Suchergebnisse

The article highlights the political process of accession in 1801, KartliKakheti to the Russian Empire, which was the result of the development of RussianGeorgian relations in the second half of the XVIII century, the article shows that the military-political weakness of the Georgian Kingdom became the main reason for the failure of the prisoner in 1783 the Treaty of Georgievsk, according to which Russia took under its protectorate of Eastern Georgia. Awareness of this fact has forced both Georgian and Russian ruling upper classes to begin to seek new forms of allied relations. Ensuing after the death of king Irakli II between representatives of the Royal family fight for throne significantly weakened the Georgian Kingdom. In the face of external threats from Iran, the only way to keep Eastern Georgia from ruin was its accession to Russia.

Recently, in post-Soviet space, new Stalin statues have been created, and old ones have reappeared. These battles, both symbolic and material, over monuments fuel and exemplify contemporary "memory wars." This article highlights the disparate meanings of three historical Stalin monuments that served as focal points for three major cases of mass demonstrations during Khrushchev's de-Stalinization campaign: Tbilisi, Budapest, and Prague. Next, drawing on newly found materials from Tbilisi's Central Committee Archive of the Communist Party of Georgia, this article discusses Bogdan Muradovich Kirakosian's never-realized project to build a massive Stalin monument that would have overlooked Tbilisi. Last is the analysis of survey data that captures individuals' attitudes towards Stalin for those born in Georgia before 1945 in order to surmise how such a grand monument to Stalin would have been received at the time.

This chapter provides an independent & detailed assessment of Russia's military capabilities & defense economics. Military operations in Georgia have bolstered confidence in the Russian military, which was damaged by the end of the Cold War & involvement in Chechnya. There is public support of a more expanded military. Abroad, Russian's military power has been represented by its navy with deployments in the Mediterranean & Caribbean. Russia's military posturing is due in large part to increasing U.S. & NATO activities in traditionally Russian spheres creating a crisis in Russian-Western relations. Key to Russia's military posture is Central Asia & the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) whose military capacity Russian president Medvedev hopes to increase in order to counter U.S. & Western influence. This chapter also discusses in detail Russia's war with Georgia & security situations in the North Caucasus region. Statistic & details concerning Russia's defense budget & capabilities are provided. C. Goger

The conflict over Georgia has had one positive implication: the United States and Europe are forced to think strategically in dealing with Russia. Since the end of the cold war, Russia - and this is sometimes hard to understand for Europeans - has had little salience to US foreign policy. The selective cooperation on nonproliferation issues and on fighting transnational terrorism does not amount to a strategic policy. For the Europeans, despite the higher importance attached to Russia, developing a common policy was never easy, but has become more difficult because of EU enlargement to the East. Although the EU and the United States have shown a rather high degree of unity in the immediate response to the crisis over Georgia, we are still far away from a transatlantic convergence of perceptions, interests, and preferred strategic approaches in reacting to an assertive Russia

Using data collected from the Fall 2003 Georgia Poll, this research note examines the proportion of Georgians who are aware of National and Georgia Do Not Call legislation and estimates the proportion of Georgians who report being registered on the Do Not Call Registry. The estimated number of Georgians who report being signed up on the Do Not Call Registry is then compared to the number of Georgians who have actually signed up on the registry. A secondary analysis examines public understanding of Do Not Call legislation by examining knowledge of what types of organizations may not call a household on the Do Not Call Registry, which organizations are not covered by Do Not Call legislation, and attitudes towards receiving unsolicited telephone calls from different types of organizations.

Using data collected from the Fall 2003 Georgia Poll, this research note examines the proportion of Georgians who are aware of National & Georgia Do Not Call legislation & estimates the proportion of Georgians who report being registered on the Do Not Call Registry. The estimated number of Georgians who report being signed up on the Do Not Call Registry is then compared to the number of Georgians who have actually signed up on the registry. A secondary analysis examines public understanding of Do Not Call legislation by examining knowledge of what types of organizations may not call a household on the Do Not Call Registry, which organizations are not covered by Do Not Call legislation, & attitudes towards receiving unsolicited telephone calls from different types of organizations. Tables, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.

Two studies were conducted for the purpose of identifying those beliefs and perceptions about heroin which predict being for or against heroin legalization. In Study One the results of a 45-item instrument assessing the attitudes and beliefs of 359 students at Georgia State University were factor analyzed. The identified factors were entered into a multiple regression predicting support for heroin legalization. In Study Two, an item from each of the six strongest factors identified in Study One was included in a questionnaire along with a two-item measure employed in Study One to identify support for legalization. A ninth item was added and the questions were asked in a polling of 805 representative Georgia citizens. The primary findings from Study One were replicated in Study Two. The factors are described and the implications of the findings for policy are discussed.

Abstract. Oklahoma and Georgia, two outstanding college football contenders, challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) long standing control over television sales of game broadcasts. The case, Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia Athletic Association vs. National Collegiate Athletic Association, alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.1 It captured the attention of those involved in sports and of the legal profession but its significance is wider. It involved basic economic issues. Plaintiffs held that television was not a threat to ticket revenues, the NCAA structure gave control to colleges with little or no interest in football. and the arrangement did not achieve competitive balance. The NCAA's behavior is found to be that of a classic cartel and ending its control widened consumer choice and upgraded product quality.

The purpose of the study was to examine the process and effectiveness of group counseling as a part of a training program conducted through a Labor Department grant. Trainees in a JOBS program at the Westinghouse plant in Athens, Georgia, who were certified by the Georgia State Training and Employment Service as disadvantaged, received a 90‐minute counseling session each week. Members of the training group had better work attendance and less employee turnover than a comparable group not in the training program. The tapes of one counselor—three five‐minute segments at the beginning, middle, and end of each tape—were used for analysis, which was done by an affect‐topic method. The counselor of the group analyzed presents some personal observations of the counseling process. Some suggestions for improvements of group counseling in similar contexts are also presented.

Предметом исследования данной статьи являются герб и флаг Грузии, история данных символов и их интерпретация. Земля, на которой существует современная Грузия, помнит множество древних государств. На ней существовали Колхидское и Иберийское царства. Эти земли входили в состав Великой Армении и Римской империи, вели войны с Монголами, Византией, Ираном, Османской империей, знали множество талантливых царей и полководцев, повидали не одну царскую династию на своём престоле. Очевидно, что геральдика грузинских земель насыщена героическими и сакральными символами, символами, которые нельзя забыть, вычеркнуть или исказить. Они как "обереги" данной земли должны присутствовать в гербе и флаге государства. Статья показывает, какие символы были учтены в гербе современной Грузии, а какие несправедливо преданы забвению. Также описана история создания современного герба государства, что позволяет понять основные ошибки поспешного "герботворчества". В исследовании использовался исторический подход, показывающий геополитические явления и предпосылки при создании герба государства. Историко-сравнительный метод наряду с историко-генетическим методом показал возможность преемственности старых символов в современном государстве. На основе методов анализа и классификации, символы Грузии сопоставляются с политическим строем государства. Все вышеуказанные методы позволили определить основные реперные точки исследования. Основным выводом статьи является то, что герб Грузии нельзя назвать завершенным. Он требует доработки участия в его создании не только художников и политиков, но и историков, геральдистов. Показаны те символы, те фундаментальные гербы, о которых забыла Грузия, а ведь это многовековая история ее земель и правящих династий. Вычеркивая эти символы, страна рискует потерять не только самоидентичность, но и собственные территории. А как показывает история, этот процесс не прекращается в государстве с 1991 года. Череда цветных революций и бессмысленных войн уже отделили от Грузии Абхазию и Южную Осетию. Возможно, настало время критично посмотреть на основные символы государства. ; Object of research of this article are the coat of arms and a flag of Georgia, history of these symbols and their interpretation. The earth on which there is modern Georgia, remembers a set of the ancient states. On it there were Colchis and Iberian kingdoms. These lands were a part of Great Armenia and the Roman Empire, waged wars with Mongols, Byzantium, Iran, the Ottoman Empire, knew a great number of talented tsars and commanders, saw not one imperial dynasty on the throne. It is obvious that the heraldry of the Georgian lands is sated with heroic and sacral symbols, symbols which can't be forgotten, deleted or distorted. They as "charms" of this earth have to be present at the coat of arms and a flag of the state. Article shows, what symbols were considered in the coat of arms of modern Georgia and what are unfairly buried in oblivion. The history of creation of the modern coat of arms of the state that allows to understand the main errors of hasty "coat of arms made" is also described. In research the historical approach showing the geopolitical phenomena and prerequisites at creation of the coat of arms of the state was used. The historical and comparative method along with a historical and genetic method showed possibility of continuity of old symbols in the modern state. On the basis of methods of the analysis and classification, symbols of Georgia are compared with a political system of the state. All above methods allowed to define the main points of research. The main conclusion of article is that it is impossible to call the coat of arms of Georgia complete. He demands completion participation in its creation not only artists and politicians, but also historians. Those symbols, those fundamental coats of arms about which Georgia forgot are shown, and after all it is centuries-old history of its lands and ruling dynasties. Deleting these symbols, the country risks to lose not only self-identity, but also own territories. And as the history shows, this process doesn't stop in the state since 1991. Series of color revolutions and senseless wars already separated Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. Many will tell that it is result of dull policy of Mikhail Saakashvili. Yes it is, but after all at it the real coat of arms of Georgia was accepted. Perhaps, time came is critical to look at the main symbols of the state.

Francis in Georgia: kinship and family formation in the Black antebellum South -- Neshoba to Noxubee: pre-Civil War to Reconstruction -- Post-Reconstruction and a new century: anxious and audacious times (1870s-1910) -- Hillman: a man's story bookended by women -- Coda: reflections on methodology.