The study of population is important for any country in order to understand how the composition of population changes over time and what implications these changes might have for the future. Usually, regularly held censuses establish such important findings as total number of people residing in the country, sex ratio of the population, median age, and sex/age distribution across the nation, regions, states, etc. In the United States, there were regularly (every ten years) held censuses since 1790 with the last one taking place in 2010. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, compared with the population data from a previously held census of 2000, several trends became apparent in 2010. First, total population of the United States grew by 9.7 percent from 281.4 million to 308.7 million people. The growth was slightly slower than during the previous decade (13.2 percent), but comparable to the one in the period of 1980-1990 (9.8 percent). Second, male population grew by 9.9 percent, while female one grew by 9.5 percent. Thus, the sex ratio was 49.1 percent male to 50.9 percent female in 2000 (or 96.3 men per 100 women), and 49.2 percent male to 50.8 percent female in 2010 (or 96.7 men per 100 women). Male population grew a little bit faster than a female one during the last decade, mostly due to narrowing mortality gap, especially at older age. Although there are usually 105 males to 100 females at birth, the number of females increases with age (because men die in larger numbers at any age). Thus, in 2010 in all four major US regions (Northeast, Midwest, West, and South) females outnumbered males with the highest sex ratio in the West (99.3 male to 100 female) and the lowest ratio in the Northeast (94.5). Third, and probably the most important, trend which became apparent was that older population of the United States grew at a much faster rate than the younger one during the last decade.

According to 2010 data, the age group of under 18 comprised 24.0 percent of total population (grew by 2.6 percent), those aged 18-44 accounted for 36.5 percent (grew by 0.6 percent), aged 45-64 were 26.4 percent of population (grew by 31.5 percent), and those aged 65 and over accounted for 13. 0 percent (grew by 15.1 percent). Consequently, the median age of American population was 37.2 years on 2010 compared to 35.3 years in 2000 with the highest median age in Northeast (39.2 years) and the lowest median age in West (35.2 years). While American population is older than developing countries’ population, overall it is still relatively young compared to other developed countries. Still, the data from 2010 census demonstrates that American population is not only growing steadily but also aging. Important governmental policies – be they on a federal, state, or county level – have to take into account the composition of population in order to be effective and thought-through. Many policies such as educational, social, healthcare and such greatly depend on these findings. – Becky Kospanova

USS Constitution

 

This myth of maritime warfare has been around a long time. It can be found in numerous places on the Internet and was published verbatim in Navy News some time back. The story (in italics throughout) basically reads:

The USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last 6 months of sustained operations; she carried no evaporators. On 22 July 1798, the USS Constitution set sail from Boston.

She left with 475 men, 48,600 gallons of water, 7,400 cannon shots, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum. Her mission – to harass British shipping.

Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum. Then she headed for the Azores, arriving on 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine.

On 18 November she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British Man of War and captured and scuttled 12 English Merchant ships, salvaging only the rum.

By 27 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde. Her Raiding Party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons aboard by dawn. Then she headed home.

The USS Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799 with no cannon shot, no food, no rum, no wine, no whiskey and 48,600 gallons of stagnant water.

We might apply some analysis to this.

-o-o-O-o-o-

There was indeed – and still is – a USS CONSTITUTION. She is the world’s oldest commissioned warship afloat, with HMS VICTORY claiming the oldest commissioned warship title, being in a graving dock as opposed to water. CONSTITUTION was launched in 1797 to a successful career, fought well in three wars, and is now homeported in Boston.

To detail the events noted:

The USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last 6 months of sustained operations; she carried no evaporators.

Well, obviously as far as the evaporators go, unless the Founding Fathers friends were more clever than we know.…48, 600 gallons would give around ½ a gallon a day of water for each ship’s company member over the proposed six-month voyage. However, the water would not have kept that long – in fact water was not drunk in quantity aboard ships, simply because it would not last long enough. For that reason, other beverages which would keep longer were preferred.

The daily ration of liquid other than water for sailors in 1816, records John Winton in Hurrah for the Life of a Sailor, was “half a pint of spirits, or a pint of wine, or a gallon of beer every day”. For the uninitiated, a gallon of beer is eight pints, or very large glasses – the sort served in British pubs – of 500 mls. or about 11 standard glasses of “small beer”; a little lower in alcohol content than the ”heavy” beers of today. That would mean that sailors would be able to get reasonably drunk every day, although the effect of this of course would be tempered by the size of the drinker, and whether he was used to used such consumption and how much he had eaten beforehand. Half a pint of spirits is around 250ml, or perhaps a third of a modern bottle. The USN, derived from the British navy in many respects, also followed the run ration tradition, until its demise on September 1, 1862.

On 22 July 1798, the USS Constitution set sail from Boston.

That is certainly right. The Constitution Museum lists 1798 July 22 as the ship’s “First Sail” However, during the “Quasi-War” with France, she was the Squadron Flagship, from 1799-1801.

She left with 475 men, 48, 600 gallons of water, 7400 cannon shots, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum. Her mission – to harass British shipping.

If the ship’s company were receiving a daily ration of rum this would be .9 of a gallon of rum a day over six months to get through the lot – and the story implies they did. Perhaps however, the ship was planning an open-ended voyage. Human beings cannot consume .9 of a gallon of spirits a day and survive!

A basic problem with the story overall is that the United States was at peace with Britain between 1783 and 1812, so the ship cannot have entered combat with the British Navy in that time. Now, we can if you like, decide that the story has a simple mistake in the date. So when was Britain at war with the United States and USS Constitution also in commission? Obviously in the war of 1812 – in fact the ship fought three battles with British vessels, and won them all. Perhaps the date has been mixed up. The story indeed can be found with a different date. No less a person than the Secretary of the US Navy, the Honorable John H. Dalton War, repeated the tale recently in 1997, at the Years Reunion Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, on 19 September. He mentioned the year of “1812” however. So, let us continue, and digress to some of the other figures.

CONSTITUTION carried 32 guns of 24lb shot weight, and 20 carronades of 32lb shot weight, plus two 24lb bow chasers.

If each gun fired together, in a double broadside, that is, each gun firing at once, she would expend 64 shot. “7400 cannon shots” would be enough for 115 double broadsides. Just to be fair we might double that, as when a ship fired a broadside it meant the guns on one side firing, and in fact it was apparently difficult to fire both sides’ guns together continually, as there was not enough members of the guns’ crews to do this. A basic gun crew was formed for each gun, and further men were transferred backwards and forwards to the opposing guns as necessary. If we say that CONSTITUTION was carrying enough shot for 230 single-sided broadsides, is that figure accurate? NAM Rodgers tells us in The Wooden Wall that at “…Finisterre in 1747 the DEFIANCE fired forty-two broadsides in an hour and twelve minutes”. Perhaps CONSTITUTION was taking on too much rum and not enough ammunition…

Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum.

In less than three months, even a very enthusiastic and unrestricted ship’s company could hardly be expected to have gone through that much rum. Was CONSTITUTION planning on selling it or taking it home? However, before we let them escape back to the no doubt thirsty U.S. Navy, we have a problem getting out of the harbor. Jamaica was then a British colony. If the ship’s mission was “to harass British shipping” in 1812, it is doubtful indeed that CONSTITUTION would provision at a British port. Obviously not, as the forces there would attempt her capture. In any event, there would be no reason for her to reprovision after only a few weeks at sea.

Then she headed for the Azores, arriving on 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine.

On 18 November she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British Man of War and captured and scuttled 12 English Merchant ships, salvaging only the rum.

There is absolutely no historical record for any of this. But nevertheless, would not CONSTITUTION have put prize crews on these valuable ships and taken them back to a friendly port, where a prize agent could arrange for their sale to give valuable prize-money to the captors? This was an important motivator in those days. In the war of 1812 between Britain and the United States, one famous action between two ships – the British SHANNON and the U.S. CHESAPEAKE – almost did not commence because of a dispute over prize money:

As the two ships closed for battle, the morale aboard the Chesapeake and the Shannon was in startling contrast. As Lawrence ordered his men to their guns, the crew of the Chesapeake refused to comply. Complaining that they hadn’t received the prize money due them from earlier engagements, they refused to fight unless they were paid. Lawrence quickly ordered the ship’s purser to issue vouchers promising payment to the crew, and only then did they follow orders to man the guns.

Instead of going to Britain as a lone and vulnerable raider, let us see what the USS CONSTITUTION really did. Her war record is readily found and quite straightforward. It may be summed up as:

1812: July 16 – 18. CONSTITUTION escapes a squadron of five British ships by towing and kedging in calm conditions.

1812: Aug. 19. Wins battle against HMS GUERRIERE.

1812: Dec. 29. Wins battle against HMS JAVA.

1813: Overhauled in Boston, but then shut in Boston harbor for eight and a half months by the British blockade.

1814: February-April. Runs the blockade of Boston. Captures the schooner PICTOU and three smaller vessels during cruise to Windward Islands.

1814: Escapes into Marblehead while being chased by two larger British frigates. Returns to Boston for repairs.

1814: Blockaded at Boston for eight months, from April to December. In December 1814: takes advantage of poor weather and escapes.

1815: Feb. 20. Fights British ships CYANE and LEVANT. Captures CYANE; LEVANT surrenders, but British squadron retakes LEVANT.

1815. At war’s end, CONSTITUTION anchored in New York on May 15.

Nevertheless, our story has the ship in different straits.

By 27 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde. Her Raiding Party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons aboard by dawn.

Very interesting. If she put ashore a raiding party of, say, 200 men, each of them would have had to transfer 200 gallons aboard. If this was done, say, at sunset (around 27 January, say 2000 hours?) and the men worked all night for 10 hours straight, they would have had to move 20 gallons an hour each. If each man could carry four gallons at a time, that would still mean five trips an hour aboard the ship. If she was lying off this would be a mighty effort. Still, a very good Scotch or 20 can inspire great feats….

Perhaps the biggest furphy of the whole story however, is to suppose that a party of Americans could make their way into Scotland and capture the Scottish lifeblood. Given the Scots’ attitude to battle, probably all of the Americans would have been met with broadsword and musket and never seen home again.

However, then the ship headed home.

The USS Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799 with no cannon shot, no food, no rum, no wine, no whiskey and 48,600 gallons of stagnant water.

Again, the date is wrong. But, disregarding that, there is no evidence to suggest CONSTITUTION went out of waters near the United States during the war of 1812. The last phrase is significant in pointing to the illogicality of the whole story – why would the ship have stagnant water on board with all its attendant health problems? Even a ship needing ballast can pump through fresh seawater every few days….

Adding up the gallons of rum we can see that CONSTITUTION apparently went through – because there was none left when she supposedly arrived home – 187, 700 gallons of rum and whiskey in seven months; let us say 210 days. That is 894 gallons a day, or 1.9 gallons per man per day. Disregarding the rum supposedly captured from the supposed British merchantman and the Portuguese wine, a consumption of spirits to this magnitude would have meant that no-one would have been able to make it out of their hammock – let alone weigh the anchor, man the yards, haul on the sheets and all of the other myriad of tasks a wind-powered ship needed performed by human labor. Indeed, a liter of rum a day is enough to lay most people low, and if continued day after day would undoubtedly have resulted in the demise of most of the ship’s company.

Still, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -o-o-O-o-o-

[Sources: James Pack, Nelson’s Blood | The Story of Naval Rum. Naval Institute Press 1982 | Lt. Tom Lewis, Royal Australian Naval College, Jervis Bay | 16 Aug 2001 ++]

The Gulf of Tonkin incident is the name given to two separate confrontations involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. A sea battle resulted, in which the Maddox expended over two hundred and eighty 3-inch and 5-inch shells, and in which four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers strafed the torpedo boats. One US aircraft was damaged, one 14.5 mm round hit the destroyer, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed and six were wounded; there were no U.S. casualties. The second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on 4 AUG, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved “Tonkin Ghosts” (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression.” The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. Regarding the two events the report stated

· August 2: At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier’s gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.

· August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. […] In truth, Hanoi’s navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2

Background

Although the United States attended the Geneva Conference (1954), which was intended to end hostilities between France and the Vietnamese at the end of the First Indochina War, it refused to sign the Geneva Accords (1954). The Accords mandated, among other measures, a temporary ceasefire line, intended to separate Vietnamese and French forces, and elections to determine the future political fate of the Vietnamese within two years. It also forbade the political interference of other countries in the area, the creation of new governments without the stipulated elections, and foreign military presence. By 1961, President Ngo Dinh Diem faced significant discontent amongst some quarters of the southern population, including some Buddhists who were opposed to the rule of Diem’s Catholic supporters. After suppressing Vietminh political cadres who were legally campaigning between 1955 and 1959 for the promised elections, Diem faced a growing communist-led uprising that intensified by 1961, headed by the National Front (i.e. NLF or, derogatively, Viet Cong) for the Liberation of South Vietnam

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident occurred during the first year of the Johnson administration. While Kennedy had originally supported the policy of sending military advisers to Diem, he had begun to alter his thinking due to what he perceived to be the ineptitude of the Saigon government and its inability and unwillingness to make needed reforms (which led to a US-supported coup which resulted in the death of Diem). Shortly before his assassination in November 1963, Kennedy had begun a limited recall of US forces. Johnson’s views were likewise complex, but he had supported military escalation in Vietnam as a means to challenge what he perceived as the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union. The Cold War policy of containment was to be applied to prevent the fall of Southeast Asia to communism under the precepts of the domino theory. After Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson ordered in more US forces to support the Saigon government, beginning a protracted United States presence in Southeast Asia.

Chart showing the US Navy’s explanation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident

A highly classified program of covert actions against North Vietnam known as Operation Plan 34-Alpha, in conjunction with the DESOTO operations, had begun under the Central Intelligence Agency in 1961. In 1964 the program was transferred to the US Defense Department and conducted by the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group (SOG)

For the maritime portion of the covert operation, Tjeld-class fast patrol boats had been purchased quietly from Norway and sent to South Vietnam. Although the crews of the boats were South Vietnamese naval personnel, approval for each mission conducted under the plan came directly from Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp, Jr., CINCPAC in Honolulu, who received his orders from the White House. After the coastal attacks began, Hanoi lodged a complaint with the International Control Commission (ICC), which had been established in 1954 to oversee the terms of the Geneva Accords, but the US denied any involvement. Four years later, US Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted to Congress that the US ships had in fact been cooperating in the South Vietnamese attacks against North Vietnam. Maddox, although aware of the operations, was not directly involved.

What was (and is) generally not considered by US politicians at the time were the other actions taken under Operations Plan 34-Alpha just prior to the incident. The night before the launching of the actions against North Vietnamese facilities on Hòn Mê and Hòn Ng? islands, the SOG had launched a covert long-term agent team into North Vietnam, which was promptly captured. That night (for the second evening in a row) two flights of CIA-sponsored Laotian fighter-bombers piloted by Thai mercenaries attacked border outposts well within southwestern North Vietnam. The Hanoi government (unlike the US government, which had to give permission at the highest levels for the conduct of these missions) probably assumed that they were all a coordinated effort to escalate military actions against North Vietnam.

The incident

On July 31, 1964, USS Maddox (DD-731) had begun its intelligence collection mission in the gulf. Daniel Ellsberg, who was on duty in the Pentagon the night of 4 AUG receiving messages from the ship reported that she was on a secret electronic warfare support measures mission (codenamed DESOTO) near Northern Vietnamese territorial waters. Captain George Stephen Morrison was in command of local American forces from his flagship USS Bon Homme Richard (CVA-31). The Maddox was under orders not to approach closer than eight miles from the North’s coast and four miles from Hon Nieu island. When the SOG commando raid was being carried out against Hon Nieu, the ship was 120 miles away from the attacked area.

First attack

On 2 AUG Maddox radioed it was under attack from three North Vietnamese Navy P-4 torpedo boats 28 miles away from the North Vietnamese coast in international waters. Maddox stated she had evaded a torpedo attack and opened fire with its five-inch guns, forcing the torpedo boats away. Four USN F-8 Crusader jets launched from the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) then attacked the retiring P-4s, claiming one was sunk and one heavily damaged. Maddox, suffering very minor damage from a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by the destroyer USS Turner Joy. The North Vietnamese claimed that Maddox was hit by one torpedo, and one of the American aircraft had been shot down. This account, however, has come into sharp dispute with an internal NSA historical study which stated:

At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier’s gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats.

This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first. The Maddox when confronted, was approaching Hòn Mê Island, three to four miles inside the twelve-mile limit claimed by North Vietnam. This territorial limit was unrecognized by the United States. After the skirmish, President Johnson ordered the Maddox and Turner Joy to stage daylight runs into North Vietnamese waters, testing the twelve-mile limit and North Vietnamese resolve. These runs into North Vietnamese territorial waters coincided with South Vietnamese coastal raids and were interpreted as coordinated operations by the North, which officially acknowledged the engagements of 2 AUG.

A North Vietnamese P-4 engaging USS Maddox

Others, such as Admiral Sharp, maintained that U.S. actions did not provoke the 2 AUG action. He claimed that North Vietnamese radar had tracked Maddox along the coast, and was thus aware that the destroyer had not actually attacked North Vietnam and that Hanoi (or the local commander) had ordered its craft to engage Maddox anyway. North Vietnamese General Phùng Th Tài later claimed that the Maddox had been tracked since 31 JUL and that it had attacked fishing boats on 2 AUG, forcing North Vietnamese Navy to “fight back.”

Sharp also noted that orders given to Maddox to stay eight miles off the North Vietnamese coast put the ship in international waters, as North Vietnam claimed only a five-mile (8 km) nautical limit as its territory (or off of its off-shore islands). In addition, many nations had previously carried out similar missions all over the world, and the USS John R. Craig (DD-885) had earlier conducted an intelligence-gathering mission in similar circumstances without incident.

Second Alleged Attack

On 4 AUG, another DESOTO patrol off the North Vietnamese coast was launched by Maddox and the Turner Joy, in order to “show the flag” after the first incident. This time their orders indicated that the ships were close to no more [less] than 11 miles from the coast of North Vietnam. During an evening and early morning of rough weather and heavy seas, the destroyers received radar, sonar, and radio signals that they believed signaled another attack by the North Vietnamese navy. For some two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of enemies. Despite the Navy’s claim that two attacking torpedo boats had been sunk, there was no wreckage, bodies of dead North Vietnamese sailors, or other physical evidence present at the scene of the alleged engagement.

At 1:27am Washington time, Herrick sent a cable in which he acknowledged the attack may not have happened and that there may actually have been no Vietnamese craft in the area: “Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken”.

One hour later, Herrick sent another cable, stating, “Entire action leaves many doubts except for apparent ambush at beginning. Suggest thorough reconnaissance in daylight by aircraft.” In response to requests for confirmation, at around 1600 Washington time, Herrick cabled, “Details of action present a confusing picture although certain that the original ambush was bona fide.”

At 1800 Washington time (0500 in the Gulf of Tonkin), Herrick cabled yet again, this time stating, “the first boat to close the Maddox probably launched a torpedo at the Maddox which was heard but not seen. All subsequent Maddox torpedo reports are doubtful in that it is suspected that sonarman was hearing the ship’s own propeller beat”

Within thirty minutes of the 4 AUG incident, President Johnson had decided on retaliatory attacks. That same day he used the ‘hot line’ to Moscow, and assured the Soviets he had no intent in opening a broader war in Vietnam. Early on 5 AUG, Johnson publicly ordered retaliatory measures stating, “The determination of all Americans to carry out our full commitment to the people and to the government of South Vietnam will be redoubled by this outrage.” One hour and forty minutes after his speech, US aircraft reached North Vietnamese targets. At 10:40 am these planes flying from US aircraft carriers, bombed four torpedo boat bases, and an oil-storage facility in Vinh.

United States Response

Shortly before midnight on 4 AUG, President Johnson made a speech by radio in which he described an attack by North Vietnamese vessels on two U.S. Navy warships, USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy and requested authority to undertake a military response. Johnson’s speech repeated the theme that “dramatized Hanoi/Ho Chi Minh as the aggressor and which put the U.S. into a more acceptable defensive posture.” Johnson also referred to the attacks as having taken place “on the high seas,” suggesting that they had occurred in international waters.

He emphasized commitment to both the American people, and the South Vietnamese government. He also reminded Americans that there was no desire for war. “A close scrutiny of Johnson’s public statements…reveals no mention of preparations for overt warfare and no indication of the nature and extent of covert land and air measures that already were operational.” Johnson’s statements were short to “minimize the U.S. role in the conflict; a clear inconsistency existed between Johnson’s actions and his public discourse.”

While President Johnson’s final resolution was being drafted, Senator Wayne Morse attempted to hold a fundraiser to raise awareness about possible faulty records of the incident involving the USS Maddox. Morse supposedly received a call from an informant who has remained anonymous urging Morse to investigate official logbooks of the Maddox. These logs were not available before President Johnson’s resolution was presented to Congress. After urging Congress that they should be wary of President Johnson’s coming attempt to convince Congress of his resolution, Morse failed to gain enough cooperation and support from his colleagues to mount any sort of movement to stop it. Immediately after the resolution was read and presented to Congress, Morse began to fight it. He contended in speeches to Congress that the actions taken by the United States were actions outside of the constitution and were “acts of war rather than acts of defense.”

Morse’s efforts were not immediately met with support, largely because he revealed no sources and was working with very limited information. It was not until after the United States became more involved in the war that his claim began to gain support throughout the United States government. The controversial Morse was defeated when he ran for re-election in 1968.

Distortion of the Event

Evidence was still being sought on the night of August 4 when Johnson gave his address to the American public on the incident. Messages recorded that day indicate that neither President Johnson nor McNamara was certain of an attack. Various news sources, including Time, Life and Newsweek, ran articles throughout August on the Tonkin Gulf incident. Time reported: “Through the darkness, from the West and south…intruders boldly sped…at least six of them… they opened fire on the destroyers with automatic weapons, this time from as close as 2,000 yards.” Time stated that there was “no doubt in Sharp’s mind that the U.S. would now have to answer this attack,” and that there was no debate or confusion within the administration regarding the incident.

The use of the set of incidents as a pretext for escalation of U.S. involvement follows the issuance of public threats against North Vietnam, as well as calls from American politicians in favor of escalating the war. On May 4, 1964, William Bundy called for the U.S. to “drive the Communists out of South Vietnam,” even if that meant attacking both North Vietnam and Communist China. Even so, the Johnson administration in the second half of 1964 focused on convincing the American public that there was no chance of war between North Vietnam and the U.S.

North Vietnamese General Giap suggested that the DESOTO patrol had been sent into the Gulf to provoke North Vietnam into giving an excuse for escalation of the war. Various government officials and men aboard the Maddox have suggested similar theories. American politicians and strategists had been planning provocative actions against North Vietnam for some time. George Ball told a British journalist after the war that “at that time…many people…were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing.”

Provocative action against North Vietnam was considered after the August, 1964 incidents. John McNaughton suggested in September 1964 that the U.S. prepare to take actions to provoke a North Vietnamese military reaction, including plans to use DESOTO patrols North. William Bundy’s paper dated September 8, 1964 suggested more DESOTO patrols as well.

Consequences – Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara failed to inform US President Lyndon B. Johnson that the U.S. naval task group commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, had changed his mind about the alleged North Vietnamese torpedo attack on U.S. warships he had reported earlier that day.

By early afternoon of 4 AUG, Washington time, Herrick had reported to the Commander in Chief Pacific in Honolulu that “freak weather effects” on the ship’s radar had made such an attack questionable. In fact, Herrick was now saying, in a message sent at 1:27 pm Washington time, that no North Vietnamese patrol boats had actually been sighted. Herrick now proposed a “complete evaluation before any further action taken.”

McNamara later testified that he had read the message after his return to the Pentagon that afternoon. But he did not immediately call Johnson to tell him that the whole premise of his decision at lunch to approve McNamara’s recommendation for retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam was now highly questionable. Had Johnson been accurately informed about the Herrick message, he might have demanded fuller information before proceeding with a broadening of the war. Johnson had fended off proposals from McNamara and other advisers for a policy of bombing the North on four separate occasions since becoming President.

President Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes and went on national television on 4 AUG. Although Maddox had been involved in providing intelligence support for South Vietnamese attacks at Hòn Mê and Hòn Ng, Johnson denied, in his testimony before Congress, that the U.S. Navy had supported South Vietnamese military operations in the Gulf. He thus characterized the attack as “unprovoked” since the ship had been in international waters.

As a result of his testimony, on 7 AUG, Congress passed a joint resolution (H.J. RES 1145), titled the Southeast Asia Resolution, which granted President Johnson the authority to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without the benefit of a declaration of war. The Resolution gave President Johnson approval “to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”

 

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident Jul 2013 ++]

 

New Laws Hurting The Poor and Unprotected in US

Becky Kospanova

Nobody wants to be poor. However, more and more people in the United States are becoming just that – poor. According to US Census Bureau’s data from November 2012, more than 16 percent of American population (or nearly fifty million people) live in poverty. Over the last decade, the number of people who struggled to provide for basic needs such as food, housing, medical care and such was steadily growing (to compare, poverty level was 11.3 percent in 2000, 12.7 percent in 2004, 13.2 percent in 2008, and 15.1 percent in 2010). There are numerous factors which contribute to increasing level of poverty in the USA such as difficult economic climate in the country, high unemployment rates, inadequate access to proper education and job training for many people, growing cost of life, insufficient government assistance, and so on. Still, one would hope that people who are already disadvantaged in many areas of life will at least have the same rights and privileges as their better-off counterparts. Sadly, it is not always the case. One of the most important cornerstones of American democracy is the right to vote. However, in the last few years many states such as Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Virginia and others have embraced strict voter ID requirements in order to prevent voting fraud.

Voter ID laws require that all voters present government-issued photo IDs at the time of voting, but many critics are concerned that the law might disenfranchise many potential voters, predominantly poor, elderly, and women. According to the study by New York University’s Brennan Center, about 11 percent (or 21 million people) of eligible American voters do not have government-issued photo IDs and do not have necessary means to get them. Moreover, the issue is even worse for elderly (about 18 percent of them do not have current photo IDs) and women (only about 66 percent of voter women have proof of citizenship which matches their current name because many women change their names when they get married). As such, voter ID laws might prevent many people, predominantly poor, from exercising their constitutional right to vote. Among other laws which negatively affect the poor is mandatory testing for drugs if a person is applying for welfare.

Florida has already adopted the law (if a person tests positive, he/she is denied the benefits for one year after which a person can take another test and reapply for benefits), and many other states such as Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Oklahoma are considering the enforcement of the law as well. However, mandatory drug tests violate Fourth Amendment which restricts what types of searches states can enforce. Moreover, it is evident that this law specifically targets the poor segment of American society. After all, all kinds of people receive government assistance (businessmen, farmers, etc.), but only welfare recipients are required to pass drug tests. The woes of poor do not end here because there are many other laws which target them. For example, many states have laws in place which punish homeless people. According to the data from US Department of Housing and Urban Development, there were about 643 thousand homeless people in the USA in 2009, and as many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in any given year. However, many states have adopted laws which prohibit activities such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and begging in public spaces and punish the offenders with fines and/or incarceration. Sometimes, these laws veer on the edge of ridiculous as demonstrated by the law in Houston, TX where it is illegal to “molest garbage containers,” thus prohibiting homeless people from looking for food there.

The craziness does not stop with homeless people. For example, third of states have debtors’ prisons where people can be put for showing “contempt of court” and being unable to repay a debt is considered as contempt of court during a lawsuit; in Arkansas, you can be thrown in jail for being late with your rent for as short period of time as ten days; in Wisconsin, legislators are proposing to have a right to monitor your bank accounts if you receive unemployment benefits and a right to freeze your accounts if the state makes a mistake with unemployment payments. All in all, it is clear that being poor in the US puts a person in a very vulnerable position and the laws are just not there to properly protect these unfortunate people.

E. VirGinia Johnson

IN THE TINY town of Enterprise, Alabama, there is a statue dedicated to an insect—the boll weevil.

This  insect decimated the cotton crops of the south in the early 1900s, which was a devastating blow to the farmers. To overcome this challenge/opportunity, the farmers in Enterprise decided to plant peanuts instead of cotton. They found that they could harvest more peanuts per square foot than they had been able to do with cotton, so their peanut harvest was far more prosperous. In 1919, the Enterprise town leaders memorialized the insect by erecting a statue and a plaque that reads, in profound appreciation of the boll. Many times, a challenge/opportunity will appear in our lives, and It IS simply a herald of prosperity if we choose to see beyond the outer appearances.

These are the times when we are urged to see the big picture, that God IS in everything and everyone, and that something bigger is trying  to birth through the challenge/opportunity. Claim the challenge/opportunity as your sign and your herald of PROSPERITY! Then move forward with confidence, knowing that everything is unfolding in Divine Right Order for you’re NEW and BIGGER LIFE. Science of Mindweevil and what it has done as the herald of prosperity. A synonym for herald is assign, a messenger. The leaders recognized that the blight of the boll weevil was simply a messenger that prosperity was on its way.

Double Celebration or Unfortunate Coincidence?
Becky Kospanova

Almost everybody knows a person who has their birthday on some major holiday such as Christmas, Independence Day, New Year’s Eve, or similar. What is it like to have your birthday coincide with one of the universally celebrated events? Do people feel twice as lucky to have everybody around them not only celebrate their birthdays but also a major holiday or do they feel somewhat shorthanded by nature?

First of all, many of these people are in good company because a number of celebrities have had their birthdays on holidays. For example, such famous people as Sir Isaac Newton, brilliant mathematician, physicist, and astronomer, was born on Christmas Day in 1642; renowned actor Humphrey Bogart and actress Sissy Spacek were also born on Christmas (in 1899 and 1949, respectively); playwright Neil Simon (1927), actress Gina Lollobrigida (1928), and George Steinbrenner (1930), late owner of New York Yankees, were all born on July 4, Independence Day; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was born on Valentine’s Day in 1942, and so on. Apparently, the fact that these people, just to name a few, were born on a holiday date did not prevent them from achieving impressive heights in their careers and lives.

There are probably two ways to deal with the fact that you, or somebody close to you, were born on a holiday date. On a positive side, it might feel that the whole world is celebrating with you! Generally, there is an all-around celebratory atmosphere during holidays: stores are beautifully decorated and sell holiday cards and gifts; people seem to be more relaxed and happy in anticipation of festivities; and often you, your friends, and family members have some time off work which makes it possible for all of you to have a large party together. Moreover, if you are lucky you might get twice as many presents as everybody else around you in honor of your birthday as well as a holiday.

On the other hand, some people feel less special because their birthdays fall on major holidays. In the midst of holiday rush, they might think that their birthday takes second place compared to a holiday. It is especially true for little children who do not yet have enough skills and psychological maturity to deal with the pressure of coinciding birthday and a holiday. Worse yet if these children do not receive separate gifts for their birthdays and, for example, Christmas because it inevitably diminishes the value of their birthdays and makes them feel less special on this day; after all, all their friends receive gifts without being born on this day. For such people, it would be a good idea to celebrate their birthdays a day before or after a holiday to separate the dates. If it is impossible to celebrate separately, it would be nice to make an extra effort to honor birthday boy or girl. Special cake, gift, or granting of the wish go a long way in making someone feel cherished and loved.

In any case, whether your birthday falls on a major holiday or not, it is always a reason to have a celebration with your friends and family and be happy that you were given a gift of Life!

Becky Kospanova

It is undeniable that pets bring something special into our lives. Whether your choice of a pet is conventional (such as cats, dogs, ferrets, hamsters, fish, etc.) or more exotic (snakes, iguanas, tarantulas, monkeys, etc.), there is nothing like a warm feeling we get when we play and communicate with our pets. The number of American households that have pets is rather impressive – according to the Humane Society of the United States, there are 78.2 million dogs and 86.4 million cats owned by people in the country (two most popular kinds of pets).

There are numerous benefits in owning a pet. First of all, pets make excellent companions – you will never feel lonely when a pet demonstrates all that affection and unconditional love for you! Second, pets might open up new venues in your life. For example, you can meet other pet owners when you take a dog for a walk or participate in cat shows; you might rev up your exercise routine by taking Fido along for a jog; or you might acquire a new hobby connected to your pet. Moreover, pet ownership can prove to be very beneficial for kids. Not only kids become more responsible by taking care of their pets, but there is scientific evidence that owning a dog or a cat might be good for kids’ health. According to the latest research, children who are exposed to animals from birth are much less likely to suffer from upper respiratory infections, ear infections, and allergies. It is believed that early contact with animals and the bacteria and dirt generally associated with them boosts immune system and helps to fight off the infections more efficiently. Lastly, there are many stories when pets save their owners’ lives by warning them about some imminent danger (fire, earthquake, tornado, etc.) or protecting their owners from intruders and assailants. All in all, there are a lot of positive aspects in having a pet and it is no wonder that so many people have them!

However, pet ownership does not come easily. One must approach the decision to get a pet with utmost consideration and dedication. First of all, potential pet owner needs to consider his/her life style and family dynamics to make a right choice. There are many questions to ponder about such as whether you are more comfortable with an energetic or docile pet, how much daily interaction you are ready for, whether your living arrangements are suitable for particular kind of pet, the life span of potential pet, the cost involved into buying and taking care of it, yours and your family members’ health (many people erroneously assume that people are usually allergic to pets’ fur; however, people are allergic to pets’ dandruff and animals usually have skin!), the effort needed to maintain psychological and physiological health of your pet, your expectations regarding a pet, the amount of cleaning after a pet, and possible danger (there are often stories of children being mauled by dogs). For example, some people are content with pets which do not provide a lot of companionship (fish, turtles, snakes, lizards, etc.) while others want some reciprocity and would be better off with such pets as dogs, cats, rats, ferrets, or guinea pigs.

Undoubtedly, anyone considering a pet must approach this decision with maximum care and deliberation. However, there is abundant joy and happiness when a right pet becomes a part of a right family!

 

Becky Kospanova

 On January 23, 2013 Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the military was going to rescind an official ban on participation of women in direct combat which was put in effect back in 1994. The implementation of this decision would be gradual but is expected to be fully put in place by 2016. Under 1994 ruling, women in military were prevented from direct involvement in front-line combat in artillery, infantry, armor and similar roles. Given the large number of women enlisted in military (according to 2012 statistics provided by the Department of Defense there were 214,098 women in active duty and 118,781 women in reserve), the decision to lift the ban was certainly groundbreaking and incited a lot of discussion regarding the role women play in US military nowadays.

The proponents of the lift of the ban assert that it would remove archaic gender-based barriers to military service and would provide women with equal opportunities, rights and responsibilities in the army. In fact, many women in the army argue that very often they were and are attached to ground combat units both in Iraq and Afghanistan without being properly recognized for it, and many women have died as a result of their involvement (according to New York Times, as of last year about 800 women were wounded and more than 130 died in service). Moreover, there would be more than 250,000 job positions open for women as a result of the annulment of the ban and women would have a better chance to improve their careers in the military where the record of combat service is frequently required for career advancement.

However, the opponents of the decision contend that women should not get involved into front-line combat because of several factors. Most often, people argue that women, simply because of biology, are not as strong physically as men to endure the hardships of direct combat. Despite the argument of the proponents of the ban that modern war is mostly push-button war and physical strength is not as important as it has been previously, physical strength matters. From carrying heavy loads and running at length it is still undeniable that a person must be physically strong to be an effective soldier. While all soldiers need to pass physical tests, the requirements differ for women and men – and men are expected to perform more strenuous tasks compared to women. In addition, many people maintain that it is important to consider psychological aspects of women being involved in front-line combat. For example, there is a possibility of sexual relationships between male and female soldiers which has the potential of affecting the efficacy and comradely spirit of the unit. Also, many people believe that men will instinctively try to protect their female counterparts and the effectiveness of their military units might be reduced as a result. Moreover, the opponents of the lift of the ban argue that it puts women in very dangerous position because women are more likely to be sexually assaulted and tortured by enemies in case of capture. Some also believe that men will have more difficulties serving under female command which will negatively affect military performance of US army.

There are many well-grounded and persuasive arguments on both sides of the dispute regarding the abolishment of the ban on women’ participation in direct combat. However, one thing which is undisputable is that American military women deserve recognition and admiration for their heroic service.

Living Out Of A Suitcase; Living A Traveler’s Life

How to deal with the anxieties, fear, no family life, and on the flip side good things as well; Apart from the basic necessities and wishing to buy all those material things from high end luxury brands, one should always inculcate exotic travels in their check list. And these exotic travels are not the ones where you visit luxury jaunts or travel by those VIP cruises, but those travels which are mindboggling, which will test your stamina, mental endurance and are feet numbing. Extreme adventure is what I’m talking about, in other words, live a life out of the suitcase.

Living a traveler’s life or living a life out of your comfort zone is something that will turn you from that ordinary corporate or from the ordinary house maker, to someone who is a hero or a campfire superstar. But this doesn’t mean, you head straight to your boss’s cabin, and give your resignation. These journeys will test you fully for which you will need some preparation, but at the same time, they will revitalize you, will help you connect with nature and will give you time for introspection and will help you achieve your ultimate nirvana. Therefore, a traveler’s life is much more than just going to places, instead he tends to explore himself while visiting all these places.

Let me list some places which will help you make aware of the anxieties which a traveler may face in these expeditions and at the same time the rewards which they get after completing these. The first one is Canning Stock Route. This place is located in Western Australia and spans over 2,000 kms. This is one of the most beautiful and harshest deserts in the world. One of the major problems which one may face while covering this area is the adrenalin pumping. Apart from this, be prepared for the vehicle breakdowns, personal emergencies, zero degree evenings, rain, and you have to be self reliant, tough as well as be a confident enough to drive a four wheeler for minimum eight hours of the day at this stretch. But, the reward is even more amazing as you will be able to see emus, kangaroos, salt lakes, springs, Lake Dora, Tjukurba Art Gallery, and Warlayirti Artists, gazing at the stars, among others.

The next place, in the list is, Dallol, Ethiopia. This volcanic crater, spans over the area of just 3 km. but don’t under estimate this place, as this crater is located in one of the cruelest place, which is the Danakil Desert. You have to brave the sun, and will need camel caravans, constant water supply, armed guards, reliable sun block, drivers and you would need that confidence, brave heart and heroism to cover this stretch and to overcome all the dangers. The one thing you need to look for are the tribesmen of Afar as these people are known for castrating visitors, kidnappings, and murders and also avoid stepping on to acidic lakes as these are poisonous. Apart from these anxieties, you can see unexpected vents of liquid that too in different colors like yellow, green, rust, purple and can also see sulphur, iron oxide deposits. Thus, this place will reward you with a landscape, which will give you a feeling of sublime and will be something, which you have never come across.

Apart from the above two places, Kailash, Mansarovar, Franklin River, Tasmania, GR 20 Trek, Corsica and other places which will make you familiar with similar, experiences. Dangerous, yet exciting, these are places, which one should visit during their lifetime. These places define a traveler’s life, a life out of that comfort zone. You need to be physically fit, be prepared for the emergencies, and you should be able to make that choice. Then your life wi