How boring are those curling stones matches at the winter olympic ?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I got half way through the Sharma documentary.

I'm really torn on it.

In what way?

Him and his persona, or the gist of his argument?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

My (female) in-laws is all witches, the sort "experts" used to drown or burn or both.

I trust them

My witch mate is Ramsgate has been working her magic for us for 2-3 years now. Her husband didn't believe in it until that post-Dubai run when the only game we lost - Villa - was the only time she forgot to do it.

[Peter]

In what way?

Him and his persona, or the gist of his argument?

Too long to lay out here but in basic terms, fundamentally I am only interested in political history. How governments arise, operate and interact with their people and other governments.

I dont give a crap what the poets thought. And I'm not going to let Shelley tell me what my rights are anymore than I am going to let Don Henley tell me how to vote.

When it comes to music, I may be a romantic. In politics, I am Enlightenment all the way. So I see the American revolution as a significant achievement and the French revolution as an absolute mess.

And he is a Spurs fan.....so there's that.

[Peter]

But that's not true in my experience. Yes, my LSE degree was '89-92, but the history OU BA and UKC MA were in the last decade.

All my OU tutors were sound as ****. One did his BA, MA and PhD at Oxford and Cambridge and came to the OU cos that's what he believed in. Another had a couple of books and had done a couple of BBC docs about the slave trade.

The WW1 section of my Total War course was controlled by Annika Mombauer, one of the top experts globally on the Fischer Thesis and the organiser of the 5`0th anniversary conference at the IWM in 2011, and one of the 4 experts in the Brit Library debate on the centenary of WW1. {She was on the sensible side along side Gary Sheffield.} I spoke to her after both events.

My UKC tutor was one of the country's very top experts on WW1 - book published by CUP as the post-grad handbook on the BEF on the western front. He got into it as a ten year old and had just spent his whole life studying WW1.

And none of them would have been for sale to the highest bidder. They were all into it for the pwoppa academic reasons of just objective historical understanding.

I know what you read in the press about these former Polys doing anything the Chinks want etc.

But the idea that all academics are like that is just silly. As I say, all the ones I've studied with have been the complete opposite. And I spent a lot more time than the other students talking to them cos not only did I have all the free time cos I don't work, I was generally the brightest in the group and therefore the one they enjoyed speaking to.

In short, I've spent loads of 1-2-1 time with most of my tutors and they are exactly what you'd expect of an honourable British academic. I would trust their academic integrity with my life. {Just like they trusted me when occasionally I'd tell them some assumption about India would be wrong cos they knew I knew what I was talking about and would be objective in my analyses.}

But you can't say all academics are like that just cos some of them are.

Cider is lush. I've started using it instead of white wine in creamy recipes, just cos a can of cider is cheaper than a bottle of wine.

With mussels etc. Or the glw's invention that I cook, fresh spag with scallops and prawns in a cider, cream and garlic sauce with fresh parsley. Or a chicken casserole with cider, cream and chicken stock, with leeks, shallots, shrooms, spuds, pancetta cubes etc.

What I like about cider is you can get the tramp stuff I drink at 7.5-9% - for crusties too poor to afford Spesh {back when it was the real recipe at 9% before Cameron ****ed it up with his 4 units per can limit.}

Or you can get normal, Strongbow style. Or the sweeter Irish ones like Magners and Bulmers. Get a can/bottle and raise a glass to Arsenal having the most successful of seasons.

Historians are not for sale, if for no other reason than that nobody is buying.

But research at universities is highly questionable in many respects. And it has nothing to do with the part of the sector you look at. Most research takes place at the Russell Group places (indeed, it is why the group exists).

If you look at how research is funded, both privately and publicly, you'll see clear patterns. Where the money goes and where it doesn't. And why.

Try undertaking a doctorate questioning the approach to treating trans kids and see what happens. I've seen it. Not pretty at all. Horrifying.

[redgunamo]

Historians are not for sale, if for no other reason than that nobody is buying.

But research at universities is highly questionable in many respects. And it has nothing to do with the part of the sector you look at. Most research takes place at the Russell Group places (indeed, it is why the group exists).

If you look at how research is funded, both privately and publicly, you'll see clear patterns. Where the money goes and where it doesn't. And why.

Try undertaking a doctorate questioning the approach to treating trans kids and see what happens. I've seen it. Not pretty at all. Horrifying.

What's the "why".

[Peter]

What's the "why".

That's about where the money comes from. Public money funds types of research and not others. Here the money follows the research, not the other way round. You are judged on what you produced last year.

Private money funds the research it wants until it gets the answer it wants. The research follows the money.

So you take a discipline, see the research that is being funded and find out who is paying for it. There is your why.

Not all academics are for sale. Which is why you need to choose carefully when assigning your funding.

[PSRB]

That's about where the money comes from. Public money funds types of research and not others. Here the money follows the research, not the other way round. You are judged on what you produced last year.

Private money funds the research it wants until it gets the answer it wants. The research follows the money.

So you take a discipline, see the research that is being funded and find out who is paying for it. There is your why.

Not all academics are for sale. Which is why you need to choose carefully when assigning your funding.

This (at a less important scale) is exactly the same in advertising, you fund the research to essentially get the answers you want. If there's an answer you don't want, you leave that bit out when you send it to the client. Client sees answers they like and promptly pay for more research.

[redgunamo]

That's about where the money comes from. Public money funds types of research and not others. Here the money follows the research, not the other way round. You are judged on what you produced last year.

Private money funds the research it wants until it gets the answer it wants. The research follows the money.

So you take a discipline, see the research that is being funded and find out who is paying for it. There is your why.

Not all academics are for sale. Which is why you need to choose carefully when assigning your funding.

What about "the approach to treating trans kids"; why is anyone interested in the outcome. I mean, supra pecuniam why would anyone pay for that work, what's in it for them. Whoever they are.

[PSRB]

What about "the approach to treating trans kids"; why is anyone interested in the outcome. I mean, supra pecuniam why would anyone pay for that work, what's in it for them. Whoever they are.

With my tin foil hat on....big pharma

[Peter]

What about "the approach to treating trans kids"; why is anyone interested in the outcome. I mean, supra pecuniam why would anyone pay for that work, what's in it for them. Whoever they are.

Nobody wants to pay for it. The problem wasnt the money.

The problem was that a fairly prominent psychotherapist wanted to research atlernatives to the affirmation route that is pretty much forced on therapists- effectively arguing that kids need their feelings 'challenged' as part of therapy.

Along came online trans groups, NHS Trusts (you pay for them!), charities and employers pressuring the university to stop the research on 'safety grounds'. And they succeeded.

Individual effectively branded as transphobic, career destroyed.

[redgunamo]

With my tin foil hat on....big pharma

Surely there can't be enough of them for it to make sense, or profit.

Maybe I need to get out more. Or less

[redgunamo]

Nobody wants to pay for it. The problem wasnt the money.

The problem was that a fairly prominent psychotherapist wanted to research atlernatives to the affirmation route that is pretty much forced on therapists- effectively arguing that kids need their feelings 'challenged' as part of therapy.

Along came online trans groups, NHS Trusts (you pay for them!), charities and employers pressuring the university to stop the research on 'safety grounds'. And they succeeded.

Individual effectively branded as transphobic, career destroyed.

Thank you for the explanation. I understand better now.

Why not just tell them all to get stuffed. That's what King Donald the Wicked would do.

[Peter]

Thank you for the explanation. I understand better now.

Why not just tell them all to get stuffed. That's what King Donald the Wicked would do.

If you deliver nursing course you cant piss off the NHS. Whatever you deliver you cant annoy employers, charities etc.

And you dont want negative traction on social media labelling you transphobic and accusing you of endangering children etc etc....

All that for one research degree student? No chance. They'll cut and run. And the lobbyists, acitivists and captured institutions know it.

So instead you get a load of research on straight people being fascists.

[redgunamo]

If you deliver nursing course you cant piss off the NHS. Whatever you deliver you cant annoy employers, charities etc.

And you dont want negative traction on social media labelling you transphobic and accusing you of endangering children etc etc....

All that for one research degree student? No chance. They'll cut and run. And the lobbyists, acitivists and captured institutions know it.

So instead you get a load of research on straight people being fascists.

People are so sensitive nowadays. Not me, of course

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Too long to lay out here but in basic terms, fundamentally I am only interested in political history. How governments arise, operate and interact with their people and other governments.

I dont give a crap what the poets thought. And I'm not going to let Shelley tell me what my rights are anymore than I am going to let Don Henley tell me how to vote.

When it comes to music, I may be a romantic. In politics, I am Enlightenment all the way. So I see the American revolution as a significant achievement and the French revolution as an absolute mess.

And he is a Spurs fan.....so there's that.

You're not though. Politically, you're a Romantic.

It was Romanticism that ended slavery and the slave trade. It was Romanticism that started the ideas of communism long before Marx. Robert Wedderburn, the mixed race son of a slave, was giving proto-commie speeches in the early C19th, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wedderburn

And when you say the French Revolution was a mess, you have to see it as a series of revolutions between 1789 and 1871 {or even 1968.} In 1830, there was the revolution that created a UK-style parliamentary democracy and ended the ancien regime for good. The July or Second French Revolution, or les Trois Glorieuses of 1830 led to the 1832 June rebellion that Hugo's Les Mis is about with an attempt to restore a republic.

This happened in France with their 4th Revolution in 1848 when revolutions swept Europe and the Communist Manifesto was written. {Interestingly the UK was the only major European power to avoid this because Peel had split the Tories by repealing the Corn Laws in 1846. Political Romanticism GB-stylee.} This created their 2nd Republic and 3 years later, their next revolution created the Second Empire which saw the most liberal workers rights in Europe.

This ended with the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 {with the unification of Germany, which like the Risorgimento in Italy in 1861 and the taking of Rome a decade later, being fundamental parts of Romanticism.} The Fr-Pr war led to the Paris Commune and then the creation of the 3rd Republic in 1871. It may have been a mess but got there in the end, while the Yanks still have black people being murdered by the state and ICE on the streets with no free health care and a school-funding system that means the poor, especially the blacks, have far less money spent per pupil than the rich, white kids in state schools. Enlightenment mindset compared to the Romanticism of NW Europe.

So unless you support the continuation of slavery, of autocracy or oligarchy, the denial of workers rights and of national self-determination, then politically you are a Romantic, not Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment ended the Wars of Religion era, which is why the English Civil War {Wars of the 3 Kingdoms} was the the final act of the wars of religion in the UK while also being the first political revolution.

It was Romanticism that started all the political liberties you support, whether freedom from slavery or having democracy or workers' rights or the welfare state or the ending of the political dominance of the landed elite or of the ending of imperialism being replaced by national self-determination. Your Yank Enlightenment revolution kept slavery, entrenched the power of the financial oligarchy and allowed them to slaughter the natives and steal their land - all things that Romanticism fought against and defeated.

But unless I've totally misjudged you, and you think all of the above like slavery, autocracy and imperialism are "good things" as Sellar and Yeatman would put it, then politically you're a Romantic. Not a 1770s Enlightenment Septic traitor determined to keep slavery {threatened by GB's 1772 Somerset Case saying slavery in GB was illegal} and keep the right to steal native Indians' land {threatened by Article 40 of the Capitulation of Montreal in 1760 that guaranteed the land rights of Canadian natives.}

Politically, P, you're a Romantic. Whether you prefer Leonard Cohen to Byron is irrelevant on this point.

I know you love Yank history, and the revolutionaries like Franklin were pure Enlightenment, but the Yanks never got Romanticism in the way the Europeans did. Which is why their country is still so ****ed in the C21st when it comes to race or the rights, security and liberties of the poor.

I'm afraid that politically, you're a Romantic. Which is why you should preserver with the Scharma series.