I'm a bit surprised that political commentators are still staying united on the "Tony Abbott has been impressive in his response to MH17" line, when it is looking increasingly obvious that the number of people he has been sending to Europe (I'm not sure of the total figure now - at least 50 AFP, but seemingly 200 in other reports) to cool their heels while waiting to see if they can ever get to the crash site has been over the top and rather wasteful.
Surely there are others who have been skeptical of his judgement in this matter, right from the start?
Monday, July 28, 2014
Pot calls out kettle
Judith Sloan, of all people, hates it when someone seems to have a one track mind on matters economic:
(To be fair - which is something she rarely is - there was that brief episode a few years ago where Sloan herself did promote the idea of increasing unemployment benefits. I still don't think it was ever repeated at Catallaxy, as such a radical proposal would upset the small government luvvies no end.)
More significantly, Judith is promoting at that post some research that indicates income inequality in Australia is not increasing (at least if you look at the top 1%.)
Ha! She says - take that in your pipe and smoke it, Joe.
Of course, what she fails to comment on is the rest of the graph indicating the trend is way different in most other countries, and the fact is, (if these numbers are right) it is something which the Abbott welfare changes look designed to change for the worse.
I don't see that citing this is any reason to ignore Stiglitz's warning that it is not a good idea to move in policy ideas towards the USA.
UPDATE:
In the thread, I see that Sinclair Davidson comes on out and proud that income distribution counts for naught:
Thank God that Joe Stiglitz has left our fair shores: all that ill-informed, gratuitous advice was really getting out of hand. And all complete tosh: Stiglitz has never come across a problem which is not solved by more government spending or regulation.I assume it's a matter of great distress to her, then, that her fellow economic commentators at Catallaxy have never met a problem which is not solved by less government spending or regulation?
(To be fair - which is something she rarely is - there was that brief episode a few years ago where Sloan herself did promote the idea of increasing unemployment benefits. I still don't think it was ever repeated at Catallaxy, as such a radical proposal would upset the small government luvvies no end.)
More significantly, Judith is promoting at that post some research that indicates income inequality in Australia is not increasing (at least if you look at the top 1%.)
Ha! She says - take that in your pipe and smoke it, Joe.
Of course, what she fails to comment on is the rest of the graph indicating the trend is way different in most other countries, and the fact is, (if these numbers are right) it is something which the Abbott welfare changes look designed to change for the worse.
I don't see that citing this is any reason to ignore Stiglitz's warning that it is not a good idea to move in policy ideas towards the USA.
UPDATE:
In the thread, I see that Sinclair Davidson comes on out and proud that income distribution counts for naught:
This is a case of devotion to economic ideology overwhelming common sense.
In anti tattoo news
I missed a piece in The Guardian last week by someone who notes reluctantly that "even nice people" are getting tattoos.
As with any article that indicates a skerrick of disdain for the all encompassing trend for tattooing, there follows several thousand comments on the subject: the "inked" complaining about people who criticise their fashion decisions, but a fair few people who seem to be relieved to be expressing their dislike of tattoos generally and their hope that this long lived fad will finally start to fade.
Of course it is true that "nice" people are getting many tattoos. I think it is also beyond doubt that the artistic merit of what a huge number they choose to have (more or less) permanently inscribed on their bodies fits within the definition of kitsch. As far as I'm concerned, kitsch is of interest in small doses - it's the ubiquity of it in the form of tattooing that is off putting, as well as the insistence now that it be on parts of the body which are pretty much on permanent display in a warm climate.
I don't quite understand why no one would have a problem with a column in which the number of (say) "dogs playing poker" prints being sold (I assume they hit some peak a few decades ago?) was ridiculed; but write about the number of skulls turning up on "normal" - and yes, quite nice - people's forearms these days and it's now considered somewhat off limits by many.
In other anti tattoo stories from last week, Catalyst had an interesting one about how it, and laser removal, works scientifically.
As with any article that indicates a skerrick of disdain for the all encompassing trend for tattooing, there follows several thousand comments on the subject: the "inked" complaining about people who criticise their fashion decisions, but a fair few people who seem to be relieved to be expressing their dislike of tattoos generally and their hope that this long lived fad will finally start to fade.
Of course it is true that "nice" people are getting many tattoos. I think it is also beyond doubt that the artistic merit of what a huge number they choose to have (more or less) permanently inscribed on their bodies fits within the definition of kitsch. As far as I'm concerned, kitsch is of interest in small doses - it's the ubiquity of it in the form of tattooing that is off putting, as well as the insistence now that it be on parts of the body which are pretty much on permanent display in a warm climate.
I don't quite understand why no one would have a problem with a column in which the number of (say) "dogs playing poker" prints being sold (I assume they hit some peak a few decades ago?) was ridiculed; but write about the number of skulls turning up on "normal" - and yes, quite nice - people's forearms these days and it's now considered somewhat off limits by many.
In other anti tattoo stories from last week, Catalyst had an interesting one about how it, and laser removal, works scientifically.
The sensible Gittins
The "I'm an economist and you're not" folk of Catallaxy hate him, which is a pretty decent sign that he's probably right most of the time.
Ross Gittin's column this morning makes common sense on the budget. For example:
Ross Gittin's column this morning makes common sense on the budget. For example:
There are many ways to skin the budget cat – some fairer or more sensible than others – and it's absurd for the government and its barrackers to pretend, Maggie Thatcher-like, that the measures proposed in the budget are the only alternative to irresponsible populism.
Anyone who knows anything about successful "fiscal consolidation" knows it invariably involves a combination of spending cuts and tax increases (including reductions in tax concessions – "tax expenditures").
And anyone who knows much about economics knows there's little empirical evidence to support the ideology that economies with high levels of government spending and taxation don't perform as well as those with low levels.
Yet Hockey and Abbott thought it sensible to propose a 10-year budget plan that relied almost exclusively on cuts in government spending – apart from the temporary deficit levy and much-unacknowledged bracket creep.
Keating points out that, combining all levels of government as a percentage of gross domestic product, Australia already has the lowest budget deficit and public debt compared with Canada, Japan, Britain, the US and the OECD average.
At 26.5 per cent, our level of total taxation seems higher than the Americans' 24 per cent, until you remember their budget deficit is 5 percentage points higher than ours. So the claim that we have a bloated, "unsustainable" level of government spending is itself unsustainable.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
The parsnip post
Wikipedia gives a good background to the parsnip, and there are many things about this vegetable which make it rather intriguing:
1. Cold ground improves it. Every article I have read about them refers to their sweetness, but this apparently is mainly brought on by their going through frosts before being pulled out of the ground. This may well explain why I have never considered them particularly sweet - I assume there are few grown in Australia that are held in the ground until a frost has sweetened them up. I like their flavour in any case: they have a spicier, earthier vibe compared to the fairly bland carrot (which, in Australia, I would generally consider sweeter than any parsnip I've eaten.)
This ability to winter over in the ground appears to have been a positive for their cultivation. See this from a column in the Washington Post:
There was a detailed article on the philology of the parsnip written in 1958 which you can see in preview. It appears certain that Pliny was at least sometimes referring to parsnips specifically, but whether the author throws doubt on the Tiberius story remains unknown to me. Maybe some reader will pay the $4 for the full article and let me know.
In any event, this short explanation (from this book) of the expansion of the parsnip from ancient Roman times into the rest of Europe seems good:
3. They are unduly expensive everywhere. Parsnips cost about $10 a kilo in Brisbane at the moment, but if you Google the topic "Why are parsnips so expensive", you'll find that their high cost has been mentioned on the internet in many countries, including England, France and America. As far as I can make out, they are a finicky vegetable to grow, with low and slow germination rates from seed, and perhaps slow growing generally. I also guess that if people know them for their sweetness, they may not bother growing them if they can't be sure they will get a frost before harvest.
It's no wonder carrots are the ubiquitous root vegetable - they are frequently so incredibly cheap in the supermarket, I am often surprised that farmers make any profit from them. I know from childhood that they are dead easy to grow at home too.
4. Parsnips lost out to the potato. The parsnip made a successful journey across to North America, but you can Google up a chapter in a book Disappearing Foods that is called Parsnips - now you see them, now you don't, which talks about how the vegetable slipped out of popular use from perhaps the 18th century particularly in Italy and the Netherlands. Much of the blame apparently goes to the potato, being a more reliable and easily grown crop. Apart from this, the book does make this observation about the parsnip in Dutch art:
5. In art, when is a parsnip just a parsnip? In my previous post, I have examples of parsnips in various European paintings (although, to be honest, I haven't even looked up yet where the last two oddball paintings come from.)
But one of the more enjoyable posts about parsnips I have read was this one, which speculates whether parsnips were (at least sometimes) deliberately put in paintings to represent sex or lust. As the writer notes, the carrot and parsnips both had developed a reputation as an aphrodisiac, one suspects for no other reason than their vaguely phallic shape:
She also wonders why they would turn up on the table at the Last Supper, but I guess I've solved that one already in my research - presumably, they are taken to be a symbol of the nails of the cross in that case. (Either that or else Dan Brown will have some explanation involving sex.)
6. Eat, but don't touch. One of the stranger things about the parsnip as a plant is that its sap, on skin contact, can sometimes cause a serious "burn" reaction in sunlight. Have a look at this woman from England who got bad blisters from her garden parsnips.
Articles from North America talk about the same problem with respect to wild parsnips. The way the sap hurts sounds complicated:
7. That is all.
Update: Actually, there was another parsnip story I read some weeks ago about a farmer (English, I think) who made a killing on the sales of parsnips from his field one winter, as they were one of the few crops still available due to their ability to "over winter". I can't find the source for that now, but will keep looking. Any story of a person who got rich from parsnips seems noteworthy.
1. Cold ground improves it. Every article I have read about them refers to their sweetness, but this apparently is mainly brought on by their going through frosts before being pulled out of the ground. This may well explain why I have never considered them particularly sweet - I assume there are few grown in Australia that are held in the ground until a frost has sweetened them up. I like their flavour in any case: they have a spicier, earthier vibe compared to the fairly bland carrot (which, in Australia, I would generally consider sweeter than any parsnip I've eaten.)
This ability to winter over in the ground appears to have been a positive for their cultivation. See this from a column in the Washington Post:
Nevertheless, nothing else does what the parsnip does: rest in the ground all winter with no need for root cellar storage. After a few fall frosts it develops a sweetness that no carrot has ever bested, and it sustains that all the way into mid-spring. You can dig it any time the ground is not frozen, but it is most treasured as the earliest fresh harvest of the year.2. Food of the Emperor - we think. Emperor Tiberius, according to Pliny, took annual tribute from a part of Germany in parsnips. The only confusion appears to be whether Pliny really meant parsnips, as the carrot of the day could be pretty pale too, and there seems to still be much uncertainly about which of these vegetables any writer of that era was referring to.
There was a detailed article on the philology of the parsnip written in 1958 which you can see in preview. It appears certain that Pliny was at least sometimes referring to parsnips specifically, but whether the author throws doubt on the Tiberius story remains unknown to me. Maybe some reader will pay the $4 for the full article and let me know.
In any event, this short explanation (from this book) of the expansion of the parsnip from ancient Roman times into the rest of Europe seems good:
3. They are unduly expensive everywhere. Parsnips cost about $10 a kilo in Brisbane at the moment, but if you Google the topic "Why are parsnips so expensive", you'll find that their high cost has been mentioned on the internet in many countries, including England, France and America. As far as I can make out, they are a finicky vegetable to grow, with low and slow germination rates from seed, and perhaps slow growing generally. I also guess that if people know them for their sweetness, they may not bother growing them if they can't be sure they will get a frost before harvest.
It's no wonder carrots are the ubiquitous root vegetable - they are frequently so incredibly cheap in the supermarket, I am often surprised that farmers make any profit from them. I know from childhood that they are dead easy to grow at home too.
4. Parsnips lost out to the potato. The parsnip made a successful journey across to North America, but you can Google up a chapter in a book Disappearing Foods that is called Parsnips - now you see them, now you don't, which talks about how the vegetable slipped out of popular use from perhaps the 18th century particularly in Italy and the Netherlands. Much of the blame apparently goes to the potato, being a more reliable and easily grown crop. Apart from this, the book does make this observation about the parsnip in Dutch art:
5. In art, when is a parsnip just a parsnip? In my previous post, I have examples of parsnips in various European paintings (although, to be honest, I haven't even looked up yet where the last two oddball paintings come from.)
But one of the more enjoyable posts about parsnips I have read was this one, which speculates whether parsnips were (at least sometimes) deliberately put in paintings to represent sex or lust. As the writer notes, the carrot and parsnips both had developed a reputation as an aphrodisiac, one suspects for no other reason than their vaguely phallic shape:
In 1563 Culpeper states: "The garden Parsnip nourishes much, and is good and wholesome nournishment,but a little windy, whereby it is thought to procure bodily lust" which is pretty close to similar quotes I found on the net. Of course there are many earlier references, such as in the widely known "Tacuinum Sanitatis" of the 14th century where it attributes the stimulation of sexual intercourse to the Pastinace, a word sometimes used to describe both carrot and parsnip. An other reference I found from the materia medica (the Taylor-Schechter Genizah collection) dating to 11th to 14th century Cairo, depicted the parsnip as an aphrodisiac. What is amusing, as pointed out in much of the above references, is that it was also a wind producing food (it was said to make you fart), this apparently was connected to the excitement (blood flow) of certain areas.The post gives a couple of examples of paintings where the parsnip on the table does seem to fit in with the general lusty context.
Of course, there is more here at play than just medicinal qualities, it also had a phallic property which pops up in Florio's Italian/English dictionary, 1598, (cited in the OED) as the "pastinaca muranese", "a dildoe of glasse" ... or at least this is what I was able to gather from various sources. This is also brought to light in "Picturing women in late Medieval and Renaissance art" (Grössinger) where she describes parsnips and cabbages representative of male and female genitalia, and given much of what I have read today, am inclined to agree.
She also wonders why they would turn up on the table at the Last Supper, but I guess I've solved that one already in my research - presumably, they are taken to be a symbol of the nails of the cross in that case. (Either that or else Dan Brown will have some explanation involving sex.)
6. Eat, but don't touch. One of the stranger things about the parsnip as a plant is that its sap, on skin contact, can sometimes cause a serious "burn" reaction in sunlight. Have a look at this woman from England who got bad blisters from her garden parsnips.
Articles from North America talk about the same problem with respect to wild parsnips. The way the sap hurts sounds complicated:
Wild parsnip is of concern because humans develop a severe skin irritation from contact with sap from the plant. Wild Parsnip plants have chemicals called psoralens (more precisely, furocoumarins) that cause phyto-photodermatitis: an interaction between plants (phyto) and light (photo) that induce skin (derm) inflammation (itis). Once the furocoumarins are absorbed by the skin, they are energized by UV light on both sunny and cloudy days. They then bind to DNA and cell membranes, destroying cells and skin.No wonder they don't seem to be all that popular in the home garden, although Wikipedia does say that this reaction does not happen to all that many people who grow them.
Wild Parsnip burns usually occur in streaks and elongated spots, reflecting where a damaged leaf or stem moved across the skin before exposure to sunlight. If the sap gets into the eyes, it may cause temporary or permanent blindness.
7. That is all.
Update: Actually, there was another parsnip story I read some weeks ago about a farmer (English, I think) who made a killing on the sales of parsnips from his field one winter, as they were one of the few crops still available due to their ability to "over winter". I can't find the source for that now, but will keep looking. Any story of a person who got rich from parsnips seems noteworthy.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
Thursday, July 24, 2014
More root vegetable research needed
My brain has reminded me that I promised a post about parsnips.
I have neglected the research for that - I did download a book (or was it a long article?) about Roman gardens on the tablet that seemed promising, but I forgot to go back to it.
I must stop posting until that task is compete.
I see that First Dog on the Moon has a root vegetable related cartoon up, though.
I have neglected the research for that - I did download a book (or was it a long article?) about Roman gardens on the tablet that seemed promising, but I forgot to go back to it.
I must stop posting until that task is compete.
I see that First Dog on the Moon has a root vegetable related cartoon up, though.
Past mistakes remembered
The Vincennes’ downing of Iran Air Flight 655: The United States tried to cover up its own destruction of a passenger plane.
I had completely forgotten about this...
I had completely forgotten about this...
Doubts about productivity
John Quiggin � Productivity yet again
My comment the other day about not understanding what calls for increased productivity today really mean seems to get some justification from JQ's cynicism about the issue, too.
My comment the other day about not understanding what calls for increased productivity today really mean seems to get some justification from JQ's cynicism about the issue, too.
Voucher wars, continued
I see that there has been push back against the article in Slate that claimed the education voucher system had turned into a failure in Sweden.
True, I would have assumed that there were more private schools there than is apparently the case, but the argument put forward that it is really due to "radically new pedagogical methods" cops a bit of a pasting in one of the comments (by Damien) that follow the post:
Update: I see another post critical of the Slate article mentions Finland. But the article is from Cato, and I would want someone who knows the issue well to go through it with a fine tooth comb before trusting anything it claims. For one thing - he claims Finland is not doing all that well. Yet, surely the point is the improvements the country has made over time, and the philosophy they followed to get there.
True, I would have assumed that there were more private schools there than is apparently the case, but the argument put forward that it is really due to "radically new pedagogical methods" cops a bit of a pasting in one of the comments (by Damien) that follow the post:
Pedagogical innovation was specifically mentioned as a great feature brought about by school choice. E.g.: - http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_innovation/2012/07 /free_school_reforms_in_sweden_boost_quality_innovation_and_choice.html : Swedish schools free to adopt innovative pedagogical methods. - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/school-choice-in-sweden-an-interview-with-thomas-idergard-of-timbro : “The lack of choice created a lack of innovation regarding pedagogical concept and ways of learning adapted to different students’ needs”, “almost half of the independent schools differ more or less radically from public schools regarding pedagogical concept and methods to fulfill the curriculum.”, “The educational results data speak for themselves.” - http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20288 : “The variety of independent schools is large in both ownership and in innovative pedagogy and practice” - http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/140383-sweden-a-model-for-american-school-choice-options- : “The variety of independent schools is large in both ownership – from parental cooperatives to corporate chains — and in innovative pedagogy and practice”As the person who comments next says:
But, now that it seems that there are problems in Sweden, it turns out that it was all an illusion and that schools really don’t have that much autonomy. And that new pedagogical ideas are harmful anyway. So you can use the pedagogical innovation in Sweden to sell school choice, but, if it turns out that test scores are not so good, you can *also* blame pedagogical innovation. That’s a bit too convenient. Heads I win, tails you lose.
But, of course, that kind of analysis is no fun for internet commenters.I don't think anyone in comments addresses the point I made in my original post: from what little I have heard, the system in Finland is the complete opposite of a voucher system. Are free marketeers just hoping that its example of success is ignored?
Update: I see another post critical of the Slate article mentions Finland. But the article is from Cato, and I would want someone who knows the issue well to go through it with a fine tooth comb before trusting anything it claims. For one thing - he claims Finland is not doing all that well. Yet, surely the point is the improvements the country has made over time, and the philosophy they followed to get there.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
How about "Operation 'Stop Calling Non Military Actions "Operations" - it's Annoying This Blogger' "
I've complained before about the Abbott's government attempts to appear all gung-ho and full of military-like action in matters that are not actually security threatening. (See "Operation Sovereign Borders" and the information refusenik LtGen Campbell running it to the government's tune.)
It's continuing with this fanciful nomenclature "Operation Bring Them Home" coined by Abbott (or his office, more likely) which does not seem to have exactly caught on in the media much yet.
It's continuing with this fanciful nomenclature "Operation Bring Them Home" coined by Abbott (or his office, more likely) which does not seem to have exactly caught on in the media much yet.
Sport ghosts noted
Sure, I hate cricket, but I still take an interest in ghostly experiences which cricketers say happened to them.
In particular, the story of the taps turning on and off by themselves in the hotel room would be very freaky if experienced. Ghosts aren't normally so...mechanical. Although I suppose poltergeists are.
Here's an earlier Guardian post after various sports related ghost stories.
In particular, the story of the taps turning on and off by themselves in the hotel room would be very freaky if experienced. Ghosts aren't normally so...mechanical. Although I suppose poltergeists are.
Here's an earlier Guardian post after various sports related ghost stories.
Wait a minute - even Kant had it in for bastards?
Good grief.* I recently had a go at Bentham for his utilitarianism inspired suggestion that women may well be justified in killing their new born illegitimate babies to save themselves the societal problems of being a single mother.
But, just looking around now at some posts about Kant's loopier suggestions (which, with respect to sex and masturbation I have noted here a few times before,) I have turned up this apparent quote:
* More good grief!: I blogged about this exact linked post in 2010, even noting the brain tumour theory! I had a vague feeling I had read it before, but certainly had forgotten the bastards bit.
Can I be excused, with the wealth of material posted here, for forgetting what I have previously written sometimes?
But, just looking around now at some posts about Kant's loopier suggestions (which, with respect to sex and masturbation I have noted here a few times before,) I have turned up this apparent quote:
A child that comes into the world apart from marriage is born outside the law (for the law is marriage) and therefore outside the protection of the law. It has, as it were, stolen into the commonwealth (like contraband merchandise), so that the commonwealth can ignore its existence (since it rightly should not have come to exist in this way), and can therefore also ignore its annihilation (p. 336).I see in the comments following that it has been speculated that his lack of empathy might have been caused by a tumour (seeing we are talking Kant, you should pronounce it in your mind like Arnie does in Kindergarten Cop):
This reminds me of Gazzaniga's take on Kant in The Mind's Past, page 121-1, where he speculates that Kant developed a massive left prefrontal tumor and then began writing his major works. This might begin to explain the lack of empathy concerning bastards, women and servants etc. Gazzaniga: "Is it possible that all those Kantians have saluted a man who was writing nonsense - a philosophy for those who do not have a normal cognitive and emotional system?".The attitude to children born out of wedlock has certainly improved since those centuries, even though just about everyone thinks it has gone way too far in the other direction now. Can't we just settle somewhere in the middle that we seem to have missed?
* More good grief!: I blogged about this exact linked post in 2010, even noting the brain tumour theory! I had a vague feeling I had read it before, but certainly had forgotten the bastards bit.
Can I be excused, with the wealth of material posted here, for forgetting what I have previously written sometimes?
If only Kantian jokes survived
What's So Funny? - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Here's a good article by Mary Beard looking at the various theories of laughter that people have come up with over the years. It would seem fair to say that the theories are not mutually exclusive, and we all know of some instances where one theory fits, and others were it doesn't.
I lean towards preferring the "incongruity" theory, and the type of humour which is clearly based on it:
Here's a good article by Mary Beard looking at the various theories of laughter that people have come up with over the years. It would seem fair to say that the theories are not mutually exclusive, and we all know of some instances where one theory fits, and others were it doesn't.
I lean towards preferring the "incongruity" theory, and the type of humour which is clearly based on it:
The second theory, known as the incongruity theory, sees laughter as a response to the illogical or the unexpected. A big team of philosophers and critics can be marshaled as supporters of this idea, if with a wide range of nuances and emphases. Kant argued that "laughter is anThere, my favourite philosopher pops up again. I thought I had read before that he was considered good dinner table company, and a Guardian article in 2004 indicated this was certainly true when he was a young man:
affection arising from a strained expectation being suddenly reduced to nothing," another of the better-known sayings in the study of laughter. Henri Bergson argued that laughter is provoked by living beings acting as if they were machines—mechanically, repetitively, stiffly. More
recently the linguistic theories of Salvatore Attardo, of Texas University, and Victor Raskin, of Purdue University, have set the resolution of incongruity at the heart of verbal jokes—as in "When is a door not a door? When it’s a jar."
He has been famously portrayed as a bore, a man whose habits were so regular that housewives could set their watches by his legendary afternoon walk.
But according to three new biographies, the celebrated German philosopher Immanuel Kant was not such a dry stick after all. Far from being a dour Prussian ascetic, the great metaphysician was a partygoer. He enjoyed drinking wine, playing billiards and wearing fine, colourful clothes.
He had a sense of humour, and there were women in his life, although he never married. On
occasion, Kant drank so much red wine he was unable to find his way home, the books claim.
The biographies - which shed fresh light on the party-loving behaviour of the young Kant before his fame - have appeared in Germany ahead of the 200th anniversary of his death today....
"He had a sense of humour. Not a German sense of humour where you have to spell out that you are telling a joke but a dry Anglo-Saxon wit."Material for my Kant as proto-Bond may be easier to find than I expected...
According to Kühn, whose acclaimed biography of the philosopher has just been published in Germany, Kant also had "amorous interests" in two women - though there is no evidence these were consummated.
It was only at the age of 57, after Kant had published his most famous work, his Critique of Pure Reason, that he was in a position to support a wife. "By this time it was too late," Kühn
said.
Last night Professor Volker Gerhardt - a leading member of Germany's Kant Society, who travelled to Kaliningrad for today's celebrations - said he endorsed Kühn's view of Kant.
Kant socialised extensively with Joseph Green, an English merchant who taught him about British culture, Prof Gerhardt said. His great achievement was to develop a philosophical system that separated morality from religion, as well as a liberal political theory which anticipated both the UN and modern human rights.
It would explain a lot....
Inspired, of course, by Ms Lambie's radio appearance yesterday, which international readers can google for themselves.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Another Abbott weathervane moment
From The Age, in 2010:
Australia's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council will be dumped if the federal opposition wins government.Two years later:
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd was the driving force behind the bid for a temporary seat in 2013/14, although his successor Julia Gillard is continuing the campaign.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said it was not a good use of taxpayers' money in tough economic times.
"There are vastly higher priorities for Australia right now than pursuing a seat on the security council," he told reporters in Melbourne, adding that dropping the bid would save $5.7 million this financial year.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott said he was pleased with the win, but wanted to ensure Australia did not squander the opportunity.Today:
He indicated the millions spent to secure the position could potentially have been better resourced.
"I welcome the win, it was an expensive win and I think it probably owes at least as much to Kevin Rudd as Julia Gillard," Mr Abbott told the Nine Network.
"A win's a win, I welcome it. Let's hope we put the next two years on the Security Council to good use."
The Abbott government's push for a full independent investigation into the downing of MH17 over Ukraine has been backed by a unanimous vote UN Security Council, increasing pressure on Russia to facilitate access to the crash site.His inconsistencies on all manner of policy issues show his judgement is hopeless.
In a joint statement with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop released on Tuesday morning, Prime Minister Tony Abbott hailed the result saying that the resolution lent the Security Council's ''full weight'' in condemning the attack.
Then as now?
Asia today echoes divided Europe of 1914
A somewhat interesting comparison by Hugh White of the geopolitics of the world at the start of the 20th century, and those that exist today.
A somewhat interesting comparison by Hugh White of the geopolitics of the world at the start of the 20th century, and those that exist today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Individuals with low marginal productivity impose costs on the economy through various other correlations with drug abuse and crime and so on. But it isn’t clear that inequality is the cause of those problems.