But that's not all: in a fit of self-referentialism, it surveys - firmly tongue-in-cheek - the post-modernist academic literature deconstructing The Economist and comes to a surprising conclusion. Read it here if you can...
Equally surprising is the paper's finding that George Bush is not too religious, although it is not made that explicit. Personally, I am not so much worried about his religiousness, or asserted lack thereof, rather than the administration's increasing inability to listen to outside positions.
Finally, the wisest fool:
"He was deeply learned, without possessing useful knowledge; sagacious in many individual cases, without having real wisdom...He was fond of his dignity, while he was perpetually degrading it by undue familiarity; capable of much public labour, yet often neglecting it for the meanest amusement; a wit, though a pedant; and a scholar, though fond of the conversation of the ignorant and uneducated...He was laborious in trifles, and a trifler where serious labour was required; devout in his sentiments, and yet too often profane in his language..."
Even though some may think that this is a profile of yours truly, it's a description of King James I.. The Economist is running a competition for the Honourable Title of The Wisest Fool. The criteria are as follows: He or she must be fundamentally an idiot, but a shrewd or cunning one. Candidates need not inhabit Christendom, but they must be alive, or have been in the past 50 years. Submissions to reach competition@economist.com by January 17th!
P.S. My heartfelt congratulations to the Ukrainians! According to the exit polls and - more importantly - the Central Electoral Committee, the liberal candidate has ended up winning by a large majority, which is a major slap in the face of the Russian president. I don't think he qualifies for the competition ...
No comments:
Post a Comment