Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia. A CIA map of dissident activities in Indochina published as part of the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States . The papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg who had worked on the study, and first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1. Kennedy, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1. Mc. Naughton to collect the papers. Clifford received the finished study on January 1. Richard Nixon's inauguration . The study comprised 3,0. Find out more about the history of Pentagon Papers, including videos, interesting articles, pictures, historical features and more. Get all the facts on HISTORY.com. View Daniel Forth’s professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Daniel Forth discover inside. An original 1971 Gold Medal half-gallon bottle of Jack Daniel's in good condition. As these old bottles can have a tendancy to leak, we can only ship to a UK address. The task force published 1. RAND Corp received two of the copies from Gelb, Morton Halperin, and Paul Warnke, with access granted if at least two of the three approved. Johnson insisted that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an . The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1. The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long- run United States policy to contain China. According to Mc. Namara, the Chinese were conspiring to menacingly . Eisenhower greets South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem, whose rise to power was backed by the United States, according to the Pentagon Papers. In a section of the Pentagon Papers titled . As acknowledged by the papers. In addition, 3. 2,0. South Vietnam's Civil Guard were trained by the United States at a cost of US$1. It was hoped that Diem's regime, after receiving a significant amount of U. S. As written by Lansdale in a 1. Beginning in August 1. Genealogy for John Daniel McCarthy (1887 - 1971) family tree on Geni, with over 160 million profiles of ancestors and living relatives. Lse dissertation cover sheet. Essay writing on terrorism. Essay on the pregnancy project. Daniel King is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Daniel King and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the. Daniel Kahneman's Publications. Kahneman, D., & Wright, P. Changes in pupil size and rehearsal strategies in a short-term memory task. Daniel Niclas' 1971 Dodge Challenger was an eBay 'score' gone wrong, figuring out after the purchase all the trauma inflicted on it, but was quick to rebuild. Vietnamese generals and offered full support for a successor government. In October we cut off aid to Diem in a direct rebuff, giving a green light to the generals. We maintained clandestine contact with them throughout the planning and execution of the coup and sought to review their operational plans and proposed new government. Thus, as the nine- year rule of Diem came to a bloody end, our complicity in his overthrow heightened our responsibilities and our commitment in an essentially leaderless Vietnam. Mc. Cone, proposed the following categories of military action: However, Mc. Cone did not believe these military actions alone could lead to an escalation of the situation because the . In a memorandum addressed to President Johnson on September 8, 1. Bundy wrote: The main further question is the extent to which we should add elements to the above actions that would tend deliberately to provoke a DRV reaction, and consequent retaliation by us. Examples of actions to be considered were running US naval patrols increasingly close to the North Vietnamese coast and/or . By early October, however, we may recommend such actions depending on GVN progress and Communist reaction in the meantime, especially to US naval patrols. He had worked as an aide to Mc. Naughton from 1. 96. Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND in 1. Ellsberg approached Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators. William Fulbright and George Mc. Govern, and others, but none were interested. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication. The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity. These portions of the papers, which were edited for Gravel by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Gravel asked the court (in Gravel v. United States) to quash the subpoena on the basis of the Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution. That clause provides that . When Gravel's request was reviewed by the U. S. Supreme Court, the Court denied the request to extend this protection to Gravel or his legislative aide, Leonard Rodberg, because the grand jury subpoena served on them related to a third party rather than any act they themselves committed for the preparation of materials later entered into the Congressional Record. Nevertheless, the grand jury investigation was halted, and the publication of the papers was never prosecuted. Later, Ellsberg said the documents . However, Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing the publication set a negative precedent for future secrets. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy. United States (4. U. S. 7. 13) quickly rose through the U. S. That day, Assistant U. S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U. S. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that . Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarized the reaction of editors and journalists at the time: As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the 'free press' of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring 'burden- of- proof' decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America's publishers and broadcasters. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. In March 1. 97. 2, political scientist Samuel L. Popkin, then assistant professor of Government at the University of California, San Diego, was jailed for a week for his refusal to answer questions before a grand jury investigating the Pentagon Papers case, during a hearing before the Boston. Federal District Court. The Beacon Press edition was also incomplete. Halperin, who had originally classified the study as secret, obtained most of the unpublished portions under the Freedom of Information Act and the University of Texas published them in 1. The National Security Archive published the remaining portions in 2. The study remained formally classified, however. For example, the Eisenhower administration actively worked against the Geneva Accords. Kennedy administration knew of plans to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising . President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam. Griswold later called the Papers an example of . As I say, he knew at the time that American boys were going to be sent. In fact, I knew about ten days before the Republican Convention. You see I was being called trigger- happy, warmonger, bomb happy, and all the time Johnson was saying, he would never send American boys, I knew damn well he would. This is the same thing that's been going on over the last two- and- a- half years of this administration. There is a difference between what the President says and what the government actually does, and I have confidence that they are going to make the right decision, if they have all the facts. Maurer, is an historical film made for FX, in association with Paramount Television and City Entertainment, about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg's involvement in their publication. The film represents Ellsberg's life, beginning with his work for RAND Corp. The film starred James Spader, Paul Giamatti, Alan Arkin, and Claire Forlani. The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2. Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith, that follows Ellsberg and explores the events leading up to the publication of the Pentagon Papers. UCSB Arts & Lectures. Marine company commander and anti- Communist Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media. In this talk, Ellsberg presents an explosive inside account of how and why he helped bring an end to the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon's presidency. He also talks about the current potential for war with Iraq and why he feels that would be a major mistake for the United States. The conversation, featuring Daniel Ellsberg, Max Frankel, former New York Times executive editor, and Adam Liptak, New York Times Supreme Court reporter, was moderated by Jill Abramson, managing editor of The New York Times. How We Got Here: The '7. New York, New York: Basic Books. Retrieved 2. 6 October 2. Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, The Post reports. Retrieved 2. 6 October 2. BELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERSBELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS AMOS TVERSKY and DANIEL KAHNEMANHebrew University of Jerusalem. Psychological Bulletin, 1. Vol. 1. 05- 1. 10. Abstract - People have erroneous intuitions about the laws of chance. The prevalence of the belief and its unfortunate consequences. You now have cause to run an additional group of 1. Indeed, that was the. Mathematical Psychology. Group and of the American Psychological Association. Only 9 of our 8. 4 respondents gave answers between . However, . 4. 8 happens to be amuch more reasonable estimate than. The required estimate can be interpreted in several ways. One possible. approach is to follow common research practice, where a value obtained in. In the special case of a test of a mean with. Since the size. of the second sample is half that of the first, the computed probability. A theoretically more justifiable. Bayesian framework. Clearly. if the prior distribution favors the null bypothesis, as is often the case. The sources of such beliefs. Our thesis is that people have strong intuitions about random. Consequently, they expect any two samples drawn from a. When subjects are instructed to generate a random. Tune, 1. 96. 4). Thus, each segment. Similar effects are observed when subjects successively predict events. Estes. 1. 96. 4) or in other sequential games of chance. Subjects act as if every. This has been called the gambler's fallacy. The gambler feels that the fairness of the coin entitles. Even the fairest of coins, however. This fallacy is not unique to gamblers. Consider. the following example. The mean IQ of the population of eighth graders in a city is known to. You have selected a random sample of 5. The first child tested has an IQ of 1. What do. you expect the mean IQ to be for the whole sample? A surprisingly large number of people believe. IQ for the sample is still 1. This expectation can be. Some familiar processes in nature obey such laws. The laws of chance, in contrast, do not work that way; deviations. We also suggested that people believe sampling to be a. The two beliefs lead to the same consequences. Both. generate expectations about characteristics of samples, and the variability. If, in. addition, a self- corrective tendency is at work, then small samples should. People's intuitions. Assume our scientist studies. Our scientist could be a meteorologist, a pharmacologist, or perhaps. To illustrate. suppose he is engaged in studying which of two toys infants will prefer to. Of the first five infants studied, four have shown a preference. Many a psychologist will feel some confidence at this point. Fortunately, such a. By a quick computation, our psychologist will discover. Nevertheless, the computation. Bayesian might prefer). Statistical tests, therefore, protect the scientific community. Type I error). by policing its many members who would rather live by the law of small numbers. When deciding on sample size, he may reason as follows: ? What N do I need to make the result. Fine, that's my sample. However, if his guess about the. Hence, the likelihood of obtaining. N = 3 3 is about . In the normal test for a difference between two means. The mean IQ difference between clerical and semiskilled workers. In an ingenious study of research practice, Cohen (1. Journal. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, and computed the likelihood of detecting. The average power was . If. psychologists typically expect medium effects and select sample size as in. This is a self- defeating practice: it makes for frustrated. The investigator who tests a valid. Furthermore, as Overall (1. He has scored and analyzed a large. His results are generamv inconclusive. If you. recommend replication, how many animals would you urge him to run? The median recommendation was for the doctoral student to run. It is instructive to consider the likely. If the mean and the variance in the second sample. The student's chance of obtaining a significant result. Since we had anticipated that a replication sample of 2. Assume that your unhappy student has in fact repeated the initial study with. What would vou recommend now? Not only is the experimental. The. distribution of responses, however, reflects continued skepticism concerning. This unhappy. state of affairs is a typical consequence of insufficient statistical power. We doubt that the. However. the attempt to . This. follows from the representation hypothesis: if we expect all samples to be. The harshness of the criterion for. An investigator has reported a result that you consider implausible. He ran. 1. 5 subjects, and reported a significant value, t= 2. Another. investigator has attempted to duplicate his procedure, and he obtained a. The direction. was the same in both sets of data. What is the highest value of t in. If the data of two such studies (t = 2. Thus, we are faced with a paradoxical state. This double standard is particularly. The decision to replicate a once. Since that community. To. illustrate, if the unfortunate doctoral student whose thesis was discussed. N. = 4. 0), and if he is willing to accept a risk of only . With a somewhat weaker initial result (t = 2. N = 4. 0), the size of the replication sample required for the same power. The mean absolute. How many of the 2. N= 4. 0? This is the mean of the significant correlations in the original. Thus, only about half of the originally significant correlations (i. N = 4. 0. In addition, of course. Hence, by regression effects. Thus, 8 to 1. 0 repeated significant. The median estimate of our respondents is 1. Apparently, people expect more than a mere duplication. This. expectation requires a ludicrous extension of the representation hypothesis. The. investigator who computes all correlations between three indexes of anxiety. His confidence in. He overestimates power. He overestimates significance. He underestimates the breadth. Edwards (1. 96. 8) has argued that people. Our respondents can hardly be described. Rather, in accord with the representation hypothesis, they. There were practically no differences between the median responses. Mathematical Psychology meeting and at a general session. American Psychological Association convention, although we make no. Apparently, acquaintance. What, then, can be done? Can the belief in the law of small numbers. Thus, a student. in a statistics course may draw repeated samples of given size from a population. We are far from certain, however, that expectations can be corrected. Since the teaching of statistics. The obvious precaution is computation. The believer. in the law of small numbers has incorrect intuitions about significance level. Significance levels are usually computed. Perhaps they should. Such coi. iputations will often. We refuse to believe. In addition, computations of power are. Because readers' intuitive estimates of power. This convention was. A confidence. interval, however, provides a useful index of sampling variability, and it. The emphasis. on significance levels tends to obscure a fundamental distinction between. Regardless of sample. In contrast, the estimated significance. Unrealistic. expectations concerning the replicabihty of significance levels may be corrected. From this point. of view, at least, the acceptance of the hypothesis- testing model has not. The representation. Thus, while the hasty rejection of the null hypothesis. His intuitive expectations are governed. Given some editorial prodding, he may be willing to regard his. The statistical power of abnormal- social psychological research. Conservatism in human information processing. Kleinmuntz. (Ed.), Formal representation of human judgment. New York: Wiley. 1. Melton (Ed.), Categories of. Classical statistical hypothesis testing within the context. Bayesian theory. Psychological Bulletin, 1. Response preferences: A review of some relevant literature.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |