Literature Review Of Response Rates - Rand Corporation: Fill & Download for Free

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

Q. Did more Vietnam vets kill themselves after the war?A. The suicide rate among Vietnam veterans in the five years after they were discharged was 34.5 per 100,000. For ex-military personnel who served after that war ended, the equivalent number was just 20.1.Epidemiologists for the Department of Veterans Affairs looked at U.S. veterans who'd returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, and found that 21.9 per 100,000 veterans committed suicide—not much higher than the control group in the previous study.United States military veteran suicide - WikipediaOver 100,000 US Vietnam Vet Suicides To Date! (2007) BestThe Myth And Reality Of Vietnam Vet Suicides (1999)How Many Suicides by Vietnam Vets? (1991)Opinion | Why do so many veterans kill themselves? Here are four theories. (2018)Are more veterans killing themselves today than after Vietnam? (2011)Suicide Rate Spikes in Vietnam Vets Who Won't Seek Help (2012)New VA Study finds 20 veterans commit suicide each day (militarytimes.com) (2016)We Lose Too Many Vietnam Veterans to Suicide: Here’s How You Can Help (2017)29 of the Best Politically Incorrect Vietnam War Slang TermsOver 100,000 US Vietnam Vet Suicides To Date!TOTAL COST TO THE UNITED STATES:$925 BillionEdward Tick sources. United States: Disabled American Veterans; The New York Times; Hell, Healing and Resistance by Daniel Hallock; The Vietnam War: A History in Documents, by Young, Fitzgerald & Grunfel; Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War. Viet Nam: Army Museum, Ha Noi; Hong Ngoc (Rosy Jade) Humanity Center, Sao Do; Research Center for Gender, Family, and Environment in Development, Ha Noi; Women's Museum, Ha Noi; War Remnants Museum, Ho Chi Minh City.Five Great Books About the Vietnam War for Middle ReadersThe Myth And Reality Of Vietnam Vet Suicides (1999)September 12, 1999 |By Michael Kelley, Special to the Washington PostSince returning from the Vietnam War, 160,000 veterans have committed suicide. Or so reported one reputable veterans' publication.If true, that's nearly three times as many as died in the war itself.I called the editor and asked, “What was your source?''His reporter found a mention of 150,000 suicides in a 1990 book, he explained to me, “and then added 10,000 to reflect the probable increase between 1990 and 1995.''“Great science there,'' I said. “But what would you say if I told you there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support 150,000, or even as many as 20,000, suicides?''At the time, I thought he and other veterans would be overjoyed to learn that the suicide myth was untrue, and that they would share my relief at finding that we are not, after all, such a twisted, tormented and damaged group that 15 or so of us have taken our own lives every single day for the past 30 years. Since then, I have learned that a substantial number of veterans want to believe the myth. Some veterans and veterans organizations have simply enshrined it as fact, institutionalizing the Vietnam veteran as victim, promoting the idea that after losing 58,000 men in the war we had lost that many again - or two or three times that many - who fell into such desperation after coming home that they killed themselves.What became a protracted and stupefying journey into this fantasy world of wholesale veterans suicides began for me with the realization that what I was hearing and reading did not square with my experience.I thought about the infantry unit I served with for 11 months: Delta Company, 1st Battalion of the 502nd Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. About 45 men from that company were killed in action during its four and a half years in Vietnam. If as many vets killed themselves later as died during the war, then 45 of the company's approximately 800 veterans would have committed suicide - or 135, if suicides were three or more times the number of wartime deaths.But in fact, as far as the unit's association can determine, not a single one of those veterans have died by suicide. Struck by the huge discrepancy between the supposed suicide statistics and my knowledge of the veterans community, I went to a local library and spent a few hours thumbing through bibliographies related to veterans' mortality. What I found then and in subsequent research left me reeling.The first surprise was that there already existed a substantial body of scientific literature on the subject. The second surprise was that none of it remotely supported the numbers I saw being published as fact.What on earth brought this plague upon us?The assertion of 58,000 suicides appears to have drawn its first breath in a 1980 manual titled ``Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders of the Vietnam Veteran.'' Published by the Disabled American Veterans, the manual was used widely throughout the Veterans Administration. Its first edition (but none after) noted that ``more Vietnam combat veterans have died since the war by their own hands than were actually killed in the war. That statement was credited to an unpublished paper written in April 1979 by Tom Williams, who also was the editor of the manual. Curiously, his claim came a full eight years before the first comprehensive study of Vietnam veterans' mortality was published.Just where Williams divined his data remains a mystery. (I have made several attempts to find out, but he has never responded to my queries.)From there the suicide story, with numbers ranging up to 200,000, spread to news reports, books, television documentaries and news magazines, and the World Wide Web.Actual mortality studies tell a completely different story.No one knows precisely how many Vietnam veterans have committed suicide. Nor does anyone know how many have died from all causes. We do have information, though, that points to what is possible and what is not.Approximately 3.1 million Americans served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. On average, suicides have accounted for just over 1.1 percent of all U.S. male deaths during the last half of this century. According to research done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the 1980s, suicides were somewhat more elevated for Vietnam veterans than for non-veterans in the same age group during the veterans' first five years after discharge. After five years, though, the differences disappeared.A projection based on the CDC findings shows suicides would represent a shade over 1.2 percent of veterans' deaths from 1967 to 1996. Veterans Administration data indicate that total postwar deaths among Vietnam vets had reached roughly 305,000 by January 1996, so if the percentage suggested by the CDC data is correct, the number of suicides during those 30 years would have been about 3,750.Vietnam War: A Tribute to Our VetsHow Many Suicides by Vietnam Vets? (1991)To the Editor:Although the case Tom Brokaw cites in "Michael Creamer, a Casualty of Two Wars" (Op-Ed, Feb. 18) is tragic, a study of suicides among Vietnam veterans would be in order."Postservice Mortality Among Vietnam Veterans," a Centers for Disease Control study (Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 13, 1987, pages 790-95), indicated 1.7 suicides among Vietnam veterans for every one suicide by non-Vietnam veterans for the first five years after discharge. Beyond five years, there were fewer suicides in the Vietnam veterans' group than in the non-Vietnam veterans' group."Proportionate Mortality Study of U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps Veterans of the Vietnam War" by Breslan, Kang, Lee and others (Journal of Occupational Medicine, May 1988, pages 412-19) found that suicides were not higher among Vietnam veterans compared with non-Vietnam veterans.Suicides among Vietnam veterans have been said to be 50,000 to 100,000. At any time during the Vietnam conflict, there were 37 million males aged 18 through 35. Of this group approximately 2.6 million served in Vietnam. Of the entire 37 million male population there have been approximately 152,000 suicides.If 50,000 to 100,000 Vietnam veterans committed suicide, that would mean that between one-third and two-thirds of all the suicides in the 37 million population came from the 2.6 million subgroup. There is no factual evidence to support this assertion.The best estimate of suicide among Vietnam veterans, from the Centers for Disease Control in 1988 Congressional testimony, is 9,000.As a Vietnam veteran who regularly visits veterans' hospitals, I fully understand how war wounds the mind as well as the body. However, the problem of veterans of all wars should be considered without sensationalism, and not to make political points. BERNARD A. HEENEY Bayonne, N.J., Feb. 20, 1991The Poetry of the Vietnam WarOpinion | Why do so many veterans kill themselves? Here are four theories.By Thomas E. Ricks April 4Thomas E. Ricks is the author of five books about the U.S. military. He writes “The Long March” column for Task & Purpose, a veteran-oriented website.Why do so many soldiers continue to take their own lives at a higher rate than their civilian counterparts, whether young or old? I’ve spent a lot of time stewing about this over the past few days.It began Monday morning, when I got a note from a vet in a very dark place and contemplating the act. He’d served in Vietnam. His risk of suicide is about 22 percent higher than that of his non-veteran peers, according to a report last year from the Department of Veterans Affairs.That afternoon, I learned that an Army captain who had been featured a while back in my old “Best Defense” column on the Foreign Policy website had gone out in the middle of the night and sat on railroad tracks near Fort Carson, Colo., and a train ran over him; police are investigating the death. He was still in the military but may have been thinking of leaving. People getting out are at the highest risk in the year after they leave — about 1½ to two times as likely to kill themselves as those still on active duty.A friend of his wrote to me, “He was always a high-performing and intelligent guy. He had deployed to Afghanistan with 10th Mountain, then to Kuwait with 4th ID prior to Atlantic Resolve where it looks like you met him. He was on deck to teach Military Science at West Point. He had a wife and daughter. Nothing about his death makes sense. The only indicator I had that he was unhappy was his deep frustrations with the conventional military, the high op tempo for support roles and exercises, and the impact on his family.”Last month, the commander of the Marine 4th Reconnaissance Battalion was found dead in his home. He also had deployed several times to Iraq and Afghanistan.Also recently, I read that a retired major who had served in military intelligence in Iraq had killed himself and his wife.The suicide rate for veterans has gone up 35 percent since 2001, in part because of increases in post-9/11 veterans killing themselves.I know what I am seeing around me is anecdotal. But it just doesn’t feel right to me. What is going on here?Here are four possibilities, specific to the conditions of our recent war:A lost war: My initial thought was that perhaps people are feeling empty and lost as the Middle Eastern war winds down and we don’t have a lot to show for it, besides Iran being more powerful than ever. But a friend who did several tours in Vietnam said he also knew that feeling but didn’t see any rash of suicides in the ’70s among his former comrades.Death by rotation: Another theory is that everyone is born with just so much to give and that repeated deployments drain that reserve, without replenishment. At some point, a person might just decide they can’t do this anymore, that this is too painful and look for the fastest exit.Brain injury: A third theory, related to the extensive use of roadside bombs in the Middle East, suggests that the human brain can, at best, withstand only one or two nearby explosions and cannot heal the deep damage inflicted by repeated blasts.More to come: Or is it that depressed vets are responding to the whiff of another possible war on the horizon, with North Korea?Whether it is one of these, or a combination, or something else, it worries me deeply.A Vietnam War Reading List, Brought to You by the War HallAre more veterans killing themselves today than after Vietnam? (2011)Have military suicides increased?Writing in Slate last week, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz named the rate of suicides among veterans of recent wars as a "social cost of 9/11." He cited stats from a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs study that looked at the years 2005-07 and found 18 suicides per day among American ex-servicemen. In light of these numbers, and in honor of National Suicide Prevention Week (which began Sunday), the V.A. has posted a toll-free crisis hotline and a link for online chats to its website. Is the suicide rate among veterans any higher now than it has been in the past?It's hard to say because there aren't many reliable data from before the 1960s. But what evidence we have suggests that those who were recently discharged from service in the Vietnam War were more likely to kill themselves than veterans of today's campaigns.A 2004 study by a team led by researchers from the National Center for Environmental Health looked at numbers going back to 1965, and found that the suicide rate among Vietnam veterans in the five years after they were discharged was 34.5 per 100,000. For ex-military personnel who served after that war ended, the equivalent number was just 20.1. A few years later, epidemiologists for the Department of Veterans Affairs looked at U.S. veterans who'd returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, and found that 21.9 per 100,000 veterans committed suicide—not much higher than the control group in the previous study. It's possible that rates will go up in years to come, as more soldiers are discharged after multiple deployments.No one tracked military suicide rates carefully prior to the Vietnam War. Post-traumatic stress disorder wasn't officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association until 1980, when the psychological fallout from an unpopular war was becoming more visible in the mental-health community.There's evidence that suicides are getting more common among soldiers who remain actively involved in the military. According to a recent study by the Rand Corporation, active-duty personnel killed themselves at a rate of 16.3 per 100,000 in 2008, up from 10.3 in 2001. Repeated exposure to combat zones may account for this increase. Some soldiers are sent back three or four times before they're off the hook.Maura Kelly is the author of Much Ado About Loving, about what classic novels can teach you about mating, relating, and Internet dating.What were major Battles of the Vietnam War? - The Vietnam WarSuicide Rate Spikes in Vietnam Vets Who Won't Seek Help (2012)Joe Amon/Denver Post/Getty ImagesVietnam Veteran Harold Evans stands with Martin Omafray at the Wall that Heals at Iron Horse Park at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs June 10, 2011.Every Christmas Rudi Gresham, a former combat soldier in Vietnam, gets a Christmas card from a fellow veteran who was nearly pushed to the brink of suicide because of despair."The guy was in his late 50s and his wife had left him and he came down with cancer from Agent Orange, he was broke and he had to move in with his mom and dad--he didn't know where to go from there," said Gresham, who was then serving as senior advisor to the Department of Veterans Affairs under the George W. Bush administration."Everything had gone to hell," said Gresham. "But I communicated with him."Now 68 and retired in South Carolina, Gresham was able to get the veteran the 10 years of back pay he deserved by authenticating his service with a commanding officer. Today, the man's cancer is under control and he has a new woman in his life.Gresham said getting that thank you card for saving the veteran's life was "the most gratifying moment" in his eight-year career with the VA. "I tell my kids, this is the reward for my work."But three other depressed friends were not so lucky and took their own lives, becoming statistics in a rising tide of suicides among baby boomers, many of them Vietnam War veterans.Just this week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its latest statistics on suicide rates among Americans, finding that the number of middle-aged Americans who took their own lives was up more than 28 percent.Annual suicide rates among U.S. adults aged 35 to 64 increased from 13.7 to 17.6 suicides per 100,000 people between 1999 and 2010.The greatest increases in suicide rates were among people aged 50 to 54 years (48 percent) and 55 to 59 years (49 percent).For the whole population, the national rate was 12.4 per 100,000 in that decade, according to the CDC. The most common mechanisms were suffocation or hanging, poisoning and firearms. Increases were seen among both men and women.The CDC cites the recent economic downturn, a "cohort effect" among baby boomers who had unusually high suicide rates during their adolescent years, and a rise in intentional overdoses because of increased availability of prescription opioids.But suicide rates among Vietnam veterans are the highest of any particular group, according to John Draper, project director of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.Eight million Americans report suicidal thoughts, and 1.1 million will attempt suicide. An estimated 38,000 will succeed in killing themselves, according to the CDC. Most are male, by a four to one margin, and are single and lack a college education.The suicide rate jumped higher for women (32 percent) than for men (27 percent)."Men tend to be more lonely and have a harder time maintaining and replacing relationships than women, especially when they get into middle age," said Draper. "Men are busy working or tie their relationships to work and when they lose their job, they lose their relationships."Those who are less stable in their personal lives are also less stable in the workforce, he said."I don't have all the answers," said Draper. "But we know about suicide prevention and people who are more socially connected and have a sense of belief and self-worth and are valued at work and in their relationships are way more protected and generally happier people."Post-traumatic stress disorder and associated mental health problems are to blame for many of the suicides among war veterans, according to Draper."The most important thing to remember is we can do something to stop this," said Draper, who, like Gresham, said that communication and support from others can help to prevent suicide.Since 2001, more than two million service members have been deployed to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost for treating veterans of all eras and conflicts is estimated at $48 billion, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.PTSD was not even recognized until after the Vietnam War, according to Gresham, who recognized at the onset of his government career in 2000 the importance of increasing the VA budget after predicting the staggering number of cases that were to follow. "I knew mental problems would exceed the physical," he said."I feel sorry for the younger soldiers," he said. "They are now married, got a wife and kids and suddenly come back and they can't find a job. These things all compound."As for the Vietnam veterans, they found less support in the 1960s and 1970s, when they returned from combat service. "The older veterans don't trust the government and they don't go for help," said Gresham.Unlike World War II soldiers who were hailed as heroes, these servicemen returned to "feel a bit outcast and rejected," according to Gresham, who sits on the Vietnam Veterans Foundation.Many of that generation refused to acknowledge they had PTSD and are suffering the consequences later in life. "Believe me, we have a real problem," he said."These guys were the first generation not to trust the guys in the white coats, and they didn't trust the government," said Gresham. "A lot of the Viet vets with PTSD held it in."They didn't want to let their family know their dark secret. They wanted to be in the workforce and be productive like the generation of World War II, but they were not respected by society."The VA in the 1970s was not responsive to the needs of these veterans, he said. "I've seen what has happened to a lot of these older vets."At a town meeting in Los Angeles several years ago, Gresham said he told a group of Vietnam vets. "You know Hollywood was correct when they did the movie the 'Fourth of July' with Tom Cruise. The VA did a lousy job of taking care of vets."But today, according to Gresham, "The VA has made "tremendous efforts to spend lots of money on [PTSD]," he said.In 2007, the VA partnered with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to create a dedicated line manned by veterans on the National Suicide Lifeline.The so-called Veterans Crisis Line has fielded more than 250,000 calls a year from veterans and active members of the military, according to Lifeline director Draper."It's a brilliant idea and it's saved taxpayers money and saved lives," he said.Draper said it is too early to see the impact of this collaboration but predicts that CDC suicide numbers will eventually drop, at least among veterans.Gresham, who was involved in the creation of the hotline, is also hopeful. "It's so much better for veterans to get help from other veterans," he said. "There is a strong bond.""If you have suicide thoughts and there's another veteran on the line, you trust your brother, whether it's a man or a woman," he said. "If they have been in combat, there is someone who understands you.""They didn't trust the VA for a long time and now the VA has its arms open," said Gresham. "They do very good work now. They understand the problem."In 1971 speech, John Kerry spoke of the monster created by the Vietnam WarNew VA Study finds 20 veterans commit suicide each day (militarytimes.com) (2016)Pedestrians walk in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs building in Washington, Friday, June 21, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)Roughly 20 veterans a day commit suicide nationwide, according to new data from the Department of Veterans Affairs — a figure that dispels the often quoted, but problematic, "22 a day" estimate yet solidifies the disturbing mental health crisis the number implied.In 2014, the latest year available, more than 7,400 veterans took their own lives, accounting for 18 percent of all suicides in America. Veterans make up less than 9 percent of the U.S. population.About 70 percent of veterans who took their own lives were not regular users of VA services.The new data, being released publicly today, is the most comprehensive suicide study ever conducted by the department.For years, the department has estimated the veterans suicide toll nationwide at around 22 individuals a day, but veterans groups noted numerous gaps in how that estimate was constructed. Most notably, the numbers were based on information from only about 20 states and did not contain full military records from the Defense Department.The new study includes more than 50 million veterans’ records from 1979 to 2014, including every state. The data, compiled over the last four years, also comes from the Centers for Disease Control.VA officials said in a statement that the information will allow them to "inform our suicide prevention programs and policies, especially for groups at elevated risk for suicide, including older and female veterans."Together, the numbers point to a significant mental health risk for individuals who served in the military, though the specific reasons remain unclear.Researchers found that the risk of suicide for veterans is 21 percent higher when compared to civilian adults. From 2001 to 2014, as the civilian suicide rate rose about 23.3 percent, the rate of suicide among veterans jumped more than 32 percent.The problem is particularly worrisome among female veterans, who saw their suicide rates rise more than 85 percent over that time, compared to about 40 percent for civilian women.And roughly 65 percent of all veteran suicides in 2014 were for individuals 50 years or older, many of whom spent little or no time-fighting in the most recent wars.Providing support and assistance to suicidal veterans has proven difficult, in part because of the lack of data on the scope of the problem.In recent years, VA has hired 5,300 mental health providers and support personnel and upgraded its Veterans Crisis Line in response to the problem. It has also elevated the profile of its suicide prevention office within the department and launched new partnerships with community health providers to offer counseling to veterans.Officials hope to use the data to further expand those offerings, targeting specific regions and populations within the veterans community to more effectively deliver care.Veterans groups hailed the new research as a critical step ahead in addressing the problem."Of course, this is still 20 [deaths] too many," said Joe Chenelly, executive director at AMVETS. "But we are grateful for the deeper, more accurate data analysis. Much still needs to be done, and this gives us a better idea where to focus."Full year-by-year and demographic breakdowns of the data are expected to be released by the department by the end of July.Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at [email protected] Kime covers military and veterans health care and medicine for Military Times. She can be reached at [email protected] the Vietnam War, 42 Years After US Troops WithdrewPSYCHOLOGY BENEFITS SOCIETYWe Lose Too Many Vietnam Veterans to Suicide: Here’s How You Can Help (2017)By Meg Lacy (Doctoral Student, Palo Alto University)As our Vietnam veteran population ages, many may become increasingly vulnerable for death by suicide. Despite the fact that the Vietnam war occurred approximately 40 years ago, the moral injuries sustained are still felt by many who served our country. It is not unusual for Vietnam Veterans to have coped with difficult times by staying busy at home or at work. As retirement looms, it is not unusual for Vietnam era veterans to experience additional age-related risks such as social isolation, a feeling of burdensomeness, and changes in health status.These changes can coalesce to hamper coping strategies that previously worked to manage mental distress, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. Alcohol and substance use increases the risk of suicide as the abuse of substances, particularly alcohol, is strongly associated with both suicide attempts and deaths. So what should friends and family watch out for and what could be done in response to warning signs?Warning signs:In general, individuals most at risk of suicide are white older adult males who have health issues. As risk factors associated with veteran status converge on risk factors associated with later life, there are a few specific things friends and family should be aware of.What’s going on in their life?A major change in routine including retirement or loss of a jobThe death of a spouseA new medical diagnosisA break-up, separation or divorceNot having a stable place to liveInadequate family incomeHow are they behaving?Increase in drinking or drug useSleeping considerably more or lessA loss of interest in things they typically enjoySocial withdrawalImpulsivity – engaging in risky behavior (running red lights, driving recklessly, looking like they have a “death wish”)Becoming aggressive- examples of this are punching holes in walls, seeking revenge, getting into fightsAnxiety- worrying excessively about things they cannot controlAgitation and mood swingsPutting affairs in order such as giving away prized possessions or making out a willSeeking out firearms access to pillsNeglecting personal welfare including deteriorating physical appearance or hygieneWhat are they saying?A sense of hopelessness: “I have no purpose”, “I have no value”, “Nothing is ever going to get better”Rage or anger: expressed toward people or thingsExpressed feelings of excessive guilt, shame or failure: “My family would be better off without me”Feelings of desperation: “There is no solution”, “I just feel trapped”What do they have access to?Familiarity and access to a firearm make suicide by firearm more likely. Any means by which a suicide can be attempted, including pills, is something that should be asked about. Veterans are more likely to own a gun and are comfortable using one making death by firearm a common means of suicide among this population.How can you help?Social support is one of the most effective protective factors against suicide (Cummings et al., 2015). However, many veterans have isolated themselves and their friends and family struggle to talk to them. Inviting them to an event, writing them a letter or participating in a shared activity (building something, fishing, walking, etc.) are great ways to get things started.Talk about it. Suicide is an uncomfortable topic but its best to be direct. Ask overtly if they are planning on killing themselves or have had thoughts about killing themselves. Just because they say no doesn’t mean that they don’t still have suicidal intentions so be sure to have additional information to provide such as a suicide hotline number for veterans, apps they could utilize (PTSD Coach), or a therapist’s contact information.If your loved one has a plan or tells you they are going to kill themselves, call 911. It's better to put their safety first. Demonstrating your support by seeking additional help is always best. If you can, include them in the process of seeking immediate help. Calling 911 or visiting the ER does not have to be a one-sided decision.These by no means are the only risk factors, signs or solutions for suicidality. However, engagement with friends and family has shown to be extremely effective against suicide. Demonstrating your support with regular calls or visits is an important step toward safety for many veterans.Related Resources:Veterans Crisis LineAPA Psychology Topic: SuicideResources for Caregivers of Service Members and VeteransWhen Will We Face the Facts about Suicide in Older Men?References:Chronic PTSD in Vietnam combat veterans: Course of illness and substance abuse (1996). American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(3), 369–375. doi:10.1176/ajp.153.3.369Conner, K. R., Britton, P. C., Sworts, L. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2007). Suicide attempts among individuals with opiate dependence: The critical role of belonging. Addictive Behaviors, 32(7), 1395–1404. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.09.012Conwell, Y., Van Orden, K., & Caine, E. D. (2011). Suicide in older adults. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 34(2),. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107573/Cummins, N., Scherer, S., Krajewski, J., Schnieder, S., Epps, J., & Quatieri, T. F. (2015). A review of depression and suicide risk assessment using speech analysis. Speech Communication, 71, 10–49. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2015.03.004Identifying signs of crisis. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from https://www.veteranscrisisline.net/SignsOfCrisis/Identifying.aspxLambert, M. T., & Fowler, R. D. (1997). Suicide risk factors among veterans: Risk management in the changing culture of the department of veterans affairs. The Journal of Mental Health Administration, 24(3), 350–358. doi:10.1007/bf02832668Lester, D. (2003). Unemployment and suicidal behaviour. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 57(8), 558–559. doi:10.1136/jech.57.8.558Military Suicide Research Consortium (MSRC) Newsroom. (2017, January 28). Retrieved February 26, 2017, from https://msrc.fsu.edu/news/study-reveals-top-reason-behind-soldiers-suicidesNademin, E., Jobes, D. A., Pflanz, S. E., Jacoby, A. M., Ghahramanlou-Holloway, M., Campise, R., Johnson, L. (2008). An investigation of interpersonal-psychological variables in air force suicides: A controlled comparison study. Archives of Suicide Research, 12(4), 309–326. doi:10.1080/13811110802324847Price, J. L. (2016, February 23). Findings from the national Vietnam veterans’ readjustment study. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/research-bio/research/vietnam-vets-study.aspUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs. (July 2016) VA Suicide Prevention Program: Facts about Veteran Suicide. Retrieved from https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/Suicide_Prevention_FactSheet_New_VA_Stats_070616_1400.pdfVan Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Gordon, K. H., Bender, T. W., & Joiner, T. E. (2008). Suicidal desire and the capability for suicide: Tests of the interpersonal-psychological theory of suicidal behavior among adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(1), 72–83. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.76.1.72Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Joiner Jr, E. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological Review, 117(2), 575.Warning signs of crisis. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from https://www.veteranscrisisline.net/SignsOfCrisis/Biography:Meg Lacy is a first-year doctoral student at Palo Alto University. She is interested in researching early intervention to trauma in combat soldiers and amongst first responders. Additionally, she is interested in the veteran population and suicide prevention.Image source: Flickr user Elvert Barnes via Creative CommonsStoned in Combat: Weed Smokers in the Vietnam War

No. Internet Hall of FameAn Internet pioneer and inventor, Paul Baran invented packet switching techniques that can be credited with playing a key role in the development of the Internet. Born in Poland, Paul immigrated to the US, where he graduated from Drexel University in 1949 with a degree in electrical engineering.Paul BaranPosthumous RecipientAn Internet pioneer, Paul Baran invented packet switching techniques that can be credited with playing a key role in the development of the Internet. Born in Poland, Paul immigrated to the US, where he graduated from Drexel University in 1949 with a degree in electrical engineering. He would later get his Masters in engineering at UCLA while working for Hughes Aircraft.He joined the RAND Corporation, where he worked on developing a communications system that could survive the damage of a nuclear weapon. Originally, he called the process “message blocks.” Other scientists including Donald Davies, who would later change the name to “packet switching,” had also come to a similar conclusion at the same time.Baran received many accolades in his life including the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal, National Medal of Technology and Innovation, and the National Inventors Hall of Fame. He was the founder of the Institute for the Future and got involved in other networking technologies including wireless spectrum. He is also credited with inventing the first metal detector.Baran died at the age of 84 on March 26, 2011.Read Wired's profile on Baran's historic contribution to the InternetInternet inventor Paul Baran, Polish American citizen.Paul Baran - WikipediaAwards and honors[edit]IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal (1990)[39]Marconi Prize (1991)Nippon Electronics Corporation C&C Prize (1996)Bower Award and Prize for Achievement in Science (2001)[7]Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2003)[40]Fellow of the Computer History Museum (2005) "for fundamental contributions to the architecture of the Internet and for a lifetime of entrepreneurial activity."National Inventors Hall of Fame (2007)National Medal of Technology and Innovation (2007)UCLA Engineering Alumnus of the Year (2009)Internet Hall of Fame (2012)In 1968, Baran was a founder of the Institute for the Future and was then involved in other networking technologies developed in Silicon Valley. He participated in a review of the NBS proposal for a Data Encryption Standard in 1976, along with Martin Hellmanand Whitfield Diffie of Stanford University.In the early 1980s, Baran founded PacketCable, Inc, "to support impulse-pay television channels, locally generated videotex, and packetized voice transmission."PacketCable, also known as Packet Technologies, spun off StrataCom to commercialize his packet voice technology for the telephony market. That technology led to the first commercial pre-standard Asynchronous Transfer Mode product. He founded Telebit after conceiving its discrete multitone modem technology in the mid-1980s. It was one of the first commercial products to use orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing, which was later widely deployed in DSL modems and Wi-Fi wireless modems. In 1985, Baran founded Metricom, the first wireless Internet company, which deployed Ricochet,the first public wireless mesh networking system. In 1992, he also founded Com21, an early cable modem company.After Com21, Baran founded and was president of GoBackTV, which specializes in personal TV and cable IPTV infrastructure equipment for television operators.Most recently, he founded Plaster Networks, providing an advanced solution for connecting networked devices in the home or small office through existing wiring.Baran extended his work in packet switching to wireless-spectrum theory, developing what he called "kindergarten rules" for the use of wireless spectrum.In addition to his innovation in networking products, he is also credited with inventing the first doorway gun detector.He received an honorary doctorate when he gave the commencement speech at Drexel in 1997.After joining the RAND Corporation in 1959, Baran took on the task of designing a "survivable" communications system that could maintain communication between end points in the face of damage from nuclear weapons during the Cold War.Then, most American military communications used high-frequency connections, which could be put out of action for many hours by a nuclear attack. Baran decided to automate RAND Director Franklin R. Collbohm's previous work with emergency communication over conventional AM radio networks and showed that a distributed relay node architecture could be survivable. The Rome Air Development Center soon showed that the idea was practicable.Using the minicomputer technology of the day, Baran and his team developed a simulation suite to test basic connectivity of an array of nodes with varying degrees of linking. That is, a network of n-ary degree of connectivity would have n links per node. The simulation randomly "killed" nodes and subsequently tested the percentage of nodes that remained connected. The result of the simulation revealed that networks in which n ≥ 3 had a significant increase in resilience against even as much as 50% node loss. Baran's insight gained from the simulation was that redundancy was the key.His first work was published as a RAND report in 1960,with more papers generalizing the techniques in the next two years.After proving survivability, Baran and his team needed to show proof of concept for that design so that it could be built. That involved high-level schematics detailing the operation, construction, and cost of all the components required to construct a network that leveraged the new insight of redundant links. The result was one of the first store-and-forward data layer switching protocols, a link-state/distance vector routing protocol, and an unproved connection-oriented transport protocol. Explicit detail of the designs can be found in the complete series of reports On Distributed Communications, published by RAND in 1964.The design flew in the face of telephony design of the time by placing inexpensive and unreliable nodes at the center of the network and more intelligent terminating 'multiplexer' devices at the endpoints. In Baran's words, unlike the telephone company's equipment, his design did not require expensive "gold plated" components to be reliable. The Distributed Network that Baran introduced was intended to route around damage. It provided connection to others through many points, not one centralized connection. Fundamental to the scheme was the division of the information into "blocks" before they were sent out across the network. That enabled the data to travel faster and communications lines to be used more efficiently. Each block was sent separately, traveling different paths and rejoining into a whole when they were received at their destination.Averting the Apocalypse with Hot Potatoes: How Paul Baran Invented the InternetEver wondered how it is that whenever you click on one of Culture.pl EN | Polish culture: literature, art, film, design, language, cuisine & more! | Culture.pl’s links, you’re immediately transported to a different place, full of wonderful pictures and well-written sentences telling a fascinating story? Well, it was all made possible thanks to the work of Paul Baran, a Polish Jewish American engineer who laid down the Internet’s technical foundation.First, a thought experimentOn picture Paul Baran, inventor of internetPaul Baran, photo: Wikimedia CommonsImagine you had to deliver a package with some bits and pieces in it. It has an addressee, but nobody really knows how to reach them. The only available information is that they’re part of the delivery network and, surely, somebody must be familiar with them. How would you go about delivering the package? The simplest solution, really, is to just ask people to pass it along, hoping that it’ll eventually reach its destination. If everybody is in close contact with a few people and the package is returned to the previous holder only if there are no other options, there are genuinely high chances that the box of goodies will finally get delivered.Now let’s take it further and imagine that those bits and pieces I mentioned are computer bits encoding information that can be replicated countless times and travel extremely fast. Following the same method, all you’d need to do is make sure that every computer in the network was connected to at least one other device. You encode the address on the packet of bits you want to send (or even its multiple copies) and get it on its way, with each computer passing along anything that is not addressed directly to them. Sooner or later, this digital game of ‘hot potato’ results in the package ending up in the right hands, especially since it has a counter listing the number of steps taken and is prompting the network to look for the shortest possible route.However weird this method might sound, it actually works and fuels the Internet as we know it – the moment you clicked on the link to this story, a server somewhere in the world constructed a package containing all the zeroes and ones needed to tell your computer to display this webpage to you. After some exchanges, the hot potato eventually reached its target, except in this twist on the playground game, you actually get rewarded by holding onto it.Exterior of Benjamin Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, PA, photo: Joe Sohm / Getty ImagesThe ‘hot potato heuristic’ is a really helpful way to illustrate what we today call ‘packet switching’, because it was created for this very reason by the technology’s inventor – Paul Baran, a Polish Jewish American engineer, who can quite rightly be called ‘the father of the Internet’. Although the credit for creating the World Wide Web usually goes to Tim Berners-Lee, who allowed us to get online by inventing the rules upon which the Internet operates, none of it would have happened without the introduction of packet switching.To use simpler terms, Berners-Lee showed us how to address letters and where to glue down stamps. He made it so easy that today everybody can use the postal service. But he could never have done this without Baran, the person who first found a way how to actually get those letters to their destination (interestingly, he also liked to use the postal metaphor). The thing is, the hero of our story did not exactly plan any of this.The sourceGrodno, a general view of the city and the Niemen river with a wooden bridge in 1920 from the Łosośna neighbourhood, photo: NACLet’s trace everything back to its source. Paul Baran was born on 29th April 1926 in Grodno as the second child of Morris and Anna Baran. However, the young Psachija, as the boy was first called, didn’t get to spend much time in the city of his birth. Between 1914 and 1920 – during the turmoil of First World War, the subsequent eventful years and the Polish-Soviet war of 1920 – Grodno moved across different countries numerous times. Unsurprisingly, Morris and Anna decided that it wasn’t exactly the best place to raise children. They applied for a visa and in 1928 arrived at Ellis Island, New York (Paul Baran later wrote that he moved to the US at the age of two and that it was one of his best decisions). They were greeted by their relatives who helped them first get to Boston and later settle down in Philadelphia, where Morris opened a grocery store.The first memories of young Paul (his and his siblings’ names were anglicised upon arrival to the US) must have been of West Philadelphia, where he grew up and went to school. His old neighbourhood does not have a good reputation today, but at the time it was a bustling suburb and gave Paul good prospects for the future – he attended a decent high school and could easily visit the Franklin Institute, where he first became fascinated with natural science and technology.Drexel University, main building, photo: drexel.eduEven though he loved learning, he was not your typical bookworm. His interests were pragmatic, as demonstrated in his early teens when he started his first business-like venture – he turned his starting capital of pennies into ‘dimes’ by coating them with mercury from a chemistry set. Around the same time, he also developed an interest in HAM radio (his call sign was W3KAS), which later influenced at least some parts of his career.Baran later enrolled at a co-operative course at Drexler University and paid his tuition by working for several local radio stations by servicing their equipment. He graduated as a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1949 and went on to start his first full-time job, which was already an interesting fit. He became an engineer working for Eckert Mauchly Computer Corporation (EMCC), most famous for creating the Univac: the world’s first commercially available computer.This thing has no futureU.S. Air Force technicians evaluate the UNIVAC computer system in 1951 which took up 352 square feet of floor space and ran at a then-astronomical rate of 2.25 megahertz, photo by U.S. Air Force / Getty ImagesWhile this position might have looked quite impressive on young Baran’s CV, he never actually got to see a working Univac. Shortly after joining the company, the Polish American engineer decided to find out what this new exciting field of informatics was all about and attended a course at the University of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the rows of zeroes and ones used to represent information were so incomprehensible to him that he found the whole thing absurd. He decided instead to focus on the technical side and went on to test the highly-unreliable vacuum tubes that the Univac used to store inputs.Having engineers as skilled as Baran working on various aspects of the new revolutionary digital device should have been sufficient for the company to succeed in creating the first programmable computer. However, the ground-breaking technology created by EMCC looked quite different to what you’re probably using to read this article. Univac measured 7.5 by 15 metres and cost around a million dollars (10 million today, adjusted for inflation). This is not a price point at which customers jump at to try new unproven devices, so unsurprisingly, EMCC ran into deep financial troubles and until their first investor came along in 1951, the chances that they would be able to successfully build the machine they had on paper were pretty slim.This is why Baran quit EMCC in 1950, having decided that even if the company managed to sell a dozen Univacs, their business model was not exactly sustainable. As he saw it, there simply wasn’t enough demand for these complex machines (keep in mind that in order to make full use of a computer, companies needed to change their whole way of operating, which incurred additional cost). Even though he later admitted that his decision was premature (Univacs became quite popular: one famously predicted Eisenhower’s win in the 1952 presidential election and another operated in Tennessee until 1970), Baran decided to find a new employer and focus on a technology that in his eyes actually had a future: radio.Radio daysYoung Paul Baran, photo: public domainToday’s action movies have made us take ballistic missiles for granted. The bad guys only need to press a single button to destroy half the planet, as the hero bravely steers their plane to avoid incoming self-guided rockets. But this was far from the case in 1950. Back then, the only way to hit an enemy with a missile was to shoot a bunch of them in the target’s general direction and hope at least one of them made it. And this is precisely what Baran’s new employer, Raymond Rosen Engineering Products set out to change.In October 1950, they created a revolutionary technology for the military, which allowed operators to transmit and precisely record the in-flight measurements of a missile’s trajectory. This in turn, made it possible to guide the missile directly, offering the military a degree of accuracy unheard of during the recently finished Second World War.Except, of course, it wasn’t that simple. Baran’s employer did create the system, but not everything worked perfectly. The signal was recorded on magnetic tape and any attempts to read it resulted in huge amounts of static, which undermined the recording’s very purpose. Baran’s job was to find a reason for the interferences and fix it as soon as possible – the military was certainly interested in the company’s invention, but competitors were working on their own missile-guidance systems.Martin Matador cruise missile being launched from a rail with rocket assist, photo: public domainBaran realised that the magnetic tape itself was an issue. It was a relatively new technology at the time and the surface of commercially available tapes was slightly uneven, which resulted in static – nothing horrible when you’re only trying to listen to Nat King Cole’s hot new single, but you probably wouldn’t’t want to guide missiles this way. The young engineer quickly ordered specially-designed perfectly-even tape, and together with his colleagues developed a new electronic static-reduction device. With this impressive contribution, he was invited as an expert to help out with the MGM-1 Matador missile’s test launch in the Bahamas. As Baran himself later recounted, the missile flew up into the sky and started descending, ready to hit a small island and display American military prowess to all the spectating officers. Too bad it missed its target.Baran quickly started analysing his tapes and found out what the problem was. But he didn’t give his superiors the solution outright, instead opting to revel in his moment in the spotlight because the military personnel had largely ignored him before as a mere technician. In the end, he and his colleagues demonstrated to the brass that the system did not fail. It’s just that the island was not where it was supposed to be: the military was depending on imprecise maps. The second launch was a success (although it has to be noted that this anecdote is nowhere to be found in the official report) and the military was then very eager to work with Raymond Rosen Engineering Products. The company only needed to sign the papers, but the owner decided that his traditional business of fixing the radios and TVs of local customers was much more reliable than some finicky government contract.Probably still feeling excitement from the Matador launch, Baran quit his job. The next few years were quite eventful. Working for Ampex, he developed a new method of radio transmission which was resistant to interference. He met and married Evelyn Murphy, the love of his life (apparently, he won her over with his sense of humour and honesty – when Evelyn ruined the dinner she prepared for their first date, Paul asked: ‘Are we eating this or is it already eaten?’). He moved to Los Angeles to start a new job at Hughes Aircraft where he worked on a transistor-based digital radio signal processing system that was a part of the ground-breaking SAGE computer command system. And since his newest job meant he was involved with computers again, he decided to get a Masters degree in informatics from UCLA. Not a bad way to spend your late twenties and early thirties.But his biggest challenge was waiting for him in the RAND corporation.How to build a strong networkUCLA campus in Los Angeles, California, photo: Getty ImagesThe famed RAND was created to solve the most vital problems faced by the US government. And when Baran started working there in 1959, the US government wanted to know only one thing: how do we win the Cold War?As you may recall, Baran had already contributed to the Cold War effort when he helped developed the missile-guidance system powering the Matador nuclear warheads. But, as experts in national security will tell you, nobody really wants to use their nuclear arms – it would mean game over not just for the enemy, but for life on Earth as we know it. The US had the means to obliterate at least the major Soviet cities, but the technology was not one of a kind – the Soviets also had their own intercontinental ballistic missiles and were just as able to lay waste to the Americans and their allies. It was only a matter of who was going to be the first to push the button.RAND was tasked with ensuring a second strike capability, but even if the military wanted a way to hit the enemy back, the institute’s employees saw it as a potential deterrent. If the enemy knows that the US is able to launch their missiles even if their central bases are destroyed, they might be less inclined to start a nuclear apocalypse, even if they were really eager to do so. All that was needed was a communications system that worked after nuclear blasts had obliterated a significant percentage of its nodes.Centralized vs distributed networks, photo: History of Computer Communications 1968 -1988Baran quickly got involved in the project since he had seen how dangerous guided nuclear missiles could be and he wanted to make sure that superpowers had as few reasons to use them as possible. He started experimenting and came out with the idea of creating a system of cheap unreliable transmitters with extremely high redundancy. This would mean that whenever one element was destroyed or did not work for some other reason, another would be able to pick up its task – in this case, transmit a message. It turned out that in order to guarantee the US a chance of responding to a nuclear strike, every node in the network had to be connected to just five others. Even if the majority were destroyed, messages could freely move between the remaining elements.The engineer proposed using digital means (other than computers!) to send messages of 1024 bits, which equals 128 signs. Coupled with the address of the recipient and the number designating the packet’s order within a bigger message that was being relayed, the system made it possible, with enough patience, to relay any information imaginable across the entire United States. Baran wittily noted in his publication on this subject that the creation of the system would not even require raising taxes and compared the cost to the first mobile telegraph created during the American Civil War (discussing the telegraph, the engineer factored in even the costs of the oats for the horses involved in the construction, because he believed ‘in rewarding good work’). Now somebody only needed to build the whole thing.Playing telephoneDonald Davies, photo: Wikimedia CommonsAt the beginning of this article I wrote that Baran can quite rightly be called ‘the father of the Internet’. This is not an uncontroversial statement as some Internet historians credit Donald Davies, a British computer scientist, with inventing the ‘packet switching’ for which Paul Baran is the most famous. In fact, Davies definitely invented the term, which Baran considered very apt, and he also independently conceived of the entire process a few years after the RAND engineer had already outlined its foundation. Even though there is some debate whether he had heard about Baran’s ideas or was somehow inspired by them (for example, Baran remembers chairing a conference in which Davies participated), the military network ARPANET, which was later split into a public Internet, was created on the basis of Davies’ work and Baran only served as consultant.However, as Baran’s biographer Wojciech Orliński aptly notes, ‘if – following patent law – we take an inventor to be the person who first described an unobvious invention in a way that would allow a person versatile in the craft to make it, then in the case of the Internet, Paul Baran would unquestionably be its inventor.’ Baran not only described the Internet as we know it, but he also almost built it – the entire project never got off the ground though because the Polish American engineer sabotaged the whole thing.Following his ground-breaking work on packet switching, Baran quickly convinced his bosses at RAND to start development. This was a feat in itself, because the institute’s own employees, frustrated when their brilliant ideas were not brought to life, often famously deciphered the acronym as “Research And No Development”. The military jumped onboard very quickly – they were excited about an indestructible system for sending commands in the middle of a nuclear war and the fact that Baran’s main motivations arose from anti-war sentiments did not bother them as long as everything looked good on paper. The only involved party that was not enthusiastic about the idea was the telecommunications giant AT&T.AT&T commercial from the 1960sIt’s not difficult to see why the company was sceptical about the project they were supposed to help develop (a mountain of paperwork and bureaucratic protocols made it necessary for RAND to work together with AT&T at the time). A cheap, reliable, long-distance, low-latency communications system was clearly direct competition to the telephones that were at the time still the foundation of the company’s business, even if, as Baran argued, telephones probably wouldn’t work after a nuclear strike. Moreover, Baran designed digital devices that were supposed to do all the communicating and ‘digital’ was not a word that excited the decision-makers at AT&T, which still used mainly analogue means of communication and constructed their network in a way opposite to what Baran proposed. It’s the equivalent of gifting somebody a Spotify subscription whose first reaction is to try make it work on a gramophone. This is how the engineer must have felt while explaining his idea.The problem was that despite AT&T’s reluctance, the project ended up with them anyway. The military got so excited about Baran’s network that they ultimately tasked the Defense Communications Agency (DCA) with bringing it to life. Baran believed that the people in DCA would be just as unreceptive to his novel ideas and just as dependent on the old analogue ways of thinking as AT&T. Moreover, the leaders of the DCA had strong connections with AT&T and it was very likely that the company would be in some way involved in the planning and development of the network. Baran was afraid that not only would his plan fail under the supervision of incompetent engineers, but also that they would want it to fail. He contacted his friend in the Department of Defense who was responsible for allocating resources to similar projects and told him that creating the network in this way would be a waste of money: something that would never work. It seems possible that the Internet exists in its current form only because its inventor worked hard to slow down its arrival.Unwittingly, Baran prepared the ground for people like Davies who used the Polish American engineer’s technical foundation and found a way to circumvent the problems which Baran had encountered – they used computers, taking AT&T out of the picture. In 1969, ARPANET, the Internet’s granddaddy, was created. On 29th October 1969, the first packet almost relayed the message ‘login’ from Stanford to UCLA. Almost, because one of the computers crashed in the process and only managed to send the letters ‘lo’. But the test was a resounding success – one hour later, the whole packet was delivered. Over half a century later, Paul Baran’s story has been delivered to you using exactly the same method.Going offlinePaul Baran with his wife Evelyn, photo: private archiveAlthough Baran is most famous for packet switching, his life as an inventor would’ve been quite significant even if he had not contributed to the creation of the Internet. The list of his inventions includes a doorway gun detector (which later gave Baran headaches every time he boarded a plane), the first satellite and wireless Internet connection systems, an electronic remote electricity meter, the fastest (at the time) Internet modem, a portable printer, and many other pioneering things. In his later life, Baran created one technology company after another (today, we would call them ‘start-ups’) only to later sell them for millions of dollars and focus on his newest brilliant idea. He briefly retired, but ultimately decided that an idle life in sunny California was not for him and he came back to work on developing new revolutionary devices.As impressive as this list may be, Baran was more than just an inventor – he was a visionary. Mindful of his youthful underestimation of the potential of computers, he later looked into the future with remarkable accuracy (after he left RAND, he was even one of the founders of the Institute for the Future, a think-tank specialising in technology foresight). Even though his networking project did not involve computers and ultimately did not come to life, he knew that digital communication would be at the centre of things to come. People wanted to be more connected and he had the skills and opportunities to make that happen (although, as Orliński notes, he depended a bit too much on equipping his devices with dedicated terminals instead of creating things that can be connected to a universal personal computer).Baran’s predictions are even more striking than the things he built. Despite his battles and disenchantment with AT&T, he was aware that the future of communications lay with big companies like them, since they would be able to supply their consumers with TV, telephone and Internet using a single cable. In 1967, he gave a presentation (later published by RAND) in which he outlined how the world of marketing would change in the year 2000. No longer would people just walk to a department store and buy things on impulse, but they would use a terminal connected to a TV to browse a virtually infinite online catalogue, looking only for the exact thing they needed (in Baran’s eyes, an example consumer in the year 2000 would probably be buying a sabre saw), similarly to academic researchers browsing papers to find one dealing with a particular problem. At the time, his idea was met with opposition from professional marketers, but history ultimately proved him right – online giants like Amazon popped up in recent decades as if they had been following a business plan outlined by Baran.Commercial for one of Baran's inventions, a wireless Ricochet modemPerhaps most importantly, Baran saw the work of an engineer as something that was about more than just the creation of new devices and saving or making money for their employer. He argued that engineers have a social responsibility, because their creations are able to change people’s way of life in the future, especially as more and more technologies were becoming connected to entire systems with vast capabilities – he believed that these changes should only be brought about in a responsible way and not just because we can.Shortly after laying down the foundations of the Internet, Baran turned to investigating a problem he saw as most pressing in light of the upcoming digital revolution: privacy. Back in 1968, he published an article explaining how the collection of personal data threatens individual autonomy and can bring societal problems that might be impossible to overcome (displaying his trademark wit, Baran also joked, for example, that the availability of dental records would betray those of our friends whose teeth were not their own). His answer to the problem involved more than just concentrating on practical solutions (although he was active on that front as well, and in 1965 he invented an end-to-end message encryption method which led to the creation of today’s encrypted communicators like Signal and WhatsApp). He believed that engineers should take responsibility for their inventions and address privacy and other ethical and social concerns at the level of design, ensuring that new technologies did not bring unplanned problems, but made them preventable.In light of countless privacy breaches, online dangers and a general lack of responsibility amongst Internet giants, it would be best if we recognised Paul Baran not only as ‘the father of the Internet’ but also as a pioneer of digital ethics, advocating for the social accountability of technology-makers and the responsible design and development of technology. These are ideas which remain especially relevant today. Only then would the packet sent from Grodno in Poland in 1926 deliver its complete message.