Which of the following is true? Select one: a. Renal colic often presents with referred pain to the groin/scrotum because of peritoneal inflammation in the inguinal canal. b. Acute urinary retention can present with a profound bradycardia. c. Uterine prolapse is often accompanied with faecal incontinence due to disruption of the rectum angle with the pelvic floor. d. Testicular torsion is prioritised as a category four because it does not affect the intra-abdominal content. e. The majority of large bowel cancers present with bowel obstruction.
"Homosexuality is contrary with military administration" peruses the primary sentence of the Department of Defense Directive (1332.14). Investigating this announcement through occasions, for example, the Newport Sex Scandal of 1919, we can decide if this thought was conceivable or just a slandered speculation on sexuality. This outrage takes after the particular abuse of gay people in the Navy, specifically concentrating on the Newport maritime base. Numerous got themselves made up for lost time in the contention, including none other than president-to-be Franklin Delano Roosevelt. What impacts did this have on FDR's future political vocation and his notoriety for being an entirety? Yet additionally, how did the outrage help to concrete or reclassify sentiments on homosexuality and a gay people put in the naval force? In 1919, at the maritime base situated at Newport, "a mariner with an ear for babble and a contempt for homosexuals" would start an outrage encompassing the evil good oppression of 'gays'. Under direct request – and ostensibly acting in an agentic instead of self-ruling state – maritime warriors would capture nearby gay people, both inside the neighboring groups and the naval force quarters itself. The point was to take part in sexual delight, specifically by "tolerating oral sex to completion", keeping in mind the end goal to gather confirm against these men and give a strong ground to the claim that homosexuality was spreading infectiously in Newport. After only three weeks of following out these requests "seventeen mariners were accused of homosexuality and outrageous behaviour". Be that as it may, the consequences of this 'private' and apparently ill-conceived examination were not anticipated. Rather than revealing insight into the assumed threats homosexuality set on the military and neighborhood group, the examination got itself scandalized. People in general nearby the media hit back at the examination, asserting it was ethically wrong to drive maritime officers to do such acts in this play of entanglement. However, it appears that the punishments for this soured examination were of no genuine weight with a considerable lot of the players let to blur well enough alone for the embarrassment keeping their notorieties in place. One of the principle key players, Franklin Delano Roosevelt went under assault because of his contribution with the outrage, yet still he went ahead to end up President of the United States. Exactly what part he played in the outrage is bantered about. Because of "Naval force Secretary Josephus Daniel's absence", Assistant Secretary of the Navy FDR was left to act in Daniel's place. Accordingly numerous trust that it was with FDR's support and endorsement that the examination advanced toward the non military personnel populace, and soon thereafter it moved from a "military issue to an advertising disaster". Seen as imperative to the procedures of the examination FDR had "approved a free push to uncover and oust the homosexual". The word 'remove' featuring this was an endeavor to free the naval force of a gathering of individuals seen by authorities as outsider and unsuited to the military powers. Moreover, it is asserted that FDR had concurred that the examination expected to happen with the "point of indicting those people in charge of the spread of degeneracy". Once more, the word 'decline' demonstrating the danger gay people are seen to hold in the public eye, with decadence alluding to the relapse to a lower type of being. FDR kept on stating all through the examination that "he had not known about the strategies utilized as a part of Newport" guaranteeing that the techniques that were utilized as a part of the examination "were nothing he had time or slant to oversee". Be that as it may, regardless of FDR's slant to stay away from contribution both the general population and Congressional Investigation Committee neglected to trust him. John Loughery claims that 'few individuals trusted [FDR] when the entanglement embarrassment broke'. The report into the outrage asserted that FDR "more likely than not understood that … [navy] men had enabled lascivious and unethical acts to be performed upon them". Be that as it may, the embarrassment was not stayed silent by the Committee. Rather it had "bursted in features crosswise over America" bringing FDR and other "unmistakable regular citizens, for example, the Reverend Samuel Neal Kent" to people in general's consideration. In spite of the fact that the subtle elements of the embarrassment were frequently to unrefined and offensive to print – for instance the New York Times expressed "points of interest unprintable" in regards to one contextual investigation – the media fire encompassing the outrage still blasted on a national scale. The Providence Journal was a prime content that sustained the fire with distributer John Rathom doing his best to "arouse open opinion" in a paper that was at that point massively "opposing to Secretary Daniels and the Wilson administration". Rathom would keep on attacking FDR amid his initial political profession. However, in spite of the width of scope and the profundity of feedback of the outrage and those included, it appears that FDR got off with nothing more serious than a slap of the wrist. The Congressional Investigation Committee brought about Daniels and FDR being reprimanded, 'strongly' scrutinized for their conduct. This was neither here nor there for FDR who had left his maritime post in "July 1920 [… ] tolerating the Democratic Party's designation for bad habit president". Regardless of FDR's physical expulsion from the naval force, the embarrassment was still scrutinized with the New York Times feature of July 1921 (a year after FDR left his post) perusing 'Charges of Immorally Employing Men'. Note that the sensitivity here is for the officers who needed to endure the 'unethical goes about's rather than the treatment and entanglement of gay people. This absence of sensitivity for the gay could be an aftereffect of numerous components. At the season of the Newport sex outrage any physical relationship or act between men was viewed as a wrongdoing with the "culprits considered criminal perverts". In spite of there not being a particular enactment or controls set up at the time, this did not "keep the U.S military from policing sexual conduct". Truth be told, maybe the Newport Sex Scandal of 1919 expects centrality due to remember being one of the main "precise endeavors to purge" gay people in the military. Nonetheless, the term 'gay' was not when all is said in done use amid this time, the term itself had just appeared in the late nineteenth century among the mental calling. More informal terms were utilized far from the polished skill of the mental establishments. Rather, amid the outrage we see words like "cocksuckers and rectum receivers" showing both the absence of utilization of the term gay, and furthermore the disdain felt for this gathering of individuals. The feeling of disdain towards gay people can be found regarding regular daily existence and furthermore in the more extensive setting of the war. "Gay people had dependably served in the equipped forces" however the issue came when their sexuality was exposed. Newport had a "famous gay population" in 1919, with these clearly flashy occupant mariners calling themselves "the Ladies of Newport". Frequently wearing women dress and calling themselves by ladies' names, these men and their adjust conscience's appeared to be debilitating with local people feeling "in threat of being ethically corrupted". In a more extensive setting, gay people appeared to represent a danger not simply to local people but rather to the group on the loose. It appeared that a "non-procreative populace was in the very procedure of showing up amid the war: [as] gay people were entering the general population discourse". Both locally and broadly homosexuality was turned into an image for decline in a few circles. Homosexuality ended up to be focal in a Venn graph comprising of society, psychiatry, the military and even the law as far as its association with decline. In this manner - because of their status - gay people associated with the outrage endured a considerably heavier destiny then their entrappers. The greater part of gay people that were gotten because of the embarrassment were detained, be that as it may it gives the idea that every one of those ensnared were discharged and "permitted to continue their non military personnel lives" by the 1920's. However their discipline did not stop there, the entangled got themselves threw out of their general public and were left to discover their way to another life bound to the derided mark of 'gay'. It is clear "the wellspring of shock against the task was that great mariners were being power to confer shameless acts [… ] and were made 'deviants by official order'", the destiny of the gay represented no genuine concern. The embarrassment represents a more extensive hugeness due its relationship with World War I, or as it was then known 'The Great War'. It is relatively inescapable to take a gander at The Newport Sex Scandal in separation while it sits so near the finish of the War, in certainty it was just a couple of months subsequent to marking the truce that FDR wound up in a humiliating position over Newport. There appeared to be a "want in the years quickly after World War I to extract from American culture components seen as unfortunate or impure", for example, the impact of gay people in both the naval force and society. The Newport Sex Scandal mirrors this want in its ill-conceived procedures and good carelessness, this thought of 'whatever it takes'. For some U.S natives and exemplaries, World War I had "guaranteed to accomplish more [… ] their expectation was that national virility would be reaffirmed and residential vulnerabilities put to rest". However, it appeared that the war didn't offer these sympathies to the American country. Rather it elevated the refinement between gatherings of society and squeezed for harsher systems and enactment against those that were considered outcasts. Obviously, this isolation and categorisation was underlined additionally still by the developing impact of the mental calling at the time which had seen itself move from the>GET ANSWER