A Civic Crisis in Education

Science and math are the keys to global competitiveness.

Science and math are where the jobs are.

Science and math are…

Now you finish the sentence. I’m sure you’ve heard this line of thought before. As an avowed humanities scholar, I sometimes find it frustrating that my field of choice is ignored beyond its connotations for literacy and national standards of reading among young children. Once they can read, start them in science, where they can be useful.

That’s one (albeit selfish) reason I’ve chosen “Dehumanized: When math and science rule the school” from Judy Rabin, based on an article by Mark Souka, for the next ProfoundNet. Here’s a snippet:

[Mark Slouka] argues the emphasis on mathscience and the devaluing of the humanities by those who control education and write and talk about education in the general media have framed the discussion within the context of economic success and competition.

He asks the question, Why is every Crisis in American Education cast as an economic threat and never a civic one?

Take a look at any publication coming out of the department of education or from political pundits debating national standards, or pre-K education, or community colleges. You’ll see a theme: education recovery = economic recovery. Better schools = better economy.

This theme underscores what is, to me, a bigger problem in our way of thinking about education. From the original article by Souka:

It’s about the victory of whatever can be quantified over everything that can’t. It’s about the quiet retooling of American education into an adjunct of business, an instrument of production. [...] only by studying this world can we hope to shape how it shapes us; that only by attempting to understand what used to be called, in a less embarrassed age, “the human condition” can we hope to make our condition more human, not less.

Foremost in concerns about education are not the familiarity of individuals with the U.S. constitution, understanding of the  judicial system, or intelligent dialogue about foreign policy, scientific ethics, or personal responsibility.

Science and math are important, certainly. But such a single-minded focus comes with the risk of ignoring the civic, as well as economic, value of education.

Don’t forget: what made the United States different (or has set it apart) from its inception was the way its civic society, not its economic system, was established.

Thanks, Judy, for a thought-provoking post.

“The very spring and root of virtue and honesty lie in good education”
- Plutarch

We the People…and Literati

One of the original American documents, a piece of literature all Americans should keep in mind, especially today.

Have a wonderful Independence Day!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

View the original document from the National Archives here.

The Ethics Mill

I recently read an article that frustrated me, made me think, and then made me think again about the way Americans view education. The article is “Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply: From Virginia to Manila: on the trail of papers for cash,” written by Thomas Bartlett for the Chronicle of Higher Education, March 20, 2009.

With corporate headquarters in Ukraine; employees in the Philippines, Nigeria, and India; and “headquarters” in Virginia, Essay Writers is truly global in scope. Although the stated purpose of many essay-for-sale websites is to provide examples, in reality, most purchased essays (at a rate of $20-40 per page) are handed in verbatim.

When college students (*note* Essay Writers also offers theses and dissertations) are busy with clubs, service organizations, sports, internships, and student government, why should they waste their time researching for a general education paper?

“Maybe your school assignments are too complicated,” says BestEssays.com, one of the websites under the umbrella of Essay Writers. “Maybe your interests have nothing in common with literature and creative writing.” Forget the possibility that you might have something to learn from tasks outside your comfort zone. Instead of re-prioritizing, why not pay someone else to do it?

Just as many American companies are outsourcing their administrative tasks, many American students are perfectly willing to outsource their academic work.

Here’s how one customer of Essay Writers described his reasoning:

Mickey Tomar [...] defends the idea of paying someone else to do your academic work, comparing it to companies that outsource labor. “Like most people in college, you don’t have time to do research on some of these things,” he says. “I was hoping to find a guy to do some good quality writing.”

The phrase, “Like most people in college…” really catches my attention. Why not? I want to ask. What’s the underlying problem? Is it the presence of too much pressure to succeed? Is it laziness? Some of the writers for Essay Writers seem to think so. One told The Chronicle,

Although he takes pride in the writing he’s done over the years, he doesn’t have much respect for the students who use the service. “These are kids whose parents pay for college,” he says. “I’ll take their money. It’s not like they’re going to learn anything anyway.”

Is he right? Is it time just to “give up” and allow college to become a Citizen Mill that turns out individuals gifted at manipulating time, money, data, and other individuals in pursuit of their aims? 

If nothing else, students have learned that the end justifies the means. A college degree doesn’t have to represent thinking skills, knowledge, and practice to be valuable. When applying for a job, someone who is self-taught, who has read the Great Conversations and pursued knowledge from today’s brightest minds, still is not on equal footing with someone who has a Bachelors degree, even if that person floated through and learned nothing.  

There’s something wrong with this thinking.

It is ironic to me that the exposure of white-collar crime still shocks and angers, when it is a natural continuation of the logic developed in the education system. Consider this phrase from BestEssays.com: “Non-plagiarized custom essays.” It’s not plagiarism; it belongs to you. It doesn’t matter that it’s not your own work.

Once learned, subjective ethics can be twisted or redefined so easily, like pouring a trickle of water over a still-wet black-and-white painting and watching gray spread over it.

Thinkers in all fields, not just literature and not just academia, need to take a step back and consider the values that are shaping our education system. Knowledge and content are important. But intentionally or not, we also are sending value messages to the leaders of the next generation.

It takes a great deal of idealism or, I think, blindness, to imagine that the habits learned in the classroom will not carry over to life.

Is John Galt Selling Books?

According to The Atlas Shrugged Index from the Freakonomics blog, sales of Ayn Rand’s famous econopoliticial novel Atlas Shrugged continue to follow (or mirror) current events.

Is life imitating art? And if so, why is the much-rumored Hollywood adaptation still being kept waiting in the wings?

Perhaps the book publishing industry will get a second wind during this recession by acting as as an economic indicator, with live sales updates via the Kindle.

Read my earlier comments on the Atlas phenomenon in “Atlas Takes Up Again.”

Obama as Literature

The face of politics in America is changing. The face of literature in America is changing. And according to one report from the National Review Online, the catalyst for change may, in fact, be the same. 

For this reason – or for the title alone – I’ve chosen “Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Obama” by John Darbyshire for the next ProfoundNet. Here’s a snippet:*

If you go to a recognized university to study English literature, you should naturally expect to encounter the great names. At Ohio State University, one of those great names will be Barack Obama.

The syllabus for the OSU course, English 275: Thematic Approaches to Literature, subtitled “Barack Obama and/as Literature,” (linked through the NRO article) asks students to consider these questions:

• What do his words (his books and speeches) say about him as a writer?
• What do his literary interests say about the relevance of literature to contemporary American politics and culture?
• How does race affect this literary conversation?

All are questions worth consideration. But do they qualify Barack Obama as a special topic in a literature course? Maybe. 

Granted, it was the National Review’s choice to place Obama in the company of Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer. The comparison creates interest in the article and is thus a wise move. To me, it leads to questions that English departments are asking more and more frequently: What is literature? What is classic literature? What qualifies a work for study?

19th-century French writer Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve defined the substance of a modern classic in this way:

A true classic, as I should like to hear it defined, is an author who has enriched the human mind, increased its treasure, and caused it to advance a step; who has discovered some moral and not equivocal truth, or revealed some eternal passion in that heart where all seemed known and discovered; who has expressed his thought, observation, or invention, in no matter what form, only provided it be broad and great, refined and sensible, sane and beautiful in itself; who has spoken to all in his own peculiar style, a style which is found to be also that of the whole world, a style new without neologism, new and old, easily contemporary with all time.

Although you could arguably apply some of these characteristics to President Obama (I have yet to read his books, so I’ll refrain from judgment), I appreciate the inference of time. President Obama’s writings have been in circulation fewer than 20 years. The full effect of an author or work is also seen in the way it “weathers” over time.

To that extent, I would agree with the unnamed student who instigated the article. President Obama is charged with governing the United States. Let’s not add to that already extensive pressure the burden of one-upping the Knight’s tale or matching wits with Falstaff. 

Thanks, John, for a thought-provoking article.

*Please note: The course information could not be confirmed by this blog author via the Ohio State University website. The course link (see here) did not contain a description of the course number in question.

Poetry at the Inauguration

Who knew literature could play a role in a highly-anticipated political, social, and historical event? After 1-20-2009, Americans everywhere will be reminded of this very fact.

At the inauguration of Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, just after Obama’s inaugural address to the nation, a woman stepped up to the podium and began to recite a poem. Her name was Elizabeth Alexander.

Alexander is a professor at Yale, and according to TIME Magazine (read the article here), she is the fourth poet to read an original work at an inauguration. Her predecessors are Robert Frost (Kennedy, 1961), Maya Angelou (Clinton, 1993), and Miller Williams (Clinton, 1997) (1). Alexander has large shoes to fill, indeed.

Here’s a quote from Alexander’s interview with TIME:

So many of my poet friends and I were hoping that he would decide to have a poem at the Inaugural, because we felt that it would be a signal of his own evident value of the possibilities of language. What we have is his understanding that the arts do have a place in day-to-day life, that poetry can still us — that is, let us pause for a moment and, as we contemplate that careful, careful language, hopefully see situations anew, from a different angle. That’s so much of what art and poetry offer.

This is not the first indication of the literary Obama. In March 2007, a blogger for the Huffington Post reported unearthing several poems Obama had published while at Occidental College in Los Angeles (read the full story here). Time will tell how that literary leaning will translate to the White House.

As Americans wait to judge their newest president, Alexander reminds listeners that “moments of pause and contemplation in the midst of grand occasion” are as integral to our culture and society as ever.

For Interest’s Sake

• Robert Frost recited “The Gift Outright” in 1961.
• Maya Angelou recited “On the Pulse of Morning” in 1993.
• Miller Williams recited “Of History and Hope” in 1997.
• Alexander recited “Praise Song for the Day” in 2009. 

Kipling for Press Secretary

Doesn’t this headline catch your attention? Rod Blagojevich and the Poetry Slam. Congratulations to NPR for a curiosity-inspiring hook. 

The Illinois governor, under fire for his handling of President-elect Obama’s Senate seat (see the Chicago Tribune), turned to Rudyard Kipling for comfort during a press conference Friday. Blagojevich quoted lines from the poem “If,” available in full here.

He’s not the only one:

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher called on Kipling following a bomb attack in 1984. During the Iran-contra scandal, a congressman quoted Kipling as he praised the loyalty of Ollie North. Even University of Maryland basketball coach Gary Williams quoted Kipling in the mid-1990s when his team was sucking wind.

Kipling’s oft-cited poem may be appropriate for its message of perseverance and determination: “If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,” and so on. However, public figures – politicians like Blagojevich, celebrities, and others – would do well also to remember a few lines that appear later in the poem:

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,

The true irony, as the NPR article points out, is that Kipling wrote his poem to honor Dr. Leander Starr Jameson, “who led a raid by the Brits in 1895 that resulted in disastrous defeat.” Tragic hero? Probably. Ideal role model? Not so much. Although I am thrilled to see political leaders recognizing the valuable rhetoric of the literati, closer scrutiny of their chosen poetic heroes might be worth a Google search.

Atlas Takes Up Again

Today, when the word “forefront” is used in conversation, its companion is very likely to be a variation on the word “economy.” And in many circles, the idea of unmoderated capitalism has become an associated whipping boy.

In the midst of the fray, proponents of both perspectives and political-economic leanings have turned to literature as a battlefield, a rallying cry, or a pointed, “I told you so.”

At the forefront of this economic stichomythia is 1930s-50s author and philosopher Ayn Rand, “the novelist who is to blame,” according to a headline in the Business Standard in India. A symbol of extreme capitalism, Rand’s works are rife with characters like John Galt, of Atlas Shrugged, who preach Rand’s philosophy of objectivism, laissez-faire, and self-interest.

True, literature has great influence, but how does the Business Standard journalist take the connection to such a dramatic conclusion? Here’s a synopsis, from the article:

Alan Greenspan, who, first as chairman of the Council of Economic Affairs and later as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of the US, was at the center of economic decision making for two decades right up to 2006 was a great admirer of Ayn Rand and a true believer in the philosophy she espoused in Atlas Shrugged. [...] When Greenspan took his oath of office at the White House for his first public policy job as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he had Ayn Rand standing beside him.

(Also see Kansas City Star, Alan, like Atlas, shrugged)

Others, defending the free market (see Grand Junction Free Press and the San Jose Mercury News), argue that the US, not purely capitalistic, cannot name current economic conditions as the inevitable result of Rand’s vision. They take a dark view of a future that promises more government involvement. Neither is the Ayn Rand Institute silent on current affairs.

Still others find camaraderie in the pages of Atlas Shrugged. On this editorial page from the southwest Florida News-Press, the third letter down points readers to a re-creation of “Galt’s Gulch,” the capitalist sanctuary established in Atlas. 

A recent poll released by Zogby International informs politicians that 8.1% of Americans have read Atlas Shrugged. What does it mean? and why does it matter? Perhaps the only point is that, as a classic, Atlas remains potent; but perhaps, on a broader scale, literature dealing with the history and philosophy of the American economic system is back in vogue.

Is it any wonder that a film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged currently swirls around Hollywood?

In one sense, then, it does not matter if Rand’s writings are an example of a misguided system that has wreaked havoc in global markets or a manifesto detailing the consequences of excessive government intervention.

For whether Atlas shrugs or stoops again to the yoke, Rand’s revived prevalence in public discourse undeniably reminds us that strict boundaries between literature and society are like the “impenetrable” gateway to Galt’s Gulch – ultimately, an illusion.

The Only Choice in 2008

Tired of politics as usual? In this election, only one candidate has proven leadership qualities, humility, and an indisputable, unsullied record of courage, commitment, and honesty. Only one candidate is capable of re-energizing this country’s future and restoring peace and prosperity to our nation.

Listen to the candidate’s own words:

Little do I resemble the figures of [Washington and Roosevelt] as they stand carven in their majesty in [Mt. Rushmore]. I am but the heir of [Roosevelt], not [Roosevelt] himself. I have had a hard life and a long; and the leagues that lie between here and [Washington] are a small part in the count of my journeys. I have crossed many mountains and many rivers, and trodden many plains, even into the far coutries of [Australia and New Zealand] where the stars are strange.

But my home, such as I have, is in the [United States]. For here the heirs of [the founding fathers] have ever dwelt in long line unbroken from father unto son for many generations. Our days have darkened, and we have dwindled; but ever the [presidency] has passed to a new keeper. [...]

What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the [leaders] were asleep, or were all gone to the grave?

And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. [...] Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown. 

But now the world is changing once again. A new hour comes. [...] Battle is at hand. The [presidency] shall be reforged. I will come to [Washington].¹

Vote for the one who can really turn this country around.

Vote Aragorn for President!

 

---

 1. Text taken from The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien, Book 2, Chapter 2: The Council of Elrond.

Innocence versus Experience

The Vice Presidential debate on Thursday evening represented a clash of dichotomies. Male versus female. Conservative versus liberal. Republican versus Democrat. Young versus old. Newcomer versus veteran. Worldview versus worldview.

In this election season, it is easy to see how much impact preconceptions have on perception. Do we call it “fairness,” “deregulation,” “redistribution,” “unpatriotic,” or “wasteful spending”? What do these terms mean? The answer depends on who you ask, and when, and where. In politics, the same scenario can look very different when seen from opposite angles. A few choice words have an enormous impact. Think about how much influence a few chords of ominous music have on an otherwise innocuous scene in a film.

Contrasting perspectives have fueled literary pursuits for centuries. William Blake’s poetry collections Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience are a good example. Consider the two poems entitled “The Chimney Sweeper” (from Songs of Innocence, from Songs of Experience). From such similar subject material, Blake created two distinct poems. The tone of the latter is defined by the double meaning of “weep, weep,” the phrase “notes of woe,” and misery; while the former leaves readers with an image of warmth, peace, and just rewards.

A parody, a work that mimics and mocks another, operates from the same basic principle: what is reasonable when seen by candlelight is ridiculous under a street lamp. Consider Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Pope’s The Rape of the Lock, or Fielding’s Shamela.

The idea of a gulf between literati and politicians is largely inconsistent with history. What is more, it ignores the parallels between political language and literary texts. Speaking to the heart of public affairs and politics has always involved risk, delicacy, and a bit of cloaked humor.

As Swift reminds readers in the final chapter of Gulliver’s Travels,

“I meddle not with any Party, but write without Passion, Prejudice, or Ill-will against any Man or number of Men whatsoever. [...] I never suffer a Word to pass that may look like Reflection, or possibly give the least Offence even to those who are most ready to take it. So that I hope I may with Justice pronounce myself an Author perfectly blameless, against whom the Tribes of Answerers, Considerers, Observers, Reflecters, Detecters, Remarkers will never be able to find matter for exercising their Talents.”

Apparently, modern politicians are not the only ones who can speak with tongue in cheek.