Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A tribute to Sir David Butler – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 13 in General
A tribute to Sir David Butler – politicalbetting.com

This tribute from Times Radio to Sir David Butler, who died earlier on this week, is well worth watching. For those of us who follow elections and analyse them the work of Sir David Butler helped us understand them a lot better. The Guardian wrote on Wednesday

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    You only swing when you're winning.

    RIP
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821
    "We'll be swinging when we're winning ..."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egN8CjfQkxc
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,925
    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104
  • Scotland less than twenty minutes from what could be their first ever win against the All Blacks

    Lead back to six

    Very exciting stuff
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,446
    On topic. Never knew that was the root of the word psephology.
  • Scotland less than twenty minutes from what could be their first ever win against the All Blacks

    Lead back to six

    Very exciting stuff

    Shit.. yellow card for Scotland
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,069
    RIP. Incredible man.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Hell of a kick
  • Scotland less than twenty minutes from what could be their first ever win against the All Blacks

    Lead back to six

    Very exciting stuff

    You are DavidL.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 875
    Off topic, but I thought this little detail about Maine independent Angus KIng might interest some readers:
    "On November 6, 2012, King won the Senate race with 53%[31] of the vote, beating Democrat Cynthia Dill and Republican Charlie Summers.[32][33] The following week, King announced that he would caucus with Senate Democrats, explaining not only that it made more sense to affiliate with the party that had a clear majority, but that he would have been largely excluded from the committee process had he not caucused with a party.[34][35] King said he had not ruled out caucusing with the Republicans if they took control of the Senate in 2014 United States Senate elections,[36] but when Republicans did win the majority that year, he remained in the Democratic caucus.[37] King remained in the Democratic caucus after the 2016, 2018, and the 2020 elections, the first two of which also resulted in Republican Senate majorities and the last of which produced a 50–50 tie."
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King

    Now did he say he might join the Republicans to increase his bargaining power, was he really considering it, or both? He's a smart fellow, so I think the first and the third are more likely than the second.

    (There are three ways in which he is more a Republican than a Democrat: He has five children and six grandchildren, he's an Episcopalian, and he rides a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

    Some will be amused to learn that he, with a partner, established a wind energy company, when he was between political offices.)
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    117 years of hurt
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,673
    edited November 13

    Scotland less than twenty minutes from what could be their first ever win against the All Blacks

    Lead back to six

    Very exciting stuff

    You are DavidL.
    I’m one of the people who you believe have magical posting powers which control sporting events?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,069
    FPT @Sean_F I'd love to read the original archives and papers of General Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis.

    I never feel I've read a fully satisfactory account of British strategy during the American Revolutionary War and I think I'd find it fascinating.
  • Did Welsh rugby fans want Scotland to win today?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,729
    We need Leon to come on here and assure us that England has absolutely no chance of winning the World Cup. And soon.
  • Chris said:

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
    In the end the movers and shakers will just move and shake their way off twitter. Might not take them too long either.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 507
    Chris said:

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
    These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974
    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
    These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
    {Section 230 has entered the chat}
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,729

    FPT @Sean_F I'd love to read the original archives and papers of General Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis.

    I never feel I've read a fully satisfactory account of British strategy during the American Revolutionary War and I think I'd find it fascinating.

    Fusiliers by Mark Urban is a good read.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Heathener said:

    Barnesian said:

    Like other PBers who are not watching the cricket, I've been analysing the 21 remaining House races to try to find betting opportunities.

    If all 21 end up with the current leaders the result is 214/221 D/R.

    However if one introduces the possibility of surprises by identifying those six races that can be swung if 55% of outstanding votes go the other way from the current leader you end up with 6 Hung, 211D, 218R.

    My conclusion is that the 1.2 on Betfair for a Republican House majority is good value. So is the 2.24 on the GOP getting 220-229 seats.

    You may be statistically right but this is where UK residents can come a cropper. It's not about statistical probabilities, it's about the nitty gritty of the voting demographic in all of the remaining counties. I don't have that info and unless you do, you are introducing more risk.

    We've already seen people on here come a cropper over Laxalt.

    On the other hand, CNN think the Republicans are probably just about going to sneak a slim majority. I trust their judgement and they are certainly not calling this yet.
    It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto.

    It felt like a personal insult.
    What price was she when you made your 10k win call?
    Laxalt was @12 so hardly an act of Nostradamus by me but for some reason Laxalt was being talked up as a near sure thing on the thread.
    By whom?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821
    edited November 13


    (There are three ways in which he is more a Republican than a Democrat: He has five children and six grandchildren, he's an Episcopalian, and he rides a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

    That seemed like a pretty absurd comment but as I didn't know anything about the political leanings of Episcopalians I looked it up.

    Now I've looked it up, I realise it's an absolutely absurd comment:
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/episcopal-church/party-affiliation/
  • pingping Posts: 3,175
    edited November 13
    I missed this, from a few days ago. Peter Oborne;

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-sunak-corbyn-conspiracy-lies-unites-starmer-government

    He’s right. It is surely not ok to outright lie to parliament, knowing that it’s not in the interests of your opponent to correct you.

    It’s a shitty political strategy that demeans parliament. Our politics should be better than this. Johnson dragged the tories into the gutter, and there they remain.
  • Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Lame even for Muskmelon.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    On the other hand, there were/are societies where the women did/do the hard work of farming.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,272
    edited November 13
    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 507
    Chris said:


    (There are three ways in which he is more a Republican than a Democrat: He has five children and six grandchildren, he's an Episcopalian, and he rides a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

    That seemed like a pretty absurd comment but as I didn't know anything about the political leanings of Episcopalians I looked it up.

    Now I've looked it up, I realise it's an absolutely absurd comment:
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/episcopal-church/party-affiliation/
    Episcopalians are Anglicans, which is inherently moderate and compromising as a religious culture. Hence they are much more aligned with the Democrats. It's the Baptists that are nutjobs, especially the Southern ones, who founded their denomination in defence of slavery.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 875
    Chris said: "That seemed like a pretty absurd comment but as I didn't know anything about the political leanings of Episcopalians I looked it up."

    Chris, you may need to be as old as King and I are -- I was born in 1943, he in 1944 -- to understand that. Until 1960 or so, Episcopalians were very Republican, so much so the people joked back then that American Jews earned like Episcopalians, and voted like Puerto Ricans.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Chris said:

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
    We know he’s the real one, as he’s effectively banned parodies of himself.
    Being the principled free speech absolutist that he is.
  • First time I became aware of the existence of David Butler in early 1990s, when I purchased a copy of "The General Election of 1964" at a Friends of Seattle Public Library book sale (it was library discard).

    Thirty years later have the entire set, from 1945 (when DB was a leading contributor) to 2019.

    Check out link below for example of Sir David's election-night analysis:
    1955 General Election (BBC)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl8OeeLZCuE
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    In this instance, Marxism is surely just a lens through which to assess history? Feminism, similarly.

    Nothing wrong with that; neither Marxism nor feminism existed at the time but the fundamental emotions that drive them (mainly a yearning for fairness) surely did?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Chris said:


    (There are three ways in which he is more a Republican than a Democrat: He has five children and six grandchildren, he's an Episcopalian, and he rides a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

    That seemed like a pretty absurd comment but as I didn't know anything about the political leanings of Episcopalians I looked it up.

    Now I've looked it up, I realise it's an absolutely absurd comment:
    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/episcopal-church/party-affiliation/
    Is there a similar chart for fertile Harley owners ?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Last cut of the grass until spring (hopefully).
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 606

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Yeah - I spent most of the afternoon sat in the park with a friend putting the world to rights (again!) and it was lovely. Or f*cked, depending on how you look at it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Unlike SeaShantyIrish2 I don't have the entire set, but I do have about half of the General Election series involving Sir David. Worthy investments.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 875
    Chris - "[George H. W.] Bush was a lifelong Episcopalian and a member of St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston. As President, Bush regularly attended services at St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington D.C.[321] He cited various moments in his life on the deepening of his faith, including his escape from Japanese forces in 1944, and the death of his three-year-old daughter Robin in 1953.[322] His faith was reflected in his "thousand points of light" speech, his support for prayer in schools, and his support for the pro-life movement (following his election as vice president)"
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Personal_life
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Lame even for Muskmelon.
    His underlings probably laugh at all his jokes so he thinks he's a comedic genius.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Was he saying men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes, or people used to *think* men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes? My understanding of the viking and the Scots crofting models is that typically the women *do* do the farming while the men go out and do jobs where they can leverage their strength more effectively, say by fishing or raping and pillaging. Farming an acre of turnips and one cow is monotonous but doesn't require strength like pulling an oar does.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,756
    edited November 13

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    It has been a foggy grey day throughout in the Flatlands with low light levels - perfectly normal for a day in November with the Haar drifting in off the North Sea.

    Except that it was 11C rather than the 4C you'd expect...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,957
    Late afternoon all :)

    As we come to terms with the heat death of our civilisation, it seems there are other more pressing matters as I glance at our printed press and once again despair at the consequences of free speech which are infinitely preferable to the alternative.

    The Mail on Sunday has decided, after the immigration numbers, Albanians are the new "enemy within" - makes a change from "lefties" and "scroungers". They have apparently defaced and defiled a statue to the greatest Briton of them all, WSC, by hanging a flag near it. The immediate deportation of all Albanian citizens is clearly the only piece of legislation which would make a Sunak Government "conservative" in the eyes of the MoS.

    Then we have the Sunday Express which tells us Thatcherism is back - apparently cutting spending and raising taxes is the Thatcherite answer to a large deficit - I must admit I'm not a great follower of monetarist theory, Hayek and the Austrian School but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if the monetarists had recommended raising taxes.

    Apparently, I was wrong - Thatcherism is about raising taxes and cutting spending. It's amazing how the perspective of 40 years distorts history (and some on here worry about hundreds of years of British history).

    I suppose it could be the attempt of a newspaper pandering to a demographic among its readers who regard Margaret Thatcher as the second greatest Briton of all time (I've mentioned who is the greatest) to convince said readers the current Government is the re-incarnation of the administrations of the Blessed Margaret rather than the truth which is arguably that the current Government is arguably slightly more the higher tax and spending option of the two main social democratic parties.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
  • I just learnt that in the USA to osterize used to mean to blend food, because there was a popular blender brand called the Osterizer
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    BBC reporting on Republican anger over the midterms states its still longterm Trump critics blaming him. Needs some Trumpistas to turncoat.
  • Chris - "[George H. W.] Bush was a lifelong Episcopalian and a member of St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston. As President, Bush regularly attended services at St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington D.C.[321] He cited various moments in his life on the deepening of his faith, including his escape from Japanese forces in 1944, and the death of his three-year-old daughter Robin in 1953.[322] His faith was reflected in his "thousand points of light" speech, his support for prayer in schools, and his support for the pro-life movement (following his election as vice president)"
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Personal_life

    The inclusion of the last sentence above rather undermines your argument, methinks.

    Because Bush the Elder (and Better)'s changing stand on abortion (and especially Planned Parenthood) had LESS to do with theology, and WAY more with politics.

    Key reason why "Moral Majority" and "religious right" never trusted GHWB any farther than they could throw him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
    There's a difference to using an ideological approach to inform how you approach work and interpret it, and using one's ideology to ignore inconvenient facts or details to push that ideology or a political message. Since human being are unlikely to be entirely free of ideology the former surely happens all the time, but we can still watch out for hacks doing the latter.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 507
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    Completely agree with this. Cutting history from various lenses is absolutely the way we should do it.
  • I just learnt that in the USA to osterize used to mean to blend food, because there was a popular blender brand called the Osterizer

    Have heard of the company, but NOT that particular coinage.

    Certainly NOT common in my lifetime, my guess is that "osterize" was likely an East Coast usage, current for a few decade

    However . . .

    Bonnie Raitt - Blender Blues (full version) - Live in the Rainbow Room, Philadephia 1972
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6ued71jqE

    BLENDER BLUES
    Bonnie Raitt

    Let me be your blender, baby
    Don't ya know I can whip, chop and puree
    Won't you let me be your blender, baby
    Honey, I can whip, chop and puree
    I'm gonna whip you to a jelly honey
    I'm gonna chop it up today

    Model is so special, honey
    Gives you everything you need
    Guaranteed to blend it right
    It's built for comfort, not for speed
    My motor's most unique
    There's a style for every size
    You push the right track, honey,
    Sit back and watch me Osterize

    Let me be your blender, baby
    Don't ya know I can whip, chop and puree
    Won't you let me be your blender, baby
    Honey, I can whip, chop and puree
    I'm gonna whip you to a jelly honey
    I'm gonna chop it up today . . .
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 404
    edited November 13
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
    Yes, of course it's true that it's the material production relations that define the nature of any fundamentally exploitative society. It's not ideology to recognise that; it's the truth.

    Nothing wrong with the study of surface, though, even through time. It's thinking the surface is the underlying that's ideological (and stupid). As for "yes, 'we' need that way of looking at things and several other ways too", that's super-stupid and can also be amusing - a case of academics admiring their own reflections while carefully avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

    Marxism absolutely does NOT go well with anything that's academic whatsoever. That was part of the original downfall in the 1871-1914 period in Germany with the SPD. (Nice symbol you use here, though, Dura.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    My copy of 20th Century British Political Facts has been so heavily used it's literally falling apart.

    David and Gareth - such a contribution to politics and history.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821

    Chris said: "That seemed like a pretty absurd comment but as I didn't know anything about the political leanings of Episcopalians I looked it up."

    Chris, you may need to be as old as King and I are -- I was born in 1943, he in 1944 -- to understand that. Until 1960 or so, Episcopalians were very Republican, so much so the people joked back then that American Jews earned like Episcopalians, and voted like Puerto Ricans.

    I suspected it might have been a joke of some kind, but I didn't suspect it was quite such an old joke!
  • stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    As we come to terms with the heat death of our civilisation, it seems there are other more pressing matters as I glance at our printed press and once again despair at the consequences of free speech which are infinitely preferable to the alternative.

    The Mail on Sunday has decided, after the immigration numbers, Albanians are the new "enemy within" - makes a change from "lefties" and "scroungers". They have apparently defaced and defiled a statue to the greatest Briton of them all, WSC, by hanging a flag near it. The immediate deportation of all Albanian citizens is clearly the only piece of legislation which would make a Sunak Government "conservative" in the eyes of the MoS.

    Then we have the Sunday Express which tells us Thatcherism is back - apparently cutting spending and raising taxes is the Thatcherite answer to a large deficit - I must admit I'm not a great follower of monetarist theory, Hayek and the Austrian School but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if the monetarists had recommended raising taxes.

    Apparently, I was wrong - Thatcherism is about raising taxes and cutting spending. It's amazing how the perspective of 40 years distorts history (and some on here worry about hundreds of years of British history).

    I suppose it could be the attempt of a newspaper pandering to a demographic among its readers who regard Margaret Thatcher as the second greatest Briton of all time (I've mentioned who is the greatest) to convince said readers the current Government is the re-incarnation of the administrations of the Blessed Margaret rather than the truth which is arguably that the current Government is arguably slightly more the higher tax and spending option of the two main social democratic parties.

    La Thatch raised taxes quite a lot, especially in the early years. It's why she had to bang on so much about the taxes she did cut. Remember how the magician always says look into the eyes not at the hands, and that you should do the exact opposite.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Frank Luntz
    @FrankLuntz
    ·
    20h
    Ron DeSantis now has a 7-point lead over Trump along GOP voters nationwide in a 2024 primary matchup.

    Last month, Trump held the 7-point margin.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Was he saying men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes, or people used to *think* men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes? My understanding of the viking and the Scots crofting models is that typically the women *do* do the farming while the men go out and do jobs where they can leverage their strength more effectively, say by fishing or raping and pillaging. Farming an acre of turnips and one cow is monotonous but doesn't require strength like pulling an oar does.
    In medieval or feudal economies, everyone did the farming. That was the point of it.

    There were some roles that tended to be taken more by men, and others more by women, but there weren't actual rules about it.

    I would have said if anyone wants a more fruitful field to look at silly nonsense about the medieval period, most medieval history of science prior to about 1980 is a pack of lies dreamed up in the later nineteenth century by Andrew Dickson White and William Draper. But it's still enormously influential. For example, their work despite being known to be fraudulent underpins GCSE Medicine Through Time, which is taught in around 50% of schools. Write an accurate answer in that unit on medieval science and it gets marked as wrong.

    It also underpins the work of Catherine Nixey to a great extent although I suppose technically that was to do with culture rather than science.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    WillG said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    Completely agree with this. Cutting history from various lenses is absolutely the way we should do it.
    Or.
    We could leave it to a children's book from 100 years ago to save us the bother of having to think about any of it further.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,673
    edited November 13

    I just learnt that in the USA to osterize used to mean to blend food, because there was a popular blender brand called the Osterizer

    Have heard of the company, but NOT that particular coinage.

    Certainly NOT common in my lifetime, my guess is that "osterize" was likely an East Coast usage, current for a few decade

    However . . .

    Bonnie Raitt - Blender Blues (full version) - Live in the Rainbow Room, Philadephia 1972
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6ued71jqE

    BLENDER BLUES
    Bonnie Raitt

    Let me be your blender, baby
    Don't ya know I can whip, chop and puree
    Won't you let me be your blender, baby
    Honey, I can whip, chop and puree
    I'm gonna whip you to a jelly honey
    I'm gonna chop it up today

    Model is so special, honey
    Gives you everything you need
    Guaranteed to blend it right
    It's built for comfort, not for speed
    My motor's most unique
    There's a style for every size
    You push the right track, honey,
    Sit back and watch me Osterize

    Let me be your blender, baby
    Don't ya know I can whip, chop and puree
    Won't you let me be your blender, baby
    Honey, I can whip, chop and puree
    I'm gonna whip you to a jelly honey
    I'm gonna chop it up today . . .
    My cunning plan to get someone else to post a link to Blender Blues worked a treat!

    Bravo Sir!

    ETA that’s the penultimate song on the Bonnie Raitt video (YouTube but not actually a video) I posted the other night - and was listening to when I posted about the Osterizer
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    DJ41 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
    Yes, of course it's true that it's the material production relations that define the nature of any fundamentally exploitative society. It's not ideology to recognise that; it's the truth.

    Nothing wrong with the study of surface, though, even through time. It's thinking the surface is the underlying that's ideological (and stupid). As for "yes, 'we' need that way of looking at things and several other ways too", that's super-stupid and can also be amusing - a case of academics admiring their own reflections while carefully avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

    Marxism absolutely does NOT go well with anything that's academic whatsoever. That was part of the original downfall in the 1871-1914 period in Germany with the SPD. (Nice symbol you use here, though, Dura.)
    Well, that's certainly not true. It's extremely useful as a theoretical framework for identifying social and economic trends particularly relating to imbalances built up by the accumulation of wealth in different groups. Heck, I use it for that all the time and I'm no Marxist.

    It just doesn't work as a political philosophy because it essentially assumes people act according to mathematical formulas. And they don't.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 404

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    As we come to terms with the heat death of our civilisation, it seems there are other more pressing matters as I glance at our printed press and once again despair at the consequences of free speech which are infinitely preferable to the alternative.

    The Mail on Sunday has decided, after the immigration numbers, Albanians are the new "enemy within" - makes a change from "lefties" and "scroungers". They have apparently defaced and defiled a statue to the greatest Briton of them all, WSC, by hanging a flag near it. The immediate deportation of all Albanian citizens is clearly the only piece of legislation which would make a Sunak Government "conservative" in the eyes of the MoS.

    Then we have the Sunday Express which tells us Thatcherism is back - apparently cutting spending and raising taxes is the Thatcherite answer to a large deficit - I must admit I'm not a great follower of monetarist theory, Hayek and the Austrian School but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if the monetarists had recommended raising taxes.

    Apparently, I was wrong - Thatcherism is about raising taxes and cutting spending. It's amazing how the perspective of 40 years distorts history (and some on here worry about hundreds of years of British history).

    I suppose it could be the attempt of a newspaper pandering to a demographic among its readers who regard Margaret Thatcher as the second greatest Briton of all time (I've mentioned who is the greatest) to convince said readers the current Government is the re-incarnation of the administrations of the Blessed Margaret rather than the truth which is arguably that the current Government is arguably slightly more the higher tax and spending option of the two main social democratic parties.

    La Thatch raised taxes quite a lot, especially in the early years. It's why she had to bang on so much about the taxes she did cut. Remember how the magician always says look into the eyes not at the hands, and that you should do the exact opposite.
    In her first budget she cut the top rate of income tax from 83% to 60% and then after a few years cut it to 40%. She also abolished exchange controls within a few months of becoming PM, allowing the rich to zip loads of money out of the country and far away from the British tax man.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,334

    FPT @Sean_F I'd love to read the original archives and papers of General Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis.

    I never feel I've read a fully satisfactory account of British strategy during the American Revolutionary War and I think I'd find it fascinating.

    It was a well planned conventional strategy. Punch through the middle and then swing north to take Boston

    There were a number of occasions where the Americans were very very lucky. Classic black swan

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Was he saying men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes, or people used to *think* men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes? My understanding of the viking and the Scots crofting models is that typically the women *do* do the farming while the men go out and do jobs where they can leverage their strength more effectively, say by fishing or raping and pillaging. Farming an acre of turnips and one cow is monotonous but doesn't require strength like pulling an oar does.
    Zulu too, IIRC?
  • At this time, want to commend Jim Miller and millions like him across the USA: decent Republicans (mostly!) who put country before party in the 2022 mid-terms.

    Easy to say, but harder (for variety of factors good, bad & indifferent) to actually do.

    Have no idea how JM marked his own ballot. However, fact that he was on PB last night, celebrating the victory of Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez over Putinist Joe Kent in WA 3rd Congressional District.

    JM disagree about lots of stuff - but THAT is damn sure good enough for me!

    Personally, and IF I'd had a vote down there in SW WA, would have cast it in the August primary for Republican incumbent Jaime Herrera Beutler, because of her courage AND principled consistency in voting to impeach Trump after 1/6. Something that many Democrats actually did in the primary, which JHB lost by narrrow margin to JK.

    Then would have turned about and voted for MGP in the general. In company with a significant - indeed decisive - share of Republican voters.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    She seems to be taking the results well.

    Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake (R) claims the state’s elections are being run “like we’re in some Banana Republic”:

    “The people didn’t vote for [Katie Hobbs] … this is ridiculous.”

    https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1590812263434268673
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,982
    Heathener said:

    Barnesian said:

    Like other PBers who are not watching the cricket, I've been analysing the 21 remaining House races to try to find betting opportunities.

    If all 21 end up with the current leaders the result is 214/221 D/R.

    However if one introduces the possibility of surprises by identifying those six races that can be swung if 55% of outstanding votes go the other way from the current leader you end up with 6 Hung, 211D, 218R.

    My conclusion is that the 1.2 on Betfair for a Republican House majority is good value. So is the 2.24 on the GOP getting 220-229 seats.

    You may be statistically right but this is where UK residents can come a cropper. It's not about statistical probabilities, it's about the nitty gritty of the voting demographic in all of the remaining counties. I don't have that info and unless you do, you are introducing more risk.

    We've already seen people on here come a cropper over Laxalt.

    On the other hand, CNN think the Republicans are probably just about going to sneak a slim majority. I trust their judgement and they are certainly not calling this yet.
    We do indeed need to look at the nitty gritty as you say, but even without that there is a particular danger to the approach of assuming that the Republicans will prevail based on random statistical permutations alone. It is basically that those permutations assume that each race is independent of the next one at the final stages of counting. By contrast, I think it's very likely that that the votes counted at the tail end of those races could be significantly different to those cast earlier in a fairly systematic way.

    Most of the outstanding races are on the Democrat west coast, where states lean over backwards to be accommodating to voters and prevent disenfranchisement. We've already seen how the vote in Nevada swung back towards the Democrats when they started to count the dribs and drabs of votes that weren't cast in person on polling day and were only finalised at the end, such as polling day drop offs of PVs, late arriving PVs, votes that had to be "cured" etc etc. It's also in my mind that in the 2016 presidential election Trump fell further and further behind as the late votes from California and Oregon were eventually counted. So I think it's more likely than not that the Democrats will close the gap a bit in most of the outstanding races, although in some the gap may prove too much.

    As things stand, the Republicans only need 7 out of the remaining 18 with the current balance being 206 Dem v 211 Rep, so it's still a big ask for the Democrats. I would hazard a guess that the Republicans should be just about favourites to take the House by a wafer thin margin, but that the outcome of them getting under 220 seats should also be favourite.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    edited November 13
    WillG said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    Completely agree with this. Cutting history from various lenses is absolutely the way we should do it.
    No shape otherwise. Just things happening in time. Ditto a single life. You need a narrative - an angle - or it makes no sense. But in both cases, the micro and the macro, there's a choice of angles and you can pick and choose, or if you don't need simplicity you can mix in more than one, maybe even several. Hard work but you do have to do it, imo, and then defend it. You can't abdicate and just say it's all random, or all 'takes' are subjective and no better or worse than any other.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,930

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Think of how annoying this must be for Putin.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,160

    Frank Luntz
    @FrankLuntz
    ·
    20h
    Ron DeSantis now has a 7-point lead over Trump along GOP voters nationwide in a 2024 primary matchup.

    Last month, Trump held the 7-point margin.

    Remember my long-standing yet much mocked forecast on here from way back: Neither Biden nor Trumpton will be nominees
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Nigelb said:

    She seems to be taking the results well.

    Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake (R) claims the state’s elections are being run “like we’re in some Banana Republic”:

    “The people didn’t vote for [Katie Hobbs] … this is ridiculous.”

    https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1590812263434268673

    Lake is 34K short at moment (88% counted)
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,334
    ohnotnow said:

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Yeah - I spent most of the afternoon sat in the park with a friend putting the world to rights (again!) and it was lovely. Or f*cked, depending on how you look at it.
    I’m just going to hang out on the beach again today
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    edited November 13
    Andy_JS said:

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Think of how annoying this must be for Putin.
    I had lunch at Gloucester services today.

    Sitting outside.

    With no coat on.

    And it was beautiful. You'd be happy with that weather in August.

    But as @Theuniondivvie rightly says it's still fucked, and the thought it's fucking Putin is only small consolation.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,902
    DJ41 said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    As we come to terms with the heat death of our civilisation, it seems there are other more pressing matters as I glance at our printed press and once again despair at the consequences of free speech which are infinitely preferable to the alternative.

    The Mail on Sunday has decided, after the immigration numbers, Albanians are the new "enemy within" - makes a change from "lefties" and "scroungers". They have apparently defaced and defiled a statue to the greatest Briton of them all, WSC, by hanging a flag near it. The immediate deportation of all Albanian citizens is clearly the only piece of legislation which would make a Sunak Government "conservative" in the eyes of the MoS.

    Then we have the Sunday Express which tells us Thatcherism is back - apparently cutting spending and raising taxes is the Thatcherite answer to a large deficit - I must admit I'm not a great follower of monetarist theory, Hayek and the Austrian School but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if the monetarists had recommended raising taxes.

    Apparently, I was wrong - Thatcherism is about raising taxes and cutting spending. It's amazing how the perspective of 40 years distorts history (and some on here worry about hundreds of years of British history).

    I suppose it could be the attempt of a newspaper pandering to a demographic among its readers who regard Margaret Thatcher as the second greatest Briton of all time (I've mentioned who is the greatest) to convince said readers the current Government is the re-incarnation of the administrations of the Blessed Margaret rather than the truth which is arguably that the current Government is arguably slightly more the higher tax and spending option of the two main social democratic parties.

    La Thatch raised taxes quite a lot, especially in the early years. It's why she had to bang on so much about the taxes she did cut. Remember how the magician always says look into the eyes not at the hands, and that you should do the exact opposite.
    In her first budget she cut the top rate of income tax from 83% to 60% and then after a few years cut it to 40%. She also abolished exchange controls within a few months of becoming PM, allowing the rich to zip loads of money out of the country and far away from the British tax man.
    Thatcher increased the VAT rate from 8% to 15% on taking office. I think she did something similar on NICs, although I don't have the figures. Then of course the Poll Tax.

    She was very happy to tax the poor
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,446
    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Was he saying men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes, or people used to *think* men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes? My understanding of the viking and the Scots crofting models is that typically the women *do* do the farming while the men go out and do jobs where they can leverage their strength more effectively, say by fishing or raping and pillaging. Farming an acre of turnips and one cow is monotonous but doesn't require strength like pulling an oar does.
    In medieval or feudal economies, everyone did the farming. That was the point of it.

    There were some roles that tended to be taken more by men, and others more by women, but there weren't actual rules about it.

    I would have said if anyone wants a more fruitful field to look at silly nonsense about the medieval period, most medieval history of science prior to about 1980 is a pack of lies dreamed up in the later nineteenth century by Andrew Dickson White and William Draper. But it's still enormously influential. For example, their work despite being known to be fraudulent underpins GCSE Medicine Through Time, which is taught in around 50% of schools. Write an accurate answer in that unit on medieval science and it gets marked as wrong.

    It also underpins the work of Catherine Nixey to a great extent although I suppose technically that was to do with culture rather than science.
    I would need to dig out my copy of "The Ronettes Sing Medieval Agrarian History" before I could comment.
  • Nigelb said:

    She seems to be taking the results well.

    Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake (R) claims the state’s elections are being run “like we’re in some Banana Republic”:

    “The people didn’t vote for [Katie Hobbs] … this is ridiculous.”

    https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1590812263434268673

    Apparently Leon's latest cutie did NOT get the memo re: the downside of election denial?

    BTW, am still sad that he's totally abandoned his thrill for his previous toxic US rightwing wonder-woman, namely Sarah Palin.

    Who looks sure to tank yet again in America's Last Frontier.

    Given that a LARGE share of the Begich voters will NOT transfer to her, meaning that yet again (following special election) Palin & (least we forget) Trump have pissed away a US House seat that Republicans should and COULD have won IF she was NOT on the ballot.

    US Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) strongly reminds me of my current favorite PBS kids cartoon character:

    Molly of Denali
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwX9rbRIIzQ
  • Did you hear about the psephologist from Warsaw wot moved to Haiti?

    He became a Voodoo Pole!
  • Andy_JS said:

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Think of how annoying this must be for Putin.
    And the US mid-term results as depressing for Mad Vlad as for his pal the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,322
    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    Completely agree with this. Cutting history from various lenses is absolutely the way we should do it.
    No shape otherwise. Just things happening in time. Ditto a single life. You need a narrative - an angle - or it makes no sense. But in both cases, the micro and the macro, there's a choice of angles and you can pick and choose, or if you don't need simplicity you can mix in more than one, maybe even several. Hard work but you do have to do it, imo, and then defend it. You can't abdicate and just say it's all random, or all 'takes' are subjective and no better or worse than any other.
    I agree with this save that one also has to be wary of trying to artificially fit history into a "narrative" which inevitably leads to teleological interpretations that are bound to fail. Marxist and Whiggish history are particularly guilty of this. There are few phrases that boil my piss as much as "the right side of history".
  • Did you hear about the psephologist from Warsaw wot moved to Haiti?

    He became a Voodoo Pole!

    Didn't know, that the mastermind behind Trafalgar is Polish?

    Though does make sense IF he's getting his "polling" numbers from entrails of misfortunate chickens!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,957

    Nigelb said:

    She seems to be taking the results well.

    Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake (R) claims the state’s elections are being run “like we’re in some Banana Republic”:

    “The people didn’t vote for [Katie Hobbs] … this is ridiculous.”

    https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1590812263434268673

    Lake is 34K short at moment (88% counted)
    I wonder if Lake actually knows anyone who voted for her opponent. The ultimate echo chamber.

    She's forced back to another pointless echo chamber (Newsmax) to peddle her sour grapes.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,322

    Did you hear about the psephologist from Warsaw wot moved to Haiti?

    He became a Voodoo Pole!

    Yellow Card!
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Think of how annoying this must be for Putin.
    I had lunch at Gloucester services today.

    Sitting outside.

    With no coat on.

    And it was beautiful. You'd be happy with that weather in August.

    But as @Theuniondivvie rightly says it's still fucked, and the thought it's fucking Putin is only small consolation.
    The Hobbit services? A tenner for an organic pasty? Are you made of money?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,160
    Ricki Lake screwed in NV? The Leondamus anti tipster is strong, strong, strong if so
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Was he saying men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes, or people used to *think* men did the farming because of outdated gender stereotypes? My understanding of the viking and the Scots crofting models is that typically the women *do* do the farming while the men go out and do jobs where they can leverage their strength more effectively, say by fishing or raping and pillaging. Farming an acre of turnips and one cow is monotonous but doesn't require strength like pulling an oar does.
    In medieval or feudal economies, everyone did the farming. That was the point of it.

    There were some roles that tended to be taken more by men, and others more by women, but there weren't actual rules about it.

    I would have said if anyone wants a more fruitful field to look at silly nonsense about the medieval period, most medieval history of science prior to about 1980 is a pack of lies dreamed up in the later nineteenth century by Andrew Dickson White and William Draper. But it's still enormously influential. For example, their work despite being known to be fraudulent underpins GCSE Medicine Through Time, which is taught in around 50% of schools. Write an accurate answer in that unit on medieval science and it gets marked as wrong.

    It also underpins the work of Catherine Nixey to a great extent although I suppose technically that was to do with culture rather than science.
    I would need to dig out my copy of "The Ronettes Sing Medieval Agrarian History" before I could comment.
    No, but my point is that the opportunity arose to earn a groat a week building the local castle the blokes would go off and do that.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 404
    ydoethur said:

    DJ41 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
    Yes, of course it's true that it's the material production relations that define the nature of any fundamentally exploitative society. It's not ideology to recognise that; it's the truth.

    Nothing wrong with the study of surface, though, even through time. It's thinking the surface is the underlying that's ideological (and stupid). As for "yes, 'we' need that way of looking at things and several other ways too", that's super-stupid and can also be amusing - a case of academics admiring their own reflections while carefully avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

    Marxism absolutely does NOT go well with anything that's academic whatsoever. That was part of the original downfall in the 1871-1914 period in Germany with the SPD. (Nice symbol you use here, though, Dura.)
    Well, that's certainly not true. It's extremely useful as a theoretical framework for identifying social and economic trends particularly relating to imbalances built up by the accumulation of wealth in different groups. Heck, I use it for that all the time and I'm no Marxist.

    It just doesn't work as a political philosophy because it essentially assumes people act according to mathematical formulas. And they don't.
    By "academic" I mean the institutionalised university scene, not intellectual thought. The Marxist approach has an aim: the undermining and overthrow of exploitation. It's not commentary. You can't understand exploitation well intellectually without undermining it, and you can't undermine it inside academia.

    There have been a very few exceptions, e.g. Antonio Negri in Italy (but look what happened to him - he self-pillockised), and even some extremely occasional stuff in Britain which necessarily lasts about five minutes. In short, you can't fight the system from within. I don't remember seeing even a bright guy such as Christopher Hill on any barricades.

    Most academic "Marxism" is a joke. "Cultural Marxism" is a joke. The Frankfurt school were a bunch of bourgeois w*nkers. Theodore Adorno called the cops on student protesters. (Herbert Marcuse at least deserves respect for supporting Angela Davis, and his "one-dimensional man" thesis is essentially correct but hardly original and was as if deprived of a firing-pin.) Paulo Freire may have had a heart, but he didn't understand much either. Zizek is an an absolute idiot as can be seen from reading even a page or two of his scribblings. Others study largely irrelevant crap which, OK, let them, it's good for a person to have some hobbies and, sure, their hobbies, which is to say what they do as an amateur in the genuine sense of that term, can give them insights that are applicable more generally. But academia isn't where the theoretical understanding of struggle comes from, Ydoethur. All the big contributions to such understanding come from outside academia.

    Any truly radical critique that may arise inside or connected with the academic environment soon gets the hell out of there. Here obviously isn't the place to give examples. There haven't been many.
  • Jenny and the Mexicats have just livened up my evening

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yng5CTT8Ogk
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,869
    RIP Sir David Butler, father of the swing meter
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    Dead rubber but great GP.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,029
    DJ41 said:

    ydoethur said:

    DJ41 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
    Yes, of course it's true that it's the material production relations that define the nature of any fundamentally exploitative society. It's not ideology to recognise that; it's the truth.

    Nothing wrong with the study of surface, though, even through time. It's thinking the surface is the underlying that's ideological (and stupid). As for "yes, 'we' need that way of looking at things and several other ways too", that's super-stupid and can also be amusing - a case of academics admiring their own reflections while carefully avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

    Marxism absolutely does NOT go well with anything that's academic whatsoever. That was part of the original downfall in the 1871-1914 period in Germany with the SPD. (Nice symbol you use here, though, Dura.)
    Well, that's certainly not true. It's extremely useful as a theoretical framework for identifying social and economic trends particularly relating to imbalances built up by the accumulation of wealth in different groups. Heck, I use it for that all the time and I'm no Marxist.

    It just doesn't work as a political philosophy because it essentially assumes people act according to mathematical formulas. And they don't.
    By "academic" I mean the institutionalised university scene, not intellectual thought. The Marxist approach has an aim: the undermining and overthrow of exploitation. It's not commentary. You can't understand exploitation well intellectually without undermining it, and you can't undermine it inside academia.

    There have been a very few exceptions, e.g. Antonio Negri in Italy (but look what happened to him - he self-pillockised), and even some extremely occasional stuff in Britain which necessarily lasts about five minutes. In short, you can't fight the system from within. I don't remember seeing even a bright guy such as Christopher Hill on any barricades.

    Most academic "Marxism" is a joke. "Cultural Marxism" is a joke. The Frankfurt school were a bunch of bourgeois w*nkers. Theodore Adorno called the cops on student protesters. (Herbert Marcuse at least deserves respect for supporting Angela Davis, and his "one-dimensional man" thesis is essentially correct but hardly original and was as if deprived of a firing-pin.) Paulo Freire may have had a heart, but he didn't understand much either. Zizek is an an absolute idiot as can be seen from reading even a page or two of his scribblings. Others study largely irrelevant crap which, OK, let them, it's good for a person to have some hobbies and, sure, their hobbies, which is to say what they do as an amateur in the genuine sense of that term, can give them insights that are applicable more generally. But academia isn't where the theoretical understanding of struggle comes from, Ydoethur. All the big contributions to such understanding come from outside academia.

    Any truly radical critique that may arise inside or connected with the academic environment soon gets the hell out of there. Here obviously isn't the place to give examples. There haven't been many.
    Marxism is a set of tools which you can use for analysis. The radical political advocacy stuff may or may not follow, depending on where you stop using the tools and how plausible you find them all. If your point is that almost no intelligent employable people support radical political activism, though, I agree.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's been a lovely, warm, still, late summer afternoon.

    It's also the 13th November.

    It's all fucked.

    Think of how annoying this must be for Putin.
    I had lunch at Gloucester services today.

    Sitting outside.

    With no coat on.

    And it was beautiful. You'd be happy with that weather in August.

    But as @Theuniondivvie rightly says it's still fucked, and the thought it's fucking Putin is only small consolation.
    The Hobbit services? A tenner for an organic pasty? Are you made of money?
    they charge £3.75 for an organic pastry actually. :-)

    More seriously, although they are quite expensive they are by far the best fast food outlets around that area and they are far cheaper than any outlet for comparable quality. So you could get a meal that was somewhat better at the George at Cambridge, But you would have to wait 40 minutes for it if you haven't booked in advance forget it. Also, they charge you more for it. Meanwhile there are other cheap and cheerful restaurants around where you might get a meal for between five and seven quid, but the quality is rubbish.

    So although I do not go there often because they are not cheap, I will go there when I have the opportunity and when I was going to have to eat out anyway.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,869

    Chris said: "That seemed like a pretty absurd comment but as I didn't know anything about the political leanings of Episcopalians I looked it up."

    Chris, you may need to be as old as King and I are -- I was born in 1943, he in 1944 -- to understand that. Until 1960 or so, Episcopalians were very Republican, so much so the people joked back then that American Jews earned like Episcopalians, and voted like Puerto Ricans.

    Episcopalians are concentrated most strongly in New England which in the 1950s leaned GOP while the South, which was and is more white Baptist evangelical and Black Pentecostal leaned Democrat. Now of course the reverse applies
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    As a Man U fan I am a tad embarrassed by that. We were awful in that second half.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    Watching the cricket again, right from the start

    Heh
  • Jenny and the Mexicats have just livened up my evening

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yng5CTT8Ogk

    AKA Pachucos (Zootsuiters) y la Princesa

    English girl singing Mexican music with a Mexican/Spanish band. Kind of like Eric Burdon with WAR!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    Leon said:

    Watching the cricket again, right from the start

    Heh

    No spoilers now
  • ping said:

    I missed this, from a few days ago. Peter Oborne;

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-sunak-corbyn-conspiracy-lies-unites-starmer-government

    He’s right. It is surely not ok to outright lie to parliament, knowing that it’s not in the interests of your opponent to correct you.

    It’s a shitty political strategy that demeans parliament. Our politics should be better than this. Johnson dragged the tories into the gutter, and there they remain.

    Oborne is full of crap as is "Middle East Eye".

    Its not a lie to point out unfortunate truths. The way Corbyn was described is entirely honest, even if Middle East Eye doesn't like it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,471
    ...
    ydoethur said:

    DJ41 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    I think from Morris_Dancer's statement it was the ones which are aa bit more than simply thinking about economic issues and systems that would be problematic, as with any approach which involves fitting things into a preconceived ideology.
    Here's a brilliant book by the cleverest man I personally know, and he is expressly marxist and so is his approach in the book:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reciprocity-Ritual-Developing-City-State-Paperbacks/dp/0198150369

    I think the ideological approach can be fruitful. If you start from the hypothesis that some bugger is exploiting some other bugger, as per uncle Karl, and go out looking for oppressive exploitation it can yield useful insights. In my case, and had had the energy to turn this into a book or at least paper, that the ancient Greek world was one fucking great garment sweatshop, the workers being every single woman who wasn't a priestess or a prostitute. They are all spinning or weaving 24/7 in plays and on vases and in Homer.
    Yes, of course it's true that it's the material production relations that define the nature of any fundamentally exploitative society. It's not ideology to recognise that; it's the truth.

    Nothing wrong with the study of surface, though, even through time. It's thinking the surface is the underlying that's ideological (and stupid). As for "yes, 'we' need that way of looking at things and several other ways too", that's super-stupid and can also be amusing - a case of academics admiring their own reflections while carefully avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

    Marxism absolutely does NOT go well with anything that's academic whatsoever. That was part of the original downfall in the 1871-1914 period in Germany with the SPD. (Nice symbol you use here, though, Dura.)
    Well, that's certainly not true. It's extremely useful as a theoretical framework for identifying social and economic trends particularly relating to imbalances built up by the accumulation of wealth in different groups. Heck, I use it for that all the time and I'm no Marxist.

    It just doesn't work as a political philosophy because it essentially assumes people act according to mathematical formulas. And they don't.
    Quite. Who is to say that those Greek women did not derive a great deal of pleasure from their weaving? It is fundamentally flawed to categorise certain tasks as menial and therefore assign those who perform them as the exploited. Olympic athletes are forced to run and jump to the point of exhaustion. A game of golf is chasing a ball around a field trying to direct it into a hole with a small stick. That we don't define those activities as torture is just a question of perception.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,295
    Remaining Midterms wishlist

    1. Dems retain House - still theoretically possible, but I admit very unlikely
    2. Kari Lake defeated - I'm quite hopeful on this
    3. Lauren Boebert defeated - Less likely, but possible. Looks like there will be a recount no matter who is leading.
    4. Sen Warnock reelected in Georgia runoff - I think this will happen.

    Even if all 4 fail it's still been a pretty great set of results.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    DougSeal said:

    kinabalu said:

    WillG said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FPT: I read a book on Greek history, a modern work, in which the historian extolled the virtues of 'interpreting' history according to new schools of thought. Such as Marxism.

    Bastardisation and revisionism mean modern works can be as bad or worse as older works for bias.

    Edited extra bit: I also read a Norse myth book (recent) including a section on the historical Ivar the Boneless which suggested his lack of bones was indicative of a more forward thinking Viking sentiment with less reliance on physical prowess. Except Justin Pollard in his biography of Alfred the Great explains the nickname may simply be a mistranslation (I forget of what) which means the author is either deliberately omitting a relevant fact as it's inconvenient to their agenda or they know less than me, the reader, which also does not seem very reassuring.

    Edited extra bit 2: I also stopped watching one history YouTube channel when the chap behind it described sex-determined roles in medieval farming as being due to outdated gender stereotypes. Sure. Because men being twice as strong as women and other biologically caused and observable facts are just *so* 14th century.

    Marxist approaches can be very fruitful in reinterpreting ancient history. It's great knowing Pericles gave this speech and Nicias lost this battle and Socrates had this dialogue, but it is also instructive to know or at least ask where the money was coming from and who was exploiting whom along the way.
    Completely agree with this. Cutting history from various lenses is absolutely the way we should do it.
    No shape otherwise. Just things happening in time. Ditto a single life. You need a narrative - an angle - or it makes no sense. But in both cases, the micro and the macro, there's a choice of angles and you can pick and choose, or if you don't need simplicity you can mix in more than one, maybe even several. Hard work but you do have to do it, imo, and then defend it. You can't abdicate and just say it's all random, or all 'takes' are subjective and no better or worse than any other.
    I agree with this save that one also has to be wary of trying to artificially fit history into a "narrative" which inevitably leads to teleological interpretations that are bound to fail. Marxist and Whiggish history are particularly guilty of this. There are few phrases that boil my piss as much as "the right side of history".
    I don’t have a problem with the phrase - so long as it’s not used by historians.
  • Heh


Sign In or Register to comment.