An avalanche of sanctimony
Oh dear.
It would seem Little George has misbehaved. He is in disgrace. He has "misbehaved". He is in disgrace.
Oh dear.
What nonsense it all is, of course. It is tolerably widely acknowledged, to say the least, that one of the most readily identifiable, not to say most widely recognised, traits of autism (or at least a certain type of autism) is an unusual, even freakish, mental facility, whether that manifest itself in ability as a human calculator or as an instinctive musical genius. Strange feats of memory certainly fit into this overall theme: I first heard of autism watching a documentary many years ago about a boy who could draw, from memory after one look, the facade of any building, even the most floridly over-designed Gothic styles (which I love, but they are indubitably overdesigned). The conversation in question, let us not forget, was about Mr Osborne's peculiar feats of memory - and it was his interlocutor, not the shadow Chancellor himself, who first described it as autism. The Chancellor, of course, is also renowned, rightly or wrongly, as a man of considerable intellect and a devastating command of figures in support of (if not actually germane to) his argument.
Not that this mattered to any of the heroically pompous commentariat that were invited to opine. It is apparently OK for the journalist in question casually to describe as autistic an unusual mental or mathematical facility (which is accurate) but not for the shadow Chancellor to say the same of Gordon Brown. Even assuming that Mr Osborne was referring instead to Mr Brown's equally renowned social maladjustment and inability to work with others (which is also accurate), why is it OK for the journalist to offer one lazy stereotype of autism and not for Mr Osborne to offer another? Because one's perceived as negative and one isn't? Please. Can you say cognitive dissonance?
The difference is, of course, that beating a journalist's imagined slight into the ground isn't going to do anyone's career any good - but not so the shadow Chancellor. Lib Dem spokesmen have a living to make, after all. Nick Hornby was just being his usual idiotic self, one assumes.
It would seem Little George has misbehaved. He is in disgrace. He has "misbehaved". He is in disgrace.
Oh dear.
What nonsense it all is, of course. It is tolerably widely acknowledged, to say the least, that one of the most readily identifiable, not to say most widely recognised, traits of autism (or at least a certain type of autism) is an unusual, even freakish, mental facility, whether that manifest itself in ability as a human calculator or as an instinctive musical genius. Strange feats of memory certainly fit into this overall theme: I first heard of autism watching a documentary many years ago about a boy who could draw, from memory after one look, the facade of any building, even the most floridly over-designed Gothic styles (which I love, but they are indubitably overdesigned). The conversation in question, let us not forget, was about Mr Osborne's peculiar feats of memory - and it was his interlocutor, not the shadow Chancellor himself, who first described it as autism. The Chancellor, of course, is also renowned, rightly or wrongly, as a man of considerable intellect and a devastating command of figures in support of (if not actually germane to) his argument.
Not that this mattered to any of the heroically pompous commentariat that were invited to opine. It is apparently OK for the journalist in question casually to describe as autistic an unusual mental or mathematical facility (which is accurate) but not for the shadow Chancellor to say the same of Gordon Brown. Even assuming that Mr Osborne was referring instead to Mr Brown's equally renowned social maladjustment and inability to work with others (which is also accurate), why is it OK for the journalist to offer one lazy stereotype of autism and not for Mr Osborne to offer another? Because one's perceived as negative and one isn't? Please. Can you say cognitive dissonance?
The difference is, of course, that beating a journalist's imagined slight into the ground isn't going to do anyone's career any good - but not so the shadow Chancellor. Lib Dem spokesmen have a living to make, after all. Nick Hornby was just being his usual idiotic self, one assumes.
posted by Novus at 20:08
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home