Perennial negotiations/elemental encounters autoethnographic perspectives on approaching food sovereignty

This thesis uses a multifaceted process to engage with the topic of food sovereignty in California. It employs diverse methods, including critical and creative prose, photography, autoethnographic mixed media, storytelling and poetry. I am particularly concerned with the " " challenges of approaching food sovereignty, a radical praxis that combines subsistence practices with anti-capitalist resistance, while in my own "skin," which is thoroughly embedded in white, urban, middle classed culture and in corltextualizing ecological relationshipslkinships via cultural, historical and economic trajectories. The project utilizes a processual methodlology drawing substantially from the work of Brian Massumi to explore these issues through four creative narrative pieces which coalesce around the elemental metaphors of air, fire, water and earth. Following Deleuze and Guatarri's concept ofrhizomatic plateaus, the thesis narratives are comprised of many non-hierarchical layers and can be read from many angles. Each is offered "in process" rather than as a finished piece, thus practically validating the concept of the ongoing work of research and suggesting the equally omnipresent possibility of change and mutation in the formation relationally based knowledges. Cultivating ecological ethic and healing on multisensory levels, as well as commitment to emergent and re-productivist worldviews are goals of this project's research.

The neo-liberal state and the crisis of public service broadcasting in the Anglo-American democracies /

The NeO'liberal State and the Crisis ofPublic Service Broadcasting in the Anglo-American Democracies The purpose ofthis analysis ofthe present condition ofpublic service broadcasting in the Anglo- American democracies was to investigate whether such media can still be regarded as the primarypublic spherefor a dialogue between each nation 's civil society and the State. The motivationfor this thesis was based on a presumption that such fora for public discussion on the central issues of each society have become viewed as less relevant bypoliticians andpolicy-makers and thepublics they were intended to serve in the Anglo-American democracies over thepast two decades. It is speculated that this is the case because ofa beliefthat the post-war consensus between the respective States andpublics that led to the construction of the Keynesian Welfare State and the notion ofpublic service broadcasting has been displaced by an individualistic, neo-liberal, laissez-faire ideology. In other words, broadcasting as a consumer-oriented, commercial commodity has superseded concerns pertaining to the importance ofthe public interest. The methodology employed in this thesis is a comparative analysisfrom a criticalpolitical economy perspective. It was considered appropriate to focus on the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the\ United States because they comprise the four largest Anglo-American nations with democratic political systems andprimarily market economies. Justificationfor this particular sample is reinforced by thefact that case study countries also share a common socio-political and economic tradition. The evidence assembledfor this thesis consisted almost exclusively ofexisting literature on the subjects ofpublic service broadcasting, global economic andpolitical integration, and the ascendance ofthe 'free-market ' ethos in Western democracies since the late mid- to late-1970s. In essence, this thesis could be considered as a reinterpretation ofthe existing literature relevant to these issues. Several important common features werefound among the political, economic and broadcasting systems of the four case study nations. It is proposed that the prevalence of the neo-liberal world view throughout the political and policy environments of the four countries has undermined the stability and credibility of each nation 's national public service broadcasting organization, although with varying intensity and effect,. Deregulation ofeach nation 's broadcasting system and the supremacy ofthe notion of 'consumer sovereignty' have marginalized the view of broadcasting on any basis other than strictly economic criteria in thefour case study countries. This thesis concludes that,for a reconstruction ofa trulyparticipatory anddemocraticpublicsphere to be realized in the present as well as thefuture, a reassessment ofthe conventional concept ofthe 'public sphere ' is necessary. Therefore, it is recommended that thefocus ofpolicy-makers in each Anglo-American democracy be redirectedfrom that which conceived ofan all-encompassing, large, state-ownedand operated public broadcasting service toward a view which considers alternativeforms ofpublic communication, such as local community and ethnic broadcasting operations, that are likely to be more responsive to the needs of the increasingly diverse and heterogeneous populations that comprise the modem Anglo-American democracies. The traditional conception of public broadcasters must change in accordance with its contemporary environment if the fundamental principles of the public sphere and public service broadcasting are to be realized.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

News in the age of empire : two war scandals

This thesis argues that the motivations underpinning the mainstream news media have fundamentally changed in the 21 sl century. As such, the news is no longer best understood as a tool for propaganda or agenda setting; instead it seems that the news is only motivated by the flow of global network capitalism. The author contrasts the work of Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman with that of Gilles Deleuze. Chomsky and Herman's 'Propaganda Model' has been influential within the fields of media studies and popular culture. The 'propaganda model' states that the concentration of ownership of the media has allowed the media elite to exert a disproportionate amount of influence over the mass media. Deleuze, on the other hand, regards the mass media as being yet another cog within the global capitalist mechanism, and is therefore separate from ideology or propaganda. The author proposes that 'propaganda' is no longer a sufficient word to describe the function of the news as terms like 'propaganda' imply some form of national sovereignty or governmental influence. To highlight how the news has 'changed from an instrument of propaganda to an instrument of accumulation, the author compares and contrasts the· coverage of the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal with that of the Haditha Civilian Massacre. Although similar in nature, the author proposes that the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal received a disproportionate amount of coverage within the mainstream press because of its exciting and sensational nature.

Laura Dexter letter, commenting on the McLeod murder trial, October 5, 1841

Alexander McLeod was Deputy Sheriff of the Niagara District during the Rebellion of 1837-38 in Upper Canada. On December 24, 1837, he became aware of a scheme by the rebels to use the American steamboat Caroline to provide supplies to William Lyon Mackenzie and his followers on Navy Island in the Niagara River. McLeod notified the authorities in Upper Canada about the situation. A few days later, on December 29, Commodore Andrew Drew led a band of men, including McLeod, to the American side, where the Caroline was moored at Schlosser’s Wharf. A scuffle ensued, in which American Amos Durfee was killed. The Caroline was then released from its moorings, set on fire, and drifted downstream before sinking. Many Americans viewed the incident as a violation of their sovereignty. Tensions between the United States and England were already strained over a boundary dispute between Maine and New Brunswick, and the situation with the Caroline further escalated the tension. McLeod was subsequently arrested in November, 1840 in Lewiston, NY and indicted for arson and murder. The British foreign secretary, Lord Palmerston, insisted that McLeod be released and could not be held personally responsible for the incident, as he was acting on orders from authorities in Canada. Eventually, McLeod was acquitted.

Bill C-373 - First Reading, 24 January 1975

"An Act to provide for the recognition of the Beaver (Castor canadensis) as a symbol of the sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada." Mr. Sean O'Sullivan worked to have this Bill passed, recognizing the Beaver as a symbol of Canadian sovereignty.

Speech - Beaver Bill, 21 February 1975

A speech by Sean O'Sullivan, given in the House of Commons, "For the Recognition of the Beaver as a Symbol of the Sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada".