title: Montéhus

abstract: Gaston Mardochée Brunswick, better known by his pseudonym Montéhus, was a French singer-songwriter. He was the writer of such notable songs as "Gloire au 17ème" and "La Butte Rouge".

text:
# Montéhus

**Gaston Mardochée Brunswick**, better known by his pseudonym **Montéhus** (9 July 1872  December 1952), was a French singer-songwriter. He was the writer of such notable songs as "Gloire au 17ème" and "La Butte Rouge".

## Biography

Montéhus was the eldest child of 22 in an impoverished working-class family of Jewish descent.

### A Child of the Commune

Montéhus was born in Paris after the Paris Commune of 1871. According to him, his father Abraham Brunschwig had been among the rebels, but there is no source to verify this claim. Nevertheless, Montéhus was raised in a post-Commune context, which accounts for his commitment to left-wing politics. "Revolutionary jingoist" as he liked to present himself, he was close to the "wretched of the Earth" spoken of by Eugène Pottier in *L'Internationale*.

He began to sing in public at the age of 12, in 1884, a decade before the beginning of the Dreyfus Affair. He published his first song (*Au camarade du 153ème*) in 1897. It was then that he adopted his pseudonym, easier to bear than his name in the context of strong antisemitism. In 1907, he published *Gloire au 17ème* in honour of the regiment of soldiers who refused to fire on a demonstration of wine growers in Béziers.

### A Committed Singer

In the second half of the 19th century, the song was central to the popular culture. Books, expensive as they were, were not accessible to the working classes. When it contained a strong political element, the song could be a powerful tool of propaganda. Montéhus was one of the singers of the red revolt, along with Jean-Baptiste Clément (1836–1903), writer of the song *Le Temps des cerises*, Eugène Pottier (1816–1887), writer of *L'Internationale*, Jules Jouy (1855–1897), writer of *V'là l'choléra qu'arrive*, *Les Anarchistes de Chicago*, Pierre Dupont (1821–1870), *Le chant des ouvriers*, *Le chant du vote*, Gaston Couté (1880–1911) *Le gars qu'a mal tourné*, etc.

In his lively, driven songs, Montéhus opposed war, capitalist exploitation, prostitution, poverty, religious hypocrisy, but also the income tax:

Au lieu d'imposer l'travailleur qui enrichit l'gouvernement Imposez plutôt les noceurs \[les capitalistes\] qui gaspillent tant d'argent.

He also defended the cause of women in a remarkable way. *La grève des Mères* (The Mothers' Strike) was legally banned on 5 October and Montéhus condemned for "incitement to abortion".

On 5 March 1902, he is initiated into Freemasonry at ″l'Union de Belleville″ lodge in Paris. And when he considered joining the Communist Party in 1922, as the French Communist Party did not accept Freemasons, he preferred to remain faithful to his lodge.

### A Friend of Lenin

Montéhus maintained relations with Vladimir Lenin; moreover, the latter made reference to this in his correspondence. In a letter to Lev Kamenev, Lenin wrote: "Ah! If I could listen to Montéhus again!". At the time of his exile in France (between 1909 and 1912), Lenin gave a series of conferences in a room of either the Rive Gauche or Bobino (the places is uncertain). At Lenin's request, Montéhus sang in the first part to attract a sizable audience. The people who came to listen to the "humanitarian singer" were also invited to listen to the Bolshevik activist after the intermission. The relations between art and politics prefigured the agitprop (art in the service of political discourse and/or ideology) put in place in the USSR beginning in the 1920s.

### A Revolutionary Jingoist

During the First World War, Montéhus, like many others, underwent a radical change of political opinion. He made himself the zealous changer of the Union Sacrée and sang militarist songs. One may draw a comparison with the painting of Picasso, who in the same period renounced cubism (considered "too German") for a more academic style (considered "French"). It was then that Montéhus sang *La Guerre finale*, a grotesque détournement of *L'Internationale*:

"Et maintenant tous à l'ouvrage Amis, on ne meurt qu'une fois !"

Similarly, in *Lettre d'un Socialo* (sung to the tune of *L'air du Clairon* by Paul Déroulède), he explained that the time had come for *La Marseillaise*, while waiting to be able to sing *L'Internationale* once again:

Nous chantons La Marseillaise Car dans ces terribles jours On laisse *L'Internationale* Pour la victoire finale On la chantera au retour.

Montéhus was the image of the working people, who left en masse for the front contrary to the fears of the state adjutant who had overestimated the workers' commitment to pacifism.

In a song impregnated with the racism of his time, entitled *L'Arbi*, Montéhus held xenophobic intentions:

Moi li sait bien, toi pas voulu guerre Toi, li Français, c'est kif kif le bon Dieu.

Plus loin :

Moi suis content voir Paris : J'suis content, c'est bézef bonno A couper cabêche aux sales Pruscots car eux, du tout, pas gentils As pas peur, as pas peur, Sidi Si Pruscots venir, moi coupe kiki.

During these four years of war, he did not cease to compose warlike songs (*La Dernière victime*, *La Voix des mourants*, *La Vision sanglante*, *Debout les Morts !*, etc.), he would never be mobilised and thus never know the horrors of the front. On the other hand, on the stage of the Olympia, he was wounded in the head singing warlike songs. At the end of the war in 1918, for his good and loyal services, he received the Croix de Guerre.

### Disgrace

After the war, Montéhus faced a rather long period of disgrace. He ceased to enroll in the Popular Front. He would attempt to redeem himself in 1923 by composing *La Butte Rouge* (The Red Mound), which makes reference to the Mound of Bapeaume, theatre of violent battles at the Somme during the offensive of the summer of 1916 (and not, contrary to a common error, the Paris Commune of 1871, strongly evoked in the work of de Montéhus). In this song, he takes on those responsible for the carnage:

> \[...\] car les bandits qui sont cause des guerres
> n'en meurent jamais, on ne tue qu'les innocents.

During the 1930s, he was a member of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO). At the advent of the Popular Front, at the age of 64, Montéhus was again at the forefront with *Le décor va changer*, *Vas-Y Léon !*", *Le Cri des grévistes*, *L'Espoir d'un gueux*, songs in which he supported the Popular Front and Léon Blum.

### Under the Vichy Regime

Montéhus was not sent to a concentration camp, but he was forced to wear the yellow star from 1942 until the Liberation of France. In 1944, he wrote the *Chant des Gaullistes* (Song of the Gaullists).

### After the Liberation

He received the Legion of Honour from Paul Ramadier en 1947. Nevertheless he was all but forgotten in show business, and was supported only by his family when he died in 1952 in Paris.

## Citations

### Gloire au 17ème – 1907

Salut, salut à vous, Braves soldats du 17ème ; Salut, braves pioupious, Chacun vous admire et vous aime ; Salut, salut à vous, À votre geste magnifique ; Vous auriez, en tirant sur nous, Assassiné la République.

### Lettres d'un socialo – 1914

Certes cela est pénible Quand on a le cœur sensible De voir tomber les copains Mais quand on est sous les armes On n'doit pas verser de larmes On accepte le destin.

### La Butte Rouge – 1919

La Butt’ Rouge, c’est son nom, l’baptême s’fit un matin Où tous ceux qui montaient roulaient dans le ravin. Aujourd’hui y’a des vignes, il y pousse du raisin. Qui boira ce vin là, boira l’sang des copains.

## Book

Rémy Wermester : "Montéhus La lutte en chantant" Editions Elzévir (November 2012) : In the same time, biography, bibliography of the writer under historic ground from "La Belle Epoque" to "Trente Glorieuses".

## Bibliography

Marc Robine : « *Montéhus, Le chansonnier humanitaire. Enregistrements originaux 1905–1936* » EPM, Paris.


title: Moral exclusion

abstract: Moral exclusion is a psychological process where members of a group view their own group and its norms as superior to others, belittling, marginalizing, excluding, even dehumanizing targeted groups. A distinction should be drawn between active exclusion and omission. The former requires intent and is a form of injustice, known as moral exclusion; while the latter is thoughtlessness. The targeted group is viewed as undeserving of morally mandated rights and protections. When conflict between groups escalates, the in-group/out-group bias between the groups heightens. Severe violence between groups can be either the antecedent or the outcome of moral exclusion. At its extreme it is a bidirectional phenomenon that defies precise origin.

text:
# Moral exclusion

**Moral exclusion** is a psychological process where members of a group view their own group and its norms as superior to others, belittling, marginalizing, excluding, even dehumanizing targeted groups. A distinction should be drawn between active exclusion and omission. The former requires intent and is a form of injustice, known as moral exclusion; while the latter is thoughtlessness. The targeted group is viewed as undeserving of morally mandated rights and protections. When conflict between groups escalates, the in-group/out-group bias between the groups heightens. Severe violence between groups can be either the antecedent or the outcome of moral exclusion. At its extreme it is a bidirectional phenomenon that defies precise origin.

## Scholars

* Morton Deutsch; Professor emeritus of psychology and education and founder of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR) at the Teachers College at Columbia University, Deutsch conducted studies on cooperation and competition, intergroup relations, conflict resolution, social conformity, and the social psychology of justice during his career.
* Susan Opotow; Received her PhD in social psychology from Columbia University in 1987. Opotow's research focuses on moral exclusion that occurs in adolescents' interpersonal conflicts with peers.
* Ervin Staub; Emeritus professor of psychology at University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Staub was born in Hungary, Staub fled from Nazism and communism to Vienna before making his way to the U.S. where he earned a PhD at Stanford. He is the founding director of the PhD concentration in the psychology of peace and violence at the University of Massachusetts.
* Henri Tajfel; Minimal group paradigm shows that "othering" is the basis for discrimination. Tajfel's intention was to create groups with as little meaning as possible and then add meaning to discover at what point discrimination would occur.

## History

Throughout the course of history there have been instances in which human beings treat others as less than human and undeserving of equal moral treatment. Occurrences such as the Nazi Genocide during World War II and the African slave trade have led researchers to question whether or not human beings have the tendency to deem others as worthy or unworthy of moral treatment. Furthermore, if it were the case that humans label one another as acceptable or unacceptable and treat each other accordingly, it is important to examine the rationalization that occurs during this process. This is the type of thinking that spurred Morton Deutsch, Susan Opotow and Ervin Staub to investigate the processes of dehumanization and moral exclusion.

Susan Sutherland Isaacs, and other members of the object-relations school of psychoanalysis, set the stage for moral exclusion research with the theory that perceiving certain people as allies and others as enemies is intrinsic to human nature. This categorization of persons creates a marked distinction between good and bad, leading to the exclusion of those who are negatively perceived from the moral community. Deutsch, Opotow and Staub have defined the moral community, or scope of justice, to be a "...psychological boundary for fairness, within which concerns with justice and moral rules govern our conduct". Such exclusion has been thought to be evolutionary, as it is beneficial to individuals to avoid others who are harmful and seek out those that are helpful.

Henri Tajfel conducted multiple experiments that returned the conclusion that people's "...actions are unambiguously directed at favouring the members of their ingroup as against the members of the outgroup. Moreover, Tajfel reported that individuals can be placed in an outgroup for any number of reasons, including (but not limited to), "ideology, skin color, age, and cognitive capacity." Given these findings, the assumption can be made that human beings have an innate tendency to classify those around them into definite categories, thereby creating a foundation for exclusion. Once these individuals are outside the scope of justice, they are no longer considered to have the right to fair treatment and equality.

## Limitations to existing research

Moral exclusion has few critiques, but research on this phenomenon has limitations. Allen-Collinson's 2009 study on research administrations was purely restricted to an academic setting and therefore was a small-scale project that had limitations regarding restricted population range, and diverse roles of the research administrators that were interviewed. These factors made it difficult to find conclusive results regarding research administrators as being negatively marked due to moral exclusion.

Leets' discussion in 2001 regarding moral exclusion and social justice was limited by the restricted population that was being sampled and the possibility for biases occurring within the self-report measures. Specifically, only university students and focus groups were sampled, which could detract from the generalizability of the study. Furthermore, subjects may have responded in a socially desirable fashion when completing the self-report measures that were utilized to determine participants' assessments of a socially sensitive issue.

Tileaga reported that there was not significant research pertaining to the process by which certain groups become discriminated against. He propounded, "The issue of precisely how some particulars groups of people become (or are made) the target of prejudice (extreme prejudice) has been under-explored."

## Dangers

Every culture has its own set of values for behavior and communication that exist somewhere along a moral continuum. What constitutes the substance of the continuum may differ by culture, although each culture's continuum has two ends. One pole represents the aforementioned, "scope of justice" and the other pole represents what is considered unjust, cruel or dehumanizing within that culture. The root of exclusion begins with basic categorization. The us/them dichotomy is an embedded psychological process, occurring without conscious thought. As humans we make these distinctions repeatedly. Initially, elevating ingroup and diminishing outgroup may occur in inconsequential ways, as demonstrated by Tajifel's minimal group paradigm. Ordinary behaviors function as dynamic processes that shift cultural norms all the time; for example, American men used to wear top hats as part of everyday dress, but John F. Kennedy changed that. Going hat-less is now a social norm.

However, seemingly benign changes in behavior can function as an entry point for shifting into a system of destruction. People change through their own actions; practicing new habits, seemingly trivial acts, gradually alter both an individual and a collective psyche. For example, at its inception using the salute, "Heil Hitler," was not explicitly harmful to anyone. Yet scholars now perceive adoption of this greeting as a seminal turning point in the most commonly known system of nefarious acts against a group of people. The innocuous becomes insidious. Because individuals hold positions at various levels of corporate and governmental structures, the institutionalization of particular modes of thinking and behaving happens gradually. When individuals in positions of authority adopt customs they are legitimized. When cultural norms shift toward exclusion of certain groups they can be rationalized; thereby granting legitimization of behavior into the collective consciousness. Ofreneo and de Vela developed a model in 2006 to depict systems of violence situated within a society which are co-created by the social psychological process of moral exclusion, cultural norms that justify violence, and the economic and political hierarchies of power that maintain it. Individuals' psyches function in group norms in three levels of society where moral exclusion roots and recreates itself. At the bottom is the social psychological, within an individual psyche. In the middle of the model is the social cultural, informal group level interaction where behavior is either ignored or applauded which normalizes it or condemned and eradicates it. At the top is the social structure, governments, corporations, and institutions that solidify and reify cultural norms through legislation and policy decisions.

## Examples

Moral exclusion includes situations of distinct severity, such as war, genocide, and slavery. Some examples are controversial, like abortion, immigration, and the death penalty. The crux of the matter, invariably, is who has the ability to determine who is worthy of human dignities. In each example, the standard a group or society uses to exclude the other is culturally derived. That is to say, within each culture the criteria for who is cast out is based on particular values. Intercultural differences in the standard exist, but are associated with power within that culture.

No setting is immune from marginalizing members. For instance, moral exclusion IS an area of academic study, yet within academia, instances of the phenomena exist. Allen-Collinson in 2009 analyzed moral exclusion among university research administrators. The degradation of research administrators among their academic colleagues is examined and findings indicate that research administrators were being subjected to a dimension of excluding practices; such as, negative labeling and marking. Academic staff had been labeled both informally, and through documentation by their colleagues and administration as "assistant" or "support staff", fundamentally downplaying their skills and expertise. Another dimension of moral exclusion that appeared was the rendering of research administrators as invisible by either excluding them from research related committees as actual academic staff or by not acknowledging their presence in regular staff meetings.

### Genocide and war

Genocide is the act of purposefully exterminating a mass of people because of their identification with a particular group. The most commonly known occurrence of genocide is that of the WWII treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis. Nazis took away fundamental rights of Jewish people by forcing them to relocate out of their homes into camps where they were experimented on, tortured, and killed. Following the war in 1948, a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Genocide is not an outdated relic of war, since 1951 there have been dozens of documented horrific Genocides in history; many continue.

The decades-old conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis stems from moral exclusion. Zionism is an ethno-nationalist ideology predicated on the belief that an extra-territorial population of Jews has a greater claim to the land than indigenous Palestinians. While liberal forms of Zionism are not predicated on moral superiority, extreme forms of Zionism, such as Kahanism, operate on the principle of moral exclusion and the belief that Arabs living in Israel are enemies of Israel and must be eliminated. Islamist and Palestinian nationalist organizations such as Hamas have also employed eliminationist rhetoric in reaction to the Nakba, Naksa, and continuing ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

In the central African states of Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo another territorial dispute over resources, land, and ethnic superiority is that of the Tutsi and Hutu peoples. Although a National policy of reconciliation that prohibits discussion of the 1994 genocide and promotes using the national label of "Rwandan," rather than the ethnic categories of the past, civil unrest continues.

### Slavery

Within American history, the forefathers believed that they were morally superior to Africans. Contemporary scholars, such as Michel Focault, describe this as cultural imperialism. Yet, at the time the forcible kidnapping of Africans from their homes was justified. It was culturally and institutionally sanctioned. Our legal system permitted this practice. European-Americans who enslaved Africans in United States history took away the basic human rights of African slaves in order to have them subject to their orders. Slaves were brutally beaten and treated inhumanely. Even when slavery was abolished, enactments such as the Jim Crow laws kept African-Americans from certain basic rights and access to public space, because some European-Americans believed African-Americans were not worthy of equality to them.

### Immigrants

Another example includes undocumented students, immigrants to the United States, and people who look like immigrants. Regarding undocumented students, this refers to children born in the United States to parents who had illegally entered the U.S. These students are actual U.S. citizens, but have been in danger of exportation or being denied the opportunity to go to school in the United States because they lack appropriate documentation. This is an issue in many states. Particular to Arizona, the state legislature passed a law, Arizona SB 1070, granting police officers the capability to stop anyone they suspect may be illegally in the U.S. and ask them to present their birth certificate. As explored by Mukherjee, Molina, and Adams in 2012, this legislation may be intended to contain illegal immigration, or it may be ethnic categorization as the basis for excluding rights to certain U.S. citizens who do not look like the dominant group. A similar type of moral exclusion is seen in the treatment of people in the city of New York. Individuals can be stopped, questioned, and frisked without cause because they "look suspicious" to police officers in the area. The police officers believe they have the authority to violate these peoples' rights in order to meet certain standards in their respective divisions.

### Incarceration

In the United States every citizen is held to be entitled to basic rights (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Yet, the justice department has been granted the legitimate power to alter life quality of those in prison. A person in prison is stripped of their freedom, privacy, right to vote; even their right to life if placed under the death penalty. Society has deemed it justifiable to deny incarcerated persons many basic rights and privileges. Since the inmate uprising at Attica in 1971, prison reform has improved conditions, making this 1971 quote from *The Nation,* seem implausible to have happened in America.

> The basic fact that prisoners, too, are human is one that society has yet to accept. "WE are MEN!" the Attica inmates wrote in a manifesto addressed to "the people of America." "We are not beasts and do not intend to be beaten or driven as such." At the top of a list of "demands" was the basic request that officials "provide adequate food, water, and shelter for all inmates." Others included "adequate medical treatment," "realistic, effective rehabilitation programs," "true religious freedom," an end to "censorship of newspapers, magazines \[and\] letters" and, tellingly, "a program for the recruitment and employment of a significant number of black and Spanish-speaking officers.

### Capital punishment

Capital punishment is a controversial issue. Within the American justice system, the most heinous crimes such as treason, espionage, and murder can incur the death penalty. Those who commit perverse crimes are viewed as unworthy of owning a place within the bounds of the moral community. In this view, egregious criminal activity is paid for by forfeiting the right to live. Making such a judgement precedes and justifies our decision to execute humans. In America everybody believes that murder is wrong; humans should not kill each other, yet people are executed when they do things that place them in an extreme outgroup. Additionally, some believe that life imprisonment is inhumane.

## Solutions and prevention

Opotow, Gerson, and Woodside explored moral exclusion theory in terms of teaching peace education and providing a structured and systematic approach to the complex issue of peace. They listed four key social dilemmas that moral exclusion systematically illustrates in the study of conflict, war, and peace: educating for coexistence, educating for human rights, educating for gender equality, and educating for environmentalism. According to them, pairing moral exclusion with these key areas provides a larger scope for and situates peace education as a grave topic warranting study and understanding by students of all ages. Furthermore, Opotow and coauthors asserted that moral exclusion should be seen as a human factor, a capacity of every person, rather than its limited scope as malicious actions of certain aberrant people.

When such conceptualized, the value of mindfully considering habituated behaviors and adopting methods for change is illuminated. Citizens in the scope of the moral community have a responsibility to extend the circle of humanity and effect change through deliberately modifying norms. The aforementioned model of Ofreneo and de Vela explains how justness can be cultivated at each of the three levels of society. At the bottom is the social psychological. Within an individual psyche, individuals can recognize and treat all others with basic human dignity. In the middle of the model is the social cultural. Informal group level interaction, including undesirable labeling, marginalizing, or dehumanizing behavior can be redirected. At the top is the social scaffolding of governments, corporations, and institutions that have the power to redistribute more equitable ideas, thereby solidifying nonviolence as a cultural norm. Norms are social constructions of complex interaction and can be changed through social action, which must occur at each level described.

Dissent is a valuable tool for social change. Choosing not to speak against discriminatory, prejudicial, and marginalizing customs, normalizes and recreates them. Speaking out against inappropriate actions can change them; this can take many forms. For example, telling a friend when language or actions are objectionable because they contribute to the marginalization of others is a simple action with potential larger consequence, although difficult to enact. Participating in more structured forms of dissent may be easier to participate in. Thirteen types of activism described by Roland Watson in 2005 are detailed by @lissnup (Anita Hunt) on her blog, with links to Twitter. Traditional forms of activism include marches, sit-ins, and occupations; such as, the recent Occupy Wall Street movement. Less traditional forms of activism are becoming more popular. Social media is increasingly used as a tool to propel activism. Music has always been a public forum with the ability to drastically alter culture and carry messages of dissent.

Consequently, when moral exclusion is seen as a human capacity it logically follows that all humans also have the capacity to limit its consequences. As Opotow et al. suggested in 2005, Moral Exclusion Theory can be coupled with peace education to better understand conflict between groups that lead to extreme situations such as genocide, and also shift to educating about the importance of an inclusionary focus for groups and individuals.


title: Moral enhancement

abstract: Moral enhancement, also called moral bioenhancement, is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve individuals. MBE is a growing topic in neuroethics, a field developing the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics. After Thomas Douglas introduced the concept of MBE in 2008, its merits have been widely debated in academic bioethics literature. Since then, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have been among the most vocal MBE supporters. Much of the debate over MBE has focused on Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book in support of it, Unfit for the Future? The Need for Moral Enhancement.

text:
# Moral enhancement

**Moral enhancement** (abbreviated ME), also called **moral bioenhancement** (abbreviated MBE), is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve individuals. MBE is a growing topic in neuroethics, a field developing the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics. After Thomas Douglas introduced the concept of MBE in 2008, its merits have been widely debated in academic bioethics literature. Since then, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have been among the most vocal MBE supporters. Much of the debate over MBE has focused on Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book in support of it, *Unfit for the Future? The Need for Moral Enhancement.*

## Different kinds of moral enhancement

Moral enhancement in general is sometimes distinguished from MBE specifically, such that ME includes any means of moral improvement while MBE only involves biomedical interventions. Some also distinguish invasive from non-invasive, intended from resultant, treatment-focused from enhancement-focused, capability-improving from behavior-improving, and passive from active ME interventions. Vojin Rakić has distinguished involuntary (such as for the unborn) from compulsory and voluntary MBE, claiming that compulsory MBE is not justifiable and proposing that "a combination of \[voluntary MBE\] and \[involuntary MBE\] might be the best option humans have to become better". Parker Crutchfield has argued in favor of covert and compulsory use of ME upon unsuspecting populations. Other thinkers have argued in favor of a partial or limited form of MBE such as 'indirect enhancement' or 'moral supplementation' while rejecting more comprehensive forms of MBE as undesirable or unachievable.

## Arguments in favour

The simplest argument for MBE is definitional: improving moral character is morally good, so all else being equal, any biomedical treatment that actually improves moral character does moral good.

Douglas originally suggested MBE as a counter-example to what he calls the "bioconservative thesis," which claims that human enhancement is immoral even if it is feasible. He argues that enhancements to improve someone’s moral motivations would at least be morally permissible. For example, he cites enhancements to reduce "counter-moral" racist and aggressive emotional reactions as morally permissible because they remove impediments to morality.

In 2009, Mark Alan Walker proposed a "Genetic Virtue Project" (GVP) to genetically enhance moral traits. Given that personality traits are heritable, and some traits are moral while others are immoral, he suggests increasing moral traits while reducing immoral ones through genetic engineering.

### Companions in innocence

Walker argues for the GVP based on what he calls a ‘‘companions in innocence’’ strategy, which says that “any objection raised against the GVP has an analogue in socialization and educational efforts. Since such objections are not understood as decisive against nurturing attempts, they should not be considered decisive against the GVP.” In other words, any objection to MBE which also applies to traditional moral education has reduced itself to absurdity, because few would argue that teaching someone to be moral is inherently objectionable.

Several other MBE proponents have cited moral education as an example of socially accepted non-biomedical moral enhancement. For example, Douglas calls it “intuitively clear” that any given person has a reason to undergo moral self-enhancement by reducing counter-moral emotions through self-reflection. Douglas says that at least some of the intuitive reasons that anyone should become morally better through self-reflection, like increasing concern for others or good consequences, apply to voluntary MBE.

### Unfit for the Future

Based on the fact that human technological progress has advanced faster than human moral psychology can adapt through evolution, Persson and Savulescu point out that humans' capability to cause large-scale destruction has increased exponentially. However, given that humans tend to care only about their immediate acquaintances and circumstances instead of thinking on a larger scale, they are vulnerable to tragedies of the commons like climate change and to technologies like nuclear weapons which pose an existential threat to humanity.

Given that moral education and liberal democracy are insufficient, MBE is needed at least as a supplementary method to solve these problems. Persson and Savulescu's argument relies on the notion that it is much easier to cause great harm than it is to cause goodness to an equal extent. Because of the human population size there will inevitably be a fraction of humanity which is immoral enough to desire to inflict this great harm. Persson and Savulescu conclude that the intervention of extensive human moral enhancement is a necessary component to address this threat.

## Criticism

Central issues debated in literature about MBE include whether there is an urgent need for it, if a sufficient consensus on the definition of morality is achievable, technically feasible and ethically permissible interventions to carry out MBE, the ability to ensure no violation of consent in those interventions, and the ability to ensure no harmful social side-effects that they produce.

### The Freedom to Fall

John Harris criticised moral enhancement on the grounds of 'The Freedom to Fall'. His principal argument is that moral enhancement is wrong because it restricts one's freedom to do wrong, making it impossible to act immorally, thus undermining their autonomy. Harris referred to Book III of Milton's Paradise Lost, in which Milton reported God saying, 'Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.' Harris believed that one should hang on to their freedom to fall. Without it, one is unable to discern right from wrong, taking away both freedom and virtue. Harris asserted that there is no virtue involved in performing activities that one is instructed to.

There are two further criticisms of moral enhancement. First, the distinction between right and wrong is highly context-dependent. For example, in the case of self-defense, harming another person can potentially be morally justifiable, as it might be the best compromise of welfare. Harris suggested that it is unclear whether MBE would be nuanced enough to take such situations into account. Second, he pointed out that there is an element of value judgement when one makes a choice between 'right' and 'wrong', and he said that people are entitled to willingly make the wrong choices. This would not be possible with MBE, which compromises this 'freedom to fall.'

Harris advocates science, innovation and knowledge — particularly in the form of education — as possible solutions to the possibility of mass destruction. Again, he refers to Milton, in particular the power of freedom and sense of justice installed within subjective selves. Most importantly, the roles of freedom and autonomy entails that one cannot have the sufficiency to stand without the freedom to fall.

#### Replies

Harris's "Freedom to Fall" has been widely criticized by MBE proponents, who have argued that MBE is benign to freedom and can sometimes increase freedom. Freely chosen moral enhancement is no threat to freedom, as described by Vojin Rakić. By reducing biases that impair moral judgement, Thomas Douglas argues, MBE can remove constraints on the ability to be moral. This does not take away anyone's freedom to be immoral. Instead, it simply grants them more freedom to be moral. Similarly, Persson and Savulescu point out that increasing someone's motivation to act rightly for the right reasons makes them no less free than "the garden-variety virtuous person" who already has that motivation.

Several MBE proponents have pointed out that Harris's "Freedom to Fall" assumes the controversial view that if someone's actions are fully determined by previous causes, then that person cannot act freely. If anyone can be free to act one way when they will certainly act another way, then MBE can cause moral improvement without taking away any valuable freedom. Most philosophers believe that free will is compatible with determinism in this way. If they are right, then MBE can improve moral behavior without affecting anyone's freedom.

### Sufficiency of non-biomedical methods

Terri Murray disputes the claim by Persson and Savulescu that political will and moral education are insufficient to ensure that people will behave responsibly, claiming that Persson and Savulescu unjustly reify moral dispositions in biology. Murray argues that political and social pressure are sufficient to improve behavior, explaining that although certain Islamic countries state that women should be forced to wear the burka and stay indoors because men cannot control their sexual urges, this is shown to be false by men in Western countries, both Muslim or otherwise, exercising their ability to control their sexual urges. She explained that this is due to the deterrent effect of both laws and social pressure:

> "The truth is that there is a political will to treat women as equals in the West that is apparently absent from countries governed by Islamic law. What Savulescu and Persson do is to similarly treat the will not to be moral on a larger scale as though it were an inevitable and natural part of human biology rather than a political and cultural choice."

### Ethical basis of moral enhancement

Since the nature of morality has historically caused wide disagreements, several authors have questioned whether it is possible to come up with a sufficiently widely accepted ethical basis for MBE, especially with respect to what qualities should be enhanced. Joao Fabiano argues that attempting to produce a full account of morality in order to enable moral enhancement would be "both impractical and arguably risky". Fabiano also suggests that "we seem to be far away from such an account" and notes that 'the inability for prior large-cooperation" plays a role in this.

#### Replies

Although there are a wide variety of disagreeing ethical systems, David DeGrazia argues, there are “points of overlapping consensus among competing, reasonable moral perspectives.” Traditional moral education generally teaches children to stay within that consensus. DeGrazia’s idea of this overlapping consensus includes disapproval of antisocial personality disorder, sadism, some kinds of moral cynicism, defective empathy, out-group prejudice, inability to face unpleasant realities, weak will, impulsivity, lack of nuance in moral understanding, and inability to compromise. Biomedically reducing these traits would, per DeGrazia’s reasoning, count as moral enhancement from these “reasonable moral perspectives.”

### Other issues

MBE proponents have been accused of being too speculative, overstating the capabilities of future interventions and describing unrealistic scenarios like enhancing "all of humanity." One literature review assesses the evidence on seven interventions cited by MBE proponents, saying that none works well enough to be practically feasible. Furthermore, there is some doubt that any drugs for moral enhancement will soon be introduced to the market. Nick Bostrom highlighted that the way medical research is conducted and drugs approved impedes the development of enhancement drugs. A drug must demonstrably treat a specific disease to be approved, Bostrom said, but the traits or behaviors targeted for MBE arguably cannot be viewed as diseases. Bostrom concludes that any drug that has an enhancing effect "in healthy subjects is a serendipitous unintended benefit". He suggests that the current *disease-focused medical model* needs to be changed, otherwise enhancement drugs could not be researched well and introduced to the market. Along with this feasibility objection, he notes that public funding for enhancement drugs research projects is currently very limited.

Other authors have suggested that unless MBE is based on an individual's choice, it cannot truly be called "moral" enhancement because personal choice is the basis of ethics. Murray argues that the idea that biological enhancement can make us morally good "undermines our understanding of moral goodness." She argues that MBE allows for "paternalistic interventions" from medical experts to "redirect the individual's behaviour to conform to their or society's 'best interests."

Ram-Tiktin suggests that if MBE is more effective for enhancing people that are already moral, then it could further the gap between moral and immoral people, exacerbating social inequality. Also, if MBE makes some people morally better, it could unfairly raise the moral standards for everyone else.


title: Mordellistena tokaraensis

abstract: Mordellistena tokaraensis is a species of beetle in the genus Mordellistena of the family Mordellidae. It was described by Nanke in 1956.

text:
# Mordellistena tokaraensis

***Mordellistena tokaraensis*** is a species of beetle in the genus *Mordellistena* of the family Mordellidae. It was described by Nanke in 1956.

## InfoBox

| *Mordellistena tokaraensis* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Coleoptera |
| Family: | Mordellidae |
| Genus: | *Mordellistena* |
| Species: | ***M. tokaraensis*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Mordellistena tokaraensis***<br>Nanke, 1956 | |
|


title: Mordellistena thoracalis

abstract: Mordellistena thoracalis is a species of beetle in the genus Mordellistena of the family Mordellidae. It was described by Franciscolo in 1967.

text:
# Mordellistena thoracalis

***Mordellistena thoracalis*** is a species of beetle in the genus *Mordellistena* of the family Mordellidae. It was described by Franciscolo in 1967.

## InfoBox

| *Mordellistena thoracalis* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Coleoptera |
| Family: | Mordellidae |
| Genus: | *Mordellistena* |
| Species: | ***M. thoracalis*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Mordellistena thoracalis***<br>Franciscolo, 1967 | |
|


title: Morisaki

abstract:
Azuma Morisaki Morisaki is a Japanese surname. Notable people with the surname include:
  - Azuma Morisaki, Japanese film director and screenwriter
  - Hiroki Morisaki, Japanese footballer
  - Kazuyuki Morisaki, Japanese footballer
  - Kōji Morisaki, Japanese footballer
  - Yoshiyuki Morisaki, Japanese footballer
  - Yuki Morisaki, Japanese chef and television personality
  - Hiroyuki Morisaki, Japanese actor and television personality

text:
# Morisaki

**Morisaki** (written: 森崎 lit. "forest peninsula") is a Japanese surname. Notable people with the surname include:

* Azuma Morisaki (森崎 東, 1927–2020), Japanese film director and screenwriter
* Hiroki Morisaki (森崎 広樹, born 1991), Japanese footballer
* Kazuyuki Morisaki (森﨑 和幸, born 1981), Japanese footballer
* Kōji Morisaki (森﨑 浩司, born 1981), Japanese footballer
* Yoshiyuki Morisaki (森崎 嘉之, born 1976), Japanese footballer
* Yuki Morisaki (森崎 友紀, born 1979), Japanese chef and television personality
* Hiroyuki Morisaki (森崎 博之, born 1971), Japanese actor and television personality


title: U.S. Rail Corporation

abstract: U S Rail Corporation is a family-owned short-line railroad operating the Winamac Southern Railway in Indiana.

text:
# U.S. Rail Corporation

**U S Rail Corporation** (reporting mark **USRC**) is a family-owned short-line railroad operating the Winamac Southern Railway in Indiana.

## Operation

### Kokomo

The Kokomo division, in Kokomo, Indiana, operates a line for the Kokomo Grain Company and Winamac Southern Railway, transporting grain and serving the communities of Amboy, Marion, Converse, Sweetser, Galveston, Walton, Logansport, Clymers, Camden, Flora and Bringhurst. It interchanges with Norfolk Southern in Marion and Clymers, Indiana, Toledo, Peoria & Western in Logansport, and Central Railroad of Indianapolis in Kokomo, Indiana.

The Genessee and Wyoming RR line Toledo Peoria and Western absorbed USR operations and now runs 2 crews 6 days a week out of Kokomo Indiana.

## InfoBox

U S Rail Corporation
| Overview | |
| --- | --- |
| Headquarters | Toledo, Ohio |
| Reporting mark | USRC |
| Locale | Indiana, Ohio |
| Technical | |
| Track gauge | 4 ft 8+12 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge |


title: USS Pompey

abstract: USS Pompey (AF-5) was an auxiliary ship of the United States Navy, acquired in 1898 for service in the Spanish–American War, which went on to serve as a collier, tender, and storeship in the Philippines, before being sold into commercial service after World War I. She was sunk by Japanese aircraft on 29 December 1941.

text:
# USS Pompey

**USS *Pompey* (AF-5)** was an auxiliary ship of the United States Navy, acquired in 1898 for service in the Spanish–American War, which went on to serve as a collier, tender, and storeship in the Philippines, before being sold into commercial service after World War I. She was sunk by Japanese aircraft on 29 December 1941.

## Service history

The ship was built in 1897 by S.P. Austin and Sons, Ltd. of Sunderland, England, as the freighter SS *Harlech*. She was purchased by the U.S. Navy from James and Charles Harrison of London, England, on 19 April 1898, and commissioned as USS *Pompey* at Naval Station Norfolk on 26 May 1898. She then served as a collier in Rear Admiral William T. Sampson's squadron off Cuba, returning to Norfolk on 23 August, and was decommissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 18 January 1899.

*Pompey* was recommissioned in 1901 to serve in the Asiatic Fleet, supporting U.S. forces in the Far East. In February 1903 *Pompey* accompanied the gunboats *Elcano*, *Villalobos*, and *Callao*, as they sailed from the Philippines to China to inaugurate the Yangtze River Patrol. Based on Shanghai from February 1903, their mission was to protect American citizens and property, and promote friendly relations with the Chinese.

*Pompey* was decommissioned at the Cavite Naval Station, Philippines, in June 1905. Placed back into commission in July 1906, she continued to serve as a collier on the Asiatic Station, apart from a period in 1907-1909 when she was assigned to the Pacific Fleet.

From 1911 she served as tender at Cavite to the five torpedo boat destroyers of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla (*Bainbridge*, *Barry*, *Chauncey*, *Dale* and *Decatur*) until decommissioned at the Olongapo Naval Station in February 1916.

After being recommissioned in November 1917 *Pompey* served as a storeship – a role she had assumed at least part of the time as early as 1915. She received the hull code **AF-5** in July 1920.

She was finally decommissioned on 5 July 1921 at Olongapo, and struck from the Navy List on 28 March 1922. She was transferred to the War Department on 12 July 1922, and by 1923 had become the Philippine merchant ship *Pompey*.

She was renamed *Samal* in 1931, and was sunk by Japanese bombing at Pier 7, Manila on 29 December 1941.

## InfoBox

|  | |
| --- | --- |
| History | |
| United States | |
| Name | USS *Pompey* |
| Namesake | Pompey |
| Builder | S.P. Austin and Sons, Ltd., Sunderland, England |
| Launched | 1 April 1897 |
| Acquired | by purchase, 19 April 1898 |
| Commissioned | 26 May 1898 |
| Decommissioned | 5 July 1921 |
| Stricken | 28 March 1922 |
| Identification | AF-5, from July 1920 |
| Fate | * Sold into commercial service, 1923 * Bombed and sunk, 29 December 1941 |
| General characteristics | |
| Type | Freighter |
| Tonnage | 1,285 GRT |
| Displacement | 3,085 long tons (3,135 ) |
| Length | 245 ft (75 m) |
| Beam | 33 ft 6 in (10.21 m) |
| Draft | 15 ft 10 in (4.83 m) |
| Speed | 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) |
| Complement | 114 |
| Armament | None |


title: Montgomery Zoo

abstract: Montgomery Zoo is a 40-acre (16 ha) zoo located on the north side of Montgomery, Alabama. The zoo is an independent city department, and is supported in part by The Montgomery Area Zoological Society. It is home to approximately 750 animals representing 140 species. After not renewing their Association of Zoos and Aquariums membership in 2013, the zoo opted to remain accredited solely by the Zoological Association of America. The Mann Wildlife Learning Museum opened in January 2003 and serves as the administration building. The museum features taxidermy displays with a focus on native wildlife, game species, and wildlife management.

text:
# Montgomery Zoo

**Montgomery Zoo** is a 40-acre (16 ha) zoo located on the north side of Montgomery, Alabama. The zoo is an independent city department, and is supported in part by The Montgomery Area Zoological Society. It is home to approximately 750 animals representing 140 species. After not renewing their Association of Zoos and Aquariums membership in 2013, the zoo opted to remain accredited solely by the Zoological Association of America. The **Mann Wildlife Learning Museum** opened in January 2003 and serves as the administration building. The museum features taxidermy displays with a focus on native wildlife, game species, and wildlife management.

## History

The Montgomery Zoo began as a small menagerie in 1920 in Oak Park in the Oak Park neighborhood, a residential district in Central, Montgomery. Initially started as a small children's zoo as a part of a local community park, the zoo housed alligators, monkeys, bears and assorted other animals. There was a small train and carousel for the children. The zoo closed down between 1960 and 1971 due to racial tensions, and an unwillingness to integrate.

In 1972, the Montgomery Zoo reopened at its current location. The zoo began with six acres, a small petting zoo for the children, assorted monkeys, a flight cage designed after the 1906 St. Louis World's Fair, and a chimpanzee named Benji. In 1976, the Montgomery Zoo hosted its first fundraising event entitled Zoo Day. This initial event grew to become an annual event and is now called Zoo Weekend. Today, an average Zoo Weekend will host as many as 18,000 guests.

In 1989, ground-breaking took place expanding the zoo to 40 acres. After two years of construction, the community welcomed a new zoo in 1991. Barrier-free and multi-species exhibits highlighted the expansion, as well as the zoo being divided into five continental realms: Africa, Australia, Asia, North America, and South America. Since then the zoo has continued to grow and expand. In 1992, the cougar and lynx exhibit was opened in North American realm, the Reptile House, jaguar, and ocelot exhibit were completed in South America; and the new chimpanzee and colobus monkey exhibits opened in the Africa realm. In 1993, the Bengal tiger exhibit opened in the Asian realm with one white and one orange tiger. In 1995, the bald eagle exhibit opened in North American realm and Monkey Island was completely renovated in South America. In 1996, the American black bear exhibit opened and the first baby cheetah was born. In 1998, the maned wolf and Indian rhino exhibits opened. In 1999, the new front gate entrance and gift shop opened. In 2003, the Mann Wildlife Learning Museum was completed and opened on zoo property. In 2004, the African elephant exhibit opened, housing three female elephants.

In March 2008, the North American river otter exhibit opened featuring two river otters and an additional habitat for an alligator snapping turtle. In June 2010, the zoo opened the Giraffe Encounter and feeding stations at the river otters and koi fish ponds. The following year, both the Parakeet Cove and Horse Trail Rides were added as animal encounters. In August 2012, the Zoofari Skylift Ride was completed. Two months later, the Birmingham Zoo's two male lions, Baron and Vulcan were displayed in their exhibit at the African realm. Two years later, these two lions were sent to Salt Lake City's Hogle Zoo to breed with Woodland Park Zoo's two lionesses.

The new American alligator habitat opened with four bachelor males in summer 2014.

## Exhibits

### Australia

The Australian Realm is viewed from a boardwalk. Although it originally displayed Australian animals, it is currently in a state of redevelopment. This exhibit opened with red kangaroo, dama wallaby, parma wallaby, emu, black swan, cereopsis, radjah shelduck, and magpie goose. The small seasonal exhibit, which formerly housed warthogs and aardwolf, currently houses the red river hog.

Current occupants of this exhibit area include a walk-through interactive aviary for Budgerigar and Pygmy hippopotamus,

### Asia

One of the central exhibits of the zoo is the large Asian Hoofstock yard. Opened in 1991 with the rest of the ‘new zoo’ this exhibit and its collection have remained mostly unchanged since its construction. The tigers have a view of the hoofstock over a moat. Additionally, Indian peafowl roam the zoo grounds.

The exhibit formerly held Eld’s deer, banteng, demoiselle crane, mandarin duck, common shelduck, and teal. There are additional habitats for the Bengal tiger pair and Indian rhinoceros. The first baby rhino for the zoo was a male born October 1, 2007. The first Indian rhinoceros ever born by artificial insemination was born on June 5, 2013.

### Africa

The African Realm is the largest exhibit complex in the zoo. The African Savanna Elephant habitat was opened in 2005 with the first three female elephants. It includes waterfalls, a large pool, a barn with a flexible design to allow for the separation of individuals, and several enrichment items scattered across the exhibit that change on a regular basis. The African ungulates and elephants are placed within a panoramic view, and from the cafe all appear to share the same space.

This exhibit displays:

Another yard adjacent to the hoofstock houses a family of Reticulated giraffes and Abyssinian ground hornbills. The giraffes can be seen up close and fed from the Overlook Cafe.

The Old World Aviary is also seen from the Overlook Cafe and is adjacent to the giraffe feeding post. It is home to a variety of African birds and a mammal species:

The African Realm is also home to the siamang (indigenous to Asia), Chimpanzee, lion, and cheetah.

### South America

South America is the original and oldest section of the existing zoo. It utilizes what remains of the petting zoo that originally opened at the zoo's current location in 1972. The enclosures here are more antiquated, and this section is full of smaller, more traditional, and less modern exhibits.

The zoo also has a Flight Cage that is made to resemble the 1904 World's Fair Aviary.

The Reptile House is in this section of the zoo. It has several specimens of reptiles and amphibians found throughout the world. None of the species are venomous.

### North America

The North American exhibit is full of several species of hoofstock that can be found in Alabama and other parts of the United States.

There are separate enclosures for the cougar, Canadian lynx, black bear, bald eagle, river otter, and a pair of young American alligators.

## Mann Wildlife Learning Museum

In 2003, the **Mann Wildlife Learning Museum** was purchased by the Montgomery Area Zoological Society and moved to the Montgomery Zoo. The collection of large animals on display was taken with bow and arrow by trophy hunter George Mann. Guests visiting the Mann Wildlife Learning Museum are able to touch and feel the furs and antlers of some of the animals on display. The animals are in a three-sided display so you can walk up close and see the animal and their habitat. All the displays are assembled from natural material and actual plants, rocks, trees, dirt and sand collected from the actual site where the display animals lived. There is also a fish room, where many species of mounted fish are on display, including stingrays, sharks, marlin, blue fin and a killer whale.

## Other Attractions

Feeding stations are located at the Asian koi fish pond. The zoo also has a Giraffe Encounter Post located at the giraffe exhibit in the African realm. Parakeet Cove is an interactive walk-through aviary and was built in 2012. The Zoofari Skylift Adventure Ride opened in 2014, and gives guests an aerial view of the park. The petting zoo features a collection of pygmy goats, ducks, and llamas and is located in the playground area near the Asian realm of the zoo. The keepers host daily lion and elephant talks and training sessions.

In 2011, the Montgomery Zoo began raising funds for the construction of a touch-and-feed stingray exhibit, where visitors would have a chance to directly interact with stingrays. The exhibit was officially opened on 6 March 2018. Shortly after, a life support system malfunction, that resulted in the loss of much of the marine life, caused for a complete overhaul of the life support systems and backup areas. The newly renovated exhibit opened in Fall 2021, Waters of the World, and features fish, invertebrates, and reptiles found in aquatic habitats all over the world.

The exhibit is adjacent to the Mann Wildlife Learning Museum, and near the Zoo's Chimpanzee exhibit.

## Future plans

Plans are currently being made for a butterfly pavilion to be constructed, in honor of those with breast cancer.

The Zoo is currently raising funds for the construction of a new reptile facility. In cooperation with the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, the Montgomery Zoo has plans to house the endangered species of Indian Crocodile known as the Gharial, along with several other species in the new facility. 2019's *Zoo Weekend*, an annual fundraising event hosted by the Zoo since 1976, was solely dedicated to raising funds for this new exhibit. Currently, a large banner providing information of the new facility is hanging on the outside fence of the Greater rhea exhibit, located in the Zoo's South America realm. The new facility serves as a replacement for the Zoo's current Reptile House, which is also located in the South America realm.

## Books

## InfoBox

| Montgomery Zoo | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
|  | |
| 32°25′12″N 86°16′38″W / 32.420128°N 86.277201°W / 32.420128; -86.277201 | |
| Date opened | 1920, reopened May 6, 1972 |
| Location | Montgomery, Alabama |
| Land area | 40 acres (16 ha) |
| No. of animals | 750 |
| No. of species | 140 |
| Annual visitors | 240,000 |
| Memberships | Zoological Association of America |
| Website | montgomeryzoo.com |


title: Mahaulepu Beach

abstract: Māhāʻulepū Beach is a beach on the southeast coast of the Hawaiian island of Kauai. It is two miles (3.2 km) long and goes from Punahoa point to Paʻoʻo point. The beach is separated into three different parts: Gillin's Beach, Kawailoa Bay, and Hāʻula Beach. Gillin's Beach, the center section, is known for petroglyphs that are carved into the rocks, though they are rarely exposed. Fossils of extinct birds have been found in sand dunes along the shoreline, including the Kauaʻi Stilt-owl, a flightless rail, and three species of goose. Close to the beach is the paleontologically important Makauwahi Cave.

text:
# Mahaulepu Beach

21°53′33″N 159°25′01″W / 21.89250°N 159.41694°W / 21.89250; -159.41694 **Māhāʻulepū Beach** is a beach on the southeast coast of the Hawaiian island of Kauai. It is two miles (3.2 km) long and goes from Punahoa point to Pa**ʻ**o**ʻ**o point. The beach is separated into three different parts: Gillin's Beach, Kawailoa Bay, and Hāʻula Beach. Gillin's Beach, the center section, is known for petroglyphs that are carved into the rocks, though they are rarely exposed. Fossils of extinct birds have been found in sand dunes along the shoreline, including the Kauaʻi Stilt-owl (*Grallistrix auceps*), a flightless rail, and three species of goose. Close to the beach is the paleontologically important Makauwahi Cave.

A panoramic view of Haula beach, the most eastern beach in Mahaulepu.


title: Mae Chang railway station

abstract: Mae Chang railway station is a railway station located in Na Sak Subdistrict, Mae Mo District, Lampang. It is located 600.336 km from Bangkok railway station and is a class 3 railway station. It is on the Northern Line of the State Railway of Thailand.

text:
# Mae Chang railway station

**Mae Chang railway station** is a railway station located in Na Sak Subdistrict, Mae Mo District, Lampang. It is located 600.336 km from Bangkok railway station and is a class 3 railway station. It is on the Northern Line of the State Railway of Thailand.

* Ichirō, Kakizaki (2010). *Ōkoku no tetsuro: tai tetsudō no rekishi*. Kyōto: Kyōtodaigakugakujutsushuppankai. ISBN 978-4-87698-848-8
* Otohiro, Watanabe (2013). *Tai kokutetsu yonsenkiro no tabi: shasō fūkei kanzen kiroku*. Tōkyō: Bungeisha. ISBN 978-4-286-13041-5

18°16′21″N 99°47′11″E / 18.2725°N 99.7863°E / 18.2725; 99.7863

## InfoBox

| Mae Chang <br>แม่จาง | |
| --- | --- |
| General information | |
| Location | Ban Sop Toen, Na Sak Subdistrict, Mae Mo District, Lampang |
| Owned by | State Railway of Thailand |
| Line(s) | Northern Line |
| Platforms | 1 |
| Tracks | 3 |
| Other information | |
| Station code | มจ. |
|  | |
| Services | |
| Preceding station  State Railway of Thailand Following station  Pang Puaitowards Bangkok (Hua Lamphong) or Krung Thep Aphiwat  Northern Line  Mae Motowards Chiang Mai | |
|  | |
|  | |
|  | |


title: Mae Carden

abstract: Mae Carden (1894–1977) was an American educator who developed the Carden Method. She created the code for words, and taking apart sentences and knowing how to put them back together. Mae Carden was born in Honolulu and received her primary and secondary education there. She then went on to receive her Bachelor's from Vassar College and her Master's from Columbia University. Throughout her career she emphasized joyful learning; in her own words, "Life is a joy, so should be learning."

text:
# Mae Carden

**Mae Carden** (1894–1977) was an American educator who developed the Carden Method. She created the code for words, and taking apart sentences and knowing how to put them back together. Mae Carden was born in Honolulu and received her primary and secondary education there. She then went on to receive her Bachelor's from Vassar College and her Master's from Columbia University. Throughout her career she emphasized joyful learning; in her own words, "Life is a joy, so should be learning."

## 1934

Mae Carden established the first Carden School in 1934 at 24 East 68th Street in New York City. Two years later she moved it to 43 East 67th Street. She demonstrated that children can gain an understanding of their own language and attain the ability to use it correctly when reading, listening, speaking, or writing. Her goal was to teach children to think; her main techniques were analysis and rhythm. Her educational philosophy and teaching techniques became an integral part of the Carden Method. Teachers, students, and parents often shorten the name of this interrelated, eclectic group of approaches to learning, calling it Carden.

## 1949

In 1949 Mae Carden closed her school in New York City and with close associates, Dorothea Freyfogle and May Crissey, organized Mae Carden, Inc. The new arrangement enabled Mae Carden to give full attention to the use of the Carden Method in other schools.

## 1962

To assure the continuation of her work, she established The Carden Educational Foundation, Inc., a New York not-for-profit corporation, in 1962. After Mae Carden died in 1977, the Foundation absorbed all of the activities and purposes of Mae Carden, Inc., and dissolved that organization. All rights, title, and interest in the Carden Method, including Carden and the Carden Curriculum, are vested in the Foundation.

## InfoBox

| Mae Carden | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Born | 1894 |
| Died | January 1977 (aged 82) |
| Occupation | Educator |
| Signature | |
|  | |


title: USS Politesse

abstract: USS Politesse (SP-662) was a motorboat that served in the United States Navy as a patrol vessel from 1917 to 1919. Politesse was built as a civilian motorboat in 1911 by J. R. Robertson at Waltham, Massachusetts, for Frederic C. Hood. In 1917, the U.S. Navy chartered her for use as a patrol boat during World War I. She was commissioned on 15 April 1917 as USS Politesse (SP-662). Apparently, her charter officially went into effect two days later, on 17 April 1917. Politesse performed patrol duty at Boston, Massachusetts, for the remainder of World War I. After World War I, the Navy returned Politesse to her owner. Sources differ on the date of the return, giving it as both 29 May 1919 and 5 July 1919.

text:
# USS Politesse

**USS *Politesse* (SP-662)** was a motorboat that served in the United States Navy as a patrol vessel from 1917 to 1919.

*Politesse* was built as a civilian motorboat in 1911 by J. R. Robertson at Waltham, Massachusetts, for Frederic C. Hood. In 1917, the U.S. Navy chartered her for use as a patrol boat during World War I. She was commissioned on 15 April 1917 as USS *Politesse* (SP-662). Apparently, her charter officially went into effect two days later, on 17 April 1917.

*Politesse* performed patrol duty at Boston, Massachusetts, for the remainder of World War I.

After World War I, the Navy returned *Politesse* to her owner. Sources differ on the date of the return, giving it as both 29 May 1919 and 5 July 1919.

## InfoBox

| *Politesse* as a civilian motorboat at the Boston Navy Yard in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1917, just prior to her United States Navy service as the patrol boat USS *Politesse* (SP-662). | |
| --- | --- |
| History | |
| United States | |
| Name | USS *Politesse* |
| Namesake | Previous name retained |
| Builder | J. R. Robertson, Waltham, Massachusetts |
| Completed | 1911 |
| Acquired | 17 April 1917 |
| Commissioned | 15 April 1917 |
| Fate | Returned to owner 29 May 1919 or 5 July 1919 |
| Notes | Operated as private motorboat *Politesse* 1911-1917 and from 1919 |
| General characteristics | |
| Type | Patrol vessel |
| Length | 29 ft (8.8 m) or 30 ft (9.1 m) |
| Beam | 5 ft 5 in (1.65 m) |
| Draft | 2 ft 3 in (0.69 m) |


title: Montgomery Women's Facility

abstract: The Montgomery Women's Facility is a prison for women run by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). It is located behind Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs, an unincorporated area in Montgomery County, Alabama. Opened in 1976, it has a capacity of 300 inmates; its warden is Adrienne Givens.

text:
# Montgomery Women's Facility

The **Montgomery Women's Facility** is a prison for women run by the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). It is located behind Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs, an unincorporated area in Montgomery County, Alabama. Opened in 1976, it has a capacity of 300 inmates; its warden is Adrienne Givens.

32°23′16″N 86°06′03″W / 32.38778°N 86.10083°W / 32.38778; -86.10083

## InfoBox

Montgomery Women's Facility
|  | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Location | Mt. Meigs, Alabama |
| Status | open |
| Capacity | 300 |
| Opened | 1976 |
| Managed by | Alabama Department of Corrections |


title: Maiestas beieri

abstract: Maiestas beieri is a species of bugs from the Cicadellidae family that can be found in African countries like Ethiopia and Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, in Asia. It was formerly placed within Recilia, but a 2009 revision moved it to Maiestas.

text:
# Maiestas beieri

***Maiestas beieri*** is a species of bugs from the Cicadellidae family that can be found in African countries like Ethiopia and Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, in Asia. It was formerly placed within *Recilia*, but a 2009 revision moved it to *Maiestas*.

## InfoBox

| *Maiestas beieri* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Hemiptera |
| Family: | Cicadellidae |
| Genus: | *Maiestas* |
| Species: | ***M. beieri*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Maiestas beieri***<br>(Dlabola, 1964) | |
|


title: Morley rank

abstract: In mathematical logic, Morley rank, introduced by Michael D. Morley (1965), is a means of measuring the size of a subset of a model of a theory, generalizing the notion of dimension in algebraic geometry.

text:
# Morley rank

In mathematical logic, **Morley rank**, introduced by Michael D. Morley (1965), is a means of measuring the size of a subset of a model of a theory, generalizing the notion of dimension in algebraic geometry.

## Definition

Fix a theory *T* with a model *M*. The Morley rank of a formula *φ* defining a definable (with parameters) subset *S* of *M* is an ordinal or 1 or ∞, defined by first recursively defining what it means for a formula to have Morley rank at least *α* for some ordinal *α*.

* The Morley rank is at least 0 if *S* is non-empty.
* For *α* a successor ordinal, the Morley rank is at least *α* if in some elementary extension *N* of *M*, the set *S* has countably infinitely many disjoint definable subsets *Si*, each of rank at least *α*  1.
* For *α* a non-zero limit ordinal, the Morley rank is at least *α* if it is at least *β* for all *β* less than *α*.

The Morley rank is then defined to be *α* if it is at least *α* but not at least *α* + 1, and is defined to be ∞ if it is at least *α* for all ordinals *α*, and is defined to be 1 if *S* is empty.

For a definable subset of a model *M* (defined by a formula *φ*) the Morley rank is defined to be the Morley rank of *φ* in any ℵ0-saturated elementary extension of *M*. In particular for ℵ0-saturated models the Morley rank of a subset is the Morley rank of any formula defining the subset.

If *φ* defining *S* has rank *α*, and *S* breaks up into no more than *n* \< ω subsets of rank *α*, then *φ* is said to have **Morley degree** *n*. A formula defining a finite set has Morley rank 0. A formula with Morley rank 1 and Morley degree 1 is called strongly minimal. A **strongly minimal** structure is one where the trivial formula *x* = *x* is strongly minimal. Morley rank and strongly minimal structures are key tools in the proof of Morley's categoricity theorem and in the larger area of model theoretic stability theory.

## Examples

* Alexandre Borovik, Ali Nesin, "Groups of finite Morley rank", Oxford Univ. Press (1994)
* B. Hart Stability theory and its variants (2000) pp. 131–148 in *Model theory, algebra and geometry*, edited by D. Haskell et al., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 39, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2000. Contains a formal definition of Morley rank.
* David Marker Model Theory of Differential Fields (2000) pp. 53–63 in *Model theory, algebra and geometry*, edited by D. Haskell et al., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 39, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2000.
* Morley, M.D. (1965), "Categoricity in power", *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, **114** (2), American Mathematical Society: 514–538, doi:10.2307/1994188, JSTOR 1994188
* Pillay, Anand (2001) \[1994\], "Group of finite Morley rank", *Encyclopedia of Mathematics*, EMS Press
* Pillay, Anand (2001) \[1994\], "Morley rank", *Encyclopedia of Mathematics*, EMS Press


title: USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720)

abstract: USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720) is a Los Angeles-class submarine and is the fourth ship of the United States Navy to be named for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

text:
# USS Pittsburgh (SSN-720)

**USS *Pittsburgh* (SSN-720)** is a *Los Angeles*-class submarine and is the fourth ship of the United States Navy to be named for Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

## History

The contract to build *Pittsburgh* was awarded to the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corporation in Groton, Connecticut on 16 April 1979, and her keel was laid down on 15 April 1983. She was launched on 8 December 1984 and commissioned on 23 November 1985.

On 2 April 1991 *Pittsburgh* and *Louisville* conducted submarine-launched Tomahawk missile attacks against Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.

*Pittsburgh* departed in October 2002 for a deployment to the Mediterranean Sea. There, she again fired Tomahawk missiles into Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She returned on 27 April 2003.

On 25 February 2019, *Pittsburgh* returned to her homeport at Naval Submarine Base New London after completion of her final deployment. The submarine then arrived at Bremerton, Washington on 28 May 2019, for a months-long inactivation and decommissioning process.

*Pittsburgh* was officially deactivated on 17 January 2020 at the Undersea Warfare Museum in Keyport, Washington, and awaited the Submarine Recycling Program at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. She was later decommissioned on 15 April 2020 and the crew released, 37 years to the day of her keel was laid down.

Of interesting note, *Pittsburgh's* final Commanding Officer, was (at the time: Commander) Jason Deichler a native of Western Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh suburbs, and brought the "Yinzer" spirit to the *SSN-720*, as he said, "I wear Pittsburgh on my sleeve."

*This article includes information collected from the public domain sources* Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships *and* Naval Vessel Register*.*

## InfoBox

USS *Pittsburgh* (SSN-720)
| USS *Pittsburgh* at a dockside ceremony in 1985. | |
| --- | --- |
| History | |
| United States | |
| Name | USS *Pittsburgh* |
| Namesake | The City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
| Awarded | 16 April 1979 |
| Builder | General Dynamics Electric Boat |
| Laid down | 15 April 1983 |
| Launched | 8 December 1984 |
| Commissioned | 23 November 1985 |
| Decommissioned | 15 April 2020 |
| Out of service | 6 August 2019 |
| Homeport | Groton, Connecticut |
| Motto | *Heart of Steel* |
| Status | Decommissioned |
| Badge |  |
| General characteristics | |
| Class and type | *Los Angeles*-class submarine |
| Displacement | * 5,802 long tons (5,895 t) light * 6,193 long tons (6,292 t) full * 391 long tons (397 t) dead |
| Length | 110.3 m (361 ft 11 in) |
| Beam | 10 m (32 ft 10 in) |
| Draft | 9.4 m (30 ft 10 in) |
| Propulsion | * 1 × S6G PWR nuclear reactor with D2W core (165 MW), HEU 93.5% * 2 × steam turbines (33,500) shp * 1 × shaft * 1 × secondary propulsion motor 325 hp (242 kW) |
| Speed | * **Surfaced:**20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h) * **Submerged:** +20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h) (official) |
| Complement | 12 officers, 98 men |
| Sensors and <br>processing systems | BQQ-5 passive sonar, BQS-15 detecting and ranging sonar, WLR-8 fire control radar receiver, WLR-9 acoustic receiver for detection of active search sonar and acoustic homing torpedoes, BRD-7 radio direction finder |
| Armament | 4 × 21 in (533 mm) bow tubes, 10 Mk48 ADCAP torpedo reloads, Tomahawk land attack missile block 3 SLCM range 1,700 nautical miles (3,100 km), Harpoon anti–surface ship missile range 70 nautical miles (130 km), mine laying Mk67 mobile Mk60 captor mines |


title: USS Richard Peck

abstract: USS Richard Peck (IX-96) was an auxiliary ship of the United States Navy during 1943. Built in 1892 by Harlan and Hollingsworth, Wilmington, Delaware, she was acquired by the Navy on 20 February 1943, from the New England Steamship Company, New Haven, Connecticut, and commissioned the same day at Argentia, Newfoundland. Richard Peck provided electrical power at Argentia during her active service. Decommissioned on 5 November 1943, at Norfolk, Virginia, she was struck from the Navy List on 16 November 1943, transferred to the War Shipping Administration on 9 December 1943, and subsequently transferred to the Pennsylvania Railroad.

text:
# USS Richard Peck

**USS *Richard Peck* (IX-96)** was an auxiliary ship of the United States Navy during 1943. Built in 1892 by Harlan and Hollingsworth, Wilmington, Delaware, she was acquired by the Navy on 20 February 1943, from the New England Steamship Company, New Haven, Connecticut, and commissioned the same day at Argentia, Newfoundland.

*Richard Peck* provided electrical power at Argentia during her active service. Decommissioned on 5 November 1943, at Norfolk, Virginia, she was struck from the Navy List on 16 November 1943, transferred to the War Shipping Administration on 9 December 1943, and subsequently transferred to the Pennsylvania Railroad.

## InfoBox

|  | |
| --- | --- |
| History | |
| United States | |
| Name | USS *Richard Peck* |
| Builder | Harlan and Hollingsworth, Wilmington, Delaware |
| Launched | 1892 |
| Acquired | 20 February 1943 |
| Commissioned | 20 February 1943 |
| Decommissioned | 5 November 1943 |
| Stricken | 16 November 1943 |
| Homeport | Argentia, Newfoundland |
| Fate | Transferred to War Shipping Administration, 9 December 1943 |
| General characteristics | |
| Tonnage | 2,906 long tons (2,953 t) (gross) |
| Length | 316 ft (96 m) |
| Beam | 62 ft (19 m) |
| Draft | 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m) |
| Speed | 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) |


title: USS Richard W. Suesens

abstract: USS Richard W. Suesens (DE-342) was a John C. Butler-class destroyer escort in service with the United States Navy from 1944 to 1947. She was finally sold for scrap in 1973.

text:
# USS Richard W. Suesens

**USS *Richard W. Suesens* (DE-342)** was a *John C. Butler*-class destroyer escort in service with the United States Navy from 1944 to 1947. She was finally sold for scrap in 1973.

## Namesake

Richard Wayne Suesens was born 30 April 1915 at Burlington, Iowa. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve on 31 May 1938. Appointed Aviation Cadet on 4 October 1938 and commissioned ensign on 15 October 1939, he reported for duty with Torpedo Squadron 3, on board USS *Saratoga* on 20 November 1939.

Promoted to lieutenant (junior grade) on 1 November 1941, he was killed in action during the Battle of Midway, June 1942. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross.

## History

*Richard W. Suesens*'s keel was laid down 1 November 1943 by the Consolidated Steel Corporation of Orange, Texas. The destroyer escort was launched on 11 January 1944, sponsored by Mrs. R. W. Suesens, widow of the ship's namesake; and commissioned on 26 April 1944.

Completing shakedown off Bermuda and post-shakedown availability at Boston, *Richard W. Suesens* sailed for Long Island Sound on 29 June 1944. That night, in Buzzard's Bay, she collided with the minesweeper USS *Valor*. The coastal minesweeper sank and the destroyer escort transported survivors to Newport, Rhode Island. Then she continued on, reported for duty at New York City, thence, on 4 July, proceeded south. A unit of CortDiv 69, she served as escort for ships en route to Mayport, then steamed on through the Panama Canal, reporting to the Pacific Fleet 23 July. On 2 August she arrived at San Diego, whence she sailed with TransDiv 10 to Hawaii. Arriving on 19 August, she trained there until mid-September, then headed west with convoy PD-89-T, bound for Eniwetok. There, on 22 September, she joined TF 33 and 8 days later sailed for Manus and duty with the 7th Fleet.

Assigned to TU 77.4.24, an escort carrier unit, *Richard W. Suesens* sailed for the Philippines 14 October. On 16 October, TG 77.4 rendezvoused with TG 78.6 to provide air coverage for transports en route from Hollandia to Leyte. Through the landings on 20 October and the covering operations which followed, the DE, alternating plane guard and screening duties continued to operate with the "jeep" carriers. On 22 October TU 77.4.24 was dissolved. *Richard W. Suesens* with six escort carriers, three destroyers, and four other destroyer escorts formed TU 77.4.2 and with TU 77.4.1 and TU 77.4.3 took up patrol duties to the east of Leyte Gulf whence their planes could provide air support for the amphibious forces, fly CAP and ASP for the Leyte areas, interdict Japanese supply movements, and drop supplies to Army units inland. Called "Taffy 1", "Taffy 2", and "Taffy 3" from the radio call sign used by each unit commander, the units proceeded to their operational areas: Taffy 1 off northern Mindanao, Taffy 2 off the entrance to Leyte Gulf, Taffy 3 off Samar.

During the early morning hours of 25 October, the Battle of Surigao Strait was fought and daybreak searches were ordered flown to hunt down the retiring Japanese ships. Planes from Taffy 1 were designated to fly the searches while other units continued air support and patrol operations. At dawn the planes were launched on their missions. At 0645 *Richard W. Suesens* intercepted ship plane traffic on VHF reporting an enemy battleship and cruiser force closing on Taffy 3 as its carriers made every effort to get torpedo planes airborne along with fighters to drive off the enemy ships. All available planes from Taffy 2 were dispatched to join those of Taffy 3. The Battle off Samar had begun. By 0720 the enemy force had closed to within 20 miles (32 km) of Taffy 2. The destroyers formed a line between the carriers' circular disposition and the approaching enemy. The escorts remained with the carriers as they continued to rearm returning planes and send them northward into the now visible gunsmoke clouds over Taffy 3.

Through the morning *Richard W. Suesens*, screening Taffy 2, listened as torpedo planes and fighters conducted aerial attacks and Taffy 3's destroyers and escorts challenged the enemy's larger ships on the surface. By 0920 the latter were only 12 miles (19 km) from Taffy 2 and their shells splashed among the destroyers, but the battle was turning. The Japanese now so close to their objective-entrance into Leyte Gulf-were no longer on the offensive. TG 77.4, despite staggering losses while protecting shipping in the Gulf, now commenced the pursuit, which, taken up by others, continued until 29 October. Rescue operations and logistic resupply followed on 26 October. On the night of 27 – 28 October, *Richard W. Suesens* resumed screening and plane guard duties and at the end of the month she headed south.

Arriving at Manus 3 November, *Richard W. Suesens* spent the next 3 weeks undergoing upkeep and maintenance, then reported for duty in TF 79, the force staging for the invasion of Luzon. On 31 December the force sortied from Seeadler Harbor and headed for the Philippines. On 8 January 1945, the Japanese attacked. USS *Kitkun Bay* and HMAS *Westralia* were damaged by kamikazes, but the force continued on to arrive in Lingayen Gulf in the early hours of 9 January. During the assault, and after, *Richard W. Suesens* patrolled off the transport area. On 12 January as she rescued survivors from USS *Gilligan*, she was closed by a kamikaze in a steep, full-power dive. Anti-aircraft fire apparently killed the pilot, but the plane kept its momentum and, after skimming the after 40 mm gun, crashed into the sea. The subsequent explosion injured 11 of the destroyer escort's crew and caused minor damage to the hull.

*Richard W. Suesens* then retired to Leyte, whence she sailed on 27 January to screen landing craft to Nasugbu. There, on 31 January, she covered the assault forces as they began their fight to Manila. Retiring to Mindoro on 2 February, she screened resupply runs to Nasugbu and brought out casualties through 23 February, witnessing on 16 February the paratroop landing on Corregidor.

Returning to Leyte, she prepared for Operation Iceberg, the invasion of the Ryukyus, and on 21 March sailed with the Western Islands Attack Force. Arriving off Kerama Retto on 26 March she screened the transport area there during the initial assault, then remained on patrol off that anchorage into mid-April when she shifted to the Hagushi Beach anchorage. Employed as a picket ship in the antisubmarine and antiaircraft ring around the Kerama Retto-Okinawa area, she survived the nightly air raids and numerous kamikaze attacks, splashing four planes and assisting in the destruction of two more before retiring to Ulithi on 26 April.

In early May she underwent availability at Ulithi, then served as radar picket ship north of that base. On 27 May she returned to Okinawa where, until 28 June, she alternated escort duty with picket ship responsibilities. She then returned to Leyte, joined TG 32.1 and between 1 July and 6 August covered minesweeping operations in the East China Sea in support of the blockade of the Japanese home islands. On 7 August she returned to Okinawa where she was employed in escort work for the remainder of the war. From the mid-August cessation of hostilities until late September, she continued escort runs, including one to Jinsen, Korea. Then, on 22 September, she sailed for Japan. There she supported occupation forces in the Wakayama-Wakanoura area through October. On 1 November, she was en route home.

## Fate

On 21 November *Richard W. Suesens* arrived at San Diego for inactivation. In commission, in reserve, from March 1946, she decommissioned on 15 January 1947 and was berthed with the San Diego Group, Pacific Reserve Fleet. Although she was later moved to Stockton, California, she remained a unit of the Reserve Fleet until struck from the Navy List on 15 March 1972. She was sold 13 June 1973 to the National Metal and Steel Corporation, Terminal Island, California for scrapping.

## Honors

*Richard W. Suesens* earned five battle stars during World War II.

## InfoBox

|  | |
| --- | --- |
| History | |
| United States | |
| Name | *Richard W. Suesens* |
| Namesake | Richard Wayne Suesens |
| Builder | Consolidated Steel Corporation, Orange, Texas |
| Laid down | 1 November 1943 |
| Launched | 11 January 1944 |
| Commissioned | 26 April 1944 |
| Decommissioned | 15 January 1947 |
| Stricken | 15 March 1972 |
| Identification | DE-342 |
| Fate | Sold for scrap 13 June 1973 |
| General characteristics | |
| Class and type | *John C. Butler*-class destroyer escort |
| Displacement | 1,350 long tons (1,372 ) |
| Length | 306 ft (93 m) |
| Beam | 36 ft 8 in (11.18 m) |
| Draft | 9 ft 5 in (2.87 m) |
| Propulsion | 2 boilers, 2 geared turbine engines, 12,000 shp (8,900 kW); 2 propellers |
| Speed | 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) |
| Range | 6,000 nmi (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) |
| Complement | 222 |
| Armament |  |


abstract: Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the expired Risk Corridors program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), through which the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) mitigated losses of unprofitable healthcare plans through the profits of the profitable plans during the first three years of the program. Congress had passed legislation as riders in appropriations bills, which prevented the government from making payments to the unprofitable plans. Several of the insurers went bankrupt from the lack of payment, and multiple insurers sued the government to recover their funds on the basis the risk corridor was a commitment to be paid. The Federal Circuit Appeals Court rejected those claims, concluding that the subsequent appropriation riders absolved the government of its responsibility to pay. In the 8–1 decision that consolidated three of the subsequent appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's riders did not cancel the government's obligation under the ACA to pay the full amount to the unprofitable plans, and that the insurers had properly sought relief through a Tucker Act action in the Court of Federal Claims.

text:
# Maine Community Health Options v. United States

***Maine Community Health Options v. United States***, 590 U.S. \___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the expired Risk Corridors program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), through which the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) mitigated losses of unprofitable healthcare plans through the profits of the profitable plans during the first three years of the program. Congress had passed legislation as riders in appropriations bills, which prevented the government from making payments to the unprofitable plans. Several of the insurers went bankrupt from the lack of payment, and multiple insurers sued the government to recover their funds on the basis the risk corridor was a commitment to be paid. The Federal Circuit Appeals Court rejected those claims, concluding that the subsequent appropriation riders absolved the government of its responsibility to pay. In the 8–1 decision that consolidated three of the subsequent appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's riders did not cancel the government's obligation under the ACA to pay the full amount to the unprofitable plans, and that the insurers had properly sought relief through a Tucker Act action in the Court of Federal Claims.

## Background

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as "Obamacare", passed as law in 2010. Part of the law established a healthcare plan marketplace where consumers could shop for and select individual plans. Because this was a rather new concept, drawing in new insurers alongside well-established ones, and considered to be potentially risky, the ACA included a Risk Corridor program, described at 42 U.S.C. § 18062(1342) to limit the amount of profit or losses any single healthcare plan could make or lose during the first three years of implementation of the ACA, from 2014 through 2016. Based on calculations set by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), profitable healthcare plans would pay a portion of those profits to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), and subsequently the CMS would pay to cover a portion of the losses to the unprofitable plans. The amounts that plans were to pay or were to be covered by the government were based on percentage differentials of expected versus actual medical costs, and did not cover all gains or losses by insurers, leaving those that were drastically under-performing still responsible for their losses. Conceptually, the idea was that by the end of 2016, healthcare plans would have enough data from three years of operations to be able to minimize risk and thus should not have significant losses or profit. As passed by the ACA, there were no set limit to how much the government would collect or pay out, nor for the program to be fiscally neutral, though this was the intended target. Similar risk corridors had been used successfully before, notably in Medicare Part D coverage.

The Republican Party had generally been against the ACA, and with the 2014 United States elections, gained controlled of the Senate while retaining control of the House of Representatives. Senator Marco Rubio introduced legislation in November 2013 to amend the ACA to repeal the Risk Corridor program, which he had described as "taxpayer-funded bailouts", but which failed to pass. Rubio was able to successfully able to introduce a rider into the 2014 appropriations for the DHHS that prevented CMS from using other accounts to fund payments for the Risk Corridors program, effectively requiring it to be fiscally neutral. In tallying the 2014 year-end funds, CMS found they had an approximate US$2.5 billion deficit in payments to under-performing insurers due to the new rider. CMS were forced to reduce payments that year on a *pro rata* basis, approximately down to 12.6% of the originally promised payments, with the expectation to pay the remaining owed funds from the profitable plan payments in 2015 and 2016. A similar rider was introduced in the subsequent 2015 appropriations bill to limit the funds the CMS could use to pay out insurers, and with 2015 also having another large deficit towards underperforming insurers, CMS could issue no 2015 payments and only cover a portion of the owed 2014 payments. A similar situation occurred in 2016, with yet another rider and another deficit. By the end of 2016, CMS estimated it still owed insurers over US$12 billion from the Risk Corridor program. Over a dozen insurers were forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of the lack of payments.

Some of the insurers that were owed money by the CMS sued the government for failure to pay. The Supreme Court case here is a consolidation of three cases from four different insurers: Maine Community Health Options, Moda Health Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, and the Land Of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company. All four had filed separate suits at the United States Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, asserting that §1342 of the ACA held the government responsible to fulfill the payments promised by the Risk Corridor program. Of the four cases, only Moda Health had been given partial summary judgement that the government was still required to fulfill payments. All four cases were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which ruled in favor of the government in all three cases, in that the riders of the appropriation bills eliminated the responsibility of the government to fulfill the payments.

## Supreme Court

All four insurers petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, which they certified in June 2019 for the 2019–2020 term, consolidating the three cases under *Maine Community Health Options*. Oral arguments were heard on December 10, 2019, during which observed felt that a bi-partisan majority group of the Justices appeared to side with the insurers, asking questions that compared the Risk Corridor program and its equivalency to a typical business contract. Only Justice Samuel Alito appeared to side with the government's stance.

The Court issued its decision on April 27, 2020. In the 8–1 decision, the majority ruled that the Risk Corridor program as defined in §1342 was an obligation for the government to pay the amount owed set by the predetermined calculation to the insurers, and that Congress improperly used appropriation riders to try to cancel this obligation. Further, the majority ruled that the insurers could bring a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims against the government under the Tucker Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority which was joined by all but Justice Alito. Sotomayor wrote that their decision reflected "a principle as old as the nation itself: The government should honor its obligations." Sotomayor affirmed that insurers "may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims" via the Tucker Act. Justice Alito wrote in the sole dissenting opinion that the majority's decision was "a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost" and that "This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose."

## InfoBox

| Maine Community Health Options v. United States | |
| --- | --- |
| Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued December 10, 2019
Decided April 27, 2020 | |
| Full case name | *Maine Community Health Options v. United States* |
| Docket no. | 18-1023 |
| Citations | 590 U.S. \___ (*more*)140 S. Ct. 1308 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | * *Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States*, 129 Fed. Cl. 81 (2016); affirmed, 892 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2018) * *Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States*, 130 Fed. Cl. 436 (2017); reversed, 892 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2018) * *Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N. Carolina v. United States*, 131 Fed. Cl. 457 (2017); affirmed, 729 F. App'x 939 (Fed. Cir. 2018) * *Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States*, 133 Fed. Cl. 1 (2017); affirmed, 729 F. App'x 939 (Fed. Cir. 2018) * Rehearing *en banc* denied, 908 F.3d 738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) * Cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2743 (2019) |
| Holding | |
| 1. The Risk Corridors statute created a Government obligation to pay insurers the full amount set out in §1342’s formula 2. Congress did not impliedly repeal the obligation through its appropriations riders. 3. Petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims. . | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts  Associate Justices Clarence Thomas **·**  Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer **·**  Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor **·**  Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch **·**  Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh; Thomas, Gorsuch (all but Part III–C) |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Tucker Act | |


title: Maine Coast Railroad

abstract: The Maine Coast Railroad was a railroad company that operated on tracks owned by the Maine Department of Transportation between 1990 and 2000.

text:
# Maine Coast Railroad

The **Maine Coast Railroad** was a railroad company that operated on tracks owned by the Maine Department of Transportation between 1990 and 2000.

## History

The company started operations in 1990 after a contract was awarded to the Massachusetts Central Railroad (MCER) to operate the Rockland Branch between Brunswick and Rockland, Maine. The MCER chose to create a new railroad to operate the line, named the Maine Coast. During its first year, the railroad handled little traffic, but in 1991 a large cement producer on the line began shipping its product via rail. As a result of this increase in traffic, the Maine Coast acquired additional locomotives. In 1994, using funding from the Maine Department of Transportation, trackage in Rockland was rebuilt to allow freight to be transferred from the railroad to barges. The railroad closed on December 4, 2000, after losing their lease to the tracks. The lines formerly operated by Maine Coast Railroad was later operated by Maine Eastern Railroad between 2004 & 2015.

## Traffic

It offered both freight service and passenger service. The passenger trains operated between Wiscasset and Warren, Maine.

Freight traffic largely consisted of cement products outbound from and coal inbound to Dragon Cement and Concrete in Thomaston. There was also limited perlite and plastic products that moved along the line.

## Motive Power

The Maine Coast operated with a small roster of Alco and Montreal Locomotive Works locomotives, including a former Maine Central S-1 (No. 958); a former Norfolk & Western and Central Vermont RS-11 (No. 367); and two Providence and Worcester M420s (Nos. 2002 and 2004).

## InfoBox

Maine Coast Railroad
| Overview | |
| --- | --- |
| Headquarters | Wiscasset, ME |
| Reporting mark | MC |
| Locale | Maine |
| Dates of operation | 19902000 |
| Predecessor | Maine Central Railroad |
| Successor | Safe Handling |
| Technical | |
| Track gauge | 4 ft 8+12 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge |