Universität Siegen – Vortragsreihe zum Grundeinkommen (Jan.-Februar 2014)

Diskussionsreihe zum Bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen.

FREITAG der 10. Januar, 2014: Ralph Boes Gründer und Vorstandsmitglied der Bürgerinitiative Bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen, Berlin, eV. “Wie? .Wieso? Weshalb? Warum ist das Grundeinkommen nicht krumm?” 19:00 Uhr.

DONNERSTAG der 6. Februar, 2014: Hermann Binkert Ehemaliger Staatssekretär Thüringens (CDU) und Chef des Institut für neue soziale Antworten (INSA), Erfurt. “Dis-Union: Aussichten zum Grundeinkommen aus der bürgerlichen Mitte.” 18:00 Uhr. Literaturhinweis: Dieter Althaus , Hermann Binkert : Solidarisches Bürgergeld, Books on Demand GmbH Norderstedt 2010; 17,90 Euro

MITTWOCH der 26. Februar, 2014: Ronald Blaschke: Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter der Bundestagsabgeordneten Katja Kipping (Fraktion DIE LINKE), und mehrfacher Autor zum Thema Grundeinkommen. “Nichts Neues im Westen: Geschichtlicher Wandel einer Idee.” 19:00 Uhr. Literaturhinweis: Ronald Blaschke, Adeline Otto, Norbert Schepers (Hrsg.): Grundeinkommen. Geschichte – Modelle – Debatten, Berlin: Karl Dietz Verlag 2010; http://www.rosalux.de/publication/36006/grundeinkommen-1.html

K u l t c a f f . Adolf – Reichwein Str. Campus (UB) : 1. Etage

Adolfreichweinstr. 2 (Bibliothek) / 57076 Siegen

Bit of a Headturner: Reason Mag discusses basic income

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/02/one-state-already-has-a-basic-income-pla

“.…By Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, the country in which [a basic income] had seemed mainstream a decade earlier looked considerably different.” All of which is hard to square with the fact that such a program was adopted during the Reagan years, in a state with a Republican governor, as part of a political moment that saw the same state eliminate its personal income tax, and with an important assist from the Libertarian Party, which was a substantial political force in the state at the time. (There were Libertarian legislators in Juneau in those days, and the party was capable of drawing 15 percent of the vote in a gubernatorial election. The party supported the dividends on the grounds that sending the money to individual citizens was preferable to letting elected officials spend it.)

Treasures from the Net: The Origins of Ampersand (‘&’), or: Happily Bludgeoning Others with Huge Glyphs Around One’s Neck

The ampersand often appeared as a letter at the end of the Latin alphabet, as for example in Byrhtferð’s list of letters from 1011.[10] Similarly, & was regarded as the 27th letter of the English alphabet, as used by children (in the USA). An example may be seen in M. B. Moore’s 1863 book The Dixie Primer, for the Little Folks.[11] In her 1859 novel Adam Bede, George Eliot refers to this when she makes Jacob Storey say: “He thought it [Z] had only been put to finish off th’ alphabet like; though ampusand would ha’ done as well, for what he could see.”

and

Traditionally, in English-speaking schools when reciting the alphabet, any letter that could also be used as a word in itself (“A”, “I”, and, at one point, “O”) was preceded by the Latin expression per se (“by itself”).[3][4][5] Also, it was common practice to add at the end of the alphabet the “&” sign as if it were the 27th letter, pronounced and. As a result, the recitation of the alphabet would end in “X, Y, Z, and per se and“. This last phrase was routinely slurred to “ampersand” and the term had entered common English usage by 1837.[4][6][7] However, in contrast to the 26 letters, the ampersand does not represent a speech sound, although other characters that were dropped from the English alphabet, such as the Old English thorn, did.

Futhermore:

Through popular etymology, it has been falsely claimed that André-Marie Ampère used the symbol in his widely read publications, and that people began calling the new shape “Ampère’s and”.

Also, in erratic, spastic prose, much of the above recited (she sells and-per-se-and necklaces, which I presume would make a keen addition to any decent piece of hat-wear: presumably, one can also remind the stupid of one integral, yet oft overlooked lexical symbol):