This Week in Magazines -- If Palin Read The Economist, Domino's Crack Cocaine

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin now asserts that she reads The Economist, at least to Fox News Channel. Such claims about The Economist are akin to claiming you saw Babe Ruth "call his shot" by pointing to center field at Wrigley Field during the 1932 World Series, then hitting a home run. Or swearing you read Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" in college.

Well, doggone it, if she does peruse the Oct. 4 issue of the terrific, London-based newsweekly, she'll find a 20-page report on the presidential election. The right-leaning publication, which has experienced impressive growth in the U.S. even as it's jacked up its price well beyond that of its competitors, is characteristically smart and critical, with its formal endorsement (which could swing five to six votes) set for the Nov. 1 issue.

It chides Barack Obama for "the thinnest resume of any nominee in living memory" and derides John McCain for lack of eloquence, volcanic temper, a potential "warmonger" tendency and shaky grasp of economics and finance. But it finds the latter politically brave and willing to upset those within his own ranks. It argues that "for all Mr. Obama's rhetoric about reaching across the partisan divide, he has never stood up to his party to accomplish anything substantial."

Still, don't assume they'll endorse McCain. This bastion of the free market does fret that McCain's tax plan would widen the rich-poor gap and, like Obama, is very short on details on reducing the gargantuan federal deficit via spending cuts. It discerns a foreign policy "schizophrenia" within the McCain ranks between the swaggering neocons and the more careful realists. When it comes to what it concedes is the "scandal" of our health-care system, it seems partial to Obama's almost-universal-coverage plan rather than McCain's cost-centered plan with its problematic ditching of the current tax advantages enjoyed by employer-provided insurance.

As for "America's decidedly mediocre schools," it correctly underscores that Obama has far more beef in his plan, especially regarding the neglected topic of early childhood education, though this section is rife with misunderstandings about the No Child Left Behind law (underperforming schools don't face actual financial sanctions, as this asserts, while lauding McCain for suggesting letting parents choose tutors for their kids is mistaken since the law already allows just that). On crime, it contends that McCain's maverick reputation is misplaced and constitutes thoroughly Republican orthodoxy (long prison sentences, bashing "overreaching" judges, pro-guns, etc.). As Obama proved in the Illinois legislature, with substantial work reforming death-penalty laws, he does step back and look at the entire system, seeing it as screwed up, while also weighing in against broken families in Cosby-like fashion.

Ultimately, this report pokes both candidates for selling themselves as antidotes to our divisive culture wars but personifying those wars during the campaign. Yet it suspects that the mess in our markets will rule on Election Day and "the winner is likely to be the man who shows he best understands and can help the anxious average American." Gosh, golly, maybe these guys endorse the Democrat this time!

Now, if you want some other reading:

--Lucky me! The New Yorker profiles Arianna Huffington ("The Oracle") in its Oct. 13 issue. Lauren Collins crafts a solicitous if not fully satisfying opus on a woman of nerve, energy, eclectic intellect and renowned networking aplomb. If there is a thesis, it surfaces late: "Huffington's decisions in life, contradictory as many of them have been, seem to have in common the conviction that the worst imaginable fact would be to have people not pay attention to her at all." But readers don't get much insight into how she's actually pulled off this impressively successful website and gained a distinctly new status amid the bloody competition of the Internet. Is it merely a mix of colorful journalism and the serendipity of finding a growing core of politically-active folks during a feverish presidential campaign? What about the future and how it might evolve? Finally, one might have made a potentially fascinating comparison, even if one which would have unavoidably come quite close to home, between Huffington and former controversial New Yorker editor Tina Brown, mentioned briefly here as a Huffington friend. They each operate on as many levels as a pricy wedding cake, as friends and foes would acknowledge, and swing for the fences in a world of mostly singles hitters.

--Salmon follows canned tuna and shrimp as the most popular seafood in the U.S., with 600 million pounds consumed annually, including five million of the primo lot, chinook. The October Smithsonian inspects the various theories purporting to explain the rapid disappearance of the Chinook, which, like aspiring presidential candidates, tend to stay at sea for about three years before heading home (to the Sacramento River for the salmon, to Des Moines for the pols). Reporter Abigail Tucker is especially good eviscerating the romantic notion of the salmon's indomitable determination as she details not just its man-made foes but also how natural-resource managers are starting to load huge numbers of juvenile chinook from hatcheries, drive them 200 miles, and dump them into San Pablo Bay, just above San Francisco Bay, to bypass the Sacramento River and related perils. It's one of many compromises to try to save the species even as the nation's craving for salmon grows.

---A minimally-conflicted Newsweek cover essay likens Sarah Palin to Chauncey Gardiner of "Being There" and Marge from "Fargo," along the way wondering if, well, that's an elitist take on her as it reviews historic arguments regarding the "capacity of the common man to serve in government." If you're Palin'd out, Jeneen Interland reports that there may actually be more to know about the sinking of the Titantic 97 years ago, namely that bonafide negligence (the builders knowing it's frailty) was at play, not just incompetence in construction. Meanwhile, Time has historian Niall Ferguson on why this is not the Great Depression redux and, for techies, astute Josh Quittner praising as "the ideal laptop" the new HP EliteBook 2530p, assuming you can swallow the price tag (about $2,500 with its fancy "solid-state" drive.

--Foodies, or lonely guy and gal microwave addicts who secretly clamor to know something about cooking, will find a feast in the November-December issue of Cook's Illustrated, one of the greatest publications in the history of Western civilization. Forget about CNN's "NO BIAS, NO BULL" claim. The real deal is here, where one finds a 30-minute, Chinese-inspired method for cooking a great, crispy roast chicken on a skillet; how to avoid having roasted sweet potatoes turn out mushy; ways to do nifty sautéed string beans without parboiling or shocking them; and the inside skinny on producing bona fide Hungarian goulash without a truckload of vegetables. Finally, its unsurpassed testing of equipment concludes that the best slicing knives are the Forschner Fibrox 12-inch Granton Edge Slicing Knife Model 47645 ($49.95); the Wusthoff Gourmet 12-inch Roast Beef Slicer Hollow Edge Model 4515 ($99.95); and the Messermeister 12-inch Park Plaza Extra Wide Kullenschiff Slicer Model 8096-12 ($49.95).

--The October Domino, which is crack cocaine for yuppie female shoppers, takes an absolutely gratuitous shot at all of us (referred to as "your parents") who did indeed rely on shag rugs once upon a time, especially in the 1970s, as it heralds the return of wall-to-wall carpet (which they could have asserted was used by "your grandparents"). It offers a bunch of reasonably priced alternatives, all of which do just what my immigrant parents desired, namely disguising unappealing floors and muffling sound. It's back to the future. Meanwhile, I loved my white shag rugs!!!

--Historical precision is not a hallmark of public-policy debates, so it's nice to see the brief exchange of letters in the Oct. 9 New York Review of Books involving former Barack Obama foreign policy aide Samantha ("Hillary is a monster") Power and United Nations official David Harland. It involves Power's Aug. 14 essay, in the same publication, on U.S. national security in which she asserted that the U.S.-led military intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia "largely ended ethnic cleansing in both regions." As Harland diplomatically demurs, it's not that simple, and for a period the impact was to accelerate and consolidate ethnic cleansing. Indeed, Slobodan Milosevic responded with greater ethnic cleansing, while the Albanians reacted by cleansing more than 100,000 Serbs. Power concedes she was a bit loose with her language and should have written that those interventions "largely ended the ethnic cleansing that Serb forces had been carrying out in both regions."

Comments

[BMBTHC]

The Economist endorsed W in 2000. I quit reading them at all after that and am not sure what they did for 2004. The lack of authorship for their articles is also rather disturbing. It reads a bit like a really cheeky, sarcastic, comments page for HuffPo, only the grammar is correct and they put "an" before words like "historic.­" Anybody who sincerely thought that W would have done better with the economy than Gore is not worth reading ever again. And since they are all one editorial monster with no individual writers, they all go down with the ship. On the positive side, at least they cover other parts of the world besides America, England, Israel, Iran, and Iraq. I'd be impressed if Palin actually read it, even though I no longer find it credible. But, after listening her babble away, I doubt that she has ever read anything more than difficult than Davy and Goliath comics.

[veracity]

Warren, if you think that the Economist is "terrific.­.. smart, and critical" you are seriously mistaken.

The Economist is the mouthpiece of the London "Loot, Plunder, and insider trading" crowd, just as the Wall St. Journal performs a similar function in the USA, and Murdoch's FOX 'news' (Murdoch now owns WSJ) does to the "SIX-PACK JOE" crowd - DUMBING DOWN voters, citizens, and investors to accept the SWILL that the top 1% want to cram down our throats.

One example is a HIGH SPEED RAIL LINK between NY, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, and Richamond.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE for AMERICA to be TWENTY YEARS behind Europe & Japan in high-speed commuter rail.. except THAT is how the powers-that-be want it. So we must go to crowded airports, wait through demeaning security, and commute from both airports in to town.... because the ECONOMIST type folks (in London, America, elsewhere) put "PRIVATE PROFIT" well above public good.

Speaking of, under the geniuses of US financial and government management these past two decades.. America is GOING OUT OF THE astronaut SPACE LAUNCH BUSINESS in 2010!! We will close down the Space Shuttle, and start using.. RUSSIAN launchers and facilities!!!!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/05/america/gap.php

The ECONOMIST has been at ground zero for this BUSH MARKET MELTDOWN, and they most certainly have NOT been sounding the alarm (until now).

[wheaties]

Well said!! The Economist is nothing but a neo-con or neo-liberal free market cheer leading rag! Milton Friedman would love it. These people have led us into this mess and they now start to "raise" concerns as the system melts down in an effort to cover their ass.

[WyomingJack]

Looking for the comics page does not constitute reading a newspaper.

[ConEd]

But Oh Sooo Cute,
and SMART to Boot!

[MadOzbo]

Well, doggone it, doncha wish everyone was able to clearly see what a Maverick she really is? Yup Yup...

[deeppeace]

I'll buy the Chance the gardener reference, but Marge Olmstead-Gunderson was smart.

[mia8485]

Chance the gardener was empty, yes, but he was also without guile and innocently parroted back what he heard. There was no malice in him. He had no clue as to the effect of what he said.

[fistbump]

C'mon. We all know she's never opened the Economist in her life. She probably doesn't even know it's not from the US. She probably wouldn't know what half the words mean.

She's not smart. She's not intellectually curious. We've seen that. We know that. She has no sense of history at all. For her favorite VP (in Katie Couric's interview) she chose Gerry Ferraro and GHWBush. Really? That's just sad.

[ConEd]

You know: you're just like Obama with your nose stuck up in the air so high you're o2 deprived. That's what we mean by elitist attitude! And you have it in spades!

[KodeBloo]

And you have in spades what we call a cult-mentality. You would have been first in line to drink the Kool-Aid if Jim Jones had offered it to you in the jungle. Scary. And now you want an angry out-of-control little man who incompetently crashed five planes to sit at the controls of this country. Even scarier.

[DianeTreehugger]

We enjoyed our time at our elite universities. Too bad you couldn't get in.

[jazzartkitty]

yawn ...

[JRsNana]

So, ConEd, your saying that being smart and intellectually curious is a bad thing for us to look for in our elected officials???!!!
We've had enough of the "elitist" branding. Elite means the best. You guys have made it into a dirty word. ENOUGH!
(Oh - and don't think your use of the word "spade" goes unnoticed. But well done on getting those talking points out there!)

[KodeBloo]

Like your Pageant-Pu­ppet-Palin whose thoughts, opinions, and talking points are spoon-fed to her by handlers the day AFTER she's exposed as a fraud in even the most elementary media interviews, I doubt that you even know the meaning of the term elitist. You're all just spouting whatever you're told to say in toxic e-mails sent to you daily by those magnificent minds that brought us the catastrophic concept of BushCo.

[Synoia]

She certainly would not understand the humor. It's very english, and is biting.

That she reads The Economist is a joke all in itself.

[palinpython]

I think she has been watching "The amazing Mrs Pritchard" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/mrspritchard/index.html

[MichaelTurton]

Hey, it is Interland(i). You are short one 'i'.

Michael

[gubs]

She doesn't even know where to buy this rag.

[LdyPitt]

Palin doesn't read the Economist. She's still trying to figure out her GPA from her five colleges. She and the First Dude will need a big calculatin' machine to git the answer.

[sfojames]

The Economist is clearly struggling with any sort of independent and objective opinion this election cycle. See the article on a survey of economists and you have to shake your head - they try every which way to say that economists' opinions and their own survey don't count for much...but here are the results anyway: Obama wins by an overwhelming majority.
However, the author of this article is wrong in implying that the Economist always backs Republicans. In 2004 they endorsed Kerry, even though it was "with a heavy heart". Search for "The incompetent or the incoherent?" issued on Oct 28th 2004.

[Synoia]

The Economist is an English newspaper. In England there is no pretense about a newspaper being independent or objective.

The English don't practice that form of Hypocrisy.

They also have segregrated schools, school uniforms, and no cheerleaders; so they don't teach Hypocrisy in their schools either.

[wheaties]

No, they just use the veil of objectivity when it works for them. I watched an interview with an individual that works at the Economist at U.S.C. He was more than happy to accept the veil of objectivity in the interview so the magazine could be portrayed as some kind of information sage.

[SanFranciscoDad]

Wait! Can we be certain that Gov. Palin is "actually doing the reading"? Isn't it more likely that someone on the campaign staff is clipping excerpts from these articles and presenting them to her as "talking points". As someone who has read The Economist almost every issue for more years than I can remember, this is not a publication to peruse.

As many of those who have commented here have pointed out, The Economist has a somewhat eclectic record of candidate and policy endorsements over the years. The Economist is not so much a magazine as it is a mind-set. I can't imagine two things about this magazine: 1. Anyone ever agreeing with all of their editorial positions; and 2. What I'd do for a weekly credible and comprehensive news source if this publication ever shut down.

Sarah Palin "reading" The Economist? I seriously doubt it!

[PoliticalPartyPooper]

So now you're the authority on what people read? Tell me, what am I reading? Seeing as how you don't know me at all, you should be able to come up with your authoritative answer in no time at all.

[Fromageball]

I think what he/she means is that Sarah Palin doesn't come across as smart enough to be someone who actually reads The Economist. That's my opinion anyway, and I only read the magazine occasionally. I could say that I "read" The Economist because I've picked it up a few times but I think that's sort of a lie by omission.

[tonycoyle]

If you actually read the comment, you'd see that he was stating that The Economist was not a 'coffee table' magazine - People or US Weekly it is not.

You need to read the economist like a professional reads a journal - with care and with though. As SFDad so rightly says, in common with many professional journals, the editorial policy of The Economist is as varied as it's contributors.

My brother, staunchly union, staunchly left wing, is a subscriber back in Scotland. It is not a right-wing glad rag, although it's subject matter does make it appear to be so since it is very much an economist's journal.

It is the one periodical I miss being able to 'peruse' when visiting his house!

[happytrails]

Are you running for VP? Did you prove your ignorance to the world by not being able to name one, even one, only one publication which you read on a regular basis? Did you evade every question in the "debate" by trying to live up to your cutesy image of Moose Pie Barbie? You betcha you didn't. It doesn't matter what I read or what you read. We're not running for VP. You betcha!

[leftbehind2000]

Maybe first dude is paging through such publications when he sits on the can.

[Synoia]

No nude pictures, I don't believe so.

[Stockholm]

Not only did they endorse Kerry but they have also endorsed Tony Blair in the British elections. They aren't as much right-leaning as liberal in the original sense of the word. The want free trade and free markets.

Although they endorsed Bush in 2000, the really controversial endorsement was their support of the war in Iraq. That was according to the paper itself the most debated opinion among the journalists since the Vietnam war.

To their credit, they wrote about the housing bubble for many years before other papers realized what was going on.

[veracity]

The "big secret" of Newspapers it that what you say on the editorial page - or candidate endorsements - are of MINOR significance compared to the DRUMBEAT of the agenda you present in your "NEWS" pages.

The New York Times beat the Republican accusation drums of "LINCOLN BEDROOM!" and "WHITE HOUSE TRASHING" so-called "SCANDALS!" - even though both were entirely FABRICATED smear jobs. Never even ONE PHOTO produced to support the "trashing!" allegations against the Clinton-Gore staffers departing the WH, but the TIMES ran with the story FOR WEEKS.

The ECONOMIST is most CERTAINLY and RIGHT-WING organizati­on... and, oh, by-the-way, ARAB OIL MONEY now OWNS London.

[Synoia]

but they have also endorsed Tony Blair in the British elections. They aren't as much right-leaning

Tony Blair was from the extreme right wing of the labor party (The Upper Class). Wilson & Callahan would not have recognised him as a Labor politician.

[grantlingel]

sarah palin = desperate
http://grantlingel.blogspot.com

[KiwisCanFly]

"for all Mr. Obama's rhetoric about reaching across the partisan divide, he has never stood up to his party to accomplish anything substantia­l."

More lack of research!

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul.
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
He had his work cut out for him.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just
rhetoric.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html

[KiwisCanFly]

"It argues that "for all Mr. Obama's rhetoric about reaching across the partisan divide, he has never stood up to his party to accomplish anything substantia­l."

Someone didn’t do their research!
Obama isn't just running against the DC Establishment, he actually voted against DC insider club rules.

The roll call does not lie!

Ethics reform, an issue no one should scoff at as corruption was the #1 reason Congress changed hands in 2006.

Among those voting no were Webb, Tester, Feingold, Kerry, and Obama.
Among those who agreed with Reid that most earmarks should be kept secret as to who sponsored them: Clinton, and even Obama's senior colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin. There are even more disappointing names in the roll call which you can find at the link.

Let's be clear here: this was not just about crossing Reid and playing hero for a day.
Obama and the other brave Democrats prevented the leadership from making a huge mistake, which would have given the Republicans endless ammunition.
The only reason Democrats have bragging rights on the "most sweeping ethics reform in history" is because a few brave Democrats stood up and made it so.
The next day, Reid saw the writing on the wall, and accepted the tougher earmark reform.

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12761

[unite4change]

He still a better man than Senator McCain.

Mishaps mark John McCain’s record as naval aviator
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,7633315.story


Keating 5 ring a bell?
http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-oe-brooks25-2008sep25,0,7022889.column