Suchergebnisse

"Picking up where The Tipping Point leaves off, respected journalist Lee Daniel Kravetz's Strange Contagion is a provocative look at both the science and lived experience of social contagion. In 2009, tragedy struck the town of Palo Alto: A student from the local high school had died by suicide by stepping in front of an oncoming train. Grief-stricken, the community mourned what they thought was an isolated loss. Until, a few weeks later, it happened again. And again. And again. In six months, the high school lost five students to suicide at those train tracks. A recent transplant to the community and a new father himself, Lee Daniel Kravetz's experience as a science journalist kicked in: what was causing this tragedy? More important, how was it possible that a suicide cluster could develop in a community of concerned, aware, hyper-vigilant adults? The answer? Social contagion. We all know that ideas, emotions, and actions are communicable--from mirroring someone's posture to mimicking their speech patterns, we are all driven by unconscious motivations triggered by our environment. But when just the right physiological, psychological, and social factors come together, we get what Kravetz calls a "strange contagion:" a perfect storm of highly common social viruses that, combined, form a highly volatile condition. Strange Contagion is simultaneously a moving account of one community's tragedy and a rigorous investigation of social phenomenon, as Kravetz draws on research and insights from experts worldwide to unlock the mystery of how ideas spread, why they take hold, and offer thoughts on our responsibility to one another as citizens of a globally and perpetually connected world"--

This book examines the origins of the principle of sovereignty in the legal and political thought of its most influential theorist, Jean Bodin. It explores Bodin's creative synthesis of classical sources in philosophy, history, and the medieval legal science of Roman and canon law in crafting the rules governing state-centric politics.

Examining the origins of the principle of sovereignty in the legal and political thought of Jean Bodin, this book explores his creative synthesis of classical sources in philosophy, history and the medieval legal science of Roman and canon law in crafting the rules governing state-centric politics.

Jean Bodin's analysis in Six Livres de la République is often understood as evidence of his alleged political absolutism. This article examines Bodin's theory of offices to argue that this is a misguided view of Bodin's political thought. I begin by revisiting Bodin's distinction between the "sovereignty" and the "government" of the state. It is in the analysis of the latter that Bodin constructs a normative doctrine warning of the dangers of " seigneurial" rule. As I show, Bodin's purpose was to reject seigneurial rule by contrasting it with lawful rule, the mode of government in which public power was discharged according to law and custom, not by seigneurial will. Essential to Bodin's analysis was a concept of public office that envisioned the officer as an independent intermediary "borrowing" public powers, not from higher magistrates or from the prince (as medieval lawyers traditionally argued), but only from the impersonal state.

Historically, the San Carlos Apache Tribe depended on the Gila River to irrigate crops and sustain a population of around 14,000 tribe members. The river is also sacred to the Tribe and central to the Tribe's culture and spirituality. Initially, the federal government had recognized the Tribe's dependence on the Gila River by reserving, under the Winters doctrine, water rights necessary to support the San Carlos Apache Reservation. Acting as the Tribe's trustee, the United States entered into the Globe Equity Decree (the Decree), which prevented the San Carlos Apache Tribe from claiming water rights under the Winters doctrine and awarded significant water rights to private parties and other Indian tribes. In particular, this Note focuses on the Federal Circuit's decision in 2011 that the San Carlos Apache Tribe could not seek damages against the United States for improperly diminishing the Tribe's reserved water rights to the Gila River under the Decree because the court determined that the statute of limitations had run. This Note argues that the case was wrongly decided. It then proposes two new analytical devices to overcome the recent trend of courts denying remedies to tribes based on supposedly unambiguous language of treaties, statutes, and decrees.