Uplifting manhood to wonderful heights? News coverage of the human costs of military conflict from world war I to Gulf war Two

Domestic political support is an important factor constraining the use of American military power around the world. Although the dynamics of war support are thought to reflect a cost-benefit calculus, with costs represented by numbers of friendly war deaths, no previous study has examined how information about friendly, enemy, and civilian casualties is routinely presented to domestic audiences. This paper establishes a baseline measure of historical casualty reporting by examining New York Times coverage of five major wars that occurred over the past century. Despite important between-war differences in the scale of casualties, the use of conscription, the type of warfare, and the use of censorship, the frequency of casualty reporting and the framing of casualty reports has remained fairly consistent over the past 100 years. Casualties are rarely mentioned in American war coverage. When casualties are reported, it is often in ways that minimize or downplay the human costs of war

Wars, Presidents and Popularity: The Political Cost(s) of War Re-Examined

Extensive research demonstrates that war casualties depress incumbent popularity. The present study argues that analyses of the political costs of warfare should also account for the financial toll of wars since a) financial costs of wars are substantial, b) these costs are publicly observed and understood and c) fiscal policy affects incumbents' approval ratings. Empirical evidence based on US data for the 1948-2008 period supports this theoretical claim: pecuniary costs of warfare either directly affect presidential popularity (e.g., in the Korean War) or their inclusion affects the predicted political cost of war casualties (e.g., in the Korean and Iraq/Afghanistan Wars). Interestingly, the adverse effect of war-spending is strongest under favourable economic conditions (i.e. low unemployment).Umfangreiche Forschungen zeigen, dass Kriegsopfer der Popularität des Amtsinhabers schaden. Die vorliegende Studie liefert Argumente dafür, dass Analysen der politischen Kosten der Kriegsführung in die Berechnung der finanziellen Kriegsausgaben miteinbezogen werden sollten, da a) die finanziellen Kosten von Kriegen beträchtlich sind, b) diese Kosten von der Öffentlichkeit wahrgenommen und verstanden werden, c) Fiskalpolitik die Umfragewerte des Amtsinhabers beeinflusst. Basierend auf US-Daten über den Zeitraum 1948-2008 wird dieser theoretische Anspruch empirisch unterstützt: pekuniäre Kosten der Kriegsführung haben entweder direkt eine Auswirkung auf die Popularität des Präsidenten (z. B. Koreakrieg) oder deren Einbeziehung beeinflusst die vorhergesagten politischen Kosten durch Kriegsopfer (z. B. Korea- und Irak/-Afghanistankrieg). Interessanterweise sind die negativen Auswirkungen der Kriegsausgaben am stärksten, wenn die wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen günstig (d.h. niedrige Arbeitslosigkeit) sind

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - a Standardized Routine Laparoscopic Procedure: Is it Possible to Predict the Duration of an Operation?

In order to improve operating room efficiency, it is desirable to predict the duration of scheduled surgeries as precisely as possible. The reliability of existing predicting models is less than satisfactory. This study presents an algorithm to estimate the operating time for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, based on historical data of 312 patients, taking into account clinical parameters, diagnostic imaging, and surgeon's experience. The algorithm's accuracy was evaluated in a group of 45 patients by prospectively predicting their operating times. It was shown that increased information significantly reduced prediction error. The prediction error of our algorithm was estimated to be 17.5 minutes (95%CI: 16.5 to 18.8 minutes), whereas that of the univariable random effect model (using solely surgeon's experience as the explanation factor) was 21.6 minutes (95%CI: 20.3 to 23.1 minutes)