So. The Economist has a blog on “life and art” called Moreover. It appears to be utterly worthless. What’s that about?
They have guest posts from Diane and Michael Ravitch about ... well, the first one is about Cultural vandalism in schools where they claim that “the history curriculum in most states does not mention the names of any significant individuals”. Really? I suspect this is an outright lie. Of course, it could be a tautology, I mean, all you have to do is declare that any individuals mentioned by name in the history curriculum are insignificant and hey presto. The post, bye-the-bye, is occasioned by a story in the Daily Mail (seriously) called Schools told to dump Churchill and Hitler from history lessons, which gives the impression that schoolteachers will be forbidden to mention the names Winston or Adolf. Reading, for instance, School curriculum to make room for new subjects in the Guardian, makes it clear that the main point of the change is to allow for greater flexibility in teaching, school to school. To quote the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority: “The new programmes of study have been designed to give teachers a less prescriptive, more flexible framework for teaching, creating more scope to tailor the curriculum to meet the needs of each individual student.” In other words, they decline to provide in the national Curriculum a list of facts for students to parrot, but want teachers to use their initiative to, well, teach. Mr. Churchill isn’t out, what is out is the central authority dictating what exactly is to be taught, outside a general framework. Vandalism!
Now, if that was stupid and dishonest, try the second guest post, where Ms. Ravitch laments Lindsay Lohan and the paucity of allusion. Writers these days, you see, rather than quoting Oliver Goldsmith or Wilfred Owen, have only a meager supply of literary and historical references and must “stick with banalities, trivialities, the words that everyone understands, free of allusions and unburdened by any hint of an educated mind.” Yes, yes. Or rather, Sadly, No!
Sure, 80% of our politician’s literary allusions are to the Bible and hymns, but surely that’s appropriate, and furthermore was always true. John Kerry, as I noted at the time, referenced Langston Hughes. We have seen more than one Presidential candidate this cycle allude to Abraham Lincoln’s speeches. I recall Bob Dole in 1996, wild-eyed, quoting Ira Gershwin, but of course Ira Gershwin is effectively Lindsay Lohan, isn’t he? Or is he? And what about all those Lindsay Lohan references all our politicians are making—not so much? Simpsons jokes on the stump? I don’t remember any. Is it possible that Ms. Ravitch is simply outright lying about the state of political rhetoric? Sadly, yes.
I know that those are guest posts and that Mr. and Ms. Ravitch are not going to be among the continuing bloggers. But then the Editor, Emily Bobrow, gets to mock citizen reporters because they—get this!—work in pajama bottoms! Ha, ha, ha Ms. Bobrow. Yes, that would disqualify them from journalism, whose practitioners never, ever write in anything less than full formal kit. Whenever I read an article, my first question is what was the reporter wearing while writing this, and because of course I have no idea, I make shit up and then judge the quality of the reporting based on the shit I made up. Maybe I can blog for the Economist.
I mean, seriously. The Economist has a well-deserved reputation for caring about actual facts. I mean, other than their rather sweet and childlike belief in Santa Claus the free market. A good magazine, what with one thing and another. What the hell are they doing with this crap?
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.