Sociologist Views On Anorexia In Sociology

No soy landowners. Not the government. If the peasant struggle and agrarian reform. Che Tango Che

No statistics or difficult words.

order not to lose the habit of Mass Communication (MMC) told us bad history. They were wrong again. Address the problem of the field facing the media got only two actors: The field and the government, compared to only one problem: The deductions. Only two players . The field represented by agricultural institutions, including the two that had the word: FAA (Federación Agraria Argentina) and SRA (Sociedad Rural Argentina). On the opposite side who had the word was "the lady of human rights" (and now "redistribution of wealth") C. F de Kirchner, with his (former) young minister.

all started when you ran far increase export taxes. words, the state is now more of the money coming into the country's agricultural export. In theory, the end of this appropriation of part of agricultural income is to redistribute wealth. In summary they are removed a portion of money from the rich to give to the poor. Because of this, the various farming the strike began.

Cristina seemed far re progress of the action taken, until it appeared a conceptual division within the field: small, medium and large producers. This is where the FAA raised the banner of small producers, by inserting in the media discourse that can not be retained everyone equally (serious error of K, they began to complicate). The rates of withholding income should have changed according to the producers. Ie those who earn little bit and hold them that much gain for the state to retain a lot. More progress is still the proposed small farmers and ordinary people.

peasant movements in (and me after writing this summary) have some questions:

Where do silver goes retentions, the fiscal surplus and reserves millionaire? Why agricultural entities claim to defend small producers, while some Member businesses of these entities have hired thugs (if such as Kristina) to evict small farmers in Santiago del Estero, as a report by the MOCASE. In the statement of the peasant movement in Córdoba on this problem are asking "if a farmer of 300 acres of soybeans are small, what type of producer is one who has 30 goats and a grow-group of garlic and onions? In all this, can soy did not land crap? Are we going to defend transnational groups have a policy of soybean production? "The field is a single united group as seen in the mass media?

Since the problem started "the field" means painted this as a homogeneous group, which is not true. The field is not one represented by agricultural institutions. The field is also divided in two: on one hand "excluded small farmers defending their land and their culture" most of which are part of the Indian National Peasant Movement (Via Campesina) formed by movements like Mocase of Santiago del Estero, or movements of Cordoba, Mendoza and Salta. And these are added some "small producers if they are nucleated to the FAA defending their right to work."

Opposed to this group (not named by the media) are the oligarchs of the various farming landowners and ambitious hardened by the accumulation of capital, comrades in the military trial of 1976 and the historical and current political right. These "owners" of the earth maintains a model of food production whose sole purpose is profit and concentration of wealth in few hands "based on the monoculture of soybean seeds, fertilizers and herbicides (pesticides). This model of production (soybean monoculture) in Argentina brought some of the following consequences: "In the period 2002-2006 in the country ceased to exist 1,108,669 hectares of forest 277 000 hectares per year, equivalent to 760 per day, 32 acres per hour. The same Ministry stresses that deforestation occurs to target those areas for agriculture, primarily soybeans. According to these official figures, while the area planted with soybeans progresses, disappearing farms (including large proportion of dairy farms). In 1988 there were 422,000 farms in the country, which fell to 318,000 in 2002. "(Diary Page 12: Monday, March 31, 2008, by Dario Aranda).

would be nice if the story is only a government that retains a higher percentage of their profits to the rich to give to the poor. But here are two paradoxes that shows me that the story is so simple:

no way to see what is going public spending (and that famous redistribution of wealth) so if you see is poverty, hunger , violence, inhumane living conditions, food parcels and welfare plans (eg. see Family Plan) from the government condemning poverty to the masses. What about income redistribution?

The K to the president and all his people is to retain a larger share of the cake from the landowners to give to the poor, making the deductions the main means of raising the country ignoring the destruction and disabling of the land and maintaining the land and capital accumulation in a few hands. I ask a question to Mrs. Cristina Does the end justify the means? Ie is it worth the redistribution of income and disabling polluting the earth? How beautiful I ... ... ...

Why no one spoke of the consequences that brings a country to have acres and acres of soybeans? And if he spoke. Why no one said then that our president supports the destruction of the planet as (almost) all the presidents of this development model as it is perverse Neoliberalism. Why middle class does not cut the path for the problem of soy as it did with the paper?

We're a little confused. Before talking about whether they are right or wrong deductions should speak for urgent reform. Land that does not accumulate in few hands, that does not promote monoculture soybean (deforestation, land degradation, land consolidation, rural population expulsion and reduced food security), not having the sole purpose of profitability , they returned to their ancestral lands. The tortilla becomes bread for the poor and the rich eat shit shit !!!!!!

KPC

Funbrain Swarm The Game

Why Tango word to many people and especially teenagers it is reminiscent of "old stuff" foreign thing "?

Why else would say "listen to tango" and you have less than 50 years as people look at you strangely if you said something wrong?

Actually I do not know what answer to give to these questions. I know the Tango for many is something old, something of the past. And think of anything more terrible, outsiders appreciate and know more about "our" 2x4 ourselves. Or how many know who these payments was Leopoldo Federico, Astor Piazzolla, Julio Sosa, Enrique Santos Discepolo, Homero Manzi? Do not think I'm a crafty old defends and boasts a golden past. Nothing to do, I'm a kid of 22 who intends to hold on to some of the culture of their land, a few letters that tell the history of his country, describing their people, their sorrows and glories. I'm not nationalistic or anything, I never understood what that means. For me, the Tango has nothing to do with Argentina in the abstract, the Tango is, was and will be a piece of Argentina and its people, a popular rhythm, a way of saying and singing. I hate the Tango as "chic" as something dead and museum. I love a live Tango based on their rhythms, joys and sorrows of this, a tango to read and report and record the story in his lyrics. But first I would like especially my generation start to hear Tango or at least you know what it is and not only reduce "Gardel Abasto, and a few more platitudes.

From this article I will begin to tell the story of Tango, to claim certain characters, to show some works of art, giving life to something that seems dead and basically make them see that the tango is embedded in us although we do not mind, how or where they believe the words came chabón, Bagay, whispering? ... The language and symbolism Tango is our language and symbols (or who does not have mate with cookies, or tell "old" mother)

closing I leave to go a definition of Tango (which rescues Horacio Salas in his book "The Tango ") by Discepolo (someone already going to talk and a lot ...):" It's a sad thought that is danced "

ah, I almost forgot, if you will leave a comment, as this is a blog there is a possibility of return ...

DAM

Flaming Hot Cheetos Health Outcomes

No woman is born to a bitch and a half

" ALL SYSTEMS FOR MALES AND FRONT OF THE WOMAN IS A BITCH, DIE LIVING SYSTEMS Whores "

" No woman is born to a bitch ", a title as a woman I called our attention.
At the top a picture that hits, the reflection of the world I'm about to discover in its pages.
I will try to convey the most important concepts (considered by me) posed by this book.

The word "SLUT" Ni
social worker or prostitute or chaperone. HOOKER. False names and meanings of dignity, impositions labels, labels.
Puta is a stronger word, do not like, to a woman paralyzed, he ignites a conflict with itself, that is why the state prefers a drowsy world happier calling "sex worker" as if that would be more dignified , or the worst of everything as if it were a job.
If called whores, feel the need to move and to see themselves as such.

State Pimp:
An accomplice State, which keeps them in place.
handouts, food boxes, others are lining up and ready. A State which is not interested in removal from the place where you are, the only thing is to keep it there without giving them any chance to see beyond.
lives of the prostitute, her body, she can produce with your body.
With the box makes them believe that helping, who receive it because "they deserve it," I do believe that they are facing a "generous state."
All he wants is that they do not think, they remain dormant, they do not dare to question. Programs of "social assistance" are not just plans to continue holding it like it is.
You need to humiliate, to let you know you eat thanks to him that the rest of society because you're aware that the state is fucking great kindness and courtesy of giving you linings.
There is no policy to try to end prostitution, of course that no one cares because it is a big business that moves a lot of money. Only interested in continued existence, in order to remain profitable. The woman becomes a commodity and as such only serves to fill some pockets.

complex society:
We are all complicit. Prostitution in our society is not frowned upon. That is, this improper for women to be a bitch, not the man to prostitution or to consume.
Who did not debut with a whore? Who was not whores friends? And who judges that?. Nobody, nobody seems to be wrong or immoral. Nobody questions the act of men, the role they play in this business.
The world has natural male consumption of women's bodies do not have the will nor the ability to recognize as "prostituyentes."
Man is the most straightforward case, but there are a part of this society.
The lady did not want to bitch at the door of his house, but if you do in the next block does not care. He does not care that your child, your husband or your neighbor's drink. No matter what happens to this woman, your situation, if the total is a whore and has no right.
Not to mention the complicity of the police, political, Fiol, etc. They are nothing more and nothing less than "partners." A Fiol gets in the interests of prostituyente or police. No one bothers the other. No one bothers you unless a whore prostitution.
As a woman I am convinced that no woman is born to PUTA, any enjoys selling her body, to be submitted to reify, to be priced.
I maintain that no one chooses for itself to use it as one thing, they are just a body for sex.
situations, environments, needs, lack of education, system, society, things that affect freedom of choice. So no choice.
From here I want to throw the first stone to know what you think you: Are there women who choose to be whores? "Some people decide to be on its own will?

hope their views and justifications

Link dodnde can find / get the book "No woman is born to a bitch" http://lavaca.org/especiales/editora/ninguna-mujer-nace-para-puta.html

Noelia Mariel Mercuri