Nový

Esteem- MSO-438- História

Esteem- MSO-438- História


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Vážiť si I.

Výstavba Esteem (AM-230) bola zrušená 6. júna 1944.

(MSO-438: dp. 620; 1,172 '; b. 36; dr. 10'; s. 16 k .;
cpl. 74; a. 1 40 mm .; kl. Agilný)

Prvý Esteem (AM-438) spustila 20. decembra 1952 spoločnosť Martinolich Shipbuilding Co., San Diego, Kalifornia, sponzorovaná pani C. H. Davisovou; prekvalifikoval MSO-438, 7. februára 1955, a do prevádzky 10. septembra 1955, veliteľ poručík G. W. Bird.

Esteem odišla z Long Beach v Kalifornii, domovského prístavu, na výcvik v bojoch proti mínam a cvičeniach zaminovania pozdĺž západného pobrežia až do 4. marca 1957, kedy odišla na svoju prvú služobnú cestu k 7. flotile na Ďalekom východe. Spolu s návštevou japonských a kórejských prístavov a Hongkongu cvičila s minecraftom námorných síl Čínskej republiky a Kórey a pomáhala pri výcviku priateľských síl v nových technikách.

Po návrate na Long Beach v septembri 1957 Esteem pokračovala v operáciách na západnom pobreží na budúci rok. Potom 6. októbra 1958 vyplávala na cvičenia s Kráľovským kanadským námorníctvom pri Nootka Sound v Britskej Kolumbii. Nasledujúci mesiac obišla ostrov Vancouver a navštívila niekoľko kanadských prístavov, pričom sa 5. novembra vrátila na Long Beach. Počas svojej služobnej cesty na Ďalekom východe v rokoch 1959-60 opäť cvičila s loďami čínskeho námorníctva a navštívila aj thajský Bangkok, aby trénovala s thajským kráľovským námorníctvom. 27. júna 1960 začala generálnu opravu, ktorá pokračovala väčšinu zvyšku roka.


Sebavedomie

Korene hnutia sebavedomia siahajú do neskoršieho devätnásteho storočia, kde sa prelínali s väčšími predstavami o zraniteľnosti detí a potrebe ochrany a podpory dospelých. Väčšina psychológov spojených s DETSKÁ ŠTÚDIA hnutie konkrétne diskutovalo o koncepte sebaúcty ako kľúčového komponentu úspešného výchovy dieťaťa. Vychovávatelia v progresívnej ére použili túto myšlienku aj pri hľadaní podporného školského prostredia. Ale až v šesťdesiatych rokoch minulého storočia získala táto dlhodobo osvedčená viera odborníkov populárnu a inštitucionálnu podporu ako spôsob, ako zosúladiť akademické záväzky s rodičovskými záujmami o krehkosť detstva a o osobitnú hodnotu vlastných detí.


USS Barbour County (LST 1195)

USS BARBOUR COUNTY bola 17. tankovou pristávacou loďou triedy NEWPORT. BARBOUR COUNTY, vyradený z prevádzky 30. marca 1992 a vyradený zo zoznamu námorníctva 13. júla 2001, bol 6. apríla 2004 potopený ako cieľ na 022,5 57 '20,0 "severnej šírky, 160,0 05' 01,5" západnej polohy. SINKEX bol vykonávaný pomocou rakiet AGM-65 a AGM-84.

Všeobecné charakteristiky: Udelené: 15. júla 1966
Kýl položený: 15. augusta 1970
Spustené: 15. mája 1971
Uvedenie do prevádzky: 12. februára 1972
Vyradený z prevádzky: 30. marca 1992
Staviteľ: National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, Kalifornia.
Pohonný systém: 6 dieselových motorových luk s príkonom 16 000 koní
Vrtule: skrutka s dvoma a jednou mašľou
Dĺžka: 152 metrov (522 stôp)
Dĺžka nad ramenami: 171 metrov
Šírka: 70 stôp (21,2 metra)
Ponor: 5,3 metra
Zdvihový objem: cca. 8500 ton
Rýchlosť: 20 uzlov
Lietadlo: iba platforma pre helikoptéru
Výzbroj: jedna 20 mm zbraň Phalanx CIWS, 4 delá 3 palce/0,50
Posádka: 14 dôstojníkov, 210 zaradených a pribl. 350 nalodených vojakov

Táto časť obsahuje mená námorníkov, ktorí slúžili na palube USS BARBOUR COUNTY. Nie je to žiadny oficiálny zoznam, ale obsahuje mená námorníkov, ktorí predložili svoje informácie.

Nehody na palube USS BARBOUR COUNTY:

História USS BARBOUR COUNTY:

BARBOUR COUNTY bola ustanovená 15. augusta 1970 v San Diegu v Kalifornii spoločnosťou National Steel & Shipbuilding Co., ktorú 15. mája 1971 začala sponzorovať pani J. Victor Smith a uviedla do prevádzky v námornej lodenici Long Beach 3. februára 1972, Veliteľ John G. Schimming volel.

Pridelenie k obojživelnej letke (PhibRon) 7 so sídlom na Long Beach, pristátie tanku strávilo zvyšok roku 1972 zapojením do činností, ktoré premieňajú novú loď na ostrieľanú jednotku flotily. Najprv jej trvalo niekoľko týždňov, kým dokončila vybavenie na Long Beach. Potom, v polovici apríla, sa vydala na svoju prvú skutočnú plavbu, okružnú plavbu do Esquimaltu na západnom pobreží Kanady. Po návrate na kalifornské pobrežie BARBOUR COUNTY zahájila obdobie intenzívneho školenia, ktoré vyvrcholilo úspešným dokončením jej záverečných zmluvných skúšok v auguste. Koncom septembra sa pristávajúca loď tanku vydala na plavbu do peruánskeho Callao, z ktorého sa vrátila na Long Beach až 20. októbra. BARBOUR COUNTY ukončila v novembri predĺžený výcvik v shakedowne a 10. decembra začala s dostupnosťou po shakedowne v námornej lodenici Long Beach.

Tieto opravy ju zamestnávali do prvého mesiaca roku 1973. Obnovila miestne operácie tým, že 26. januára odišla na more na udržiavací výcvik. Loď, ktorá sa zaoberala takýmto miestnym výcvikom, sa striedala s dlhými prestávkami v prístave na Long Beach až do leta 1973, keď bola vybraná na spojenie s FORT FISHER (LSD 40) na cvičnej plavbe na Ďaleký východ pre námornú akadémiu a pomocných dôstojníkov NROTC. Začiatkom druhého júnového týždňa sa BARBOUR COUNTY plavila na juh do San Diega, kde nalodila palubného dôstojníka a potom sa ihneď vydala do Orientu. Počas dvojmesačnej plavby navštívila Pearl Harbor, Yokosuka a Hongkong, než sa 3. augusta vrátila na Long Beach.

Po návrate dostala trochu sklamanú správu, že sa má o sedem týždňov vrátiť späť do Orientu, aby bola plne nasadená na mieste ďalšej pristávajúcej lode s tankom, ktorá utrpela veľkú technickú nehodu. Loď opustila Long Beach 20. septembra, natankovala 26. apríla v Pearl Harbor a 10. októbra uskutočnila svoj prvý prístav v západnom Pacifiku na ostrove Mindoro na Filipínach, kde strávila dva dni nakladaním kontingentu námornej pechoty a vybavenia pre doprava do Iwakuni v Japonsku. Faulské počasie si však vyžiadalo odklon do Subic Bay, po ktorom pokračovala v ceste do Japonska. V druhej polovici októbra trasa BARBOUR COUNTY zahŕňala Okinawu, Yokosuku a Numazu. 29. septembra vyčistila druhý prístav na ceste do Guamu, kde strávila dva týždne od 2. do 19. novembra v údržbe. Z Guamu pristála tanková loď späť na Filipíny. Do Subic Bay dorazila 21. novembra a zostala tam až do 27. dňa, keď odišla na Okinawu. Do Subic Bay sa vrátila 7. decembra a v tejto oblasti zostala do konca roka.

BARBOUR COUNTY sa začal v roku 1974 návštevou Hongkongu, 2. januára odišiel zo Subic Bay a 4. apríla dorazil do cieľa. 9. zamierila späť do Subic Bay, kde strávila obdobie 11. až 20. januára. Loď sa 20. júna opäť vydala na more kvôli núdzovej pohotovostnej operácii v Siamskom zálive, operácii „Eagle Pull“, počas ktorej stála pri kambodžskom pobreží pripravená evakuovať Američanov a ďalších cudzincov z hlavného mesta Phnom Penh v r. udalosť komunistického ovládnutia. Keď nebezpečenstvo pominulo (aspoň v tejto chvíli) v polovici februára, loď sa zaparila späť do Subic Bay a dorazila tam 15. O týždeň neskôr sa vydala na cestu späť do USA. BARBOUR COUNTY vstúpila do jej nového domovského prístavu, San Diego, 14. marca.

Po mesiaci relatívnej nečinnosti v San Diegu loď 16. apríla obnovila miestne operácie pri pobreží Kalifornie. Tieto úlohy zahŕňali rôzne výcvikové misie, ale zvyčajne sa zameriavali na nejaký aspekt obojživelnej vojny od normálneho pristátia vojska po tajné zaradenie. Takáto povinnosť jej zaberala čas v letných mesiacoch až do septembra. V tom čase sa BARBOUR COUNTY vydal na štvortýždňovú plavbu do kanadských vôd. V druhej polovici septembra a začiatkom októbra sa zúčastnila cvičenia „Potlatch 1“, obojstranného obojživelného cvičenia s kanadskými silami, ktoré sa uskutočnilo na severnom konci ostrova Vancouver. Po návšteve samotného mesta Vancouver na konci operácie sa loď parila späť do San Diega, kam prišla 15. októbra. Miestne operácie zo San Diega, prevažne doškoľovací výcvik, zamestnávali jej pozornosť po zvyšok roka.

BARBOUR COUNTY zostal taký angažovaný aj prvé tri mesiace roku 1975. 1. apríla sa však opäť nasadila v západnom Pacifiku a začala v San Diegu v spoločnosti TUSCALOOSA (LST 1187) a dvoch juhokórejských minecraft. Blížiaci sa kolaps Južného Vietnamu pod tlakom spojených síl Severného Vietnamu a Vietkongu priniesol naliehavosť jej prechodu, ktorý obmedzil jej zastavenie paliva v Pearl Harbor na niekoľko hodín 6. a jej výdaj nákladu na Okinawe na podobne krátke trvanie 18. a 19.. Ďalšia krátka zastávka prišla v Subic Bay na Filipínach 21., ale posledný aprílový týždeň sa BARBOUR COUNTY pripojil k americkým námorným silám pri pobreží južného Vietnamu, aby sa zúčastnil operácie „Častý vietor“, evakuácie Američanov a ďalších cudzincov. , a niektorí južní Vietnamci zo Saigonu 29. a 30. apríla. Potom, čo sa v máji zaistila pred operáciou „Častý vietor“, pristála tanková loď na bežný plán zamestnávania vojskových výťahov a obojživelných cvičení. Táto povinnosť ju často zaviedla na Okinawu, Taiwan a do zálivu Subic na Filipínach. Volala tiež do niekoľkých japonských prístavov a zastavila sa v Hongkongu. V auguste BARBOUR COUNTY pridala do svojho itinerára Mariany. Zavolala na Guam a Tinian a potom sa začiatkom septembra vrátila do Subic Bay. Po záverečnej okružnej plavbe na Okinawu a späť v polovici septembra a troch týždňoch miestnych operácií mimo Subic Bay sa loď 15. októbra rozbehla a vrátila sa do USA. Naparovala sa na trase Okinawa a Pearl Harbor a 16. novembra dorazila späť do San Diega.

Obvyklé odstávky po nasadení trvali ďalšie štyri týždne a krátke obnovenie normálnej prevádzky zo San Diega premosťovalo krátke prestávky pred tým, ako jej ročné prázdniny ukončili rok. V januári 1976 sa opäť začala venovať výcviku vo vodách južnej Kalifornie a zostala tak zamestnaná až do začiatku apríla. BARBOUR COUNTY sa nedostal na more po 9. apríli. Namiesto toho zostala v prístave a pripravovala sa na generálnu opravu, ktorá sa oficiálne začala jej vstupom do dvora v San Diegu Marine Corp. 12. júla. Táto generálna oprava trvala zvyšok roku 1976 a prvé tri mesiace roku 1977. Nakoniec sa 4. apríla 1977 opäť rozbehla a čoskoro potom pokračovala v normálnej prevádzke zo San Diega.

Obnovovacie a typové školenie v kalifornských pobrežných vodách zamestnávalo BARBOUR COUNTY zaneprázdnené na jar a v lete 1977. Jej zameranie sa trochu zmenilo v auguste, keď sa začala pripravovať na ďalšie pôsobenie v zámorí. 13. septembra BARBOUR COUNTY odišla zo San Diega na cestu do západného Pacifiku. 20. a 21. septembra sa cez noc zastavila v Pearl Harbor a potom pokračovala v plavbe na západ. Loď sa parila cez Eniwetok a Guam a 6. októbra sa dostala do Buckner Bay na Okinawe. Tanková pristávacia loď vykonávala výcvikové misie v okolí Okinawy až do konca októbra, keď sa plavila do Japonska. Navštívila Iwakuni od 31. októbra do 2. novembra a potom sa presunula cez pláž Kinred na Yokosuka, kam dorazila 7.. BARBOUR COUNTY strávila zvyšok novembra v Yokosuke, ale začiatkom decembra sa krátko presťahovala do Numazu a potom odišla do kórejského Chinhae. Po absolvovaní týždňa medzi 5. a 12. decembrom v Chinhae sa loď zaparila na juh, aby krátko zavolala do Subic Bay a potom sa vydala na prázdniny na Malajský polostrov.

Vianoce oslávila v Singapure a zazvonila v novom roku v thajskej Phattayi. 6. januára 1978 BARBOUR COUNTY odišiel z Phattaya a vrátil sa do Subic Bay. Zo Subic Bay vo vodách v okolí operovala asi mesiac a 8. februára odišla do Japonska. Loď dorazila do Iwakuni 15. februára. Počas poslednej polovice mesiaca absolvovala dva spiatočné lety medzi japonskými a juhokórejskými prístavmi, pričom na prvej plavbe navštívila Pohang a na druhej Pusan. Druhú cestu ukončila v Jokosuke a väčšinu marca strávila v tomto prístave alebo v jeho blízkosti. 28. marca odišla z Jokosuky a zamierila cez pláž Kinred do Numazu, kam prišla 4. apríla. Nasledujúci deň BARBOUR COUNTY opustil Numazu a nasmeroval kurz späť do USA. Cestou si urobila nočnú zastávku v Pearl Harbor 17. a 18. apríla, než 27. marca dorazila do San Diega. Po obvyklom odstávke po nasadení sa loď na konci jari vydala na bežnú rutinu výcvikových misií na západnom pobreží. Takéto zamestnanie zamestnávalo jej pozornosť až do konca augusta, vtedy začala sedem týždňov v prístave na opravu. BARBOUR COUNTY dokončil túto zdĺhavú dostupnosť v druhom októbrovom týždni a pokračoval v výcviku zo San Diega. Zostala tak zamestnaná po zvyšok roku 1978.

BARBOUR COUNTY sa začal v roku 1979 prípravou na udržiavací výcvik, ktorý trval od 22. januára do 11. februára. Zostávajúca časť februára bola vyplnená prázdninami, školami na pobreží a prípravou na poslednú chvíľu na ďalšie služobné cesty na Ďalekom východe. Tanková pristávacia loď sa na túto úlohu vydala 1. marca. Zastavila sa na Havaji od 9. do 17., pričom sa medzi 12. a 14. zúčastnila obojživelného cvičenia na ostrove Kahoolawe. Obojživelná letka BARBOUR COUNTY (PhibRon) 7 uľahčila 25. a 26. marca PhibRon 3 na atole Eniwetok a potom pokračovala v plavbe do západného Pacifiku. Po zastávke v Buckner Bay, Okinawa začiatkom apríla, dorazila na Filipíny 10.. Nasledujúce dva dni sa loď zúčastnila cvičenia nakladania a pristávania v Zambales. Potom sa dala do prístavu v Subic Bay a zostala tam až do 20. apríla, keď odletela do Singapuru. Nasledujúce týždne dominovala relaxácia. BARBOUR COUNTY uskutočnil od 25. do 29. apríla prístavný hovor v Singapure. Potom sa po päťdňovej pasáži v dňoch 4. až 9. mája opäť zastavila na pláži Phattaya v Thajsku. Loď potom zamierila späť do Subic Bay, kam dorazila 14. mája na 10 -dňovú údržbu.

Počas posledného májového týždňa sa zúčastnila veľkého obojživelného útočného cvičenia MAULEX 2-79 v Botollone na Filipínach. Po zastavení prístavu v Manile, ktoré obsadilo prvé štyri dni v júni, sa loď vrátila do Subic Bay na deväťdňovú údržbu. 14. júna odletela do Hongkongu. V prístave v Hongkongu od 16. do 25. júna BARBOUR COUNTY pôsobil ako podporná loď pre LOS ANGELES (SSN 688) v období medzi 17. a 21. a poskytoval všetky energetické a vodné služby ponorke, ktorá kotvila vedľa.

Z Hongkongu BARBOUR COUNTY naparovala na Okinawu, kde začala sériu nakladacích a pristávacích cvičení, ktoré trvali od 27. júna do 2. júla a ktoré sa uskutočňovali na miestach ako Buckner Bay, Kinred a Numazu. Ešte 1. júla nasledovalo ďalšie zaťaženie. V období od 2. do 9. júla Barbour County prešla z Japonska do Guamu, kde strávila posledné tri júlové týždne dostupnosťou. 6. augusta sa vrátila na Okinawu, kde sa zúčastnila ďalšieho nakladacieho cvičenia. Cvičenie „Pevnosť Gale“ sa začalo 7. augusta a trvalo do 25. dňa. Zvyšok augusta strávila v Buckner Bay a Orawane. 31. augusta, 1. septembra, sa loď vydala na návrat do USA, zbavená zodpovednosti za západný Pacifik spoločnosťou BRISTOL COUNTY (LST 1198) spoločnosti PhibRon 5 na Okinawe.

V Pearl Harbor sa zastavila od 11. do 13. septembra a do San Diega sa vrátila 21. septembra.

Po trojtýždňovom období odstávky po nasadení začala spoločnosť BARBOUR COUNTY 22. októbra opäť prípravy na more. V dňoch 22. až 26. októbra parila zo San Diega do San Francisca na trojdňový prístavný hovor. Do San Diega sa vrátila 2. novembra a zostala tam do 14. hodiny. Od 14. do 21. novembra sa zúčastnila projektu READEX 1-80, počas ktorého slúžila ako štartovacia platforma pre vzdušné a vodné cieľové drony používané pri cvičení. Obdobie od 21. novembra do 9. decembra strávila údržbou v San Diegu. Potom, po krátkom pobyte na mori na cvičeniach a typovom výcviku v miestnej operačnej oblasti od 10. do 13. decembra, BARBOUR COUNTY prešiel zvyškom roka v San Diegu na prázdniny.

Nečinnosť BARBOUR COUNTY pokračovala aj do roku 1980. Okrem dvoch krátkych výletov v prístave začiatkom marca zostala nehybná pri móle v San Diegu až do konca prvého štvrťroka. Loď sa konečne opäť rozbehla 31. marca, v tom čase pokračovala v normálnom rozvrhu cvičení a typového výcviku. Nasledujúce dva mesiace tanková pristávacia loď pokračovala v bežnom výcviku na mori striedanom s obdobiami v prístave v San Diegu na údržbu. Po týždni v prístave BARBOUR COUNTY opustila 9. júna San Diego na ceste do Portlandu v štáte Oregon na festival ruží 1980. 12. júna vystúpila po riekach Columbia a Willamette do Portlandu, kde zostala, až kým sa 16. júna nevrátila do mora na cestu do San Diega. BARBOUR COUNTY dorazil späť do San Diega 20. júna a zostal v prístave do konca júla. 21. júla obnovila prerušované miestne operácie, v ktorých sa niekoľko dní na mori striedala vo výcvikových misiách s časom v prístave pri údržbe. Toto zamestnanie trvalo až do začiatku septembra, kedy začalo ďalšie dlhé obdobie v prípravách prístavov na nasadenie v zámorí.

O šesť týždňov neskôr, 14. októbra, BARBOUR COUNTY nasadený v západnom Pacifiku s PhibRon 7 v zložení BARBOUR COUNTY, PEORIA (LST 1183), POINT DEFIANCE (LSD 31), OGDEN (LPD 5), ST. LOUIS (LKA 116) a TARAWA (LHA 1). Jej jednotka sa zastavila na Havaji na niekoľko dní, počas ktorých sa so svojimi kamarátmi letky zúčastnila obojživelného cvičenia vedeného na ostrove Kahoolawe. Ona a jej jednotka potom pokračovali v plavbe na západ. Dňa 6. novembra sa BARBOUR COUNTY spojil so ST. LOUIS a TARAWA vytvoria „Alpha“ skupiny Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) a operačné riadenie zmenili na veliteľ 7. flotily. Do Subic Bay pricestovala 15. novembra, ale 17. odišla znova, aby sa zúčastnila obojživelného cvičenia na ostrove Mindoro, ktoré sa uskutočnilo v dňoch 19. až 24. novembra. Po ďalších troch týždňoch údržby v Subic Bay sa BARBOUR COUNTY vrátil na more 15. decembra a po cvičení na podporu námornej streľby v neďalekom zálive Leon Creek stanovil kurz pre pláž Phattaya v Thajsku v spoločnosti TARAWA a ST. LOUIS. Strávila takmer týždeň na pláži Phattaya, od 22. do 27. decembra, potom sa presťahovala do Singapuru, kde pricestovala 30. Tanková pristávacia loď zostala v prístave v Singapure do konca roku 1980.

Dňa 5. januára 1981 ARG tranzitovala Malackým prielivom pre núdzové operácie v Indickom oceáne. Dňa 11. BARBOUR COUNTY prekročil rovník a zaparil sa na západ do kenskej Mombassy, ​​kde o šesť dní neskôr zakotvil. Po krátkej návšteve prístavu sa pristávajúca loď presunula na sever do Diega Garciu, kde jej nalodení námorníci v dňoch 28. až 30. januára vykonali pristátie. Lode potom odplávali na východ do Austrálie, pričom do Fremantle dorazili 8. februára. Tanková pristávacia loď sa rozbehla na Okinawu 6. marca. Tesne pred príchodom z tohto ostrova bola v lodi objavená žena, ktorá je čiernym pasažierom. Do troch hodín bola helikoptérou premiestnená na Okinawu na ďalšie velenie. Napriek prerušeniu spoločnosť BARBOUR COUNTY zakotvila pri obojživelnom pristávacom cvičení 9. marca pri pláži White Beach na Okinawe.

Tanková pristávacia loď sa potom presunula na sever do Východočínskeho mora a zakotvila v prístave Pohang v Južnej Kórei. Ďalší týždeň strávila cvičením „Tímový duch“. 20. marca sa BARBOUR COUNTY obrátil domov a po zastávke v Sasebo dorazil 7. apríla na Havaj. Potom, čo zhodila námorné AAV z Kaneohe Point, nasadla do Pearl Harboru na doplnenie paliva. Loď odplávala o dva dni neskôr a 16. apríla sa loď konečne vrátila domov do San Diega.

Po šiestich týždňoch údržby a miestnych operácií pristála tanková loď päť námorných AAV na prehliadku návštevnej lode naplánovanú do San Francisca. Prebieha v spoločnosti OGDEN (LPD 5), BARBOUR COUNTY sa dusila 1. júna v San Franciscu, kde kotvila 5. dňa. V priebehu nasledujúcich troch dní loď navštívilo takmer 2 000 ľudí. Potom vysadila AAV z tábora Pendleton a vrátila sa 12. do San Diega. Loď potom strávila júl prípravou na pravidelnú generálnu opravu, ktorá sa začala v južnej lodenici Triple A v San Diegu 5. augusta a pokračovala do konca roka.

Keďže generálne opravy boli dokončené 31. marca 1982, BARBOUR COUNTY strávil mesiac apríl vodnými skúškami a nezávislými cvičeniami v páre v operačnej oblasti južnej Kalifornie. 10. mája sa plavila na sever do Bremertonu, Wa., Kde sa 16. apríla zúčastnila výročnej oslavy Dňa ozbrojených síl. 21. januára sa loď vrátila do San Diega a nasledujúcich desať týždňov vykonávala obnovovacie školenia a hodnotenia pripravenosti.

6. augusta BARBOUR COUNTY odišiel zo San Diega na plavbu po severnom Pacifiku. Pri ceste na Havaj posádka pristávacích lodí zachránila tri osoby zo zakladajúcej plachetnice. Potom, čo ich 12. loď odhodila na Havaj, pustila sa do sledovania na misiu zhromažďujúcu spravodajské informácie do Petropavlovska na Kamčatke. 14. marca BARBOUR COUNTY zaparkoval v severnom Pacifiku a od 23. augusta do 7. septembra vykonal dva týždne špeciálnych operácií pri Kamčatke. Po krátkej prestávke v polovici septembra, počas ktorej navštívila Adaka a Attu v Aleutianoch, ukončila 28. septembra operácie sledovania. Počas tejto plavby posádka spozorovala množstvo sovietskych ponoriek, lietadiel a povrchových vojnových lodí. 17. októbra sa vrátili do San Diega cez Seattle. Okrem krátkeho obdobia obojživelného opakovacieho výcviku na začiatku decembra strávila zvyšok roka v prístave.

30. januára 1983 sa spoločnosť Barbar County nasadila na nasadenie v západnom Pacifiku v spoločnosti spoločností NEW ORLEANS (LPH 11), DURHAM (LKA 114), SCHENECTADY (LST 1185) a DENVER (LPD 9). Po zastavení na dvoch dňoch cvičenia na Havaji jednotka prešla cez Pacifik a 22. februára dorazila do Subic Bay. V tamojšom prístave 1. marca BARBOUR COUNTY utrpel malý požiar, ktorý poškodil jej demagnetizačné káble. Účastníci kontroly škôd z HULL (DD 945) pomohli posádke pristávajúcej lode s tankom uhasiť požiar.

V ten istý deň odišla z Filipín a BARBOUR COUNTY sa plavila na Okinawu, kde nalodila na prápor na podporu námorného pristátia. Dňa 9. apríla sa loď plavila do Južnej Kórey a vykonávala operácie na lodi, let helikoptérami a pobehovanie na lúkach počas cvičenia „Team Spirit-83“ pri Tok Sok Ri. Po návrate námorníkov na Okinawu 22. marca sa BARBOUR COUNTY plavil na týždeň slobody do Hongkongu. V plnom prúde, 31. marca, parila sa na Filipíny na týždeň údržby v Subic Bay.

BARBOUR COUNTY sa so zmenou tempa plavila 11. apríla na juh do Indonézie a do Surabaja dorazila 16. apríla. Kým tam bola, viedla vzájomné výcvikové cvičenia s loďami indonézskeho námorníctva, vrátane prebiehajúceho dopĺňania, cvičných cvičení a formačných manévrov. Tanková pristávajúca loď 26. apríla pokračovala na juhovýchod do Austrálie a potom zakotvila vo Fremantle. Rovnako ako jej predchádzajúca návšteva, BARBOUR COUNTY sa zúčastnila cvičenia „Valiant Usher“, kde pristávali AAV, cvičili letové štvrte a cvičili so strelnými zbraňami. Po návšteve Bunbury od 2. do 8. mája po cvičení odplávala späť na Filipíny a 22. mája dorazila do Subic Bay.

BARBOUR COUNTY sa 31. mája opäť dostal na more a začiatkom júna vyplával na sever na Okinawu na obojživelné pristávacie cvičenie. 15. sa presťahovala do Jokosuky, kde strávila desať dní údržby, a potom sa vydala domov. Po parení naprieč Pacifikom dorazila 14. júla do San Diega cez Pearl Harbor. Okrem dvoch krátkych cvičení pohotovosti zostala tanková pristávacia loď v prístave v stave údržby a výcviku. 19. septembra začala s obmedzenou dostupnosťou na námornej stanici, ktorá trvala do konca roka.

Prebiehalo 26. januára 1984, BARBOUR COUNTY strávil päť týždňov vykonávaním individuálnych lodných cvičení a obojživelného opakovacieho výcviku s námorníkmi z tábora Pendleton. Koncom marca začali jej inžinierske oddelenia školenia pre servisné inšpekcie. 13. apríla sa presťahovala po boku AJAX (AR 6) na opravu motora na poslednú chvíľu. 23. marca odletela zo San Diega a pristála tanková loď do oblasti obojživelných lodí Silver Strand, kde absolvovala posledný týždeň opakovacieho výcviku pred nasadením. Znakom nastávajúcich problémov boli dva malé požiare, ktoré v ten deň vypukli, jeden v kompresore klimatizácie a druhý v motore stroja na výrobu ľadu.

Napriek silnému vetru a rozbúrenému moru absolvovala na prameni dva dni náročných cvičení na pláži a na luku. Neskoro popoludní, 25. apríla, BARBOUR COUNTY začala svoju poslednú plánovanú plážovú operáciu. Pri pokuse o zatiahnutie sa loď bohužiaľ otočila k pravoboku, zasekla jej kormidlá v piesku a v roku 1838 bola úplne ponorená do príboja. Strany kontrolujúce škody balastovali loď, aby znížili poškodenie vĺn na noc. Nasledujúci deň odtiahli flotilové remorkéry QUAPAW (ATF 110), NARRAGANSETT (T-ATF 167) a záchranné plavidlo FLORIKAN (ASR 9) BARBOUR COUNTY z pláže. Aby toho nebolo málo, pri pristávaní v San Diegu utrpela tanková pristávacia loď 2. júna veľký požiar v skrini bosunu.

Po sérii dočasných opráv a inšpekcií bola spoločnosť BARBOUR COUNTY 16. októbra odtiahnutá do San Pedra, aby sa v lodenici Todd Pacific začalo veľké obdobie lodeníc. Tieto opravy zahŕňali nové opláštenie trupu, motory a mechanizmus riadenia, ako aj množstvo vylepšení elektroniky. Tanková pristávajúca loď začala námorné skúšky 4. júna 1985 a po úspešnom dokončení sa 22. apríla presťahovala do San Diega. Na to, aby sa loď dostala späť do formy, však bolo potrebných mnoho mesiacov udržiavacieho výcviku a tieto cvičenia boli dokončené až začiatkom novembra, keď ukončila posledný týždeň obojživelných pristávacích operácií.

Potom, čo strávila december v núdzovom stave pred nasadením, sa BARBOUR COUNTY 11. januára 1986 vydala na more, aby mohla po dva a pol roku absolvovať prvé nasadenie v západnom Pacifiku. Spojená s NEW ORLEANS (LPH 11), VANCOUVER (LPD 2) a ALAMO (LSD 33), pristála loď tanku cez Pacifik a zamierila k Subic Bay. Napriek tomu, že sa lode krátko na to zdržali mimo teritoriálnych vôd volebným násilím na Filipínach, vstúpili do Subic Bay 9. februára. Lode pokračovali do Hongkongu o desať dní neskôr a narazili do rozbúreného mora. BARBOUR COUNTY utrpela na ľavoboku na svojom ohnisku vážne poškodenie pravoboku. Opakované zvitky do 53 stupňov zranili osem členov posádky. Po príchode do Hongkongu dostala posádka týždeň ocenenej slobody a 28. marca sa vrátila do Subic Bay.

Obojživelné lode odplávali 2. marca na sever na Okinawu - kde nalodili námorníkov a AAV - a 12. marca pokračovali do juhokórejského Pohangu. Tam sa lode zúčastňovali obojživelných cvičných pristátí „Team Spirit“ v Tok-sok-ri až do 30. marca, keď sa parili späť na Okinawu. Po vyložení námorníkov sa BARBOUR COUNTY 6. apríla plavil späť na sever a zakotvil v námornom zariadení v japonskom Sasebo. Po takmer dvojtýždňovej údržbe sa potom vrátila na Filipíny.

Akonáhle tam bola, stretla sa s VANCOUVER a MOBILE (LKA 115) a pokračovala do Singapuru, kde pristávajúca loď tanku dostala od 26. apríla dostupnosť malých opráv v lodenici Sembawang. Tri lode sa 4. mája opäť rozbehli a plavili sa na sever na päťdňovú návštevu pláže Pattaya v Thajsku. Po opustení mesta BARBOUR COUNTY vyplával z Thajského zálivu a po spozorovaní potápajúcich sa lodí zachránil 12. mája 45 vietnamských utečencov v pozícii asi 100 míľ od pobrežia Vietnamu. Títo utečenci boli neskôr prevezení do táborov na Filipínach.

26. mája pristála tanková loď na cvičenie na Okinawe a dorazila tam 10. júna. Ďalší týždeň strávila cvičením „Valiant Usher“ v Ourawanskom zálive, potom 28. júna odplávala na východ na cvičenie „Beach Guard“ do Iwo Jimy. O dva dni neskôr odplávala domov a 16. júla dorazila do San Diega. Po období ako vlajkovej lode PhibRon Seven začala spoločnosť BARBOUR COUNTY 6. októbra dostupnosť opravy v San Diegu.

25. februára 1987 pristála tanková loď na námorné skúšky, pričom tieto a ďalšie testy dokončila do polovice marca. Loď potom v máji vykonávala miestne operácie zo San Diega. 1. júna BARBOUR COUNTY uskutočnil v operačnej oblasti južnej Kalifornie streľbu raketou Stinger v priamom prenose. Po krátkom období príprav pristála tanková loď k námornej pechote a 22. júna začala mesačnú výcvikovú plavbu na Aljašku. Loď navštívila Ketchikan prvých päť júlových dní a potom sa 20. marca vrátila domov do San Diega. Tam sa pripravila odprevadiť tri bane na Blízky východ v súlade s rozhodnutím prezidenta Reagana chrániť premávku ropných tankerov v Perzskom zálive.

BARBOUR COUNTY bola vynesená na more 22. augusta a po stretnutí s ENHANCE (MSO 437), ESTEEM (MSO 438) a CONQUEST (MSO 488) vlečná pristávajúca loď vlečila minolovky do Pearl Harboru a dorazila tam 1. septembra. V prístave išiel podrobný popis záchrany a pomoci do CONQUEST, aby 4. apríla pomohol uhasiť malý požiar. Nasledujúci deň BARBOUR COUNTY začal odprevádzať tri minolovky, ako aj SALVOR (ARS 52), na Filipíny. Počas cesty sa CONQUEST počas evolúcie tankovania zrazil s pristávajúcou loďou tanku. Aj keď boli škody na BARBOUR COUNTY menšie, minolovka utrpela viac a obrátila sa späť do Pearl Harboru. Zostávajúce lode pokračovali v pare na západ a do Subic Bay dorazili 26.

Odchod z Filipín 5. októbra, BARBOUR COUNTY a minolovky sa plavili juhozápadne do Singapuru, 13. marca prešli Malackým prielivom a vplávali do Indického oceánu. Loď tankovala 25. apríla popri KANSAS CITY (AOR 3) a 28. októbra preplávala Hormuzským prielivom. Po odpojení minoloviek pristála tanková loď 31. marca v bahrajnskej Maname.

3. novembra sa BARBOUR COUNTY plavil domov, prešiel Hormuzským prielivom a naparil sa cez Arabské more. Tanková pristávacia loď zakotvila v prístave Patong v thajskom Phukete 15. apríla na trojdňovú návštevu prístavu. Koncom novembra sa tanková pristávajúca loď plavila do Subic Bay a plavila sa na juh na plavbu južným Pacifikom. Zastavila sa v prístavoch v Manuse v New Británii a v Brisbane pred koncom roka kotvila v lodenici Royal Navy v austrálskom Sydney.

S odletom zo Sydney 6. januára 1988 sa BARBOUR COUNTY plavil na sever a zastavil sa vo viacerých prístavoch na Šalamúnových ostrovoch, aby poskytol pomoc pri katastrofách po prechode tajfúnu touto oblasťou. Po návštevách prístavu v Tonge a Americkej Samoe na konci januára dorazila tanková pristávacia loď do Pearl Harboru 7. februára. O tri dni neskôr odplávala do San Diega a dorazila tam 17.

BARBOUR COUNTY obnovil miestnu prevádzku krátko potom a ďalších sedem mesiacov vykonával niekoľko cvičení mimo ostrova San Clemente a absolvoval dve servisné inšpekcie, ako aj školenia a hodnotenia pripravenosti. 21. septembra nastúpila na opravu do spoločnosti National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. a zostala tam do konca roka. Although the tank landing ship finished her post-overhaul shakedown cruise on 3 February 1989, she spent another four months carrying out training drills and service inspections.

In preparation for another western Pacific deployment, BARBOUR COUNTY loaded a "Hawk" antiaircraft missile battery before getting underway on 5 June. She embarked marines from the 1st Expeditionary Brigade at Pearl Harbor on the 13, proceeded west across the Pacific and arrived at Okinawa on 1 July. The tank landing ship spent the next four weeks operating there, and in the Philippines, and carrying out several landing evolutions during Exercise "Valiant Usher." In August, BARBOUR COUNTY sailed southwest to Singapore for a visit, which was followed by stops at Phuket, Thailand and Lumut, Malaysia. Returning north in September, she participated in Exercise "Valiant Blitz" off South Korea between 14 October and 1 November. Departing Okinawa on 14 November, the tank landing ship arrived home in San Diego on 5 December.

Following a post deployment stand down and leave period, BARBOUR COUNTY resumed local operations out of San Diego. These included marine landing exercises at Camp Pendleton and a small boat exercise at San Clemente Island. On 25 May, the tank landing ship embarked seven Coast Guard members for Law Enforcement Operations (LEO) off southern California. These lasted until 7 June, when the ship moored in San Francisco harbor for three days of liberty. Returning to San Diego on 14 June, BARBOUR COUNTY entered the National Steel and Shipbuilding Co on the 25th for a three-month availability.

While in the shipyard, BARBOUR COUNTY's crew heard of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on 2 August and President George W. Bush's decision to roll back the attack. Completing the availability on 12 October, the tank landing ship immediately began preparations to deploy to the Middle East. Departing San Diego on 1 December, she sailed west and, after a stop at Pearl Harbor, ended the year at Subic Bay. Underway on 2 January 1991, BARBOUR COUNTY passed through the Straits of Malacca three days later and shifted to Central Command's operational control on 12 January. On the 17th, following the start of air operations in Operation "Desert Storm," the tank landing ship took up a position off Oman. She took part in Exercise "Sea Soldier IV" on 26 January, launching and recovering 12 amphibious vehicles near Masirah anchorage. The tank landing ship also operated off Fujirah until putting into Dubai for upkeep on 9 February.

BARBOUR COUNTY put to sea on short notice on 20 February due to imminent start of the ground war. While steaming west toward Al Jubayl, 250 marines landed on the ship via helicopter. Anchoring off Al Mishab on the 25th, the tank landing ship began unloading those troops and equipment to support ground war operations. Upon completion, she moved back to sea, refueled and awaited developments. Following the sweeping victory in Kuwait, the ship returned to Al Mishab on 2 March and began reloading troops and equipment. She spent the next four weeks cruising in the Persian Gulf on contingency operations. On 7 May, the tank landing ship sailed east into the Arabian Sea.

On 12 May, BARBOUR COUNTY received word of a destructive typhoon in Bangladesh and was ordered to sail there to provide disaster relief. Anchoring in the Bay of Bengal on 15 May, the ship conducted two weeks of flight operations in support of Operation "Sea Angel." Steaming east on 28 May, the tank landing ship passed through the Straits of Malacca on 2 June, refueled at Subic Bay five days later and, after another stop at Pearl Harbor on 21 June, arrived at San Diego on 30 June. Following a stand down period, the tank landing ship resumed local operations out of San Diego.

In mid-October, BARBOUR COUNTY underwent a service inspection and, shortly thereafter, received notice of the ships planned decommissioning. The tank landing ship began inactivation procedures on 2 December and, after a restricted availability the following spring, BARBOUR COUNTY was decommissioned at San Diego on 30 March 1992. She was later towed to the Naval Inactive Ship Facility at Pearl Harbor for possible transfer to a foreign navy. Planned loans to both Venezuala and Malaysia did not take place, however, and the tank landing ship was struck from the navy list on 13 July 2001 and then sunk as a target on 6 April 2004.


More from this collection

USS Esteem MSO-438 Art Print

Regular price $ 89.99 Sale price $ 59.99

USS Esteem MSO-438 Box Framed Canvas Art

Regular price $ 169.99 Sale price $ 119.99

USS Esteem MSO-438 Coffee Cup Mug

Regular price $ 29.99 From $ 24.99

USS Esteem MSO-438 Navy Ship Plaque

Regular price $ 89.99 Sale price $ 59.99

Links

Follow Us

Kontakt

Navy Emporium
10120 W FLAMINGO RD
STE 4-196
LAS VEGAS 89147-8392


28 YEARS

28 years and a bit ago I was commissioned in the USNR. Today I received my US Flag in the mail and the anticipated letter with retirement orders dated 1 September 2012. All in all it was a great ride. I enjoyed it a lot.

Just for the heck of it and as a test of ancient memory:

Commissioned Penn State 1983

USS LaSalle (AGF-3) Middle East Force Flagship - 1984
OPERATION INTENSE LOOK in the Red Sea looking for mines with HM-14 - 1984

USS Harry W. Hill (DD-986) - 1985
ASW OPS 85-6 - 1985

SWOS Department Head School Diesel Engineer - 1986

USS Esteem (MSO-438) - 1988
OPERATION EARNEST WILL - 1988
OPERATION PRAYING MANTIS - 1988

USS Esteem (MSO-438) - 1989
OPERATION EARNEST WILL

Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit 107 - 1989
OPERATION WALLEYE

Inshore Undersea Warfare Group ONE - 1992
OPERATION DESERT STORM
JOINT TASK FORCE A
KOREA
THAILAND
BAHRAIN
KUWAIT
PORTUGAL
EGYPT

US Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain - 1996
OPERATION SOUTHERN WATCH
OPERATION DESERT STRIKE

Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit 104 - 1997

Surface Force Pacific Fleet 1998

Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit 103 - 1998
OPERATION SILENT ASSURANCE

Special Boat Squadron ONE - 1999

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command - 1999-2002

Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit 104 - 2000

Harbor Defense Force Western Pacific - 2003

Navy Coastal Warfare Group ONE 2005
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM


What the Self-Esteem Movement Got Disastrously Wrong

One of Saturday Night Live’s most popular skits in the early 90s was a mock self-help show called “Daily Affirmation with Stuart Smalley.” Smalley, played by now-Senator Al Franken, would begin each show by reciting into the mirror, “I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggone it, people like me.”

This was a spoof of the “self-esteem movement,” which in the 80s had been all the rage. In that decade, self-esteem became a hot topic for motivational speakers and almost a book genre unto itself. In 1986, California even established a self-esteem “State Task Force.” But by the next decade, the movement had degenerated into an easy late-night punchline. Even today, Smalley’s simpering smile is the kind of image that the term “self-esteem” evokes for many.

Ironically, these criticisms would be heartily endorsed by the father of the self-esteem movement.

Generation Barney

The self-esteem movement is also widely blamed for its influence on American schools and families. In the name of building self-esteem, teachers and parents showered children with effusive, unconditional praise. In the name of protecting self-esteem, kids were sheltered from any criticism or adverse consequences. The sugary rot spread to children's television as well. Many of today’s young adults were raised on Barney the Dinosaur, who gushed with “feel-good” affirmations just as sappy as Smalley’s.

I am reminded of a moment from my own education career in the early 2000s. I had designed a classroom game for preschoolers, and one of my colleagues, a veteran early childhood educator, objected that my game involved competition and winners. “Your game can’t have a winner, because that means other kids will be losers,” she explained.

According to critics, this kind of mollycoddling has yielded a millennial generation full of emotionally fragile young adults who, in the workplace, expect praise and affirmation simply for showing up, and who can’t cope with (much less adapt to) constructive criticism. It is also partially blamed for the rise of politically-correct university “snowflakes” (aka “crybullies”) and their petulant demands for “safe spaces” on campus.

An Unknown Ideal

Ironically, these criticisms would be heartily endorsed by the father of the self-esteem movement. The whole thing was kicked off by an influential 1969 book titled The Psychology of Self-Esteem, written by Nathaniel Branden (1930-2014), a psychotherapist and one-time colleague and lover of Ayn Rand. It was the first of a long series of books by Branden about self-esteem, which included The Disowned Self (1971), Honoring the Self (1983), How To Raise Your Self-Esteem (1987), and The Power of Self-Esteem (1992).

V The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (1994), his definitive book on the subject, Branden expressed deep dissatisfaction with prevailing discussions of the concept, especially after the movement became an explosive fad in the 80s. In that period, the concept of self-esteem was distorted by what Branden called “the oversimplifications and sugar-coatings of pop psychology.” Branden declared that:

“I do not share the belief that self-esteem is a gift we have only to claim (by reciting affirmations, perhaps). On the contrary, its possession over time represents an achievement.” [Emphasis added here and below.]

As Branden understood and explained it, self-esteem was an action-oriented, tough-minded concept. If Branden had been Stuart Smalley’s therapist, he would have advised him to stop mouthing empty self-compliments into the mirror and instead to start building real self-esteem through deep reflection and concrete action.

Branden especially deplored how badly education reformers were getting self-esteem wrong. He wrote:

“We do not serve the healthy development of young people when we convey that self-esteem may be achieved by reciting “I am special” every day, or by stroking one’s own face while saying ‘I love me’…”

“I have stressed that ‘feel good’ notions are harmful rather than helpful. Yet if one examines the proposals offered to teachers on how to raise students’ self-esteem, many are the kind of trivial nonsense that gives self-esteem a bad name, such as praising and applauding a child for virtually everything he or she does, dismissing the importance of objective accomplishments, handing out gold stars on every possible occasion, and propounding an ‘entitlement’ idea of self-esteem that leaves it divorced from both behavior and character. One of the consequences of this approach is to expose the whole self-esteem movement in the schools to ridicule.”

Branden further clarified:

“Therefore, let me stress once again that when I write of self-efficacy or self-respect, I do so in the context of reality, not of feelings generated out of wishes or affirmations or gold stars granted as a reward for showing up. When I talk to teachers, I talk about reality-based self-esteem. Let me say further that one of the characteristics of persons with healthy self-esteem is that they tend to assess their abilities and accomplishments realistically, neither denying nor exaggerating them.”

Other-Esteem

Branden also criticized those who:

“…preferred to focus only on how others might wound one’s feelings of worth, not how one might inflict the wound oneself. This attitude is typical of those who believe one’s self-esteem is primarily determined by other people.”

Indeed, what most “self-esteem” advocates fail to understand is that other-reliant “self-esteem” is a contradiction in terms. Far from building self-esteem, many of the counselors, teachers, and parents of yesteryear obstructed its growth by getting kids hooked on a spiritual I.V. drip of external validation. Instead of self-esteem, this created a dependence on “other-esteem.”

It is no wonder then that today we are faced with the (often exaggerated) phenomenon of young, entitled, high-maintenance validation-junkies in the classroom and the workplace. Their self-esteem has been crippled by being, on the one hand, atrophied by the psychic crutches of arbitrary authoritarian approval, and, on the other hand, repeatedly fractured by the psychic cudgels of arbitrary authoritarian disapproval.

Almost entirely neglected has been the stable middle ground of letting children learn to spiritually stand, walk, and run on their own: to build the strength of their self-esteem through the experience of self-directed pursuits, setting their own standards, and adapting to the natural consequences of the real world.

Branden also noted that self-esteem is not promoted by:

“…identifying self-worth with membership in a particular group (“ethnic pride”) rather than with personal character. Let us remember that self-esteem pertains to that which is open to our volitional choice. It cannot properly be a function of the family we were born into, or our race, or the color of our skin, or the achievements of our ancestors. These are values people sometimes cling to in order to avoid responsibility for achieving authentic self-esteem. They are sources of pseudo self-esteem. Can one ever take legitimate pleasure in any of these values? Of course. Can they ever provide temporary support for fragile, growing egos? Pravdepodobne. But they are not substitutes for consciousness, responsibility, or integrity. They are not sources of self-efficacy and self-respect. They can, however, become sources of self-delusion.”

This helps to explain the emotional fragility of young people obsessed with “identity politics,” especially the perverse pride in group victimhood that pervades the campus left. It also speaks to the agitation and resentment of today’s crop of white nationalists and other right-wing “identitarians.” As Ayn Rand wrote:

"The overwhelming majority of racists are men who have earned no sense of personal identity, who can claim no individual achievement or distinction, and who seek the illusion of a “tribal self-esteem” by alleging the inferiority of some other tribe.”

Authentic self-esteem promotes, not codependency and fragility, but independence, enterprise, resilience, adaptability, and a growth mindset: exactly the character traits that individuals, young and old, need more of in today’s economy and political climate.

It is nothing short of tragic that the confusions of the so-called self-esteem movement have turned an indispensable concept into an object of ridicule and blame. Far from being the source of our problems, self-esteem is the missing solution.


Self-esteem deficits and suicidal tendencies among adolescents

Cieľ: Self-esteem can play an important role in suicidal tendencies among adolescents. The present study was designed to examine the relationship between self-esteem deficits and suicidal tendencies in 254 adolescent psychiatric inpatients and 288 high school students.

Method: The direct relationship between self-esteem and suicidal tendencies was examined by assessing suicidal ideation and history of suicide attempts. An indirect relationship between self-esteem and suicidality was examined by assessing depression and hopelessness.

Výsledky: Differences were found across gender and hospitalization status, with males reporting higher self-esteem than females and high school students scoring higher in self-esteem than psychiatric inpatients. However, correlations among variables remained similar across gender and hospitalization status. Thus, low self-esteem was related to higher levels of depression, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and an increased likelihood of having previously attempted suicide. Furthermore, self-esteem added to the understanding of suicidal ideation beyond what could be explained by depression and hopelessness.

Závery: Low self-esteem was closely related to feelings of depression, hopelessness, and suicidal tendencies. Assessment of adolescents should include an evaluation of self-esteem, and therapy should attempt to address any self-esteem deficits.


Obsah

Esteem sailed out of Long Beach, California, her home port, for training in mine warfare and minesweeping exercises along the U.S. West Coast until 4 March 1957, when she departed for her first tour of duty with the U.S. 7th Fleet in the Far East. Along with visiting Japanese and Korean ports and Hong Kong, she exercised with minecraft of the navies of the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, aiding in the training of friendly forces in new techniques.

Returning to Long Beach in September 1957, Esteem resumed her west coast operations for the next year, then sailed 6 October 1958 for exercises with the Royal Canadian Navy off Nootka Sound, British Columbia. During the next month, she circumnavigated Vancouver Island, and visited several Canadian ports, returning to Long Beach 5 November.

During her 1959-60 tour of duty in the Far East, she again exercised with ships of the Chinese Navy, and also visited Bangkok, Thailand, to train with the Royal Thai navy. On 27 June 1960 she began an overhaul which continued through most of the remainder of the year.


From Princes to Managers

The report published by the Vatican last November on former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick can be viewed as a sign of our ecclesial times. In laying out the history of McCarrick’s behavior and shedding light on how it was countenanced, even enabled, by fellow hierarchs throughout the Church, it was another reminder of the danger of according unwarranted esteem to high-level clergy. For centuries, from Augustine to Vatican II, the official profiles of bishops and cardinals constituted something of a literary genre unto itself: the so-called speculum episcopi, portraits of the episcopal elite in which succeeding generations of prospective Church leaders could see themselves. They were presented as models to emulate, forebears to be guided and inspired by. Of course, that “mirror of a bishop” is an idealization, but as a metaphor it plays better than the figurative mugshots within the pages of the McCarrick report.

Perhaps because it was published amid the turmoil following Donald Trump’s loss to Joseph Biden in the 2020 election—a moment not only of political but also of ecclesial crisis in the United States—the McCarrick report has not received the degree of analysis I believe it deserves. Its publication represents a milestone: a dedicated attempt by the institutional Church to investigate a high-profile serial sex abuser, a prominent, long-serving Church leader who for decades wielded significant influence far beyond the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. But the report is also the history of a career, a very particular kind of clerical résumé, that should be evaluated as evidence of the evolution of the “occupational/professional” model of the episcopal leader over the past few centuries.

Reading the report in this way is not just essential to understanding how it was possible for someone like McCarrick to flourish within the system. It’s also vital in assessing the limits of institutional mechanisms like the “metropolitan model” put forth by Pope Francis in the 2019 motu proprio, Vos estis. Is it possible for one to think, after reading the McCarrick report, that assigning the metropolitan bishop to police the behavior of bishops within an ecclesiastic province is really a viable approach? Six months after the McCarrick report and two years after Vos estis, it seems like an appropriate question to ask.

When the revelations about McCarrick came to light in June of 2018, it marked a significant shift in the public perception of the Church’s sexual-abuse scandal. Now there was not only a high-profile cleric abusing young men, but there was also the realization that for decades he’d been allowed to persist in his behavior by other high-level officials at the Vatican, a development that necessarily called into question the actions of the men who served as popes during that time: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. Given that the story broke during his papacy, Francis has found himself at the center of the scandal, and thus a target of his critics—no matter the ample evidence that his predecessors were more involved in accommodating, or at least overseeing, McCarrick’s rise through the episcopal ranks.

It’s true that in the years during which the McCarrick scandal came to light, there have also been multiple, high-profile investigations of sexually abusive behavior by powerful individuals in other religious communities and institutions, all around the world. The scope has widened from Catholic dioceses and parishes to non-Catholic churches and lay Catholic movements, among others, owing in part to greater public awareness of the plight of abuse victims, children and adult alike, spurred by #MeToo and similar movements. Still, there’s a specifically Catholic element to focus on: the episcopal hierarchy’s utter failure in handling abuse allegations, whether through negligence or through active efforts to silence victims and hide the truth—from the public, and from Church and secular authorities. Catholic bishops face a crisis of authority and reputation unlike at any time since the Protestant Reformation and Luther’s condemnation of the systemic corruption then ravaging the Catholic Church.

There is no simple way the papacy can divert responsibility or blame. After all, it’s been a long time since emperors and kings appointed bishops now, almost all are directly appointed by the pope. There are exceptions, of course. Some cathedral chapters in German-speaking Europe retain the ancient right of electing bishops, though the pope must confirm those choices. Eastern Rite Catholic churches hold synodal elections, the results of which are subject to papal “assent.” Diplomatic arrangements old (such as with the Diocese of Strasbourg) and new (with China, since 2018) give governments the power to participate in the selection of a bishop. But for centuries now, the Holy See has done all it can to give popes as much freedom as possible in appointing bishops. Yes, that has created headaches for popes who have to deal with bishops appointed by their predecessors—appointments they might not have made themselves. But more significantly, it has over time also cemented a kind of institutional career system for episcopal hierarchs, a system with its own complicated history, inseparable from the history of the social and economic elite of Europe.

How does this help in understanding the institutional role in the abuse crisis? An article on the McCarrick case provides a helpful starting point. In “How McCarricks Happen,” Stephen Bullivant (a professor of theology and sociology of religion at St. Mary’s University, London) and Giovanni Sadewo (a research fellow in social-network analysis at the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne) analyze the relative influence of bishops, with particular attention to that wielded by McCarrick. They do so by focusing on the idea of “network centrality” within the English-Welsh and American episcopates. According to the authors, McCarrick was at the center of a very powerful constellation of U.S. bishops, some retired but many still in office, and this allowed him to get away with what he was doing for so long. It’s a provocative way of looking at things, and it could be useful in assessing how network structures throughout the Catholic Church could impact (or limit) the usefulness of the metropolitan model in ending institutional cover-up of clerical sex abuse.

At the same time, Bullivant and Sadewo’s theory of network centrality may not be a precise fit with the Catholic hierarchical structure, which has a number of what might be considered peculiar characteristics. Their theory reflects a tendency to seek a single root cause for how the structure of an ecclesial culture might enable sexual abuse, or encourage negligence and coverup, when there may be a range of factors. A related shortcoming is that the network model is limited only to clergy, when in fact it would be helpful to consider the lay presence within or alongside such networks as well. It also doesn’t sufficiently take into account the vertical dimension of Catholic ecclesial networks—the fact that all the bishops in McCarrick’s network were appointed by a pope in a process shaped by other pope-appointed Church officials in a way that was either formally top-down (the apostolic nuncio) or informally top-down (other channels of influence and alliances that take shape well before promotion to the episcopate and generate much less of a paper trail).

So, as is almost always the case in making a contemporary assessment of the institutional Church, some Church history is helpful—especially since systems and mechanisms of patronage in the twenty-first century owe a debt to those established in early modern history.

One of the ways the Council of Trent (1545–1563) responded to the Reformation’s denunciation of corruption among the hierarchy was to impose a prohibition on nepotism (Session XXV, Canon 1 for the reform of the Church). But it was a fairly toothless injunction. The “golden age” of nepotism in papal Rome came to a close only with the formal decision of Pope Innocent XII in 1692 to eliminate the position of “cardinal nephew”—usually a member of the pope’s family. (Though it was abolished, it nevertheless served as something of a prototype for the Cardinal Secretary of State, a position that has since become the second-most powerful in the Vatican, after the pope.) Still, the mechanisms for consolidating clerical and ecclesiastical power, and for governing access to it, remained operative. They were established to ensure the creation of cardinals in a way that would bring stability to a system that was unstable by design: to prevent a hereditary monarchy, the papal monarchy was elective. Thus the model of the pope–cardinal nephew pair at the top was replicated down through the levels of the Church, ensuring the creation of episcopal elites throughout the Catholic world, but especially in Europe.

Yet even then, the pope–cardinal nephew pair was not the only thing that counted. Becoming a cardinal or bishop also required a vast and complicated network of patron-client relationships, consisting not only of clerics but also of powerful laypeople. Further, building a clerical career required the forging of various kinds of alliances. These included alliances of group solidarity among fellow clergy, as well as alliances of relational solidarity (family bloodlines, shared city or region of origin, education at the same school, membership in the same religious order). There was also the category of artificial solidarity—the kind of alliance created via sponsorship or, on the flipside, emerging out of corrupt relationships built on extortion and conspiracy. Finally, there were alliances of horizontal solidarity, including friendships and relationships among peers.

In the discourse over clericalism and corruption in the context of the abuse crisis, the moral failures of individuals are often highlighted, while the dynamics of the system to which those individuals belong don’t get nearly enough attention. Networking has never just been about acquiring power it’s also essential in exercising power—for popes, for cardinals, and for bishops. To get a sense of the importance of networking in the exercise of power, consider what happens when an important diocese receives a new bishop, but the emeritus chooses to remain in the diocese. The former has nothing close to the kind of network (locally, nationally, or in Rome) that the latter has, having built it over many years while in charge. This situation has been exacerbated somewhat by the relatively new (post–Vatican II) norm that bishops present their resignation on reaching the age of seventy-five. More and more, this has led to overlaps of episcopal regimes as retired bishops remain on the scene after their successors are in place. What’s more, with the precedent established by Benedict XVI when he resigned in 2013, there are some bishops emeriti who have deliberately adopted his style of exerting continued influence after they officially step down.

The importance of networks in exercising power was also seen in the patrimonial character of how prelates in early modern Europe managed relationships. They would build an informal clientele with the purpose of amassing a number of “benefices”—ecclesiastical positions that could be had only if the right price was paid, in a business operation that was itself formal and institutionalized. This is what helped transform mere ecclesial income into secular fortune. This practice no longer continues—or at least, not in the same way. If wealth is no longer so overtly drained from peripheral churches and redirected toward Rome, the flow of money still rides on deeply ingrained practices in ecclesiastic circles, where unspoken agreements involving clerical and non-clerical actors govern financial arrangements. This is one of the reasons it’s often difficult to find a “smoking gun” when poring over documents in ecclesiastical archives. Much as matter disappears into a black hole, evidence of patronage is often rendered invisible just by the sheer institutional mass of the Church.

These practices continued in various forms well after the age of institutional nepotism between 1538 and 1692. But the patron-client dynamic was not exclusive to Catholicism. Nor was it limited to papal Rome. Patronage networks played a lesser but still important role in other European courts, where the rules of the game were more or less the same and the aim was entrée into the social and political elite.

When the Catholic Church abolished the nepotism system at the end of the seventeenth century, it was making a bid to become more “modern” than the European societies in which it operated. But this had some unintended and unfortunate consequences. The slow merging of the old quasi-feudal system with a more modern, recognizably administrative one—based on formalized institutional career and organizational structures that in the abstract would foster an impartial and impersonal bureaucratic model of service—was accompanied by the increasing value placed on personal merits, virtues, and skills. In short, “job performance” and merit became part of the criteria, even as vestiges of the feudal system remained. It is this ultimately awkward melding of systems that’s at the heart of the current crisis in the Catholic episcopate.

One more look at the history helps us understand why this is so. Since the early modern period, with that gradual merging of feudal and administrative systems, there was also a steady expansion of the duties of bishops. With the centralization and bureaucratization of ecclesiastical power, episcopal roles and responsibilities came to resemble those of the civil magistrates of the early centuries of Christianity. A bishop was now something like the defensor civitatis, the defender of the community both in its religious and civil sense, with all the political-diplomatic duties and relationships inherent to it.

But as the centuries passed, the considerable social status bishops might have once been likely to acquire became less of a sure thing. The stratification of roles—prelates in Rome, diocesan bishops with local political and secular power, and an “episcopal proletariat” of working bishops outside the patronage system—gave way to a system in which none is a prince and all are more like low- to mid-level bureaucrats. They possess administrative power, but in so doing are also subject to auditing, accountability, and scrutiny: from the papacy, from other ecclesial and lay stakeholders, and from external secular entities like civil authorities and the press. This is especially the case in Western countries, where it’s becoming harder to find clerics willing to become bishops. All this is a far cry from the speculum episcopi: the ideal image of episcopal ministry has been transformed from prince to prudent and competent employee, one who now has the added responsibility of publicly accounting for the failures of his predecessors and colleagues on sexual abuse and corruption. The prediction made by eighteenth-century political theorist of the French Revolution Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (himself a member of the clergy) has come to pass: the clergy are not an order, but a profession.

For all of this, however, continuities with the system that existed in early modern history remain. The “backbone” is still there, with the pope ultimately deciding who becomes part of the episcopate. The centralization and bureaucratization we see today is not the result of an abrupt transformation since the early modern period rather, we’ve arrived here through an evolutionary process, with signs of those prior systems still visible. But the secularization of the last century has also led to the decline of powerful, non-clerical social networks that might once have helped hold bishops to account, leaving the episcopacy to police itself and serve as its own agent of reform. The curial system of consistorial, collegial government, with informal assignments of tasks and duties, has given way to a more managerial dynamic where efficiency and verification are emphasized. What the abuse crisis revealed is the tension between these persisting social mechanisms and the newer ones of merit and accountability. This is one of the reasons why the scandal has been so cataclysmic in the English-speaking world, where notions of accountability and managerial performance are part of the cultural environment in which the Catholic Church operates.

As we know, “apostolic” is one of the four notes of the Church (along with “one,” “holy,” and “Catholic”). Without the episcopacy, there is no Catholic Church. This was underscored by the constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican II, which teaches that “bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.” But the way bishops are selected, chosen, and appointed, and the way their ministry is still structured, largely according to the model of small-scale monarchy of divine right—this is not divinely instituted.

Thus, change can happen. What’s more, it has to. But what are the options? The Church cannot choose a path of reform limited only to appointing bishops thought to have a “good heart” and then hoping for the best. At the same time, it can’t simply destroy the existing model in hopes of the long-dreamt “post-episcopal” Catholic Church magically coming into being and (even less of a likelihood) being adopted globally. The system is in serious crisis, but it’s a crisis to which centuries’ worth of shifting and complicated networking dynamics have led. We need bishops, and we need reform. It can be dispiriting to think how long it might be before the work of dismantling, reimagining, and building anew is complete.


Výsledky

In addition to Zapojiť, Force, Fortifya Impervious, the ocean minesweepers USS Vylepšiť (MSO-437), USS Illusive (MSO-448), USS  Inflict (MSO-456), USS Leader (MSO-490), USS Conquest (MSO-488), and USS Esteem (MSO-438) took part in some part of End Sweep six of the ten ocean minesweepers conducted actual sweeping operations, as did Washtenaw County in her special role. Nine amphibious warfare ships, six fleet tugs, three salvage ships, and 19 destroyer-type ships also operated in Task Force 78 during at least a portion of the six months of End Sweep. [4]

Two helicopters were lost, and Vylepšiť suffered fire damage during the operation. The overall cost of the operation, including repairs to Vylepšiť, was USD 20,394,000 more than the cost expected for normal operations of the units involved. The six ocean minesweepers that had conducted actual minesweeping operations spent 439 hours involved in them. [4]


Pozri si video: Mine Sweeping Boats of the Vietnam War 1966-1970 (Február 2023).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos