I have no idea why Nine continues to employ the 'incoherent' McGuinness. I started laughing at tax cuts being described as 'their own money back into their pockets' and the laughs kept up the whole way through her article.
Please stop using AI art. I understand the attraction of it, but the quality of it is often distractingly childish and undermines the seriousness of what you have to say. Perhaps you could substitute free or public domain photos from Creative Commons instead if you feel that you must illustrate your columns.
Going to take a while to digest this, but am moved to comment by the reference to writing (or just lazily thinking in my case) about something and suddenly finding it's everywhere. I've been reading and rereading Judith Shklar's "The Liberalism of Fear' and this underlined (by me) quote keeps coming back and did again: "Apart from prohibiting interference with the freedom of others, liberalism does not have any particular positive doctrines about how people are to conduct their lives or what personal choices they are to make. It is not, as so many of its critics claim, synonymous with modernity." Or, I'd add, aspirations to be rich (per your contention) or family values, common sense, or traditional values per Dutton and the IPA. She's specifically writing about the philosophy of liberalism, not neo-liberalism, whether you think that's a political philosophy, or an economic doctrine, or a hybrid of both. It's a thought provoking article if you've not read it. If you have, would be interested in your thoughts. To the extent I understand her thoughts, she makes a lot of sense to me: Liberalism recognises that government is necessary to stop government (and other citizens) interfering in choice (hence the essay title). That's it. But implementing that philosophy generates paradoxes. Are they inevitable?
I have no idea why Nine continues to employ the 'incoherent' McGuinness. I started laughing at tax cuts being described as 'their own money back into their pockets' and the laughs kept up the whole way through her article.
Please stop using AI art. I understand the attraction of it, but the quality of it is often distractingly childish and undermines the seriousness of what you have to say. Perhaps you could substitute free or public domain photos from Creative Commons instead if you feel that you must illustrate your columns.
Going to take a while to digest this, but am moved to comment by the reference to writing (or just lazily thinking in my case) about something and suddenly finding it's everywhere. I've been reading and rereading Judith Shklar's "The Liberalism of Fear' and this underlined (by me) quote keeps coming back and did again: "Apart from prohibiting interference with the freedom of others, liberalism does not have any particular positive doctrines about how people are to conduct their lives or what personal choices they are to make. It is not, as so many of its critics claim, synonymous with modernity." Or, I'd add, aspirations to be rich (per your contention) or family values, common sense, or traditional values per Dutton and the IPA. She's specifically writing about the philosophy of liberalism, not neo-liberalism, whether you think that's a political philosophy, or an economic doctrine, or a hybrid of both. It's a thought provoking article if you've not read it. If you have, would be interested in your thoughts. To the extent I understand her thoughts, she makes a lot of sense to me: Liberalism recognises that government is necessary to stop government (and other citizens) interfering in choice (hence the essay title). That's it. But implementing that philosophy generates paradoxes. Are they inevitable?
"It is simply the timing that seems otherworldly" - or is it just because India and Australia share the same 'national day', 26 January?