Battle In War Research Articles

Protect Trans Kids: A Call to Action

The last several years have seen an increasing number of attacks on marginalized groups in the United States, including people of color, women, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Most recently, some state legislatures have focused their efforts on preventing transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care. Despite a virtually unanimous consensus on the importance and benefits of gender-affirming care, many conservative politicians have taken aim at vulnerable children, standing in the way of potentially life-saving treatment and accusing their families and doctors of child abuse. Laws preventing transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming care are just one battle in the larger war on individual liberty interests, bodily autonomy, and health care privacy. Already, anti-trans laws written under the pretext of protecting minors are being expanded to detransition transgender adults and criminalize the very existence of transgender people. At the same time, pregnant people around the country are losing their reproductive rights and access to safe and legal abortions. These are both part of a concerted effort to wedge the unjust influence of oppressive state governments into two of the most intimate social and legal relationships: the relationship between a child and their parent, and the relationship between a patient and their doctor. This Comment argues that these attacks must be met by political resistance. Litigation before the current Supreme Court and its conservative majority may do more harm than good, and patients in need of medical care deserve prospective protections to safeguard their right to privacy. Therefore, comprehensive federal legislation, such as the proposed Equality Act, is the best solution to protect transgender youth and the broader right to privacy in health care.

When we Fight a Winnable Battle in an Unwinnable War? The Story of a Cancer - A Case Report

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most frequent malignancy in women and is curable in ~70-80% of patients with early-stage detection and without complication. Paraneoplastic neurologic syndrome of breast cancer is one such complication which is often hard to diagnose, severely debilitating, and also challenging to treat. Materials and Methods: A 57-year- old woman with no known co-morbidity presented with sudden onset altered sensorium. She was in status epilepticus when brought to emergency and progressed to super refractory status epilepticus in-spite of our efforts. MRI of the brain with contrast done revealed hyper intense signal in bilateral frontal, parietal, occipital, bilateral thalami, periaqueductal region and dorsal midbrain. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) study revealed only increased protein. The comprehensive infective panel of CSF was negative. The vasculitis marker, anti NMO and anti MOG antibody were absent. So, we suspected a possibility of autoimmune aetiology and started methylprednisolone along with intravenous immunoglobulin. Results: Her epileptic discharges settled in an electroencephalogram, and we weaned her off ventilation. We detected a right breast mass on clinical examination. The PET CT scan revealed metastasis in the liver, bones, right axillary lymph nodes, and bone marrow. Conclusion: Our patient, who had the first-time presentation, was diagnosed to have paraneoplastic encephalopathy in the background of breast cancer. The importance of proper clinical examination and whole-body PET CT scan, followed by a trial of immunomodulator therapy, is necessary in all patients with non-infective encephalitis.

Gettysburg 1963: Civil Rights, Cold War Politics, and Historical Memory in America’s Most Famous Small Town by Jill Ogline Titus

Reviewed by: Gettysburg 1963: Civil Rights, Cold War Politics, and Historical Memory in America’s Most Famous Small Town by Jill Ogline Titus Summer Perritt (bio) Gettysburg 1963: Civil Rights, Cold War Politics, and Historical Memory in America’s Most Famous Small Town. Jill Ogline Titus. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021. ISBN 978-1-4696-6534-4, 264 pp., paper, $27.95. Jill Ogline Titus’s Gettysburg 1963: Civil Rights, Cold War Politics, and Historical Memory in America’s Most Famous Small Town looks at the evolving memory and meaning of the Battle of Gettysburg during the 1960s Civil War centennial. Titus uses a Cold War framework to understand the battle’s political and cultural uses, arguing that Gettysburg’s “multifaceted identity as an idea, a landscape, and a living community” rendered the small town a useful tool in the fight for and against Black civil rights (2). To craft her narrative, Titus closely reads an impressive array of primary sources such as speeches, newspaper articles, monument dedications, and photographs to demonstrate that historical actors across the board attempted to use the Gettysburg centennial to serve their own contemporary interests. These attempts took the shape of three key narratives: a Lost Cause version of the War that white Southerners used to push back against civil rights agendas, a counter-narrative that suggested the fight for civil rights was the best way to honor the legacy of the Civil War and its fallen heroes, and finally, a Cold War perspective that capitalized on reconciliationist narratives of the War to promote American exceptionalism and democracy abroad. The first part of Titus’s work looks at the historical uses of Gettysburg leading up to the centennial. In the aftermath of the Civil War, tourism quickly became a mainstay for the town, as both white and Black tourists flocked to the site with their own understandings of the battle and its importance in crafting a larger American identity. As the decades passed, however, this understanding quickly became entrenched in contemporary struggles over white supremacy, Black disenfranchisement, and segregation. Beginning in the 1920s, Gettysburg became the key site for Ku Klux Klan activity, and in 1925 it played host to a two-day rally that attracted between twenty and twenty-five thousand attendees. Titus estimates that the Klan’s use of the battlefield [End Page 117] stood as a symbolic gesture intended to reinforce the idea that members of the hate group saw themselves as “modern-day defenders of patriotism and American heritage” and provided a throughline between the battles of the Civil War and what members saw as the ongoing fight for white supremacy (13). In the 1930s, the National Park Service took over management of the battlefield and officially moved Gettysburg into the orbit of Confederate memory, rendering the battle the “High Watermark of the Confederacy” (17). But Titus takes multiple angles into account, examining interpretations of the Gettysburg centennial from the perspective of civil rights workers, politicians, centennial planning-committee members, and local residents, both Black and white. As such, she explores how Black Gettysburgians actively contested white memory of the battle and its contemporary uses. They capitalized on the battlefield’s public status and used it for gatherings, picnics, and exercise. They decorated the graves of Black soldiers on Memorial Day and even refused to participate in commemorative events that portrayed racist reconciliationist narratives of the war. As Titus points out, the years leading up the centennial saw Gettysburg as a contested site where people across the nation came to debate issues of race, citizenship, and belonging. The middle chapters of Gettysburg 1963 explore the pageantry of the centennial and expertly flesh out the varied uses of the battle in a Cold War and civil rights context. A speech made by Pennsylvania governor David Lawrence during the 1961 Memorial Day celebration, for instance, insisted on the Civil War’s importance as a didactic moment in American history, providing a warning to foreign nations that Americans did not shy away from armed conflict when they believed their right to self-determination could be violated. Other politicians and centennial speakers emphasized reconciliation as the major legacy of the Civil War...

A proxy geopolitics of poppies, peasants, and national sovereignty: Turkey’s rhetorical resistance to America’s war on drugs

Nixon's self-declared war on drugs has been underway for over five decades. Not all aspects are well known, and many voices of those touched by the campaign were and remain unheard. In the early 1970s, the Turkish republic faced a political crisis. The military installed a post-coup leadership that acquiesced to longstanding American demands to halt all cultivation of the opium poppy. This was the first sustained battle in Nixon's war, and it had socio-economically devastating consequences for Anatolian peasants who had for generations farmed the crop for licit and illicit markets. To many Turkish citizens, the ban was the result of a new stage in Western imperialism and a direct consequence of their own leaders' failure to protect the country's rural poor majority, on the one hand, and their surrender of national sovereignty, on the other hand. Farmers' voices were rarely heard on this issue, apart from brief quotes in newspapers and in domestic and foreign governmental studies, but their plight attracted sustained popular attention due in part to the proxy geopolitics articulated on their behalf. Before the recently disenfranchised parliament that did not permit sustained discussion or debate of the poppy question, MPs nonetheless rendered impromptu testimonies protesting the ban, its impacts on farmers, the suppression of democracy, and nation's loss of sovereignty. Through an analysis of Turkey's parliamentary record and other contemporary sources, I approach this crucial episode in the histories of intoxicants and the war on drugs. In so doing, I demonstrate the potential and seeming success of proxy geopolitics echoed on behalf of a marginalized people and why engagement with such sources is essential in the wider practice of critical geopolitics.

Broad Institute Wins a Key Inventorship Battle in the Ongoing CRISPR Patent War

Broad Institute Wins a Key Inventorship Battle in the Ongoing CRISPR Patent War

전쟁에서 발생하는 전투의 규모와 빈도 관계에 적용되는 멱함수 분포에 대한 연구

In this research, we discuss the relationship between the severity and frequency of battle in order to analyze pattern of battles in modern warfare. Though previous studies found a particular pattern, i.e., a power-law distribution, in the casualty of armed conflict including interstate wars, intrastate wars, and terror attacks, the studies have not sufficiently explored this pattern for battles in war. Therefore, this research studies whether this pattern appears in battles occurred in an individual war, specifically the Korean War and the Vietnam War, based on the casualty data of battle. As a result, it is confirmed that the relationship between the severity and frequency of battle in war follows a power-law distribution. This phenomenon implies that the power-law distribution of battle casualties in war a scale-free pattern, which emerges through interaction among the components of system. Finally, the power-law-based analysis method for battle severity in war presented in this research can be used as a systematic approach to study the scale, frequency and timing of battle in war.

Post-54: Reconstructing Civil War Memory in American Literature afterBrown

AbstractFrom a cultural fad of Confederate flags to a spate of schools named after Confederate generals, the 1954 Brown v. Board decision revived the memory of the US Civil War. In their collective effort of “massive resistance,” white southerners considered themselves carrying on the legacy of their Confederate ancestors, rebelling against the federal government and insisting upon states’ rights. In response to this revival, many mid-century writers revised Civil War memory. Ralph Ellison, for example, considered the Brown decision as yet another battle in an ongoing Civil War. The works of Black writers such as James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, Pauli Murray, and Margaret Walker, as well as white writers such as Robert Lowell, Carson McCullers, Flannery O’Connor, and Robert Penn Warren, revise Lost Cause cultural narratives as they reconstruct four sites of Civil War memory: monuments, schools, textbooks, and grandparents. Writers in the twenty-first century have extended the interest in Civil War memory, from the essays of Ta-Nehisi Coates to the plays of Suzan-Lori Parks, to the fiction of George Saunders to the poetry of Natasha Trethewey and Kevin Young. The return of Civil War memory in twenty-first-century literature anticipates and represents the resurgence of civil rights protest against ongoing, state-sanctioned racial violence.

Latinos in American Football: Pathbreakers on the Gridiron, 1927 to the Present

Latinos in American Football: Pathbreakers on the Gridiron, 1927 to the Present

Epidemic in pandemic: A battle in the war

Epidemic in pandemic: A battle in the war

Voices of Peace: "They were Just Like Us" by Sarah Kabir

This volume presents a rather unique collection of narratives. The narratives are from a sample of twenty former combatants on either side of the battle in the North-East War in Sri Lanka. The narratives are presented as “voices of peace”, as the ex-combatants from Sri Lankan security forces and LTTE reflect on their struggles in life during and after the war. Now that over one decade has passed since the end of the war, the ex-combatants can have a relatively detached view of how the war devastated their lives, how far they have rebuilt the lives and livelihoods so devastated and what are the remaining challenges they face 10 years after the end of the war. This collection is unique because it brings face to face the narratives of those who fought with each other in the battlefield. In these narratives not only the formerly rival groups talk to each other, but also in the end to the public at large, including policy makers, rebel leaders and commanders who made vital decisions during and after the war about strategies of war, reconciliation and peace.

Why is Poland Unable to Celebrate Victories? “The Miracle on the Vistula,” a Century Later

Abstract Poland’s preoccupation with the tragic past and the uses of that past in the construction of national identity have been the subject of many scholarly enquiries. However, what interests me here is how memories of triumph are made relevant to national mythmaking in a nation whose memory culture is based primarily on victims’ memories. I explore what happens to Poland’s moments of glory and where the victories are located in the new commemorative hierarchy which has emerged since the fall of communism. I specifically focus on commemorations of the Battle of Warsaw, the decisive battle in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919–1920, since this is the most spectacular victory in Poland’s modern history. Overall, I argue that victory is typically associated with glory and triumph, but if the dominant historical path of a nation is perceived to be that of martyrdom, the nation’s past—even its victorious episodes—is placed in a continuum of suffering.

Fifty Years since the Main Battle in the Vietnam War

Fifty Years since the Main Battle in the Vietnam War

To the 50th Anniversary of the Most Important Battle in Vietnamese-American War

To the 50th Anniversary of the Most Important Battle in Vietnamese-American War

Former Austro-Hungarian Fortresses in The Southern Poland as an Example of Problems of Preservation, Restauration, And Adjustment for Public Purposes

As a result of partition of Poland in the year 1772 all the southern and eastern part of the Kingdom of Poland was captured by the Austrian Empire. In the year 1846 the last independent survivor of Poland - small Republic of Krakow - was annexed to Austria. A crisis between Austrian and Russian empires during the Crimean War (1854) forced a decision about erecting two new fortresses, defending the manoeuvre area of the Galicia to the north of the Carpathian Mountains. Fortress Przemyśl defends a strategic way thru the Łupków and Uzsok passes to the Hungarian Lowland. Fortress Krakow defends the main strategic road to Moravia and Vienna. Each fortress was enlarged, reinforced, and modernized multiple times according to the development of artillery, firearms, and modern tactics. In the 1880s concrete constructions were used for the first times. In the 1890s the Austrians used armoured structures - turrets, shields, casemates, protecting artillery emplacements against the projectiles of new types. Each of the fortresses fulfilled their functions during the World War I. Przemyśl has been besieged three times; the 2nd siege was the longest fortress battle in the Great War. Before a capitulation on the 22-nd March of the year 1915 all the forts of Przemyśl were blown up and demolished. Krakow stopped the Russian offensive in November and December of the year 1914. After the war, the army of independent Poland still used the Fortress Krakow and continued the demolition of the Fortress Przemyśl. Many forts fulfilled military and non-military functions during the WW II (this number includes places of the Nazi terror) and during the Cold War. In the beginning of the 1960s the scientific recognition of former fortresses has begun. In 1969 the first former forts were enlisted to the Polish Monuments Register. Moreover, a circular system of the fortress’ camouflaging greenery of Krakow was treated in the first time as an outline of the city system of greenery. Today the huge circles of forts, batteries, earthworks around each city and massive complexes of barracks, storages, factories, hospitals, and other post-military structures cause significant problems but, on the other hand, they offer opportunities the cities’ government for further adaptations. Union of communes inside the former Fortress Przemyśl started an ambitious program of adaptation of the forts’ ruins as an attraction for cultural tourism. The first phase of the project was a success with the financial support of the EU Funds. Parts of more than 140 fortress’ objects of the former Fortress Krakow are under adaptation, but a majority of them still lack new functions. Each of the fortresses is a great urban, engineering, and moral problem and challenge. There are great battlefields, blooded by the sons of many Nations of the Central and Eastern Europe. This paper is a report of the state of proceeding of these projects.

Hong Kong's Summer of Discontent: Another Battle in the Long War over Autonomy, Democracy, and the Rule of Law

Hong Kong's Summer of Discontent: Another Battle in the Long War over Autonomy, Democracy, and the Rule of Law

Iš Lietuvos Laisvės Kovos Sąjūdžio istorijos: 1949 m. rugpjūčio 13 d. Užpelkių miško kautynės | From the History of the Movement for the Struggle for Lithuania’s Freedom: The Battle of Užpelkiai Forest on 13 August 1949

On 13 August 1949, in Užpelkiai Forest in northern Lithuania, on the border of the Grinkiskis and Baisogalarural districts in Radviliskis County, a battle by Lithuanian partisans that had a significant impact on thehistory of the Prisikėlimas (Resurrection) district took place. The leaders of the Lietuvos Laisvės KovosSąjūdis (Movement for the Struggle for Lithuania’s Freedom) operated in this district. Based on the approachof modern conflict archaeology, the authors of the article, helped by volunteers, determined thelocation of the Battle of Užpelkiai Forest (in the Grinkiskis rural district, Radviliskis County), and collecteda lot of new archaeological and historical data, in order to reconstruct the progress of the attack by MG B(Ministry of State Security) troops and the partisan defence. By referring to complex research results, thearticle gives the surnames and duties in the organisation of all the partisans who participated, as well asthe circumstances and progress of the battle. It shows the importance of the Battle of Užpelkiai Forestto the Lietuvos Laisvės Kovos Sąjūdis in 1949–1950. The case study of field research into the battle in theguerilla war shows how complex historical and archaeological research complements the picture of theguerilla war with facts and artefacts, clarifies or denies old interpretations, and leads us to new ones. Key words: Lithuanian partisan war, Movement for the Struggle for Lithuania’s Freedom, Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, modern conflict archaeology, complex research.

The First Amendment Issue of Our Time

Here we go, once more unto the breach, to face yet another battle in the near decade-long war over net neutrality. Some of the combatants have changed, and their positions have shifted slightly, but today we find essentially the same interests represented and the same arguments advanced. On one side, the major cable, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), and wireless broadband providers continue to argue against increasing the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) authority over how these providers manage the flow of information through their pipes. On the other side, we have content providers, Internet users, and - this time - the FCC, contending that the government has the power to protect the free flow of information on the Internet. In 2002, the FCC under President George W. Bush and then Chairman Kevin Martin embarked on a course of extremely light (which turned out to be nonexistent) regulatory oversight of broadband providers. The Obama administration, with Chairman Julius Genachowski now at the helm, is attempting to reverse this course and impose a meaningful net neutrality mandate on broadband providers. In this iteration, not only has the FCC switched sides, but, to keep things interesting, Google and Verizon - typically on opposite sides of the net neutrality debate--have joined together to find common ground and have proposed a compromise position. Many of the issues are nuanced, yet the general contours of the arguments are relatively straightforward. On the one hand, the broadband providers’ argument continues to proceed something like this: Trust the market. Any imperfections in the market or barriers to free and open Internet communications will be cured by the market itself. The market is robust and has thrived thus far without regulation, and the Internet will only be hampered by regulation. There is simply no need for net neutrality regulation because there is hardly any evidence that broadband providers have discriminated against content or applications (and Comcast had good reasons for blocking BitTorrent traffic). Furthermore, regulation of broadband providers will violate those providers’ First Amendment rights as speakers to select, edit, block, or favor the content of their choosing. In response, the proponents of net neutrality regulation such as myself argue that broadband providers serve as increasingly important conduits for our communications. This is especially true with respect to those providers’ ability to manage the “transmission component” of broadband communications--the part the FCC now seeks to regulate. Conduits for communications--which we call “common carriers,” such as telephone companies, the postal service, and telegraph companies of old--have long been under a legal obligation not to discriminate against the communications they are charged with carrying. The telephone company cannot refuse to connect your call because your conversation is racy, nor can the postal service refuse to deliver your mail because it contains unpopular political propaganda. This basic duty not to discriminate is imposed regardless of the existence of monopoly control by communications conduits. We have learned over the past century not to entrust our free speech interests to “the market.” Rather, we regulate these conduits for communication because doing so is necessary to ensure the free flow of information. The relevant free speech interests at issue here are not those of the broadband provider (which are virtually nonexistent) but those of members of the public whose communications must be facilitated free of discrimination or censorship in order for democratic self-government to fun. Notably, both sides of the net neutrality debate invoke free speech in support of their cause. As a result, the net neutrality battle has turned into what has been called “the First Amendment issue of our time.” In this article, I explore some of the latest contours of the net neutrality debate, with an eye toward evaluating the First Amendment and free speech implications of both sides’ arguments. Part I examines the specifics of the approaches to net neutrality regulation recently proposed by the FCC and the Verizon-Google team. In Part II, I critique broadband providers’ arguments that net neutrality regulation would violate their First Amendment rights. Part III argues that proposed transparency-only requirements for wireless broadband providers are insufficient to protect our full range of free speech interests. And Part IV proposes a framework for regulating “specialized” online services that is informed by the First Amendment’s public forum doctrine.

Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych jako autonomiczne źródło tworzenia norm konstytucyjnych

The landmark decisions of the Supreme Court change the ethos of adjudicating. The substantive due process doctrine allowed the Court to become an actual lawgiver. This doctrine widely extended the understanding of the due process clause of the 5 th and 14 th Amendments. Increased power of statutory construction corresponded with the doctrine of loose constructionism (living constitution). Decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade created new constitutional rights, emanating from the radical liberal anthropology. Adjudication became a field of an ideological battle in the culture war over anthropology determining the law’s content . In the classical and Christian understanding, being free is considered as having one’s identity discovered as an ontological constant, thus allowing an individual to develop himself according to the nature’s essence . The liberal anthropological revolution defines freedom as a power of self-creation, serving individual’s preferences. The liberal elites, employing ideas of social engineering, attempt to enforce rules based on coexistence and relationship of equal rights. Individual rights emanate from the autonomous, personal choice of life values, the key of the constitutional interpretation. The wider this right of self-definition , the wider the scope of the state’s intervention. In Griswold v. Connecticut the right to privacy signified deep cultural change rooted in such an anthropology. This “emancipation project” is thus built on an axiology destroying relations, becoming a kind of a religion of secular salvation. The state serves here as a demiurge and is sacralized. This causes an increasing abyss between the elites and the rest of the citizens, with a corresponding social disintegration of it’s public life. For instance Obergefell v. Hodges enforces a new anthropological definition of marriage, beginning to delegitimize creeds and actions of religious communities. This reflects a global phenomenon of connecting individual liberal rights with politics of identity and the post-modern culture of right understood as autonomous will without reasoning about its ontological, universal basis. The Supreme Court decisions are not separated from wider culture, but based on the new anthropological understanding of man as a consumer, with his individual will becoming the very basis of rights.

Deborah Cadbury, Princes at War: The British Royal Family’s Private Battle in the Second World War

Le vicende della famiglia reale inglese durante la Seconda guerra mondiale sono al centro del libro di Deborah Cadbury, scrittrice di storia pluripremiata e per trent’anni producer della BBC. Il suo lavoro parte dalla crisi che condusse nel 1936 all’abdicazione di Edoardo VIII, che rinuncio al trono per sposare Wallis Simpson, e si snoda negli anni della crescente minaccia nazista in Europa. Il fratello minore Albert, che divenne re con il nome di Giorgio VI, pur afflitto dalla balbuzie e da ...

‘The Greatest State Scandal’: Personality, Power and the South African Republic Police, 1886–1896

The discovery of gold on the Witwatersrand in 1886 led to the rapid industrialisation of the South African Republic's agrarian based economy. Focusing on the attempts made at reforming the South African Republic Police during the period 1886 to 1896, this article examines the contested character of the state. Marred by internal power struggles and bureaucratic constraints, the police force was synonymous with ‘rottenness’. Attempts to reform the police force were a battle in a broader political war over power between the conservative and progressive factions within the South African Republic government. Greater focus needs to be given to the contested interplay of state power and bureaucratic struggles within the institutions of this modernising state. This invites a more nuanced understanding of the Republic's character.