"Though the term communitarianism is of 20th-century origin, it is derived from the 1840s term communitarian, which was coined by Goodwyn Barmby to refer to one who was a member or advocate of a communalist society. The modern use of the term is a redefinition of the original sense. Many communitarians trace their philosophy to earlier thinkers. The term is primarily used in two senses:
There is not an easy answer to the question whether communitarianism is the best community system or not. While the people in my country feel that there is great injustice in the economic system that we have, it is not clear whether this is due to the system itself or the people that are implementing it and set the rules and regulations of the political and market system. Modern society need a different and more fair system and we need more fair multy-party political system to implement communitarianism in the form it was intended to protect all citizens.
AH THE UTOPIAN FANTASY OF COMMUNITARIANISM.
TO BE MORE FAIR, ALWAYS A DYSTOPIAN NIGHTMARE.
"When every call for fundamental change in American education is rebutted not by arguments about student achievement but by arguments focusing on race, class, social mixing, and other social concerns, it is difficult to imagine real progress. When teachers spend much of their day filling out forms, teaching quasi-academic subjects mandated from above, and boosting student self-esteem (as contrasted with serf-respect, which is earned rather than worked up), learning is difficult if not impossible."
We recently learned that Al and Tipper Gore are separating and that means the couple will eventually have to split their assets. When Al and Tipper Gore left the White House in 2001 the couples estimated worth was between $1-$2 million. Nine years later, Al and Tipper are worth between $100 and $200 million. There’s a lot of money in scaring people into believing that man is destroying the Earth and we’re all going to die.
Gore has been able to parlay his “concern” for the environment and global warming into a fortune- making him one of the wealthiest men in America… yes one of the same type of people liberals attack as evil. There are exceptions for rich liberals, however. You’re not evil if you make your money as a modern day snake oil salesman, scaring people with false science.
Concerned about the environment, Gore recently purchased an $8.8 million ocean-view villa in the gated community of Montecito, California. The 6,500-square-foot villa tucked on one-and-a-half acres of grounds includes a swimming pool, a spa, fountains, five bedrooms and nine baths. No carbon footprint there- Gore purchases “carbon exchanges” from one of his companies so he’s allowed to “pollute”. But wait, there’s more.
Gore also owns a multimillion-dollar home in Nashville, Tenn., a condo in San Francisco in addition to their home in the Washington area, an Arlington Tudor. They bought a 100-foot houseboat named, aptly, Bio-Solar One in 2008. And they own a farm in Carthage, Tenn., that includes a zinc mine. For someone so concerned about global warming and a “carbon footprint”, the man sure owns a lot of homes that he has to heat and cool.
During a fundraiser in Atlanta earlier this month, President Obama is reported to have said: "It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I really have enjoyed nice weather."
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.
The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without.
The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated.
There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.
Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.
Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of "General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had.
Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder.
Nightly television pictures of the tragic destruction from tornadoes over the past months might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due to the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. But as one can read at Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, dotearth, "There is no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even as global temperatures have risen markedly."
Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in ways that are correlated with the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Niño or La Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc.
As long as the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes. But we can save many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly—for example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered areas—than by credulous support of schemes to reduce "carbon footprints," or by funding even more computer centers to predict global warming.
It is easy to be confused about climate, because we are constantly being warned about the horrible things that will happen or are already happening as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels. But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions.
We need high-quality climate science because of the importance of climate to mankind. But we should also remember the description of how science works by the late, great physicist, Richard Feynman:
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."
The most important component of climate science is careful, long-term observations of climate-related phenomena, from space, from land, and in the oceans. If observations do not support code predictions—like more extreme weather, or rapidly rising global temperatures—Feynman has told us what conclusions to draw about the theory.
Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton.
1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
The cost of inaction could outweigh the financial costs of implementing Agenda 21. Inaction will narrow the choices of future generations.
33.8. All countries should assess how to translate Agenda 21 into national policies and programmes through a process that will integrate environment and development considerations. National and local priorities should be established by means that include public participation and community involvement, promoting equal opportunity for men and women.
Joy Pullman of School Reform News validates claims opponents of Common Core have been making regarding the fishy “state-led” adjective used to describe the initiative. Common Core supporters, like the Chamber of Commerce, have held fast to the talking point that this was a state-led effort, free from any federal control or influence. To believe anything else they warned, you must be a right-wing nut job or a birther.
According to the official Common Core Standards (CCS) website, the National Governor’s Association (NGA) is the official developer and owner of the copyright for the CCS. This is the basis for their argument that CCS is “state-led.” As with many arguments in support of Common Core, the facts simply do not stack up. Pullman states the following:
“Approximately half of NGA’s tax-provided revenue comes from the feds, and the other half from membership dues states pay. In its latest financial statement showing $16.9 million in total revenue for 2011-2012, $4.9 million of that came from the feds, $5.5 from states, and another $3 million from corporate sponsors.”
Supporters of CC create the impression that the governors, as a group, endorsed this initiative. But did they vote on it? Where can an ordinary citizen find out how their governor voted?
“NGA has not released what, if any, resolution 2009’s governors voted on to authorize its subsequent Common Core work. Neither has it released the vote tally.”
Which governors and corporations are members of NGA? Clearly, one would expect the members of the group responsible for the development and governance of our educational standards to be public. Nope, they don’t have to disclose that information and aren’t required to respond to FOIAs. We have also been led to believe all governors are willing participates in NGA, but Pullman finds the opposite;
“When other outlets have asked NGA about governors who want no part in NGA, spokesmen have responded by essentially saying governors cannot choose to leave. When Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) pulled out of NGA in 2012, telling the Bangor Daily News, ““I get no value out of those meetings. They are too politically correct and everybody is lovey-dovey and no decisions are ever made,” NGA’s communications director responded by saying all governors are NGA members even if they do not pay dues.”
Yikes, sounds like the Mafia, once your in there’s no way out. Common Core Standards written with federal money, behind closed doors under the influence of unknown private corporate interests. Sounds like a lot things, but state-led isn’t one of them. Read the entire article for the whole scoop. It’s quite good.