Suchergebnisse

This investigation examines a teachers' local (local 22 of the National Union of Education Workers of Mexico (SNTE)) in the Mexican state of Oaxaca and the effects of repression on the oligarchization of local 22. Using sociologist Robert Michels' theory of oligarchization known as the "iron law of oligarchy"—which claims that any democratic organization that becomes large enough to bureaucratize will inevitably become an oligarchy—as a framework, this investigation makes the argument that external influences, specifically government repression, can force an organization to become oligarchic, thus occupying an important, yet unexplored space within the "iron law" theory. Michels' theory focuses on an organizations' internal issues such as bureaucratization, centralization of power, and technical specialization of job positions as the factors that push an organization to become oligarchic without accounting for external issues faced by organizations that can also influence a shift to oligarchy. Through historical research, interviews of local 22 members, and observations carried out in Oaxaca City this investigation argues that intense government repression and violence against local 22 beginning in 2006 and continuing for the next ten years significantly affected local 22's shift toward oligarchy, more so than the bureaucratization and centralization that took place within the local.

Includes bibliographical references and index. ; Introduction: The manner of impropriety -- Rancière's partager -- Rancière's police poetics -- Rancière's style -- Rancière's democratic realism -- Conclusion: Demotic modernisms, popular occupations. ; Mode of access: Internet.

By C. Schaeffer [and] Dr. W. Albrecht. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article investigates how the two Norwegian newspapers Aftenposten and Dagbladet framed the reporting about Anders Behring Breivik (henceforth Breivik) in the aftermath of the terror attacks at the government building in Oslo, leaving eight dead behind, and the killing of 69 young people at the AUF youth summer camp on Utøya on 22 July 2011. On the basis of critical discourse analysis, Robert Entman's framing theory and theories about enemy images, we have analysed a selection of articles from a total sample of 1323 articles covering landmark periods related to the attacks of 22 July 2011: the immediate reaction (22–29 July); the meeting in court to prepare the trial (14–15 November); and the presentation of first psychiatric report (29–30 November). Did the media speculate, before Breivik's identity was known, on the possibility that Muslim extremists were responsible? An analysis of the editorials in Aftenposten and Dagbladet concludes that Aftenposten hypothesized that Muslims might be behind the attack, while Dagbladet mostly avoided such speculation. The divergence in representation is reiterated in the interviews the authors conducted with the two newspapers' editors. After Breivik's identity became known we found three dominating frames, the perpetrator as a 'right-wing extremist', as an 'insane person' or as an 'attention-seeker'. The framing analysis show that the 'insane' frame was the most usual in both Aftenposten and Dagbladet, followed by the 'extreme right wing' frame and 'the attention-seeker' frame. The article discusses how this framing might have influenced the long-term consequence for public debate in Norway. ; acceptedVersion

This document is a report titled "Report of the Student Faculty Hearing Committee of Springfield College concerning the occupation of the Administration Building, April 6, 1970." This document was written February 22, 1971 and is three pages. The report explains that all defendants are guilty in wrongfully occupying the building and lists the resulting penalties. The individuals guilty are listed under the policies they violated. The members of the Student Faculty Hearing Committee are also listed at the end of the report. There is writing on the first page of the report that says "Singled out for their political ideas?" and parts of the text are marked off and underlined. Who wrote this and marked the document is not known. ; In February of 1969, a group of black Springfield College students sent a memorandum to College President Wilbur E. Locklin, in which they state that they feel displeased with the prejudices suffered by the black community at the school. They go on to list nine demands of the school that would benefit the black community, such as the enrollment of 200 students into the incoming freshman class of '73, the addition of a black staff member to the admissions office, and the hiring of a black coach for one of the athletic teams. Later that year the faculty rejected the demands of the black students. The day after, a group of almost every black student on campus entered the Administration building and began to hurl insults at the administrative staff until all students, led by Dr. Jesse Parks (the only black faculty member on campus at the time), left the building voluntarily and marched across campus and then off campus. Later that year, President Locklin began plans to build an experimental black cultural center at the school. In March of the next year, unsatisfied with the progress of civil rights at the school, a group of 49 students and several "outsiders" enter the Massasoit Hall dormitory, forcibly ejecting the students on the third floor and taking control of it. The protesting students would remain there for two days, until the college obtained a Superior Court civil injunction and the Sheriff's Department led all the occupiers out of the building and onto a motor coach bus to bring them directly to court. No one was sentenced to jail time, but all were fined. All the students were dismissed and ordered to stay off campus "for their own safety." In addition, the college leveled their own fines and required to serve 300 hundred hours of community service before students would be considered, individually, for re-admittance to Springfield College. Most of the students chose not to return. Nearly two years after the first incident, student protestors again seized the Administration Building on April 6, 1970, this time by white students in protest of the perceived "double jeopardy" placed on the black students in that they were punished by both the Superior Court and the College. The students were arrested by police and charged with trespassing and were later expelled from school. The students sued the college in Probate Court because the college judicial system offered no due process to students. The court agreed and prevented the college from proceeding against any of the occupiers until a new judicial system was in place and approved by the court. During the Collegium that took place over the summer of 1970, college officials determined that the students that were removed from campus should be invited back by the President, and, if they chose to return, participate in a series of workshops with a group of College representatives to improve black-white relationships on campus. The list of black demands continued to be worked upon by administration, and some of the demands of black students were met gradually over the next several years. ; The report also has some small stains and tears on the bottom of the paper.

Using the currency demand and DYMIMIC approaches estimates are presented about the size of the shadow economy in 22 Transition and 21 OECD countries. Over 2001/2002 in 21 OECD countries is the average size of the shadow economy (in percent of official GDP) 16.7% of ?official? GDP and of 22 Transition countries 38.0%. The average size of the shadow economy labor force (in percent of the population of working age) of the year 1998/99 in 7 OECD-countries is 15.3% and in 22 Transition countries is 30.2%. An increasing burden of taxation and social security contributions combined with rising state regulatory activities are the driving forces for the growth and size of the shadow economy (labor force).

Research supported by the Aerophysics Laboratory, Geophysics Research Directorate, Air Force Cambridge Research Center, Air Research and Development Command, United States Air Force, Bedford, Massachusetts. ; "December 1959." ; Includes bibliographical references (page 14). ; Mode of access: Internet.

Signatures: a⁴ b² A-2C⁴ 2D². ; Engraved frontispiece, port. of author, 18 engraved plates. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; In Getty copy port. of author trimmed and mounted on support leaf. ; Printed label of Omar G. Goffi, ingegnere militare. Property stamp of Pierpaolo Vaccarino. Unidentified armorial property stamp and signature on t.p. Signature of Nicolò Pucetti on p. 1 and 182. ; Binding: later sprinkled paper, half mottled sheepskin. Spine tooled in gilt, with author & title on label. Edges red.

The mobility of people and goods with motorized vehicles is developing so fast as a result of increasing welfare and advances in transportation technology. This has an impact on the increasing frequency of traffic accidents with victims of drivers and road users. There are three main factors that cause accidents, the first is the human factor, the second is the vehicle factor and the last is the road factor. From this road factor, the author discusses the causes of traffic accidents, in Article 273 of Law Number 22 of 2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transportation regulates the Government's responsibility for accidents due to damaged roads. For the use of legal theory in research as an analytical tool for discussing legal events or facts proposed in the thesis research problem, the theory used is the theory of responsibility and the theory of law enforcement. The author uses empirical or sociological research methods. Factors constraining the Government in implementing Article 273 of Law No. 22 of 2009 concerning traffic are the absence of a Government Regulation that regulates in more detail those relating to Article 273. Regarding who is responsible for the operation of the road. This uncertainty can have an impact on the application of article 273 by law enforcement. People who do not report accidents caused by damaged roads or potholes. For various reasons there are those who do not know and there are those who do not want to deal with law enforcement officers, who consider accidents to be a disaster then the factors of law enforcement officials themselves and the laws made by the government are not implemented because they are related to government accountability.