Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
T
A. Substantially requires at least a 2% reduction --- this is
the smallest percentage we could find
Word and Phrases 1960
'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value;
valuable." Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in
state, held exempt from taxation; such expenditures constituting
"substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American
Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App.
B. Plan violates
American Muslim Population is only .8%
Walen 14 (Andrew Walen, Muslim Population in US: New Poll Shows None of Us Have Any Idea, iDigital Times,
11/3/14, http://www.idigitaltimes.com/muslim-population-us-new-poll-shows-none-us-have-any-idea-392930, 7/31/15 AV)
According to the new poll, US citizens guessed the Muslim population of the US to be about 15 percent
when asked Out of every 100 people, how many do you think are Muslim? This would mean that the US
the percentage
of Muslims in the United States at about .8 percent of the population , with an
has 47.4 million Muslims. The reality is quite different, with current research putting
estimated 2.6 million Muslims in the US as of 2010. Even higher estimates find that there are between five
and eight million Muslims in the entire country.
K
Democracy is inherently tied to capitalist expansion.
Those stuck within this thought process are called
democratic fundamentalists and creates a false binary
of either being a fundamentalist or democratic that is
premised on the continued expansion and support of this
system
Jodi Dean 2004, political theorist, author of several books including Democracy and Other Liberal Fantasies
(2009), gives lectures throughout various countries including the US, Denmark, England, China, and Canada, Zizek
Against Democracy//MMWang
In this article, I take up Slavoj Zizeks critical interrogation of democracy. I specify and defend Zizeks
position as an alternative left politics, indeed, as that position most attuned to the loss of the political
today. Whereas liberal and pragmatic approaches to politics and political theory accept the diminishment
of political aspirations as realistic accommodation to the complexities of late capitalist societies as well as
Zizeks
psychoanalytic philosophy confronts directly the trap involved in
acquiescence to a diminished political field , that is to say, to a political field
constituted through the exclusion of the economy: within the ideological
matrix of liberal democracy, any move against nationalism , fundamentalist,
or ethnic violence ends up reinforcing Capital and guaranteeing democracys
failure. Arguing that formal democracy is irrevocably and necessarily stained by a particular content
preferable to the dangers of totalitarianism accompanying Marxist and revolutionary theories,
that conditions and limits its universalizability, he challenges his readers to relinquish our attachment to
we present our political hopes as aspirations to democracy, rather than something else? Why in the face of
democracys obvious inability to represent justice in the social field that has emerged in the incompatibility
between the globalized economy and welfare states to displace the political, do critical left political and
cultural theorists continue to emphasize a set of arrangements that can be filled in, substantialized, by
fundamentalisms, nationalisms, populisms, and conservatisms diametrically opposed to progressive
Know Not What They Do, his first book written after the collapse of actually existing socialism, Zizek
wonders if the Left is condemned to pledge all its forces to the victory of democracy? He notes that in
the initial days of communisms disintegration in Eastern Europe, the democratic project breathed with
new life.
that would enable people to determine collectively the rules and practices
through which they would live their lives. But instead of collective governance in the
common interest, people in the new democracies got rule by capital. Their
political choices became constrained within and determined by the neoliberal
market logics of globalized capitalism already dominating Western Europe, Great Britain, and
the United States. What emerged after the communists were gone was the combination of neoliberal
capitalism and nationalist fundamentalism, a scoundrel time when capitalism appears as democracy and
skepticism
toward democracy is not a recent radical gesture but a central element in
Zizeks thinking is also clear in the fact that one of his most fundamental
theoretical insights concerns the constitutive non-universalizability of liberal
democracy. Thus, in The Sublime Object of Ideology, written before the collapse of communism,
Zizek refers to the universal notion of democracy as a necessary fiction.
democracy as and through capitalism. Is this what the Left is doomed to defend? That
Adopting Hegels insight that the Universal can realize itself only in impure, deformed, corrupted forms,
he emphasizes the impossibility of grasping the Universal as an intact purity. In all his work thereafter,
Zizek struggles with the relation between democracy and universality, concerned with the way that
contemporary adherence to democracy prevents the universalizing move proper to politics. Finally, in his
ensure that nothing will really happen in politics, that everything (global capital) will go as before.
international lawyer Susan Marks compares Naomi Kleins The Shock Doctrine with my own recent history of international
human rights, which emphasizes the 1970s as the moment of breakthrough for their ascent. Both histories, Marks
observes, ascribe the newfound visibility of human rights to their promise to transcend formerly attractive political options
east and west that seemed inadequate or even dangerous.1 For her too, Marks acknowledges of Kleins treatment,
the
deregulation and state retreat from social provision. To its influential enthusiasts then and
now, that is the last utopia. . . . From Kleins perspective, then, the history of human rights cannot
be told in isolation from developments in the history of capitalism .3 (At this point
Marks notes that Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize for economics in 1976, the year before Amnesty International was
given the Nobel peace prize.) Friedrich Hayek, the guru of neoliberalism, was as impressed a witness of the human
rights revolution of the 1970s as anyone else. But it is interesting that, although occasionally an advocate of the
constitutionalization of basic liberties like freedom of speech and press, he was in fact an acerbic critic of that revolution.
In an interview, he described the spike in talk around human rights associated with Jimmy Carters election to the
American presidency as a strange fad, which (like all fashions) risked excess: Im not sure whether its an invention of
the present administration or whether its of an older date, but I suppose if you told an eighteen year old that human
rights is a new discovery he wouldnt believe it. He would have thought the United States for 200 years has been
committed to human rights, which of course would be absurd. The United States discovered human rights two years ago
or five years ago. Suddenly its the main object and leads to a degree of interference with the policy of other countries
which, even if I sympathized with the general aim, I dont think its in the least justified. . . . But its a dominating belief in
the United States now.4 All the same, since that moment of modish popularity,
be kept separate so as to provide critical purchase on globalization if and when it goes wrong.8 In the mainstream
vision, international human rights can offer a toolbox of legal and other standards to guide, tame, and civilize an era of
transnational market liberalization that has generally improved the human condition.
widening income and wealth gap has been key to the slow
growth of the past two neoliberal decades. The British economy would have been
almost 10% larger if inequality hadnt mushroomed . Now the richest are
using austerity to help themselves to an even larger share of the cake.
The big exception to the tide of inequality in recent years has been Latin America.
Progressive governments across the region turned their back on a
disastrous economic model, took back resources from corporate
control and slashed inequality. The numbers living on less than $2 a
day have fallen from 108 million to 53 million in little over a decade. China,
which also rejected much of the neoliberal catechism, has seen sharply rising inequality
at home but also lifted more people out of poverty than the rest of
the world combined, offsetting the growing global income gap .
These two cases underline that increasing inequality and poverty are
very far from inevitable. Theyre the result of political and economic
decisions. The thinking persons Davos oligarch realises that allowing things to carry on as they are is
argue that the
dangerous. So some want a more inclusive capitalism including more progressive taxes to save the
system from itself. But it certainly wont come about as a result of Swiss mountain musings or anxious
party, at Ed Milibands plans to tax homes worth over 2m to fund the health service, or the demand from
the one-time reformist Fabian Society that the Labour leader be more pro-business (for which read procorporate), or the wall of congressional resistance to Barack Obamas mild redistributive taxation
to strengthen trade unions, even though weaker unions have been a crucial factor in the rise of inequality
change will only come from unrelenting social pressure and political
challenge.
variant throughout the leading economic powers. In spite of the deep structural challenges the new global
since 20078,
neoliberal programmes have only evolved in the sense of deepening. This
continuation of the neoliberal project, or neoliberalism 2.0, has begun to apply
another round of structural adjustments, most significantly in the form of encourproblems present to it, most immediately the credit, financial, and fiscal crises
aging new and aggressive incursions by the private sector into what remains of social democratic institu-
forms of
resistance of conduct that are the correlate of the pastoral mode of power. If such forms of
crisis of the pastorate. It involved identifying the specificity of the revolts or
resistance are said to be of conduct, it is because they are forms of resistance to power as conduct and,
are themselves forms of conduct opposed to this powerconduct. The term conduct in fact admits of two meanings: an activity
that consists in conducting others, or conduction; and the way one
conducts oneself under the influence of this activity of conduction.57
The idea of counter-conduct therefore has the advantage of directly
signifying a struggle against the procedures implemented for
conducting others, unlike the term misconduct, which only refers
to the passive sense of the word.58 Through counter-conduct,
people seek both to escape conduction by others and to define a way
of conducting themselves towards others. What relevance might
this observation have for a reflection on resistance to neo-liberal
governmentality? It will be said that the concept is introduced in the context of an analysis of the
pastorate, not government. Governmentality, at least in its specifically neo-liberal
form, precisely makes conducting others through their conduct towards
themselves its real goal. The peculiarity of this conduct towards oneself,
conducting oneself as a personal enterprise, is that it immediately
and directly induces a certain conduct towards others : competition
with others, regarded as so many personal enterprises. Consequently, counter-conduct as a form of
as such,
resistance to this governmentality must correspond to a conduct that is indivisibly a conduct towards
oneself and a conduct towards others. One cannot struggle against such an indirect mode of conduction by
appealing for rebellion against an authority that supposedly operates through compulsion external to
individuals. If politics is nothing more and nothing less than that which is born with resistance to
governmentality, the first revolt, the first confrontation,59 it means that ethics and politics are absolutely
inseparable. To the subjectivation-subjection represented by ultra-subjectivation, we must oppose a
To neo-liberal governmentality as a
specific way of conducting the conduct of others, we must therefore
oppose a no less specific double refusal: a refusal to conduct oneself
subjectivation by forms of counter-conduct.
such a game
could lead the subject, for want of anything better, to take refuge in
a compensatory identity, which at least has the advantage of some stability by contrast with
the imperative of indefinite self-transcendence. Far from threatening the neo-liberal
order, fixation with identity, whatever its nature, looks like a fall-back
position for subjects weary of themselves, for all those who have abandoned the
race or been excluded from it from the outset. Worse, it recreates the logic of
competition at the level of relations between little communities . Far
from being valuable in itself, independently of any articulation with politics, individual
subjectivation is bound up at its very core with collective
subjectivation. In this sense, sheer aestheticization of ethics is a pure and simple abandonment of
a genuinely ethical attitude. The invention of new forms of existence can only
be a collective act, attributable to the multiplication and intensification of
cooperative counter-conduct. A collective refusal to work more, if only local, is a good
exhausting for the subject. Certainly not a counter-conduct. All the more so in that
example of an attitude that can pave the way for such forms of counter-conduct. In effect, it breaks what
Andr Gorz quite rightly called the structural complicity that binds the worker to capital, in as much as
earning money, ever more money, is the decisive goal for both. It makes an initial breach in the
The genealogy of neoliberalism attempted in this book teaches us that the new global rationality
is in no wise an inevitable fate shackling humanity. Unlike Hegelian Reason, it is not
the reason of human history. It is itself wholly historical that is, relative to
strictly singular conditions that cannot legitimately be regarded as
untranscendable. The main thing is to understand that nothing can release us from the task of
immanent constraint of the ever more, ever more rapidly.61
promoting a different rationality. That is why the belief that the financial crisis by itself sounds the deathknell of neo-liberal capitalism is the worst of beliefs. It is possibly a source of pleasure to those who think
they are witnessing reality running ahead of their desires, without them having to move their little finger. It
certainly comforts those for whom it is an opportunity to celebrate their own past clairvoyance. At
bottom, it is the least acceptable form of intellectual and political abdication. Neo-liberalism is not falling
like a ripe fruit on account of its internal contradictions; and traders will not be its undreamed-of
gravediggers despite themselves. Marx had already made the point powerfully: History does nothing.62
There are only human beings who act in given conditions and seek
through their action to open up a future for themselves. It is up to us
to enable a new sense of possibility to blaze a trail. The government of human
beings can be aligned with horizons other than those of maximizing
performance, unlimited production and generalized control . It can
sustain itself with self-government that opens onto different
relations with others than that of competition between selfenterprising actors. The practices of communization of knowledge,
mutual aid and cooperative work can delineate the features of a
different world reason. Such an alternative reason cannot be better
designated than by the term reason of the commons.
Case
Solvency
MOSQUES EXCLUDED FROM SURVEILLANCE
John Careccia 13, Islamic Mosques: Excluded From Surveillance By Feds, 617-2013, Western Journalism, http://www.westernjournalism.com/islamicmosques-excluded-from-surveillance-by-feds/
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents.
Surveillance or undercover sting operations are not allowed without
high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice
Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee
(SORC). Who makes up this body, and under what methodology do they review requests nobody
knows. The names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret. Why is it necessary to keep the
names and titles of the people who decide whether or not to protect the rest of the country from radical
Muslims, secret?
government. Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration
has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown radicals inside
mosques, and disrupted dozens of plots against innocent American citizens across the United States.
between the NYPD and law enforcement authorities in general, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the
Council on American-Islamic Relations. Were, of course, concerned that some of the functions might just
be carried out by different parts of the NYPD, said Glenn Katon, legal director for Muslim Advocates. New
York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said police-community relations took a blow
from the NYPD units broad surveillance of all Muslims, not just people suspected of wrongdoing. The
NYPDs disbanding of a unit that targeted New York Muslims and mapped their everyday institutions and
activities is a welcome first step for which we commend Commissioner Bratton, said Lieberman. We hope
that the Demographics Units discriminatory activities will not be carried out by other parts of the NYPD.
Former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly defended the surveillance tactics, saying officers observed legal
guidelines while attempting to create an early warning system for terrorism. But in a deposition made
public in 2012, an NYPD chief testified that the units work had never generated a lead or triggered a
terrorism investigation in the previous six years. In Washington, 34 members of Congress had demanded
a federal investigation into the NYPDs actions. Attorney General Eric Holder said he was disturbed by
reports about the operations and the Department of Justice said it was reviewing complaints received from
federal prosecutor Philip Eure was named to the inspector general position last month. Bratton also met
last week with Muslim community leaders to work on improved relations.
Islamophobia
Alt causes to Islamophobia affirmatives plan cant solve
because religious hatred isn't covered legally in the same way that racism
is, Mughal says "the extreme right are frankly getting away with really toxic stuff. Researchers
believe the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and incidents such as the murder of British
soldier Lee Rigby and the recent sexual exploitation scandal in the town of Rotherham have contributed to a
spike in online anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK. Imran Awan, deputy director of the Centre for Applied
Criminology at Birmingham City University, noticed the trend when he was working on a paper regarding Islamophobia
and Twitter following Rigby's death. Rigby was killed in the street in southeast London in 2013 by two Islamic extremists
who have since been convicted. Awan says the anonymity of social media platforms makes them a popular venue for hate
and blow up a mosque' and 'Lets get together and kill the Muslims," and says most of these were linked to far-right
groups. Awans findings echo those of Tell MAMA UK, which has compiled data on anti-Muslim attacks for three years.
(MAMA stands for "Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks.") Tell MAMA's Mughal says anti-Muslim bigotry is "felt significantly,"
and adds that "in our figures, we have seen a year-by-year increase." Researchers believe far-right advocates are partly
responsible for a spike in online hate speech. Theres been a real increase in the far right, and in some of the material I
looked at online, there were quite a lot of people with links to the English Defence League and another group called
Britain First, says Awan. Both Mughal and Awan believe that right-wing groups such as Britain First and the EDL become
mobilized each time there is an incident in the Muslim community. The Twitter profile of the EDL reads: #WorkingClass
movement who take to the streets against the spread of #islamism & #sharia #Nosurrender #GSTQ. Below it is a link to
their Facebook page, which has over 170, 000 likes. Below that page, a caption reads, Leading the Counter-Jihad fight.
Peacefully protesting against militant Islam. EDL spokesperson Simon North dismisses accusations that his group is
spreading hate, emphasizing that Muslims are often the first victims of attacks carried out by Islamic extremists. We
address things that are in the news the same way newspapers do, says North. Experts in far-right groups, however, say
their tendency to spread hateful messages around high-profile cases is well established. North allows that some
Islamophobic messages might emanate from the group's regional divisions. But they do not reflect the groups overall
thinking, he says. There are various nuances that get expressed by these organizations, North says. Our driving line is
set out very clearly in our mission statement. According to EDL's web site, their mission statement is to promote human
rights while giving a balanced picture of Islam. Awan argues online Islamophobia should be taken seriously and says
police and legislators need to make more successful prosecutions of this kind of hate speech and be more techno-savvy
when it comes to online abuse. Prosecuting online Islamophobia, however, is rare in the UK, says Vidhya Ramalingam of
the European Free Initiative, which researches far-right groups. That's because groups like Britain First, which have over
400,000 Facebook likes, have a fragmented membership and do not have the traditional top-down leadership that groups
have had in the past. Online Islamophobia is also flourishing in Canada. The National Council of Canadian Muslims
(NCCM) is receiving a growing number of reports. But there are now fewer means for prosecuting online hate speech in
Canada. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act protected against the wilful promotion of hate online, but it was
repealed by Bill C-304 in 2012. Its kind of hard to say what the impact is, because even when it existed, there werent a
Though there is a
criminal code provision that protects against online hate speech, it requires the attorney
generals approval in order to lay charges and that rarely occurs , says Zwibel. Section 319 of the
lot of complaints brought under it, says Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Criminal Code of Canada forbids the incitement of hatred against any section of the public distinguished by colour, race,
religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." A judge can order online material removed from a public forum such as social
media if it is severe enough, but if it is housed on a server outside of the country, this can be difficult. Ihsaan Gardee,
executive director of NCCM, says without changes, anti-Muslim hate speech will continue to go unpunished online, which
he says especially concerns moderate Muslims. They worry about people perceiving them as sharing the same values
these militants and these Islamic extremists are espousing.
Democracy
Democratic peace theory leads to conflict liberal
peace relies on accounting errors that ignore massive
structural violence and ensure self-fulfilling prophecy
solutions predicated on it cause error replication
Kiely 5
appeal, but it is purely descriptive, and tells us nothing about the (violent) histories of state formation that
well to remember that past interventions have been justified by recourse to support for freedom and
democracy. Indeed, these have often been based on the idea that intervention in the past was ill-
important than others. It could of course be argued that because the US is a liberal democracy it has a
if democracy is to be valued,
then it cannot be selective: it must apply to states not only in relation to their domestic
greater right than others to exercise world leadership. But
populations, but also in relation to the international system of nation-states.10 In this international system,
seen. Singer usefully makes the point: Advocates of democracy should see something wrong with the idea
(Singer 2004: 191) It may of course be utopian to espouse the cause of global democracy, even if, as
cosmopolitan democrats point out, a similar argument was used in the past to argue against democracy
current US global domination, much of which is reactionary. Terrorism should be condemned, and indeed
efforts should be made to counter terrorist attacks. But it is absurd to dismiss all resistance to the US as
the most
ardent wishful thinking about US destiny and the most dangerous
the actions of terrorist minorities, whose actions are completely beyond explanation. Only
amnesia about history such as that shared by George Bush and Tony Blair can reduce
global politics to simplistic struggles between good and evil .11 This is
hardly surprising, as it reflects a long tradition of liberal thought justifying
illiberal measures against illiberal people. John Stuart Mill argued that despotism
is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement and
terrorism
has been reduced to a totally inexplicable, polymorphous mass. As a
the means justifi ed by actually effecting that end (Mill 1974: 69). In the war on terror,
result, [w]ithout defi ned shape or determinate roots, its mantle can be cast over any form of resistance to
sovereign power (Gregory 2004: 140)
voter's income will invariably be below the national average creating an apparently compelling opportunity
for a politics of redistribution.
If
ignorance doesn't explain inaction, what does? These five factors are the
most important culprits: 1) Upward mobility According to research from
Carina Engelhardt and Andreas Wagner, around the world people
overestimate the level of upward mobility in their society. They find that
redistribution is lower then when actual social mobility is but also lower where perceived mobility is higher .
another study Alberto Alesina and Eliana La Ferrara find that, Americans who believe that American society
is to enact universalistic social welfare programs. However, the social strains stemming from increased
social science experiments that disadvantaged groups are more likely to sacrifice their wealth to reduce
Kris-Stella
Trump finds that rising inequality perpetuates itself, noting that, "Public ideas
of what constitutes fair income inequality are influenced by actual inequality:
when inequality changes, opinions regarding what is acceptable change in
the same direction." 3) Political misrepresentation Ideological factors can't tell the
whole story. Many Americans support redistributive programs like the minimum
wage and support for the idea that hard work leads to success has
plummeted in the last decade. A further important reason for the lack of
political response to inequality relates to the structure of American political
institutions, which fail to translate the desires of less-advantaged Americans
for more redistribution into actual policy change . Support for this thesis comes from
the wealth of the advantaged group when inequality was lower than when it was higher.
many corners of the political science field, including Martin Gilens, Dorian Warren, Jacob Hacker, Paul
states with wider turnout gaps between the rich and poor are less likely to pass minimum-wage increases,
have weaker anti-predatory-lending policies and have less generous health insurance programs for
children in low-income families. Kim Hill, Jan Leighley and Angela Hilton-Andersson find, "an enduring
relationship between the degree of mobilization of lower-class voters and the generosity of welfare
benefits." Worryingly, Frederick Solt finds that, "citizens
Research finds that policy outcomes in the United States are heavily mediated by lobbying between
supported by Americans across the income spectrum, in contrast to business groups, which lobby in favor
of policies only supported by the wealthy. It's no surprise then that numerous studies have linked the
bias among white voters is strongly correlated with hostility toward means-tested social assistance
Another study by Steven Beckman and Buhong Zhen finds that blacks
are more likely to support redistribution even if their incomes are far above
average and that poor whites are more likely to oppose redistribution. In
other words, a massive public education campaign about the extent of
income inequality is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the kind of
redistributive policies liberals favor. The real obstacles to policy action on
inequality are more deeply ingrained in the structure of American politics,
demographics, and interest group coalitions. Insofar as there is a role for better
programs.
information to play, it likely relates not to inequality but tosocial mobility which remains widely
misperceived and is a potent driver of feelings about the justice of economic policy. As John Steinbeck
noted, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Stronger unions, more lower income voter turnout
and policies to reduce the corrupting influence of money on the political process would all work to reduce
inequality. It will take political mobilization, not simply voter education to achieve change. The wonks have
interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it.
Some studies (Davenport and Inman, 2012) present evidence that contradicts
this, saying that while regime type is important, it is not universally
applicable across all concepts. Davenport and Armstrong (2004) argue that
the previous studies showing negative linear relationships between
democracy and levels of repression are flawed. According to them, there is a
negative linear relationship, but only above a particular threshold, that varies
due to the measure in question. In their study, the measures include
international war, civil war, and military control, among others. However,
below this threshold, democracy does not affect the levels of repression . Beer
and Mitchell (2006) also present evidence that suggest democracy is 5 not
the deciding factor in whether or not a state will repress. Using the case of
India as an example, Beer and Mitchell (2006) suggest ethnic and religious
factors for the high levels of repression within a democratic state. The study
accurately accounts for the election of specific political parties and the
electoral participation as factors for repression, within this democratic state.
This contradicts most of the previous research that suggests democracies will
not repress.