We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Taylor I DD-94
Taylor I(Destroyer No. 94: dp. 1,090; 1. 314'41/2"; b. 30'11 1/4~" (wl.), dr. 9'0" (mean), s. 35 k. (est.); cpl. 122, a4 4", 1 3", 12 21" tt.; cl. Wickee)The first Taylor (Destroyer No. 94) was laid down on 15 October 1917 by the Mare Island Navy Yard, Calif.; launched on 14 February 1918; sponsored by Miss Mary Gorgas, and commissioned on 1 June 1918, Comdr. Charles T. Hutchins, Jr., in command.Upon commissioning, Taylor joined Division 12 of the Destroyer force, Atlantic Fleet. She cruised with that fleet through the end of World War I and into the postwar period. By 1 April 1919, she was assigned to Division 8, Destroyer force. In 1920, Taylor was placed in reduced commission though still operating on the Atlantic coast. That summer, on 17 July, the Navy adopted the alpha-numeric hull designation system, and Taylor became DD-94. In October, she was placed back in full commission and, until the summer of 1922, operated with Division 8, Flotilla 8 Squadron 3. On 21 June 1922, the destroyer was placed out of commission at Philadelphia.Taylor remained inactive there until 1 May 1930 when she was placed back in commission, Comdr. George B. Keester in command. She was assigned to Division 33, Squadron 7, Destroyer Squadrons, Scouting Fleet, and operated from Charleston, S.C., until November when she was placed in reduced commission once again. At the same time, Taylor was detached from the Scouting Fleet and transferred to Division 47 Squadron 16, Training Squadron. She was assigned to the 6th and 7th Naval Districts to train reservists and to carry Reserve Officer Training Corps midshipmen on summer cruises.By 1 April 1931, her unit designation changed completely. Scouting Fleet became Scouting Force, and the destroyer was an element of Division 28 of the Training Squadron. She operated with that unit until early in 1934 when she joined Squadron 19 of the rotating reserve with which she remained until that fall.On 1 September, she relieved J. Fred Talbot (DD156) on duty with the Special Service Squadron. She cruised the West Indies and the Gulf of Mexico with that little force for the better part of a year to guard American interests during Latin America's sporadic political spasms. By 1 October 1935, Taylor was back with the Training Squadron as a unit of the newly established Division 30. She trained reservists until early in 1937 when she returned to the Special Service Squadron in relief of Manley (DD-74). The destroyer again patroled the volatile Caribbean area protecting American lives and property.Upon her return to the United States in 1938, Taylor was moored at Philadelphia to prepare for inactivation. The destroyer was placed out of commission on 23 September 1938. Although her name was struck from the Navy list on 6 December 1938, and she was offered for sale in July 1939, Tavloris service to the Navy was not yet at an end. On 11 July 1940, she was selected for use in training damage control parties and was designated Damage Control Hulk No. 40.Moreover, at least a part of her saw duty in World War II. In May 1942—while patrolling off Martinique— one of her sister ships, Blakley (DD-150), lost 60 feet of her bow to a German torpedo. Taylor's bow was grafted onto Blakeley at Philadelphia that summer; and, in September, the latter destroyer returned toconvoy escort duty in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Mediterranean. The former Taylor continued to serve as a damage control hulk until almost the end of the war. She was finally sold for scrap in August 1945 and delivered to her purchaser on the 8th.
Taylor I DD-94 - History
Until July 1920, U.S. Navy Destroyers did not officially have "DD" series hull numbers. They were, however, referred to by "Destroyer Number", with that number corresponding to the "DD" number formally assigned in July 1920, or which would have been assigned if the ship had still been on the Navy list. For convenience, all of these ships are listed below under the appropriate numbers in the "DD" series.
Beginning in the later 1940s, destroyers converted for certain specialized functions were given modified designations, including DDE (anti-submarine destroyer, or escort destroyer), DDK (anti-submarine hunter-killer destroyer), DDR (radar picket destroyer) and AGDD (expermental destroyer). All of these expanded designations were numbered in the original DD series.
Before, during and after World War II, other ships were given designations that were based on specialized functions within the destroyer ("D-") type, but were numbered separately from the DD series and will be treated on other Online Library pages. These included DE (escort ship) DDG (guided missile destroyer) DL (frigate) DM (light minelayer) and DMS (high-speed minesweeper).
This page, and those linked from it, provide the hull numbers of all U.S. Navy destroyers numbered in the DD series, with links to those ships with photos available in the Online Library.
See the list below to locate photographs of individual destroyers.
If the destroyer you want does not have an active link on this page, contact the Photographic Section concerning other research options.
In 1926, the Maid-Rite sandwich was born! Fred Angell started the concept in Muscatine, Iowa. Fred began to franchise his idea, selling the rights to Newton, Iowa in 1927 and Marshalltown, Iowa in 1928.
Cliff Taylor purchased the 1928 franchise for the sum of $300. Cliff and his family operated Taylor's Maid-Rite Hamburger Shop baking pies at home, slicing whole pickles from Marshall Vinegar Works and buns from Strand's Bakery.
After Cliff's death in 1944, his son Don Taylor and wife Polly took over operations at Taylor's Maid-Rite. Don continued to run the Maid-Rite in the same fashion, even building a cooler in the basement of his home to store the hamburger that was ground daily!
In 1958, Don Taylor built a &ldquostate of the art&rdquo building across the street from the original location. The new Maid-Rite was high tech for the time all equipment was stainless steel, the counters were up on legs for better cleaning, and they even had two cash registers!
Don Taylor continued to operate a successful, popular and efficient business until his passing in 1973. Polly with the assistance of many long time employees continued with the day-to-day operations until 1985 when her grandson Don Short took over. Don and Polly Taylor's daughter, Sandra Taylor Short has taken over operations of the Maid-Rite in recent years.
We haven't changed much in the last 90 years. We still grind 100% choice beef daily to ensure its quality and freshness and make ice cream from our original recipe. We take pride in being a family run Iowa tradition, with amazing employees and loyal customers. This has made Taylor&rsquos what it is today.
Teyana Taylor is first black woman to be named Maxim’s ‘Sexiest Woman Alive’
Teyana Taylor is making history with her latest magazine cover.
On Monday, the 30-year-old entertainer was crowned Maxim’s “Sexiest Woman Alive,” topping the title’s “Hot 100” list for 2021.
Taylor covers the issue in a hacked-off Hanes tank top and vintage army pants, showing off her six-pack abs.
Inside its pages, she models more revealing looks, including vintage overalls (worn sans top) and an unbuttoned Maison Margiela shirt paired with perilously low-slung slacks.
“Somebody pinch me. ” Taylor wrote on Instagram Monday, sharing a series of photos from her shoot, which she primarily styled herself.
“Stepping back in front of the lens has been a journey of self-reflection and self-confidence. Living up to name and title of this shoot wholeheartedly made me nervous,” the Harlem native continued.
Teyana Taylor at Paris Fashion Week in 2020. Getty Images
“As an entrepreneur, wife, a busy mother of two & working behind the lens in my director bag I tend to hide behind my sweats & vintage tees … So as you can see I don’t have much time to be and feel sexy.”
Taylor — who shares daughters Iman “Junie” Tayla, 5, and Rue Rose, 9 months, with her NBA-star husband, Iman Shumpert — revealed that she arrived at her Maxim shoot fresh from school drop-off in sweats, a beanie and zero makeup.
So she was stunned when photographer Gilles Bensimon said he wanted to shoot her as is.
Developmental dysplasia of the hip
Objective: The definition and early treatment of congenital dysplasia of the hip are controversial. The purpose of this study was to discuss the reasons for changing the acronym to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and to address its early detection and treatment.
Design: This multicenter study was designed to provide an updated assessment of the definition, pathologic anatomy, prevalence, etiology, natural history, early detection, and treatment of DDH.
Results: DDH more accurately describes the condition previously termed congenital dysplasia of the hip. The disorder is not always present at birth (congenital) and an infant may have a normal neonatal hip screening examination and subsequently develop a dysplastic or dislocated hip. Developmental dysplasia encompasses the wide spectrum of hip problems seen in infants and children. Physicians should understand that a normal neonatal screening examination does not assure normal hip development. The diagnosis of developmental dysplasia is made by physical examination. The Ortolani and Barlow maneuvers were designed to detect a subluxatable, dislocatable, or dislocated hip in the neonatal period. In the older child, limited abduction becomes a more reliable sign. The examination is variable depending on the type of dysplasia and changes with growth. The ultrasound is proving to be a sensitive tool in confirming the diagnosis in newborns and infants from birth to 4 months of age. The ultrasound is also valuable in older infants in terms of documenting that the dysplasia is responding to treatment. However, the ultrasound depends on an experienced sonographer and, in some cases, may be too sensitive, resulting in overtreatment. After 3 to 4 months of age, an anteroposterior pelvis radiograph can confirm the diagnosis.
Conclusions: All newborns should have a neonatal hip screening physical examination. After screening, the hips should be re-examined during health examination visits at 2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year of age. If any question arises during these visits or if there are associated risk factors, we recommend an ultrasound if the infant is < 4 months of age or an anteroposterior pelvis radiograph if > 4 months of age.
The first DD Form 214s were issued in 1950, replacing the older "WD AGO" (War Department Adjutant General's Office) Forms and the NAVPERS (Naval Personnel) discharge documents. These documents had existed since 1941. In earlier versions of the form (1 November 1972) it was called a "Report of Separation from Active Duty" the current title dates from 1 July 1979.
DD Form 214 is the capstone military service document, as it represents the complete, verified record of a service member's time in the military (Active and Reserve), awards and medals, and other pertinent service information, such as highest rank/rate and pay grade held on active duty, total military combat service or overseas service, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or Navy officer designator, Navy Officer Billet Code (NOBC), Additional Qualification Designation (ACD) or Navy Enlisted Classification (NEC) identifiers and a record of training and schools completed. Individuals who served exclusively in the Air National Guard or Army National Guard do not receive a DD Form 214, but will receive a form called NGB-22 from the National Guard Bureau.
The DD Form 214 is commonly used by various government agencies, chief among them the Department of Veterans Affairs, to secure veteran benefits, and may be requested by employers should a person indicate he or she has served in the military.
This document also contains codes used by the Armed Forces to describe a former servicemember's reason for discharge and, in the case of enlisted personnel, their reenlistment eligibility. These codes are known as Separation Designator/Separation Justification (abbreviated as SPD/SJC) Codes and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Codes, respectively.
DD Form 214 is also generally required by funeral directors in order to immediately prove eligibility for interment in a VA cemetery, to obtain a grave marker or to provide military honors to a deceased veteran. On September 1, 2000, the National Defense Authorization Act enabled, upon the family's request, every eligible veteran to receive a military funeral honors ceremony to include the folding and presentation of the United States burial flag and the sounding of Taps at no cost to the family.
Copies of DD Form 214s are typically maintained by the government as part of a service member's 201 file or OMPF (Official Military Personnel File). The 201 file generally contains additional personnel related forms.
There are two versions of the DD Form 214, usually referred to simply as "short" or "redacted" or "deleted" (edited), and "long" or "unredacted" or "undeleted" (unedited) copies. The edited, or "short", copy omits a great deal of information, chiefly the Characterization of Service, Reason for Separation, and Authority for Separation.  
Service members are given the option of accepting the "short form" edited Member 1, "long form" unedited Member 4 or both copies upon separation.
The most important copy of the DD 214 for the individual is the long form copy. It is the standard form needed to obtain benefits such as GI Bill or government employment priority.
There are eight original DD214 copies. All but Member 1, the "short form" copy, contain information as to the nature and type of discharge, and the re-enlistment code. This code is used to determine whether or not the service member can go back into the service. For unemployment benefits, veterans affairs benefits, as well as for several other services, the "Member's Copy 4" is usually requested but any other "long form" copy is acceptable. All eight copies are identical except Member 1, the "short form," which lacks this critical information. The military will not provide a replacement "Member's Copy 4" (it is the service member's personal copy and physically given to him at separation) and any request for a replacement is always honored by providing a "Service 2", "Service 7" or "Service 8" copy. All but Member 1 are acceptable legal substitutes for Member 4.
Other versions of the DD Form 214 include the "Member 1" (deleted version), "Service 7 & 8" (additional copies of the "Service 2"), "Veterans Affairs 3" (sent directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs), "Member 6" (provided to the respective veteran's State Department of Veteran Affairs), and "Department of Labor 5" (provided directly to the United States Department of Labor).
If for whatever reason an original DD214 is unusable, unreadable, or destroyed, upon verification of service, the National Personnel Record Center can issue NA Form 13038, a Certification of Military Service, which is also a perfect legal substitute for DD214.
eBenefits, a web portal  managed jointly by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the United States Department of Defense (DoD) provides Service members with free electronic copies of their Official Military Personnel File, including their DD Form 214. Electronic copies will be provided within 48 hours from the time of request. In order for a service member to request a DD 214 in eBenefits, they must have an eBenefits Premium Account ( DS Logon Level 2  ).
The National Personnel Records Center is the government agency tasked with replacing lost and destroyed DD Form 214s upon request from a veteran. Requested copies are mailed from the Military Personnel Records Center. Most veterans who separated from their service generally pre-1992 can obtain their DD 214 from the National Personnel Records Center, ("NPRC"). The NPRC has two distinct tracks available to obtain records for veterans. The first is for the veteran to submit a Department of Defense Standard Form 180 ("SF180") to the facility via mail or fax. The second is to appear in-person at the facility. The National Archives also maintains a list of independent researchers who will physically visit the St. Louis facility to request records in person. 
The DD Form 215 ("Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty") is used to correct errors or additions to a DD Form 214 discovered after the original had been delivered or distribution had been made. It is distributed in the same manner as the DD Form 214.
A DD Form 214/215 is prepared in eight copies and distributed as follows:
1. Design and construction
General Taylor had a length of 105 feet 32 m, a beam of 17 feet 6 inches 5.33 m, a draft of 6 feet 6 inches 1.98 m and a hold depth of 8 feet 6 inches 2.59 m.
General Taylor s original builder is not known, but her original engine was supplied by the Allaire Iron Works of New York. The single-cylinder, 98 hp, 23 rpm engine was of the square crosshead type, with a 25.3 inch bore and 6-foot stroke. Steam was supplied by an iron flue boiler at an average working pressure of 20 psi. The paddlewheels were 16 feet in diameter and 4 feet 10 inches wide, with fourteen 1-foot 10-inch width paddles. The vessel had an average speed of 8 and a maximum speed of 9 knots.
Burlison, Weldon C. (or Burleson)
Weldon C. Burlison (also spelled “Burleson”) was born on November 25, 1911, in Yancey County to Henry Wilburn and Minnie Bell Burlison. By 1920, the Burlison family were living in Jacks Creek Township in Yancey County, where Weldon’s father worked as a farmer. Weldon Burlison was raised in Yancey County, and attended Clearmont High School in Burnsville. He served in two branches of the military, first in Marines for four years and then following honorable discharge, he re-enlisted with the U.S. Army Air Corps. He was the first reported war casualty for World War II from western North Carolina and one of the first reported North Carolina casualties from the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.
Tour of duty with the U.S. Marine Corps, 1934-1938
Weldon Burlison attended Maryville College in Tennessee and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on August 16, 1934, serving four years in the Marine Corps. Burlison went through his basic training in the Headquarters Detachment at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, South Carolina. As of November 1934, Burlison was stationed in the Marine Barracks at the Naval Yard in Boston, Massachusetts, and remained there through September 1935. By October 1935, he was stationed with the Sea School Detachment at the Marine Barracks of the Norfolk Naval Yard in Portsmouth, Virginia. And just a few months later in January 1936, he was serving as a Private in a Marine Detachment aboard the USS Colorado (BB-45), the lead ship of the Colorado class of battleships, which operated in the Pacific Ocean. In 1937, he served in numerous locations around the world and aboard a number of U.S. ships, including aboard the USS Fairfax (DD-93), a Wickes-class destroyer, which was assigned to the Special Service Squadron out of U.S. Navy stations Coco Solo and Balboa in the Panama Canal Zone in Panama, between January and April 1937 .
Burlison served as a Marine on numerous American Navy vessels, including as a deck hand on temporary duty aboard the USS Saratoga (CV-3), a Lexington-class aircraft carrier, when it came into port at San Pedro, California, in March 1937, from the Navy’s station at Balboa in Panama. He again was stationed aboard the USS Saratoga when it traveled in April 1937 to Honolulu, Hawaii. Most of his service during this period appears to have been connected to Marine Corps and Navy military maneuvers and mock battle scenarios as part of the Navy’s Fleet Problem exercises, held every year since 1923. In July 1937, Burlison was serving aboard the USS Taylor (DD-94), a Wickes-class destroyer, which prior to its decommission in 1938 was patrolling the Atlantic coastline. By January 1938, Burlison was stationed aboard the USS Henderson (AP-1), a Navy troop transport ship that was involved in resupply troops in China during the 1930s.
By February 1938, Burlison had returned to the Marine Barracks at the Norfolk Naval Yard and was transferred the following month to the Marine Barracks at the Naval Yard in Charleston, South Carolina. In May 1938, he was transferred to the Marine Detachment at Camp May in New Jersey. His career with the U.S. Marine Corps ended soon after with an honorable discharge.
Re-enlistment in the U.S. Army Air Corps, 1939-1941
The between 1939 and early 1940, Burlison re-enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps. From around 1939 to December 1941, he was primarily stationed at Hickam Field in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii where he served in the 22nd Materiel Squadron.
In November 1940, the War Department authorized the construction of housing for 750 men of the 299 Infantry Regiment (Hawaiian National Guard) at Barking Sands, Hawaii. The new construction included barracks, a mess hall, and warehouses as well as necessary water and power supply lines. Burlison was stationed there starting in August 1941, where he and 60 men in his party were assigned the task of constructing new U.S. Army Air Corps barracks for the new Army Air Corps’ Barking Sands Landing Field, a new airfield for bomber plane operations. Burlison was involved in local activities in Honolulu when he was not on duty in the Air Corps, including serving as a treasurer for a Moose Lodge in Honolulu.
Prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Weldon Burlison corresponded with friends and family members, including a childhood friend from Yancey County who was living in Skillman, New Jersey—Elsie M. Edwards. Elsie and her husband Ellis Edwards even visited with Burlison in the late 1930s when he was stationed with the Marine Corps in New Jersey. The Edwards couple wrote to Burlison, and Elsie would even have some of her female friends write to him at his request. Burlison referred in his correspondence to Elsie Edwards as “Chick” or “Chickie,” while she called him “Snook.”
On December 7, 1941, Weldon Burlison was stationed at Hickam Field at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the headquarters of the Hawaii Air Force, where 51 American airplanes were on the ground when the Japanese attacked. And a flight of 12 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers was expected to arrive that morning. During the attack, Japanese Zero fighters and Val dive-bombers strafed and bombed the flight line and hangars, concentrating on the B-17 bombers, which had arrived unarmed and low on fuel during the attack, with most succeeding in landing at Hickam at which point they were attacked on the ground. The second wave of the Japanese attack struck Hickam at 8:40 A.M. and by 9:45 A.M. the attack was over. Nearly half of the airplanes at Hickam Field had been destroyed or severely damaged. The hangars, the Hawaiian Air Depot, and several base facilities—the fire station, the chapel and the guardhouse—had been hit. The big barracks had been repeatedly strafed and bombed and a portion of the building was on fire. Thirty-five men were killed when a bomb hit the mess hall during breakfast.
A variety of casualty numbers have been reported over the years for the loses at Hickam Field on December 7, 1941. The U.S. Air Force reports that personnel casualties included 139 killed and 303 wounded at Hickam Field. The bombing and strafing of Hickam Field was an important objective for the Japanese. The success of the attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was dependent on eliminating air opposition and stopping U.S. planes from following their aircraft back to their carriers and bombing the Japanese military task force.
Letter from a friend back home
On the morning of December 8, 1941, after hearing the news about Pearl Harbor and knowing where Burlison was stationed, Elsie Edward wrote a two-page, heart-breaking letter to him, hoping he is safe and alive. Elsie began her letter by saying “Of course I have a million things on my mind these days. Right now the uppermost thought is ‘I wonder if Snook is safe, if he’s really all right’.” After noting that Americans had abandoned plans for Christmas in order to pray for those military personnel at Pearl Harbor, Edwards wrote, “And let me tell you Weldon, I am one of your many friends who is praying for you!” She would finish writing the letter by 5 focusing on information related to previous correspondence, but finished her letter saying, “I don’t know of very much to say right now. I can’t even be sure you will receive this but I hope you do.”
Within two days of the attack on Pearl Harbor, on Wednesday, December 10, 1941, the U.S. War Department had officially notified Weldon Burlison’s parents of his death. The notice for Burlison’s death was printed on the next day—December 11, 1941—in his hometown newspaper The Yancey Record (Burnsville, North Carolina). It was published with a front-page headline: “Weldon Burleson Is First War Casualty.”
Weldon Burlison was the first reported war casualty for World War II from western North Carolina and one of the first reported North Carolina casualties from the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. Sometime during the week following Pearl Harbor, a family member of either Weldon Burlison or Elsie Edwards who lived in Yancey County mailed two newspaper clippings to Elsie in New Jersey to let her know of Burlison’s death. The letter Edwards mailed to Burlison on December 8th would be transferred to multiple military mail locations in the chaos following Pearl Harbor. After the envelope was marked with “Deceased,” the letter was returned to and received by Elsie Edwards on February 12, 1942—a date she wrote on the back of the envelope. Little is known about the Burlison family or the Edwards family following Pearl Harbor.
Weldon C. Burlison died with the rank of Private, but would receive a posthumous promotion to Corporal. He was initially buried in Plot 3, Row S, Grave 62, at the Schofield Barracks on Oahu, Hawaii. After World War II, he was disinterred in 1947, and reburied in the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery in Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1947. Burlison is buried there in Section L, Grave No. 8153-C.
Over the years—due to misspellings and little available information—Weldon Burlison has often been overlooked as a victim of the Pearl Harbor attack, but not by those in Yancey County, where his name is engraved on the Yancey County Veterans Memorial in Burnsville as “Weldon Burleson.”
Information on Weldon C. Burlison’s U.S. Marine Corps service gathered from a newspaper clipping in the collection, as well as from the following public records:
U.S. Marine Corps Muster Rolls, 1798-1958 [database on-line], Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc., 2007.
“History of Hickam Field, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii,” Air Force Fact Sheet, U.S. Air Force, February 2013, viewed at http://www.15wing.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/ tabid/1693/Article/376269/history-of-hickam-field-joint-base-pearl-harbor-hickam-hawaii.aspx
“Hickam Field,” Aviation: From Sand Dunes to Sonic Booms, National Park Service, viewed at https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=437
"Weldon Burleson is first war casualty." Yancey Reord (Burnsville, N.C.), December 11, 1941.
National Archives and Records Adminstration. World War II Army Casualties, North Carolina. https://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww2/army-casualties/north-car.
Burlison, Weldon C. Weldon Burlison to Elsie Edwards, [postmarked November 1941]. In the Weldon C. Burlison collection (WWII 58), Military Collection, State Archives of North Carolina.
Burlison, Weldon C. Weldon Burlison to Elsie Edwards, August 5, 1941. In the Weldon C. Burlison collection (WWII 58), Military Collection, State Archives of North Carolina.
Josh Taylor: I am ready to make my mark on boxing history
Josh Taylor insists he has left no stone unturned as he seeks to make boxing history on Saturday.
The 30-year-old Scot, who has unified the light-welterweight division, looks to become the first Briton in the four-belt era to become undisputed world champion when he fights Jose Ramirez in Las Vegas.
Unbeaten Taylor (17-0, 13KOs) holds the WBA and IBF titles, while WBC and WBO champion Ramirez boasts a similarly flawless record.
The man from Prestonpans believes the work he has done in the lead-up to the fight has been of the highest quality and he aims to bring all four titles back to Scotland.
“This fight means the world to me, it speaks for itself,” he said at the pre-fight media conference.
“To be the first person in the four-belt era in Scotland and from the UK, it is a massive piece of history.
“It puts my name in the history books as one of Scotland’s best ever fighters and it’s a real honour and motivation for me to do this.
“I’m in this game to be the best and fight the best and leave my mark on boxing history.
“That’s why I’ve trained so hard for this fight and been away from home for about six months.
I’m in this game to be the best and fight the best and leave my mark in boxing history- Josh Taylor
“I’ve dedicated my whole adult life to the sport for this moment in time. I’m so confident, it’s just unbelievable.
“I know I’ve done everything right and to the best of my ability. I can’t wait to get in there.
“It’s a massive fight for Jose as well, he has the opportunity to become the first American/Mexican to do it as well, create history, so it is a massive fight for the two of us and it is a great fight for boxing. It’s a great match-up.”
Taylor has long been aware of Ramirez and has plenty of respect for the 28-year-old from California but stressed that will end when the first bell rings.
He said: “I respect every fighter that jumps in the ring. You’ve got to respect Jose Ramirez.
“He’s 26-0, he’s a unified champion and he’s beat everyone that’s been in front of him. You don’t become unified world champion for no reason, he’s a very good fighter.
“I’ve said it all along, I highly respect the man. He’s a great champion and a great person.
“But on Saturday night as soon as that first bell goes, it’s all out the window.”
Ramirez will ignore his underdog tag.
He said: “This is the biggest fight of my career and I was very motivated to train like the underdog, even if I was the favourite.
“But that doesn’t matter. Odds makers, people’s opinions are not going to help me, they are not going to help Josh. I am just grateful for this opportunity.”
Join the home of live sport for just £25 per month. Get instant access to the BT Sport app, with no contract and no BT broadband required.
History of the DD Act
The purpose of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act), as described in the current law, is to “assure that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of community life …”
Background and Expanding Eligibility
Federal "developmental disabilities" legislation developed from the "mental retardation" laws of the early 1960s. In October 1961 President John F. Kennedy convened the President’s Panel on Mental Retardation, which developed “A Proposed Program for National Action to Combat Mental Retardation.” The panel’s work took place within the larger context that people with developmental disabilities in the United States faced exclusion from schools, community activities, and many spheres of public and private life. Large, state-run and often grossly underfunded and under-resourced institutional facilities were pervasive, and systemic abuse and neglect was a problem.
Following the panel's findings, President Kennedy sent a message to Congress in February 1963, which included a proposed legislative package with objectives regarding intellectual disabilities. Congress enacted some of these recommendations as the Maternal and Child Health and Mental Retardation Planning Amendments of 1963 and the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963. In 1967 Congress expanded the services related to intellectual disability and increased program funding.
Congress amended the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 in the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Amendments of 1970, a law that introduced the term “developmental disability” and expanded the population covered under the law beyond individuals with mental retardation to include individuals with cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and certain other neurological conditions that originate before the age of 18.
In 1975 the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act defined developmental disability to include specific conditions (e.g., mental retardation and other conditions closely related to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and dyslexia) that originate prior to age 18, are expected to continue indefinitely, and that constitute a substantial handicap.
In 1978 Congress raised the age of onset to 22, and switched from a list of specific conditions to a more generalized approach focused on a functional definition of a developmental disability as a “severe, chronic disability…attributable to a physical or mental impairment…likely to continue indefinitely” and resulting in substantial functional limitations in three or more areas of major life activity.
The current definition under the DD Act (adopted in 2000) defines “developmental disability” as a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
- "(i) is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments
- (ii) is manifested before the individual attains age 22
- (iii) is likely to continue indefinitely
- (iv) results in substantial functional limitations in 3 or more of the following areas of major life activity:
- (I) Self-care.
- (II) Receptive and expressive language.
- (III) Learning.
- (IV) Mobility.
- (V) Self-direction.
- (VI) Capacity for independent living.
- (VII) Economic self-sufficiency and
The 2000 law also further clarified the application of the “developmental disability” definition for children from birth through age 9. A child may still be considered to have a developmental disability without meeting 3 or more of the above criteria (items (i) through (v)) if the individual, without services and supports, has a high probability of meeting these criteria later in life.
The 1975 amendments articulated findings that people with developmental disabilities have a right to appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation in the least restrictive setting that maximizes developmental potential, and specified that public funds should not be provided to any residential program for people with developmental disabilities that conflicts with, and does not meet, the minimum standards for nutritious diet, medical and dental services, prohibition of physical restraints, visiting rights for relatives, and compliance with fire and safety. In 1978 four priority service areas were established: case management services, child developmental services, alternative community living arrangement services, and nonvocational social-developmental services.
The 1984 amendments articulated the goals for services for people with developmental disabilities “to achieve their maximum potential through increased independence, productivity, and integration into the community …” The statute further defined those terms as follows:
- Independence: The extent to which people exert control and choice over their own lives.
- Productivity: Engagement in income-producing work.
- Integration: Using common community resources, participating in community activities with persons who do not have disabilities, and residing in homes or homelike settings in the community.
The law also authorized prevention-related activities and modified the requirements for State Planning Council membership (referred to here as Councils). People First language was used throughout the Act beginning in 1984.
The 1987 amendments required the Councils to complete two reports by 1990. One report was to provide a review and analysis of eligibility standards based on a developmental disability perspective (rather than strictly a mental retardation perspective). The other report was to provide review and analysis of consumer satisfaction with state agencies providing developmental disabilities services, using independence, productivity, and integration as the benchmarks. Congress here recognized the central role that the family and members of the community, including friends and neighbors, can play in enhancing the lives of people with developmental disabilities.
The 1990 amendments moved from goals of independence, integration, and productivity toward interdependence, inclusion, and recognition of contributions (beyond productivity). The legislation also expanded the purpose of the law to include providing interdisciplinary training and technical assistance to professionals, paraprofessionals, family members, and individuals with developmental disabilities and to advocate for public policy change and community acceptance.
Findings in the 1994 law included an emphasis on individual dignity, personal preferences, and cultural differences in the provision of services, supports, and other assistance, and recognition that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families are the primary decision-makers regarding services, supports, and other assistance they receive.
The 2000 amendments added the “provision of care that is free of abuse, neglect, sexual and financial exploitation, and violations of legal and human rights and that subject individuals with developmental disabilities to no greater risk of harm than others in the general population,” to the Bill of Rights, increased the accountability of programs funded under the Act, and aimed to increase coordination and collaboration within and across those programs.
The program areas established by the DD Act have evolved over time to their current structures. Sometimes referred to as the DD Network, the State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils) University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs) and Protection & Advocacy Systems (P&As) operate in every state and territory. They often participate in related, complementary work and collaboration even though they have different mandates.
The DD Act also funds national initiatives, such as the Projects of National Significance, as well as the newer Family Support and Direct Support Workforce programs. The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), a federal agency presently located in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, allocates the funds for these organizations and projects.
State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils)
Councils were established to coordinate and integrate the provision of services for individuals with developmental disabilities in the least restrictive environment, largely in response to advocates arguing that government funding should apply to a broad range of services (rather than primarily toward building and modifying institutions), and that the DD community, including parents and advocates, should participate in decisions on how the DD money is used. In the 1975 law, the scope of the Councils was revised to include advocacy and a requirement to prepare plans on deinstitutionalization in each Council’s respective state. The Councils later changed focus from service provision or demonstration to policy change.
Council membership requirements have changed under the law: the 2000 DD Act raised the requirement to a composition of at least 60 percent people with developmental disabilities and their families, including a requirement that one-third of members must be individuals with developmental disabilities one-third must be parents or guardians of children with developmental disabilities or immediate relatives or guardians of adults with developmental disabilities who cannot advocate for themselves and one-third must be a combination of the above categories. At least one member must represent someone who resides or resided in an institution or is an adult who resides or resided in an institution.
According to the 2000 DD Act, the purpose of the Councils is to undertake advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities that contribute to a coordinated consumer- and family-centered, consumer- and family-directed, comprehensive system of community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs)
UCEDD programs evolved out of the University Affiliated Facilities (UAFs), which were established in 1963, but were not funded until the 1970 law, authorizing grants to help support interdisciplinary training in institutions of higher education to help meet shortages of personnel to provide services to people with developmental disabilities. The original grants included funding to build medical/training facilities and emphasized clinical services, diagnosis and treatment programs, and interdisciplinary training of personnel. The grants later eliminated the funding for facilities, and UAFs became University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) in 1987.
Since the late 1980s, the programs have expanded their focus from medical and allied health care to include education, consumer empowerment, productivity, independence, and inclusion. Recent DD Act reauthorizations have increased the importance of community-based programming, technical assistance, and dissemination. The 2000 reauthorization added research as a core function and renamed the University Affiliated Programs UCEDDs. The focus of the centers has evolved as the values identified in the DD Act have moved from institution-based services to community-based services to community integration and self-determination.
The core functions of the UCEDDS, as described in the current DD Act, include providing interdisciplinary pre-service education of students and fellows, providing community services (including training or technical assistance), conducting research, and disseminating information.
Protection & Advocacy System (P&As)
P&As were created in the DD Act to protect the legal and human rights of individuals with developmental disabilities through legal action and advocacy in every state and territory, as well as within a Native American program. Initiated in 1975 to protect individuals with developmental disabilities living in large institutions from abuse and neglect, and prompted in part by investigations of the dreadful conditions at Willowbrook State School and Hospital (a state residential institution for people with developmental disabilities in Staten Island, NY), the P&As are designed to protect and advocate for the rights of people with developmental disabilities and to pursue legal, administrative, and other remedies to accomplish these ends.
The 1984 DD Act gave P&As access to the records of people with developmental disabilities living in residential facilities, if there are complaints regarding the facility and if the individual does not have a legal guardian or the state is the legal guardian.
P&As have played a key part in the deinstitutionalization process, and their mission has grown to include helping students and their parents advocate for appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), implementing and enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and enforcing the rights of people with mental health challenges and other disabilities.
Projects of National Significance (PNS)
The 1975 DD Act established and authorized funding for this discretionary grant program to address national needs and respond to emerging or urgent areas of concern more quickly. In 2000, the purpose of PNS was defined as a program to "create opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities to directly and fully contribute to, and participate in, all facets of community life and support the development of national and State policies that reinforce and promote, with the support of families, guardians, advocates, and communities, of individuals with developmental disabilities, the self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of community life of such individuals."
PNS programs support innovation, provision of practical information, data collection with respect to people with developmental disabilities, and training and technical assistance.
Family Support Programs
In 2000 Congress added Title II, Families of Children with Disabilities Support Act, to promote and strengthen implementation of comprehensive state systems of support services for family members providing care. Congress first allocated funds directly to the program beginning in 2008, although PNS funds had been used for Family Support initiatives in prior years.
In 2003 a multiyear Family Support 360 program was initiated, supporting one-stop centers serving at least 50 families per year.
Direct Support Workforce
The 2000 DD Act added Title III, Program for Direct Support Workers Who Assist Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, to increase the workforce serving people with developmental disabilities. Congress has not provided direct funding for this program, although PNS funds have been used for an online training course for direct support workers, the College of Direct Supports, which is used as a resource by agencies and states
Gettings, Robert M. Forging a Federal-State Partnership: A History of State and Federal Developmental Disabilities Policy, American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2011.
Watch the video: Taylor Swift - The Best Day Taylors Version Official Music Video (August 2022).