YEBIGA,

here you go again, drivel from beginning to end, pretending knowledge of things about which you clearly know nothing. You might impress those who share your ignorant prejudice, but for someone who has read those you disparage it's plain you don't know what you're talking about.

I'll leave you to your delusions.

Poirot:

"I can't join in because I'm uneducated on such matters".

Don't let that stop you, it doesn't stop YEBIGA.

I felt a frisson when I saw your name come up btw. Glad you're still about : )

The following has been pasted straight from Melbourne Uni Website - ancient world studies.

Please remember this is the ancient world - the postmodern symptomology is much more profound in Melbourne Universities more recent historical studies, iphilosophical studies and its political studies - I had hoped the ancient world may have escaped its corruption.

"You can focus on a particular time period, geographic region, technical specialisation such as myth or ceramics, or thematic area of study. You will gain insight into and understanding of contemporary society by exploring how ancient cultures have contributed to the development of our modern world, with regard to gender and ethnic identity, warfare, colonialism and imperialism, the propagandistic power of literary and visual imagery, and technology and economy. You will develop skills in research, writing, analysis, and communication that promote career flexibility. "

The propagandistic power is certainly present in this introduction. And ceramics! Well ok
But Gender and ethnic identity in the ancient world - oh come on, only an idiot inculcated in 20th century [deleted - offensive] could write this. This is a patent attempt at backward engineering of history.

I am happy to go through the entire faculty and every subject for your enlightenment - pun intended.

Why the timeline alone should alert your critical faculties.
The rise of relativism, postmodernist theories, identity politics and all things politically correct coincides precisely with the rise of right wing think tanks, economic rationalism, the regression of social welfare, privatisation - in short the rise of the corporatocracy.

It is a kind of spooky parallel. For students have throughout the modern era played a pivotal role in every western progressive achievement. And what an amazing coincidence, that just as the theorists arrive the apogee of progress has past. The postmodern symptomologist would impotently watch every hard fought gain attacked and erased one at a time.

What are coincidence hey Squeers, Aristocrat, Chris.

Really - the conceit is past curing.

Chris,

Finally got round to reading your article, as have been entertained by YEBIGA and Squeers and their dueling philosophies (or something to that effect).

Just on this point where you said:

"I also produced two academic articles that sought to explain why the Howard government (1996-2007) was successful in electoral terms. While I never voted for Howard, the evidence suggested a pragmatic approach by the Howard government in line with community attitudes...."

It struck me as an "academic" way to explain that the Howard govt, noting that One Nation's policies struck a positive chord with the electorate decided it was safe and an all round good idea to pinch their platform of xenophobia and fear mongering and run with it..highly successfully, as it turned out.

It's also notable that Malcolm Fraser is now scathing of these policies from his old party claiming the "Liberal Party" no longer represents such as he. Most days on twitter he highlights some disgrace associated with OSB and the camps.

................

YEBIGA and Squeers, I hope you'll both continue to square off, it's great to see these sort of things discussed around here again...climate change and domestic politics being the usual hackneyed fare.

(Good to see you back too, Squeers:)

Poirot,

In regard to the two pieces on the Howard govt, which I now recognise could have been much better, my starting point was the bias shown by many academics against the Howard govt. I have admitted this to many.

Sure, there was the influence of One Nation, but a great deal of evidence indicates that the Howard govt did take public opinion on board in regard to many of its policies. you can read them: The Howard Government: The Extent to which Public Attitudes Influenced Australia's Federal Policy Mix (Aust Journal of Public Administration 2007; and Did the Howard Government Undermine Australian Democracy (Aust Journal of Political Science 2009).

In relation to book on Abbott govt's first term, indeed my effort will be much critical of its intended policies, the rationale, and whether such policies were successful. There is a heavy focus on the economic imperative, but issues concerning social impact will also be discussed.

Yebiga,

I have to explain I never give much attention to theory or past great thinkers with my humble writing efforts.

While I appreciate past contributions, and may occasionally refer to them, I am only ever interested in contemporary issues.

In other words, I study the issues and don't really give much importance to what was said long ago whether, 80 years ago, 500 years, or 2,000. A given context has unique circumstances which would probably mean that past thinkers would alter their thought today.

So your arguments about postmodernity, marxism, or any other theory, are probably lost on me. You can lump me wherever you like.

I had one IR tosser read my honours thesis and say it was crap, not theoretical enough.

But hell, I stuck to my guns and wrote on the importance of high-tech manufacturing with minimal regard to theory, albeit I had a chapter discussing comparative advantage and so on.

Maybe I was never up to scratch as a humanities student, at least in your desired mould. But I have only ever been interested in my interpretation of evidence. Studying modern issues, I have never felt the need to refer much to past thinkers.

As I have told many in university, often experts at theoretical waffle, I am not interested in some supposed search for the best theory.

There you go, I admit I am a theoretical dummy, but I am not ashamed.

Don't think lay people would be much interested in what was said 200 years ago either.

History may repeat, but the given context will always have unique circumstances.

Like I said previously, exposure to theory should be in humanities, but only as part of a course designed to get students to think critically about issues to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives in accordance to the evidence.

If students get that experience, we will have much better scholars both from he left and right.

That is my opinion.