Suchergebnisse

In this study it is intended to review the history of the finances of the Public School system. The reasons for certain changes will not be sought, except where they obviously grow out of the financial conditions of the time. Religious, social, popular or political motives will not be considered. The figures published by the Department of Education frm time to time will be examined. The message these figures carry to the man on the street will be noted and their real significance sought. A comparison will be made between the Government Grant and the amounts obtained from Local Levies. The Cost of Education will be computed upon different bases. Both the tendency and the result of the prevailing system of financing will be considered. The work and some of the recommendations of the Murray Commission will be noted. Various suggestions for enlarging the basis of support reducing the cost and readjusting the burden of school support will be examined. The plan for separating Municipal and School District finances will be examined as well as some other phases of the situation that may be suggested as the study is carried forward and it is possible some practical suggestions may be made.

39 pages, 10 tables.-- Pre-print archive. ; The four dimensional gauged supergravities descending from non-geometric string compactifications involve a wide class of flux objects which are needed to make the theory invariant under duality transformations at the effective level. Additionally, complex algebraic conditions involving these fluxes arise from Bianchi identities and tadpole cancellations in the effective theory. In this work we study a simple T and S-duality invariant gauged supergravity, that of a type IIB string compactified on a Bbb T6/Bbb Z2 × Bbb Z2 orientifold with O3/O7-planes. We build upon the results of recent works and develop a systematic method for solving all the flux constraints based on the algebra structure underlying the fluxes. Starting with the T-duality invariant supergravity, we find that the fluxes needed to restore S-duality can be simply implemented as linear deformations of the gauge subalgebra by an element of its second cohomology class. Algebraic geometry techniques are extensively used to solve these constraints and supersymmetric vacua, centering our attention on Minkowski solutions, become systematically computable and are also provided to clarify the methods. ; We are grateful to B. de Carlos and A. Font for useful comments and references and, in particular, to P. G. C´amara for useful discussions and sharing with us a preliminary version of [33] and J. M. Moreno for valuable discussions and comments. A.G. acknowledges the financial support of a FPI (MEC) grant reference BES-2005-8412 as well as the School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, for hospitality and support at several stages of this paper. G. J. W. is grateful for the support of a Scholarship from the University of Southampton and also the Instituto de F´ısica Te´orica UAM/CSIC, for hospitality and support. This work has been partially supported by CICYT, Spain, under contract FPA 2007-60252, the European Union through the Marie Curie Research and Training Networks "Quest for Unification" (MRTN-CT-2004-503369) and UniverseNet (MRTN-CT-2006-035863) and the Comunidad de Madrid through Proyecto HEPHACOS S-0505/ESP-0346. ; Peer reviewed

Biographical record. ; Thesis (PH. D.)--Columbia unversity. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Critical questions must be asked of the Howard government's assumptions about the regional and global future. Specifically, the assumption that our long term national interests are indeed consistent with the global strategic interests of the United States, not just in Iraq but also in relation to a broader ambition concerning global preponderance which, I suggest, has been evident in US foreign policy thinking in one form or another since World War Two, and which has been energetically rekindled by the current US administration. In this regard strategic experts such as Paul Dibb and Hugh White are entirely justified in warning the Howard government of the dangers of signing up to this larger US ambition, and the Financial Review, similarly prescient, in its representation of the Iraq conflict as 'the first of many wars' on a future US agenda committed to regime change in the Middle East and beyond. My own concerns regarding Australia's future relate to this agenda and to the militaristic mind-set associated with it which, it seems to me, is likely to provoke the very instability and disorder it ostensibly seeks to quell, thus increasing regional and global insecurity. And this is a distinct possibility if, as John Lewis Gaddis has proposed, the Iraq war is indeed the first step in democratically 'transforming the entire Muslim Middle East' (Gaddis 2002). Such an outcome has a certain appeal, of course, but if one ponders for a moment the means by which this transformation is to be initially achieved-via either the long-term US occupation of Iraq or the imposition of US backed puppet regimes in Iraq and throughout the 'Muslim Middle East' -its appeal very quickly begins to fade. It fades even more rapidly if one ponders the even larger context in which regime change in the Middle East is but a part-that which sees the US planning a strategy of global regime change as the 21st century unfolds.

The re-election of the George W. Bush administration in November 2003 and the unrelenting hard-line perspectives subsequently articulated by the President and senior foreign and defence policy figures, has led to much controversy within the US and the international community in general. Concern in particular has been expressed at the continuing influences upon the President of neoconservative thinkers and activists in and around his administration and the impact, more generally, of neoconservatism upon the key decision-making processes concerning the current war in Iraq and the post-9/11 'war on terror'. This paper concentrates primarily on the 'why' questions concerning the neoconservative ascendency - questions of why it understands the world the way it does - of why it is committed to radically changing both liberal and (traditional) conservative approaches to US foreign policy and the traditional systemic order. The paper suggests that intrinsic to this understanding and commitment, for some of the most significant of contemporary neoconservatives, is the work and legacy of Leo Strauss (1898-1973). There is contention associated with precisely what Strauss' dense and (consciously) ambiguous writings sought to convey to his readers. In this paper, I propose that for Straussian inspired neoconservatives his meaning and its implications are clear enough, in the (interpreted) injunction to wrench political and cultural power from the (perceived) liberal establishment in the US, and to forcefully and unapologetically impose American power, values and hegemonic design upon the global system, for the long-term good of that system. More precisely, I argue, neoconservatives have drawn from Strauss a thematic agenda of sorts which emphasizes; the re-invocation of strong nationalism and cultural unity in modern western societies; the value of a simple religious and philosophical morality, and (ultimately) of a 'war culture' as the basis of maintaining such unity; the use of maximum force by the Western democracies in the face of endemic threat; and of a more general 'peace through strength' approach to foreign policy by the US, the political and ideological leader of modern Western civilisation. From Strauss too has come the notion that elite rule is crucial if post-Enlightenment liberalism is not to further threaten the (classical) democratic model of governance, and that the neoconservative elite has the right and indeed the obligation to lie to the masses in order that the 'right' political and strategic decisions be made and implemented. Hence, the use of the so-called 'noble lie'. I explore elements of this 'Straussian' agenda in this paper, emphasizing its significance for US and global politics in general and, in more specific terms, for the war in Iraq. The paper concludes with a discussion of the way in which Straussian and broader neoconservative influences were integral to the processes by which the 'shock and awe' attacks of March, 2003 were rationalized and legitimated within the Bush administration, via some eminently (ig)noble lies.

The re-election of the George W. Bush administration in November 2003 and the unrelenting hard-line perspectives subsequently articulated by the President and senior foreign and defence policy figures, has led to much controversy within the US and the international community in general. Concern in particular has been expressed at the continuing influences upon the President of neoconservative thinkers and activists in and around his administration and the impact, more generally, of neoconservatism upon the key decision-making processes concerning the current war in Iraq and the post-9/11 'war on terror'. This paper concentrates primarily on the 'why' questions concerning the neoconservative ascendency - questions of why it understands the world the way it does - of why it is committed to radically changing both liberal and (traditional) conservative approaches to US foreign policy and the traditional systemic order. The paper suggests that intrinsic to this understanding and commitment, for some of the most significant of contemporary neoconservatives, is the work and legacy of Leo Strauss (1898-1973). There is contention associated with precisely what Strauss' dense and (consciously) ambiguous writings sought to convey to his readers. In this paper, I propose that for Straussian inspired neoconservatives his meaning and its implications are clear enough, in the (interpreted) injunction to wrench political and cultural power from the (perceived) liberal establishment in the US, and to forcefully and unapologetically impose American power, values and hegemonic design upon the global system, for the long-term good of that system. More precisely, I argue, neoconservatives have drawn from Strauss a thematic agenda of sorts which emphasizes; the re-invocation of strong nationalism and cultural unity in modern western societies; the value of a simple religious and philosophical morality, and (ultimately) of a 'war culture' as the basis of maintaining such unity; the use of maximum force by the Western democracies in the face of endemic threat; and of a more general 'peace through strength' approach to foreign policy by the US, the political and ideological leader of modern Western civilisation. From Strauss too has come the notion that elite rule is crucial if post-Enlightenment liberalism is not to further threaten the (classical) democratic model of governance, and that the neoconservative elite has the right and indeed the obligation to lie to the masses in order that the 'right' political and strategic decisions be made and implemented. Hence, the use of the so-called 'noble lie'. I explore elements of this 'Straussian' agenda in this paper, emphasizing its significance for US and global politics in general and, in more specific terms, for the war in Iraq. The paper concludes with a discussion of the way in which Straussian and broader neoconservative influences were integral to the processes by which the 'shock and awe' attacks of March, 2003 were rationalized and legitimated within the Bush administration, via some eminently (ig)noble lies.