Older chart, but I've been so busy, yet I did want to post this because, well, afterall, that truth thing kind of hurts. Plus I like it when our boys do a good job;
I hate Chimpy McHilterburton --> I hate his policies and actions --> I hate that he sent troops to Iraq. I want to be proven right, so I look for any way to show that Bush's policies are failing. For example, the insurgents have not given up or been defeated' they are hiding in Iran, who we should not invade because they are not involved, and the insurgents will definitely come back out if McCain wins. But not if Obama does. Because he's so dreamy!
Most people don't even read The Economist or have the intellectual desire to really learn about Iraq or anything political.
This is why Obama will win because too high a percentage of the population is more concerned about Teen Idol than Iran or Iraq.
Plus, you're right, Obama is a "hottie" and it outright scares me how many women, old or young, are willing to vote for him, simply because of that. If that's the case however, then I'm a shoe in for 2012 as I'm way hotter than Obama.
Not to be Captain Bringdown here, but, if I want a more thorough understanding of foreign policy issues confronting our nation, I think I can say with some suthority that I'm not going to read a magazine called "The Economist" as my first choice, even if it does have ADD-ready charts.
Rather, I'm going to read magazines that specialize in that area of interest. But that's me, and I'm only a historian and blatant militarist, so what do I know?
Bashing on The Economist, Mahan? My opinion of you will drop sooner than my opinion of The Economist.
They've had a pretty good handle on world politics for a long time. It's been around for more than 160 years, maybe they know what they're doing by now?
Or are you going to literally judge the magazine by its cover? Surely in all your studies as a historian you might have heard that's a bad idea? If not, I'd suggest you do a little more reading, starting with The Economist.
Amazingly enough, as I said, I stick with magazines that specialize in foreign affairs, and I have, in fact, read The Economist.
I don't care for its take. I think that's my right. Furthermore, I don't judge institutions by their longevity, either; I give you Harvard and Yale as examples.
I think Mahan is speaking for the average person - explaining why you don't see the Economist in wide circulation amongst the non-economically literate (which, really, we ought to just relegate to the "illiterate" category).
Playboy might have an amazingly sociopolitically introspective article in regular appearance. It could even build up a reputation amongst pornographers for having an incredible section detailing mathematical progress in modern times. Take the average individual and you're still not going to get much more of a reaction than, "Oh - the tit mag."
An arts and literature magazine might start becoming well-known for its writings on politics, but I'll be damned if my first thought on encountering a liberal arts magazine is, "Hey, maybe they have some interesting non-art-related material."
Economics and foreign affairs might be tied together, but not in the minds of most people. Ergo, I would have the same conclusion - I'd assume a magazine called the Economist dealt entirely with economics (theory, news, and commentary). Call it judging a book by its cover but as I understand it, that's why books have these things.
And if Mahan is speaking for himself, screw 'em and everything I just said :P
if I want a more thorough understanding of foreign policy issues confronting our nation, I think I can say with some suthority that I'm not going to read a magazine called "The Economist" as my first choice, even if it does have ADD-ready charts.
This is so stupid that it's laughable. You are of course entitled to your dislike of their style or opinion, but the Economist is one of those [magazines that specialize in that area of interest]. To pretend otherwise is only funny if you are joking.
But I appreciate your open dismissal of the paper... it allows me to make a pretty good guess regarding the value of your writings here and elsewhere. It saves me time, you know. How very economical of you.
See, here's the funny thing; Adam's right; books (and magazines) have covers and reputations for a REASON, which apparently needs to be explained to some of you bozos inhabiting your own little egocentric worlds.
I, an American with a college degree that wasn't in a completely useless area (the Captain may beg to differ), wish to read about what's going on in the world today; I walk into a Barnes and Noble (not, say, Cub Foods) and peruse (ooooo, a big word!) their magazines. There, I see a selection of magazines, including such titles as Foreign Affairs, The Harvard International Review, The Atlantic Monthly, Defense Weekly (if you're like me), or even The Economist. You could also read Time, Newsweek, etc., and get your celebrity fix as well.
Which one is the average American going to choose? Take a wild, random stab in the dark. Go on.
Do I get to dismiss your writings because your icon is Ferris Bueller, too? I'm more than happy to, you know.
Well Mahan, I will charitably and kindly (nod to Cap) say that the average American is not going to choose any of those, because the average American is dimwitted and views Newsweek and Time as serious highbrow analysis. They'll go for Better Homes & Gardens.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to get personal. Perhaps my language was too strong? I don't want to hurt your feelings, so I take back saying that it is "stupid" for you to judge a publication by the title. The heart of the matter was I assume that you know that they cover topics beyond economics, and your dislike of the paper was based on style or philosophy, and not that their purpose strayed away from their title.
Either way, it's no skin off my nose. Dismiss whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like, and don't feel the need to explain yourself to some stranger on the internet.
As for the rest of you, I will leave you with a slogan they used to use over at the publication in question. "The Economist - not read by millions of people."
The defeatist mentality works like this:
ReplyDeleteI hate Chimpy McHilterburton --> I hate his policies and actions --> I hate that he sent troops to Iraq. I want to be proven right, so I look for any way to show that Bush's policies are failing. For example, the insurgents have not given up or been defeated' they are hiding in Iran, who we should not invade because they are not involved, and the insurgents will definitely come back out if McCain wins. But not if Obama does. Because he's so dreamy!
Hope that helps.
Most people don't even read The Economist or have the intellectual desire to really learn about Iraq or anything political.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Obama will win because too high a percentage of the population is more concerned about Teen Idol than Iran or Iraq.
Plus, you're right, Obama is a "hottie" and it outright scares me how many women, old or young, are willing to vote for him, simply because of that. If that's the case however, then I'm a shoe in for 2012 as I'm way hotter than Obama.
Not to be Captain Bringdown here, but, if I want a more thorough understanding of foreign policy issues confronting our nation, I think I can say with some suthority that I'm not going to read a magazine called "The Economist" as my first choice, even if it does have ADD-ready charts.
ReplyDeleteRather, I'm going to read magazines that specialize in that area of interest. But that's me, and I'm only a historian and blatant militarist, so what do I know?
FYI, original Economist article here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11540858
Bashing on The Economist, Mahan? My opinion of you will drop sooner than my opinion of The Economist.
ReplyDeleteThey've had a pretty good handle on world politics for a long time. It's been around for more than 160 years, maybe they know what they're doing by now?
Or are you going to literally judge the magazine by its cover? Surely in all your studies as a historian you might have heard that's a bad idea? If not, I'd suggest you do a little more reading, starting with The Economist.
Amazingly enough, as I said, I stick with magazines that specialize in foreign affairs, and I have, in fact, read The Economist.
ReplyDeleteI don't care for its take. I think that's my right. Furthermore, I don't judge institutions by their longevity, either; I give you Harvard and Yale as examples.
I think Mahan is speaking for the average person - explaining why you don't see the Economist in wide circulation amongst the non-economically literate (which, really, we ought to just relegate to the "illiterate" category).
ReplyDeletePlayboy might have an amazingly sociopolitically introspective article in regular appearance. It could even build up a reputation amongst pornographers for having an incredible section detailing mathematical progress in modern times. Take the average individual and you're still not going to get much more of a reaction than, "Oh - the tit mag."
An arts and literature magazine might start becoming well-known for its writings on politics, but I'll be damned if my first thought on encountering a liberal arts magazine is, "Hey, maybe they have some interesting non-art-related material."
Economics and foreign affairs might be tied together, but not in the minds of most people. Ergo, I would have the same conclusion - I'd assume a magazine called the Economist dealt entirely with economics (theory, news, and commentary). Call it judging a book by its cover but as I understand it, that's why books have these things.
And if Mahan is speaking for himself, screw 'em and everything I just said :P
if I want a more thorough understanding of foreign policy issues confronting our nation, I think I can say with some suthority that I'm not going to read a magazine called "The Economist" as my first choice, even if it does have ADD-ready charts.
ReplyDeleteThis is so stupid that it's laughable. You are of course entitled to your dislike of their style or opinion, but the Economist is one of those [magazines that specialize in that area of interest]. To pretend otherwise is only funny if you are joking.
But I appreciate your open dismissal of the paper... it allows me to make a pretty good guess regarding the value of your writings here and elsewhere. It saves me time, you know. How very economical of you.
Hey, Wulf, bite me.
ReplyDeleteOh, was that "so stupid it's laughable"?
See, here's the funny thing; Adam's right; books (and magazines) have covers and reputations for a REASON, which apparently needs to be explained to some of you bozos inhabiting your own little egocentric worlds.
I, an American with a college degree that wasn't in a completely useless area (the Captain may beg to differ), wish to read about what's going on in the world today; I walk into a Barnes and Noble (not, say, Cub Foods) and peruse (ooooo, a big word!) their magazines. There, I see a selection of magazines, including such titles as Foreign Affairs, The Harvard International Review, The Atlantic Monthly, Defense Weekly (if you're like me), or even The Economist. You could also read Time, Newsweek, etc., and get your celebrity fix as well.
Which one is the average American going to choose? Take a wild, random stab in the dark. Go on.
Do I get to dismiss your writings because your icon is Ferris Bueller, too? I'm more than happy to, you know.
There will be charity and kindness on this web site. I will no longer publish insulting commentary.
ReplyDeleteThat privilege is reserved for me.
Very touchy.
ReplyDeleteWell Mahan, I will charitably and kindly (nod to Cap) say that the average American is not going to choose any of those, because the average American is dimwitted and views Newsweek and Time as serious highbrow analysis. They'll go for Better Homes & Gardens.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to get personal. Perhaps my language was too strong? I don't want to hurt your feelings, so I take back saying that it is "stupid" for you to judge a publication by the title. The heart of the matter was I assume that you know that they cover topics beyond economics, and your dislike of the paper was based on style or philosophy, and not that their purpose strayed away from their title.
Either way, it's no skin off my nose. Dismiss whatever you like, for whatever reasons you like, and don't feel the need to explain yourself to some stranger on the internet.
As for the rest of you, I will leave you with a slogan they used to use over at the publication in question. "The Economist - not read by millions of people."
Aww, man. I defended THAT guy?
ReplyDeleteKinda makes you feel dirty, huh Adam? :)
ReplyDelete