An End to Satire

I've come to realise that it's far easier to write good satire than good critical analysis (assuming one acknowledges a difference between the two). And I don't wish to take such easy paths.

So from now on I shall try to put an end to my somewhat sarcastic, ironic tone of the last two posts.

To all who don't and didn't 'get it', I hesitate to apologise, but hope you'll continue to read onwards nonetheless.

I shall leave the satire to Hutton. He's brilliant.

And so to start things off on a far more serious note, let's go again to politics, in particular columnists.

Whilst some people, it would seem, decide on the columnist who they feel most akin to, find most agreeable and therefore less offensive, I find this is a very (obviously) myopic approach.

Far better to adopt the Baconian method (named after Francis Bacon the philosopher, not the painter). On the assumption that the truth would often lie between left and right idealogues, and indeed 'Beyond Good and Evil', the Baconian method suggests to consider both extremes of opinion, would that the resultant view become balanced.

In a modern Australian context, I would take this to mean: read both Philip Adams and Andrew Bolt.