新生代农民工“市民化”思考

作为未来经济力量的主力军，新生代农民工的安定对现在以及未来社会的稳定和持续发展都有重要意义。与父辈农民工不同的是新生代农民工融入城市享受城市现代文明的渴望愈加强烈，可是从制度到心理到具体措施上我们的社会都还没有做好充分的接纳准备。推进“新市民运动”，让新生代农民工在城市扎下根来是破解当前新生代农民工问题的根本之道。     

城市农民工犯罪与社会治理

城市农民工是城市中的特殊群体,他们在城市发展中扮演着非常重要的角色。但由于受制度歧视,社会保障机制不完善,导致失业严重,加之自身素质低下,造成城市农民工的犯罪活动频繁发生,并以侵财型、犯罪数额少、季节性和团伙性为主要特征,这势必会影响到社会稳定。只有政府转变观念,消除制度歧视,建立涵盖城市农民工的社会保障体系;严格劳动法律法规的实施;加强农民工教育。这样,才能改善农民工的社会地位及生存状况,才能从根本上抑制农民工犯罪。     

从社会排斥的视角看城市农民工群体的弱势地位

本文简述了社会排斥的概念及其特征,从社会排斥的视角分析了农民工群体在城市中遭受的经济、政治、社会关系、制度设置等多重不利境遇,理清造成农民工多重弱势地位的机制,认为制度层面的社会排斥在其中起着关键作用,因此提出从户籍制度、土地流转机制、社会保障制度等重要的制度和政策入手,进行制度改革和创新,消除对农民工的社会排斥,促进农民工真正融入城市社会。     

公民权视域下农民工权益保护的社会政策支持

农民工是中国城市中一个特殊的社会群体,由于目前中国社会制度与政策的因素,他们在城市中不能与城市居民享有同等的政治、经济及社会权利,是典型的弱势群体.从公民权视角提出农民工权益保护的社会政策支持,有利于从根本上实现农民工的城市融入,消除社会排斥.维护农民工的公民权,就必须建立城乡统一的户籍管理制度、城乡平等的劳动就业政策、分类分层的劳动社会保障政策、农民工子女教育政策和住房保障政策.     

农民工犯罪心理问题研究

农民工是城市中的特殊群体,他们在城市发展中扮演着非常重要的角色,但由于受制度歧视,社会保障机制不完善,导致出现农民工犯罪问题。本文从构建和谐社会的角度思考,通过对农民工犯罪心理的分析,剖析引发农民工犯罪的主要原因,借用文化冲突理论,从社会、政府等角度来思考预防农民工犯罪的对策,以维护社会稳定,构建社会主义和谐社会。     

宽严相济刑事政策在农民工犯罪中的运用

在和谐社会的进程中,作为城市中特殊群体的农民工的犯罪问题日益突出。本文拟以宽严相济刑事政策在农民工犯罪中的运用为视角,研究农民工的犯罪现状、完善相关制度、确立具体可行的措施,以期对农民工犯罪进行有效的预防和治理。     

浅议城市平安建设中的农民工身份地位认定问题

"农民工"一词是二元社会结构、身份差别的产物。非农非工的模糊身份,带来的是农民工普遍的焦虑与不安,威胁的是城市的稳定与平安。必须改革户籍管理制度,制定和出台一系列保障农民工权益的政策和法规,并在思想观念上逐渐消除对农民工歧视和偏见,共同为城市的平安和谐建设出力。     

新生代农民工融城困境分析

改革开放以来,我国经济社会发展取得了巨大成就,其中农民工(包括新生代农民工)发挥了重要作用。新生代农民工在城市工作、生活,他们渴望留在城市、融入城市,但却面临着制度、发展、文化、婚恋等一系列融城困境,造成了他们的苦闷和困惑,也容易产生一些社会问题,认真分析和研究新生代农民工的融城困境,有利于我们制订针对性的政策和措施,帮助新生代农民工尽快融入城市生活,缓和新生代农民工问题。     

农民工法律援助制度的立法缺陷及空间构想

农民工群体是随着当代中国社会发展而产生的一个具有时代性内涵的特殊社会阶层。据国家统计局《2013年我国农民工调查监测报告》显示,截至2013年末,我国农民工总量达到2.69亿人。实践证明,农民工群体已经成为城市经济和社会发展的不可或缺的重要力量。但是基于历史、制度、法律及至文化等多方面的原因,农民工的城市生存际遇和发展空间面临着诸多的困境,在合法劳动权益保护方面显得尤其突出。很多农民工往往因为无力支付法律服务费用,从而在权益保护中处于不利地位。因此,申请法律援助便成为目前农民工维权一个至为重要的路径选择。     

浅议农民工权益的法律保护

农民工的权益保护问题一直都是备受社会关注的热点。随着城市经济的发展,大量农民工涌向城市,这些以农民身份跻身于城市人行列的特殊社会群体,在就业、劳动保障、工资待遇等诸多方面都与城市人口存在差异。因而他们的权益保护也面临着许多问题。农民工劳动权益受侵害情况严重,需要进行全方位的保护,不仅需要提高农民工自身的素质和法律意识,加强农民工的组织性;而且需要进一步完善法律体系,加大执法力度,建立法律援助机制,推进制度改革。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.