Sovereign democracy : Russia\u27s response to the color revolutions.

The Russian Federation developed very different ideologies on the concept of democracy. In 2006, Vladislav Surkov, the First Deputy of the Chief of the Russian Presidential Administration, coined the term “sovereign democracy”. This gave a name to the Russian form of “managed” democracy and introduced a Russian alternative to Western liberal democracy: Sovereign Democracy. It asserts that Russia is a democracy and this fact must never be questioned by any state or such action will be viewed by the Kremlin as unwanted intervention in its domestic affairs. The Kremlin reacted to the recent Color Revolutions in the former Soviet Bloc by defining the concept of sovereign democracy. Russian democratic ideology, depicted within sovereign democracy, states both sovereignty and democracy are socially and culturally determined. The Kremlin argues Western interference, such as supporting the Color Revolutions, imposed Western conceptions of democracy on Russian civilians, and this interference is an attempt to influence Russia’s political philosophies and institutions. Putin and his administration emphasized the demarcation between Russian sovereign democracy and Western liberal democracy. Sovereign democracy allows the Kremlin to validate their increasingly undemocratic domestic and international policies. In particular, it led to the creation of the domestic agency, Russian Federal Public Chamber, in 2006 and heavily influenced the Kremlin’s decision to assist Belarusian President Alexsandr Lukashenko after the presidential elections in 2006. When the Kremlin proclaimed sovereign democracy as the uniquely Russian form of democracy, it crafted itself a defense against international criticism; because, to question sovereign democracy, and the policies it led too, would be tantamount to criticizing Russian social and cultural history

Preempting the States and Protecting the Charities: A Case for Nonprofit-Exempting Federal Action in Consumer Data Privacy

This Note argues that Congress should use its Commerce Clause power to pass a consumer data privacy measure that (1) preempts state law and (2) explicitly exempts 501(c)(3) organizations from compliance. Such preemptive action with a narrow 501(c)(3) carve-out would avoid the potential harm of exempting too broad a group of nonprofit entities while ensuring charitable organizations’ continued existence, would be more protective of both the individual privacy right and 501(c)(3) existence than merely adjusting the revenue dollar threshold at which entities must comply, and would properly balance the individual right to control personal data with the societal good served by the existence of 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Part I of this Note elaborates on the relationship between 501(c)(3) organizations and personal data and expands on the compliance difficulties faced by (and the collective societal good of) (c)(3) groups. Part II reviews the four major existing privacy law measures—the GDPR, the CCPA, the CPA, and the VCDPA—and analyzes the scope of each measure’s reach as it pertains to 501(c)(3) charities. Part III of this Note makes the case for federal preemptory action in a sweeping consumer privacy rights measure that trumps the existing patchwork of state law and exempts 501(c)(3) organizations from compliance. Finally, Part IV of this Note considers and responds to potential Tenth Amendment and state expertise counterarguments that could be raised in opposition to federal preemptory action in this arena. This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction

An Analysis of Decolonization Efforts in Urban Agriculture: A Pathway to Indigenous Food Sovereignty and Cultural Revitalization

My research focuses on applications of urban agriculture, relationships between Indigenous peoples and community-based agriculture projects, and decolonizing food systems. I provide insight on colonialist tendencies, or ways in which the marginalization of Indigenous peoples is deeply entrenched within government, educational, and other leadership settings, as a way to evaluate and restructure urban agriculture projects to serve, represent and heal Native communities. Conventional urban agriculture has many known benefits, including its capacity for food production; however, the extent to which Indigenous communities participate in and benefit from urban agriculture has not been widely studied. Ongoing exclusion of Indigenous peoples from critical environmental policy making, land use decisions, and food system processes results in a lack of access to resources, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and loss of food sources that hold cultural and spiritual value. Many non-profit organizations and federal aid programs increase sovereignty of Indigenous people through professional and economic development but fail to revitalize Indigenous cultures and food systems. I analyzed existing literature and models of Indigenous-led urban agriculture organizations to develop a framework for decolonizing. The findings have implications for the Ursinus College Food Forest and Campus Farm in support of the College’s collaborative Welcome Home Project with the Delaware Tribe of Indians. Ideally, this research will result in a protocol that seeks to guide urban, community-based agricultural programs through a process of decolonization to ensure urban agricultural systems represent through inclusive practices, serve community needs, and help to heal Indigenous communities\u27 food insecurity and lack of sovereignty

America's Europe: Examining the Impact of American Involvement in European Integration

Honors (Bachelor's)International StudiesUniversity of Michiganhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147355/1/fishersr.pd

Reassessing truth-evaluability in the Minimalism-Contextualism debate

The debate between Semantic Minimalism and Radical Contextualism is standardly characterized as concerning truth-evaluability – specifically, whether or not sentences require rich contextualization in order to express complete, truth-evaluable contents. In this paper, I examine the notion of truth-evaluability, considering which kinds of mappings it might require from worldly states of affairs to truth-values. At one end of the spectrum, an exhaustive notion would require truth-evaluable contents to map all possible states of affairs to truth-values. At the other end, a liberal notion would require only that truth-evaluable contents map at least one possible state of affairs to at least one truth-value. I show that both Minimalists and Radical Contextualists rely on some intermediate, moderately strict notion of truth-evaluability, falling between these two poles. I consider four ways in which such a notion could be defined. However, I argue that each of these is ultimately implausible, giving us no reason to favour a moderately strict notion of truth-evaluability over the liberal alternative. This suggests that the debate must shift to more moderate ground; rather than concerning the in principle possibility of truth-evaluable contents, it fundamentally hinges on their explanatory value. More generally, paying close attention to the notion of truth-evaluability allows us to tease apart distinct strands in the Minimalism-Contextualism debate, and gain a better appreciation of what is at stake

Description invariance: a rational principle for human agents

This article refines a foundational tenet of rational choice theory known as the principle of description invariance. Attempts to apply this principle to human agents with imperfect knowledge have paid insufficient attention to two aspects: first, agents’ epistemic situations, i.e. whether and when they recognize alternative descriptions of an object to be equivalent; and second, the individuation of objects of description, i.e. whether and when objects count as the same or different. An important consequence is that many apparent ‘framing effects’ may not violate the principle of description invariance, and the subjects of these effects may not be irrational

Success of Small-Scale Farms in the Middle Rio Grande Region

Food systems development, while historically not the purview of professional planners, would benefit greatly from their interdisciplinary expertise. Small agricultural businesses are important economic and social drivers in the Middle Rio Grande. Increased demand for locally grown foods by Middle Rio Grande residents and food businesses, like restaurants and grocery stores, mean that more than ever, farm businesses have opportunities for success and for making meaningful contributions to their communities. In addition, many of the necessary resources exist right here in this area that can enable local growers’ success, including agricultural land, irrigation infrastructure, easy access to markets, and a growing young work force interested in agricultural careers. This research explores how small-scale farmers in the Middle Rio Grande articulate success for their businesses. Facilitating growth in this sector has broader implications for the health and well being of communities in the area. Prioritizing development of these businesses keeps small land parcels in agricultural use, maintains historic cultural practices in agrarian communities, provides access to affordable healthy food, and increases consciousness about water use