Why did the magazine endorse Bush in 2000 and then again in 2004? What exactly is obvious in retrospect that wasn't apparent to even marginally informed observers at the time.
The Economist has been a weathervane since they decided expanding into the US market required an editorial shift to the right. The International Herald Tribune is producing much higher quality and politically neutral reporting these days imho.
"Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership."
I don't like The Economist, but you are right, they did the right thing in 2004, Amazingly.
I run into trouble with this as well. I get a lot of looks when I mention that I'm in a fraternity. However, a large percentage of the 70 people in my fraternity aren't white and many of us are on financial aid and student loans. Hardly a white boys club.
Don't call my country a cunt, and don't call my fraternity a frat. "Frat" is generally derogatory when used by outsiders. It's analogous to "nigger" being used by non-blacks.
No, it really isn't. Blacks have been (and to some extent still are) oppressed by the majority. The word "nigger" is an artifact of the oppression. It was used as a weapon against them.
Fraternities, however, have never been oppressed. Occasionally, they have been in the position of power (being a white-boys-club), with documented cases of people hiring brothers preferentially.
I will have to say one of the most moving moments for me on Tuesday was watching the helicopter with GWB departing over Washington DC. I only wish it could have come sooner. I used to think that one person could not have a dramatic impact on the world as a whole, I no longer believe that.
Karen Hughes, one of his closest advisers, "rarely read books and distrusted people who did."
Who knows where that came from. Gotta love billion-dollar words thrown in like "homunculi" and "ratiocination" instead of the clearer "cronies" and "reasoning," respectively.
I just can't help but feel that this particular analyst is strongly biased.
The Economist has been a weathervane since they decided expanding into the US market required an editorial shift to the right. The International Herald Tribune is producing much higher quality and politically neutral reporting these days imho.