7th May 2009, 06:53 PM
I really think we are being unfair here.
I don't think this is an attack on what makes the world go round.
Yanis seems to be tackling the concept of strategic planning to development
but that would require archaeological theoretical engagement with the planning process at local government level.
The only issue I see in this notion is the practicalities of theoretical engagement on practice, given that our sources of funding are not borne from sequential information gathering for an educationally minded ear.
the ar4ea he refers to would be the local governments involvement on merging development with the educational syllabus of the schooling system.
Where we begin to fall at this idea is that you need to have a real understanding to the principles of nationalism and even the fascists possibilities of educating towards too narrow an area and population.
Its dangerous territory for high intellectualism, where university lecturers are not teaching at a local level to children.
To be honest though I think that is the idea.
That is rather than the inference of taxation for real research.
We really must think about this from their perspective as much as our own.
We are skilled, they say we are skilled.
The situation is that they dialogues are on different paralllels.
txt is
Mike