judo and Justino's is in Muay Thai kickboxing.

Tarverdyan disagrees. He claims that Ronda has become a much more technical and truly powerful striker than Justino.

"No. Ronda beats her in striking," he said.

"[Justino] overwhelms people, she pushes her punches and she throws a bit heavy, you know, heavier than some of these opponents, but her opponents give up on her. Ronda's knockout was a knockout this last fight" against Bethe Correia at UFC 190.

Even though Justino has a well-deserved reputation as a dangerous striker, Ronda's coach says that his fighter out-techniques and out-quicks her. "Everybody saw [Ronda's] hand speed, the power. One shot, boom. Out. That's punching," he concluded.

"And Ronda's only going to be punching better from now on, definitely. So I've never been a fan of (Justino). I think she's slow, she just overwhelms people because of what she's been doing, I think. And she can box a bit more than the others, and she's been doing it longer and it doesn't surprise me. Ronda is the better athlete. Ronda is quicker, stronger and faster. That's it."

Visit link:

Ronda Rousey's coach rejects catchweight bout with 'Cyborg ...