Took Std Test Wednesday When Should I Get Results

Wall Street, Granada, Spain

I had not thought in mind until I heard the comments of Miguel Angel Granados Chapa in UNAM Radio this morning. Therefore, what follows is developing what he said ... however, worth pondering.

Flavio Sosa, director of the APPO in Oaxaca, was released from prison this weekend. The joy that this news means for the Oaxacan movement is contrasted with a rather daunting fact: was released because they can not support all criminal charges be brought against him. One of those charges was for the kidnapping of two police Ministerial Police of Oaxaca who had forcibly entered the home of Flavio Sosa, and then detained by municipal police in their community, even for the same aggravated. I thought the kidnapping charge would have been charged with making government departments, which would deprive the freedom to officials who worked in those units. However, what is intended to argue is that these policemen allegedly abducted in her own home ministry.

Well, well, pretend that yes he was charged with one count of kidnapping for taking such office (a common practice of some social movements). Is it a real kidnapping? Well, I consulted the Federal Penal Code, as Granados Chapa said that as it is established, the crime of kidnapping does not apply to the actions of Flavio Sosa. Well, the articles 364 to 366 (with encores and addenda) provide the types of deprivation of liberty and when to prosecute those who perform. As I mentioned Granados Chapa, albeit somewhat incomplete, kidnapping is the deprivation of liberty of a person for purposes of profit to the abductor or the purpose of the authority or an individual acting or refraining from making any act. However, in the latter case, the abductor must have threatened the hostages with the deprivation of life or harm (Book 2, art. 366 Federal Penal Code), for a response to the demands that were made to the authority.

We then Flavio Sosa was accused of a crime he did not commit. But the reality is that he was accused of several crimes he did not commit. Ie: he issued formal arrest unconstitutionality (as it had not been reviewed any of the crimes), and not content with that, he was held prisoner for a year and a half ... for nothing.

Such impunity is the same impunity that allows big business, do not pay taxes (also unconstitutional), and several other atrocities committed by the federal government, all we know.

Firsttimeauditions Jessica

Discuss the differences you encounter with the Other ...

... talk policy that ended in a denial of dialogue and exchange of ideas continued because I interposed, to the chagrin of my partner (a) that the scheme of government we have all day on TV and in newspapers is not alone, there are other, few, many, probably, maybe. It is not trivial word STATE. As clearly explained a psychologist I know: we are used to choose among the options presented to us, but only among those. Rarely refuse the options that we have to choose one that has not been offered, and so it is easier to make a child determined to play, choose swimming or doing homework when I propose that if we say simply, "bathe" or simply "do the job." I thought this trend would be maintained only in the first years of life, and that as you grow "learns" to "consider" other options, but my psychologist friend corrected me, for even-and perhaps even more-in adulthood, we still look at other options, those that are not mentioned ("will you pay for 6 months, or all at once?", to which one might respond: "I do not spend money" or, "I want 3 months pay no interest ", but almost one always goes for the 6 months or all at once!).
And so you can spend the money to the flavors, sizes of dresses, pants, car colors, the shape of ornaments, the presidential candidate among several, and finally, to president of a nation among several parties. But what ever happened to us that perhaps the current form of government is one among other options, and even if they do not exist we can also explicitly generate other options? In fact, Article 39 of the constitution of Mexico (valid at least to April 1, 2008) states:

that sovereignty resides in the people, everything
power emanates from the people,
that every public authority is instituted for the benefit of the people and
that the people have the inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government.

Well, sure there are other schemes in which possibly have not thought, or maybe we have been raised but we have not considered. And one of these schemes is the one that was and has been continually raised by the Zapatistas in Chiapas. My partner (a) was ready to ask if that Another scheme was that of arms. Not really. Although it began as an armed uprising, one of the greatest qualities of it is that shortly after it began, the Zapatistas decided to lay down their arms because the civil society so requested them. Or as they say, "Now take the weapons to shoot them, but that they are not fired any more on us or on anyone else." The next question was why, if there is a movement in public for 14 years, has not yet formed a political party. And here comes the idea of \u200b\u200bgenerating options, other options:

"The other policy is not seeking to occupy the space of party politics, born of this crisis, and tends to occupy the space that is not covered by the task party. The other policy is to organize to `flip 'the logic of party politics, seeks to build a new relación de la Nación con sus partes: ciudadanos que tienen derecho a serlo de tiempo completo, diferenciados y específicos(...)"

"Nuestro objetivo no es hacernos del poder, tampoco obtener puestos gubernamentales NI CONVERTIRNOS EN UN PARTIDO POLITICO (mis mayúsculas). No nos alzamos por limosnas o créditos. No queremos el control de un territorio o la separación de México. No apostamos a la destrucción ni a ganar tiempo" (Ensayo del EZ, 1 de enero, 2000).

La tercera y última declaración de mi interlocutor(a) antes de terminar la conversación fue que los zapatistas "no están haciendo su trabajo", es decir, no están promoviendo su propuesta, no han venido to "convince" to join their struggle. A 14-year armed uprising in the early months and gave up violence and arms, the Zapatistas have continually established links with civil society through 6 declarations of the Lacandon jungle, where character is shaped flexible their ideas accessible. Not only that, also visited Mexico City on several occasions, have published thousands of releases and texts of great importance to inform the development of their struggle. And something extraordinary: they have practically run the whole country (not just once) and have entered into dialogue, and exchanged ideas with almost 70% of the population Mexican (through consultation for indigenous rights held on March 21, 1999). What past or present government has managed to engage with this amount of Mexican?

I think one of the reasons why it seems that they lacked notice, it is because they face the ignorance and indifference of the media, in addition to the dirty war orchestrated by politicians and intellectuals. That is, and there they'll take me a saying that says "sup": "(...) I watch TV as it should be, ie reading books, newspapers and magazines (although newspapers are also giving of themselves, some, many).

Ureterovesical Junction Stones

-one conversation checkered-violation of the maxims of Grice

Pragmatic
JD,

Dictionary of Linguistics, Cambridge, 1991:

The pragmatic aspect of language for the characteristics of its use (psychological motivations of speakers, reactions of others, socialized types of speech, the subject of discursive , etc.). opossition to by the syntactic aspect (formal properties of language constructs) and semantics (relationship between linguistic entities and the world). Enrique Alcaraz Varo Pragmatica y María Antonieta Martínez Linares,

Dictionary
modern linguistics, ed. Ariel, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1997:

The term pragmatics, which has several meanings in linguistics, deals with the study of any aspect of discourse, language or social communication, ie what is called the language in use and language used. The modern use of this term goes back to who gave Morris (1938:6) when he tried to determine the attributes peculiar to Semiotics. In this characterization, 'the pragmática'aborda the study of the relationship of interpretation, ie those between signs and users within the context in which they use those. The communication is a sign, a designatum

and a user or performer, and between them develops a triple, as indicated in this scheme:







As can be inferred from this triadic scheme of SEMIOSIS, the "most dynamic pragmática'aborda relations, those between signs and their users within the context in which they use those (relations of interpretation). Of the other two branches, the first, the syntax, try the various links that signs have with one another and down within the signs themselves (the ratio of involvement), and second, SEMANTICS, analyzes the links between them and the world to which it refers, ie the objects to which they apply (relations designation). But the fact that the 'pragmática'trate the most dynamic, the interpretation does not mean you can ignore the other two branches, syntax and semantics, since it is virtually impossible to interpret a message if not conocven relationships that keep signs each other or those that hold with the world to which they refer.

Some think they see in the objectives and principles of the 'pragmatic' a modern form of classical rhetoric, which tear of
of institution oratory, Quintilian
.

The major impetus was the pragmatic it has received from the insights and work of Austin and Searle (1980), the so-called speech acts, which constitute a pragmatic par excellence.

The term 'pragmática'se also strengthens near or related disciplines of linguistics (Habermas, 1988), such as philosophy, anthropology and other sciences of human behavior that have been marked among its goals the explanation of the underlying rule system to all human communication, although obviously there methodological and conceptual differences between them.

In linguistics are today many of its forms, almost all related to what is called LANGUAGE IN ACTION (Levinson, 1983:5), namely, the study of language in its relationship with users and the circumstances of communication, but some are different, as given in the agenda of formal semantics of Montague Grammar (1972) or used in literary criticism (Chico Rico, 1988:32). The most important

1. Branch of linguistics that studies the pragmatic component of language. In this sense, pragmatics can have a range of discipline or field of research, but also emerging, similar to the phonology, syntax, semantics and syntax that arise from the use of sentences. The difference in the 'pragmática'con the other components of language lies that they are governed by rules, while the pragmatic by principles such as Grice's Principle of cooperation or partnership.

2. Discipline that studies the relationship between language and communicative contexts in which this is manifested (Beugrande, R. et al., 1981:209).

3. In another meaning related to the preceding, but more restrictive, pragmatics addresses the operation of context in the interpretation of utterances, ie, aspects and contextual conditions of communication.

4. In another, also bound the second, but with a more psychological, 'Theories pragmática'analiza investigating the mental structure underlying the explanatory power of the set of partners (Blakemore, D. 1987:8).

5. Finally, as a research paradigm, ie as a paradigm of pragmatics. In this case the 'pragmática'es a new research perspective (Mey, JL, 1995) study of language in general or any aspect thereof, as a discursive phenomenon, communicative and social at the same time what is called LANGUAGE IN USE or LANGUAGE IN ACTION. Following Blum-Kulka (1996: 155 ff.), The recognized branches of the 'pragmática'son two: the pragmalinguistics, which places greater emphasis on the analysis of linguistic and structural resources that are needed in the use of language and social pragmatics, interested in the analysis of the conditions of the uses of language that arise in communication or social SITUATIONS concrete.



Pragmatics David Crystal,
Encyclopedia of Language at the University of Cambridge, 1987,
[ed. Castilian: Juan Carlos Moreno Cabrera, UAM, 1994]: studied the factors that regulate the use of language in social interaction, and the effects that this use results in others.

In theory we can say whatever we want, but in practice we see a lot of social conventions which determine our way of speaking.
There is no law against counterrevolutionary jokes at a funeral, but this is something that usually is not done. We have been assimilated, intuitively, certain formalities and rules of courtesy in speech, gestures and written language are subject to similar constraints.
Our way of pronunciation, grammatical constructions that we use, or the vocabulary we choose are strongly influenced by factors such pragmatic.

In many languages, pragmatic distinctions own label, politeness or intimacy appear in all systems language (grammar, vocabulary, phonology). Awards
strong pragmatic case of choosing between-you-and-you-. Pragmatics is not a homogeneous field of study. Our choice of language in social interaction is determined by a large number of factors, not clearly know what they are, what is the best way to interrelate or how to distinguish them from other areas of linguistic research:
semantics, stylistics, piscolingüística, discourse analysis.

Because of the intersections in the areas of interest have emerged carateriza the scope of pragmatics. One approach focuses on factors formally codified in language structure (forms honoríoficas, choice between me and you, etc.), In the semantic pragmatics is the study of all factors of significance that fit in the analysis of sentences in terms of truth conditions (Hi, king, me molas, etc..), some take a broader perspective where pragmatics is the study of the principles underlying interactive language performance, including all aspects of language use.

Ward Pulse Graphic Vaughn

Women also move


The other day I got entangled in a political discussion and, as almost always happens in these cases, my partner (a) ended by asking: "let us not talk politics." Besides the fact that no one ever force you to talk about something that does not want, I do not agree with this way out of confrontation. "Constructive discussions" enrich, teach us, give us a breath of life.

So I'll add some things for my partner (a), and now pass to the general public. Let's be clear about one of my positions: the responsible citizen who complains about the politico-social-economic situation in a country like Mexico is required, minimally, to explore ways to help make this changes. And if it is their duty, is a minimum responsibility, I say, that ultimately further arguments or complaining to the mobilization of one of the possible paths of change (hopefully opts for the latter). About

Adelitas movement fighting for the defense of oil and "cowardice" of AMLO by sending them to battle front (if you write "cowardly shield of women" in Google, one of the first league refers to a note written by Enrique Campos Suarez's blog First News with Carlos Loret de Mola, ie a dirty war levels of government is handling the idea that AMLO is a coward):

Cowardice "why? Why send a group of women? Will my wife as me from participating in the defense of oil? If the answer to the last two questions is yes (and judging by the note of Campos Suárez, yes), then what is given is a sexist argument that denies the role of women in social movements. Merely assuming that Andrés Manuel sent women to the forefront of the fight means that women alone do not have initiative and decision-making in social movements. Without understanding that social struggle is also no equality between men and women, one must back up a bit and re-analyze the proposals of non-radical feminism. Not forgetting, of course, that equality raised by non-radical feminists claim that men are also involved in the struggle for equality. And do not forget that, oddly enough, many women are in many of their macho attitudes. Some examples of the involvement of women in social struggles:

- In April 1974, thousands of Portuguese women took to the streets to exchange flowers by bullets, putting carnations in their rifles from the soldiers. That day (but not only in response to the symbolic act that gave its name to the Carnation Revolution) the dictatorship that ruled Portugal from 1926 to be finished, he introduced a democratic state and finally the Portuguese colonies gained their independence.

- Djamila Amrane, a French woman raised in Algeria, was one of many involved in the national liberation movement in Algeria. She was arrested, convicted, and tortured by their ideas of liberation and activism within the movement.

- In the summer of 2006, in the movement of teachers in Oaxaca, and after the disqualification of several local radio stations, the rebels were found in a dirty war situation orchestrated by the federal government level across the country: commissioned the commercial media to discredit the movement. Not only that, the movement required to maintain a local information link with civil society was always willing to support them, to organize protests and appeal. Then, in view of the situation, a group of 2000 women took peacefully facilities Canal 9 Oaxaca Corporation of Radio and Television (owned by the state government). Almost immediately after the seizure of Channel 9, the women began to transmit information messages, messages of support to the struggle of the APPO, and to make complaints against arbitrary state government against civil society and teachers.

- The Zapatista movement in Chiapas was conceived in early 1994 is unique, among other reasons, he has made explicit as a goal of their struggle to include women in the movement and the requirement to respect their rights and defend the equality of men and women. As a result, the Zapatistas proclaimed a Revolutionary Law of Women, which will settle the specific demands of the movement on this issue. Not only that, 14 years after the onset of the movement, the Zapatista women in Chiapas (and not living in Chiapas, too) have been incorporated into the work of social movement in many ways. A noteworthy example is the Third Encuentro of Zapatista Women held in December 2007 in Chiapas. In it, the Zapatista women shared with other community women and women who came from outside, how they organize, their way of seeing life the way you do the movement, its achievements over the years.

adelitas The movement is not trivial or is a manifestation of the cowardice of a public figure. Is an example of the initiative taken by civil society groups to fight for a common goal, as in other social struggles.

continued ...