|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
136942
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper explores how second-generation Tamil-Canadian university students have modified their ‘cultural heritage’ in the period after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009. Using a generational framework suggested by the work of Karl Mannheim, I show that the events of May 2009 situated second-generation Tamil-Canadian political activism as a response to the ambivalence of their parents to the conflict in Sri Lanka. Second-generation Tamil-Canadians are also shown to have altered the key LTTE symbol of the Maaveerar (great hero) to better fit a transnational social field that is framed by the new realities of post-LTTE Sri Lanka and by intolerance to imported conflict in Canada. I argue that the Tamil second generation is highly engaged with the politics of their cultural identity, and that this engagement may have a lasting influence on transnational Tamil identity and on the political status of the Tamil community within Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134593
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Elections for all 83 Russian governors were reinstated in Russia in 2012, seven years after they had been suspended. The democratic reform coincided with renewed political activism in Russia since December 2011, but the reform was as much a belated recognition of the shortcomings and failures from appointing Russian governors. Pragmatic necessity and not democratic conversion was the determining factor. Based on the first elections in October 2012, the reform will have only a limited effect over the next few years on democratic change in Russia, at most placating liberal and regional demands while consolidating personal rule under Putin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
135159
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This report surveys the principal space events of 2013 and analyzes the central trends that can be discerned in government space activities in nations around the world. The article refers to cooperation between countries, to trends in space security, and reviews the space policies and activities of the leading nations as well as emerging ones. The proportion of government funds has declined in recent years; at the same time, space is one of the fields in which commercial endeavors are closely tied with government activities, and is strongly affected by the dynamics and politics between nations. The international community is struggling over the nature of activities in space, world leadership, and what should be permitted and what should be prohibited. Alongside this struggle for control and influence, many nations have come to understand that challenges and threats exist which require cooperation to address adequately. The concern is that, in the absence of appropriate action, use of space will be denied to all. The principal challenge facing the international community is to find a way to surmount obstacles to cooperation. Accordingly, follow-up and analysis of the interests, goals, and conflicts between the nations that are formulating the priorities and making the decisions about space are essential for understanding the direction in which developments in space are headed. They are also indispensable in creating a sustainable space industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
135992
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In February 2008, the Department of Defense (DoD) reissued DoD Directive 1344.10, ‘‘Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty,’’ a standing list of political behavior do’s and don’ts for members of the active duty military. Three months later, the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to members of the armed forces in Joint Force Quarterly, warning them to keep their politics private, remarking that ‘‘the only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.’’1 Four years later, his successor followed suit. In reminding the military of the need to remain nonpartisan during an election year, General Martin E. Dempsey cautioned, ‘‘The lines between the professional, personal—and virtual—are blurring. Now more than ever, we have to be exceptionally thoughtful about what we say and how we say it.’’2 These measures, taken just months before presidential elections, are indicative of the military’s concerns about politicization within the ranks and the very specific concern that members of the military are crossing the traditional and sacred line of political neutrality during election campaigns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|