Wall of voodoo

If this article had appeared on The Onion, you'd have chuckled at "political correctness gone mad" and moved on. But it isn't a spoof; the dear old Toronto Star is perfectly serious. "Voodoo economics" is a derogatory and racist term, apparently, and the Star is banning its use with immediate effect.

It seems that the Star's "public editor"* has received not one but two complaints about the term in recent times. One is from a group of academics who evidently have too much time on their hands, and the other is from a gentleman named M. NourbeSe Philip, whose name suggests he may be of Haitian origin. I can understand why each of these parties might wish to dissociate themselves from the economic ideas that now bear the apparently offensive name, but of course, that's not their point. They want the term itself barred, and the Star is only too happy to beat its breast in anguish and comply.

No plaint too small to salve, it would appear -- and yet the Star routinely and without apology publishes all kinds of things, by its own columnists or by its correspondents, that are deeply troubling to people of faith, especially though not exclusively Christians. Too bad for them, it seems.  It allows its female columnists to assert on a frequent basis that all straight men are misogynists and potentially abusers; nothing offensive there, apparently.

One wonders, is the term "voodoo" itself now, er, taboo?  Could make things difficult on the entertainment pages, given the word's frequent appearances in popular music, from "do do that voodoo that you do so well" to Jimi Hendrix ("Voodoo Chile") to the Stones ("Voodoo Lounge") to the largely forgotten California band whose name I've appropriated for the title of this post.

Anyway, enough about the voodoo. Let's look at the economics, because in keeping with the theme of taking umbrage, I want to register a complaint of my own with the Star. Its economics coverage is pathetic and deeply offensive to any of its readers with the least understanding of the subject. I've posted about the paper's business correspondent, David Olive, previously, but he's not the only offender. Take, for example, this recent column by national affairs correspondent Tom Walkom. It's painfully obvious that Walkom, as always with heart on sleeve but brain on leave, hasn't come close to understanding the views he so enthusiastically espouses,

On behalf of all Star readers with a grounding in economics, I demand that the Star stop covering the subject entirely -- but as there may well be a whole lot more of us in Canada than practitioners of voodoo, I'm not holding my breath.

* If you want to know how politically correct the Star is, the public editor was once known as the "Ombud", because the paper could not bring itself to use the evidently sexist term "Ombudsman".