Last couple of weeks have been a bit heavy on the old sanctinomy express, that was never the point. So let's take a load off and wallow in our joy at the Economist's coverage of the resurrection of Captain America. And no, their Michael Jackson coverage starts next issue. Oh, and if you're ghoulishly looking for the blood, it's in the Asia section this week. Otherwise, I think The Americas was the light fantastic.
-There's a bronze plaque when you enter the Factual's home office that says "Remember! Shark News Is Best News!" So I'll just point you to the Economist's blurb, where its revealed that about 30% of the world's various shark species are operating under threat of extinction. Don't mess this up, people. Democracy, racial equality, a 70 foot tall statue of Michael and Farrah holding a plastic cleaning towel--we can have those whenever we want. If we lose sharks? Tears, apathy and death. That'll be next.
-The American Department of Agriculture was able to ride almost pure Democratic support for supervisory control of America's farmers. The blurb doesn't mention it in greater detail, but yes, this also means that the Department of Agriculture now gets to build yet another regulatory committee. And you know how good regulatory committees have worked out over the last decade, don't you?
-America and Kyrgyzstan came to some kind of agreement that will allow America to continue using the Manas air base. I'd imagine there's a bigger article on this coming, after the Economist gets a chance to do a Google search and, you know, "write" one.
-The Economist may or may not cover the interesting Wikipedia aspects surrounding David Rohde, the New York Times journalist who escaped with an Afghan reporter after spending seven months as prisoners of the Taliban, but that's why you have Reason magazine. Bang up shit, this one.
-The American navy is following a North Korea ship around that might be carrying weapons to the Burmese military junta. Thing is, they can only search the ship if the North Koreans agree to pull over and let them. Tough one to gauge here--rule of law is vaguely on North Korea's side, but the weapons, if they are exist, will be used to kill innocent people. (That last part isn't in doubt, by the way.) Time to whip out the textbooks, Huffington Post! You gotcherself a seeryous discussion to be having.
-The FARC keeps killing people, despite it supposedly being on the way out of Colombia for the entirety of the last two years. This is the first time FARC stuff has been mentioned without the Economist mentioning it's downhill status--did something change? Nah, probably just the blurb format.
-Hey, the United States and Venezuela reinstated their respective ambassadors! That whole shaking hands thing with Chavez worked. Ahh, this will go south in another couple of months.
-They caught another Serbian war criminal, this one the former prime minister of Kosovo. Try not to take thirty years to charge these guys the way you did with the Khmer Rouge, okay?
-Hey! Greenland is FREE! Greenland isn't run by Denmark! That's a big story, right? Hell yes it is! I hope they make a Braveheart movie about Greenland really soon.
-How many of those new iPhones sold over the course of a weekend? Over one million. In your face, Palm thing no one wants! IN YOUR FACE APPLE STYLE
The facts that open the Economist's op-ed on America's health-care system hit pretty hard, and they do well to make the case for one of the ugliest covers in recent memory. While a lot of Americans already know how bone-jarringly stupid the current health-care system for their country is, reading about the specifics--how much they pay as compared to other rich countries (a huge amount more), the confusingly high infant mortality and life-expentency rates when compared against other OECD countries--reminds one of the hard-to-fathom disconnect between what makes sense (working towards a better system) and the reality (the historical failure of any American administration to follow through with the mildest repair possible). Take a look at this one, but don't expect a lot of new information. If that's what you're craving, there's an extensive(and much better) briefing buried in the back of the magazine on the exact same subject, shorn of the chiding.
-Lot of stuff about Germany this week, the first being this Dear Abbey style advice list for one of the most powerful women in the world. I think I'll leave it at that, just because I'm curious to know if you know who it is without peeking. (Oprah doesn't count, as she leads a mob.) After the leader, there's a four pager on m'lady, and it covers...well, everything, really. But for some reason the Economist blurbed the article in the table of contents page with the somewhat creepy "Why is she so popular?" question, which sounds sort of like...well. Like creepy. It sounds creepy, doesn't it?
-Will Greek complaints destroy the worldwide loan system for great art amongst museums? The Economist is fretting it will. I'm fretting about the use of the word fretting. Am I wearing an apron?
-Hey, here's the business focused version of boring articles about social networking! (Hint: this focuses on LinkedIn, which is a site designed so that people can irritate everyone in their address book.)
-The Economist beats the "Hey America, quit retiring at 67 you lazy so-and-so" drum about every six months, and here it is again. All the arguments are the same as ever, which means that all the counter-arguments are probably the same too. Considering that they backed theirs up with a 14-page section on aging this week, you might even find yourself bowled over to agreement. Fight that feeling! Fight it with your fingers!
Letters
-Hey, some dude from California was in the Peace Corps in Zambia, and he wants to tell you all about why that qualifies his advice on "high-tech development solutions" to malaria. Because god knows, it really is a choice between bednets and technology, but only one. Anybody who thinks that the world should pursue both options to fight malaria is a total idiot. Just ask this guy. He was in the Peace Corps.
-The Economist's opening piece in the United States section is centered around some poll results showing that American workers aren't fighting wage cuts and unpaid leave the way they normally would, and they've found plenty of evidence that this is the case. As they point out, most employees seem to be willing to accept the nut-knuckle on the short term--how long those feelings will last is another question entirely.
-Of course, there's the people who don't have jobs at all, and while the Economist seems a little overly proud of their willingness to send their American correspondent down to a Maryland soup kitchen (ahhh, local color), this article about the welfare rolls and how they're bearing up under the increase in unemployment isn't completely worthless. It's just completely sad.
-While it would be wonderful to say that the Economist's article on the resurrection of a fictional comic book character was written with all the necessary sarcasm required to tolerate its existence in a publication that usually tries to avoid completely useless information designed solely to make money for an entertainment complex that carries itself with an insufferable air of "just some fans doing what they love, what's a stock certificate, dopey me-dopes-a-lot", that isn't the case. Here's your British version of a newspaper shitting on its reputation.
-Here's a controversy for you: the Supreme Court may have started down the road to repeal a portion of 1965's Voting Rights Act. Designed to deal with some of the South's ugliest behaviors, wherein black Americans were kept from the ballot box through a variety of hideous practices, there's an emergency provision that's been consistently extended since its original expiration date in 1970. The provision took power away from electoral districts with a discrimination history, leaving it up to the federal Justice Department whenever they want to make minor changes in electoral rule. (The Economist uses moving the polling place as an example.) As the Economist reports, no one argues that this type of federal oversight was unnecessary in the sixties, because hey, it totally fucking was, because Whitey Sucked Daily back then. But now? The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. The NAACP does. Fight!
-Lexington dedicates his "howl in the whirlwind" column to criticizing Obama's deference to his old pals on Capitol Hill. The column isn't that far off base, but I'd rather just quote this part and let you decide on your own: "The House is dominated by veteran liberals, who are far to the left of the electorate, and the Senate is full of prima donnas." Tell me how you really feel.
The Americas
-If you read about the 18% decrease in the production of coca in some American publications, you might have been led to believe that was a big deal story. That's because some American publications--as well as at least one local New York television news program--failed to mention that last year, the production of coca went up 27%. That's what's called "pulling a fast one".
-The Economist doesn't hold back on their criticism of Antonio Maria Costa, the head guy over at the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime. In fact, they go further in their criticism than they have towards any single individual since they blatantly said "it would be fine if Mugabe was killed" and "Resign, Rumsfeld". For that alone, this blurb is worth reading. They don't write angry often.
-Over the past year, anytime you read an article about how Hugo Chavez isn't happy with some company/individual/corporation that he thinks isn't towing the line, you end up reading another article, usually in less than a month, where he's taken over, shut down or made illegal whatever company/individual/corporation the previous article was about. In other words, get ready to say goodbye to Globalvision, one of the few critical media outlets left in Venezuela.
-After playing things a little bit close to the vest, the Economist comes down pretty critically on the current relationship between the Indian government and the Maoist guerilla movements. Although this months death count isn't very high, this article doesn't paint a very attractive picture of where it could be headed. It also doesn't have a very optimistic view of the methods in which the police or the politicians are dealing with the situation. Saucy!
-While the eyes of the world turn to newer horrors, the Burmese military junta has opened up a new offensive front against one of the few groups of people left in the country who refuse to bow down and take it. The Karen militia aren't the cleanest organization in the world--they aren't fascist murderers though--but the thousands of innocent civilians who are fleeing for their lives are pure victims. Thailand seems to be the main country willing to stand up in support right now, (unless talking about it counts now) although that might change if they have to deal with more refugees. (Which they will, and Thailand has been shit with refugees for thirty years running.)
-China doesn't want the Chinese to look at porn. You're going to lose this one, guys. Porn beats everything. Steal all the American computer code you want. Porn wins, every time.
-Shakeel Ahmed Ahangar's pregnant wife and teenage sister were raped, murdered and dumped in a nearby river. The incident has spawned anti-Indian-rule riots throughout Kashmir, mostly due to the pathetic (and offensive) level of response from the police, who originally claimed the two women had drowned. Because yeah, a double rape and murder looks just like drowning. Whoever said that should be shot in the fucking mouth.
Middle East and Africa
-Not sure if we're still going to rely on this short piece on the Iranian conflict, as it's already a bit dated. The Economist, as well as Iran's ruling clerics, were surprised to see Mousavi so willing to stand in opposition to an unusually vocal Ayatollah. That's good and bad news, obviously: the strongest criticism of Iran right now has been vested in the worrisome nature of what too many termed "revolution", despite the revolution being confined to the lessor status of who Iran's president is supposed to be, as opposed to the unelected and hard to deal with theocracy that runs Iran and stole the election. When the Iranian people flooded the streets for Mousavi, that could be labeled a protest that respected the theocracy. When they went out again, after the real rulers of the country--the unelected clerics--told them not to, that label no longer applied, making them fodder for whatever violence the clerics wanted to wreak upon them. Where it goes next, where it goes now? We'll have to wait and see. Considering how rapidly Iran is incarcerating journalists (it numbered 40 last week), that's going to get increasingly difficult.
-Although the stories of increasing suicide attacks in Iraq have gone mentioned on a consistent basis, the Economist has seemed strangely removed from looking at them in detail. While they finally check in with an actual article--as opposed to weeks of blurb-age--it seems a bit distant, making me wonder whether they've pulled their coverage back for some other reason.
-Did you know Somalia was begging for help? They are. They're getting none.
-While some will complain, ad nauseum, about the specific advantages of living in countries with stronger welfare ranks and better health care, here's a reminder of what some of the fabled lands of Europe can't offer, that the US can: giving a shit about higher education. If you still want to move your kids to Germany because of the shorter work week or the longer maternity leave after reading this article about the pathetic state of Germany's universities, you obviously care less about your children then you claim. And I'm thinking of somebody specific.
-Yes, Sarkozy did call the burqa "a sign of subjugation...of debasement". He did say it was "not welcome on French territory." But did you know he was backed up by a prominent French female Muslim? Neither did I.
After last week's questionable article on Berlusconi--which spawned a letter of defense from the Italian government--it's back to the old "he's a fucking pervert" hidden under classy languge. The problem with these kind of articles is pretty simple--when it hits on somebody the Economist likes, as it did with Eliot Spitzer, they pull the old "we don't care about who he fucks, neither should you." And yet, when it hits on somebody they don't--like Berlusconi--they can't help but tart it up. That's fine, sure. I got no love for Berlusconi either. But then again? I'm not a journalist writing for the Economist. You kind of hope they'll be the bigger guy.
-Last week's Economist contained a brief mention of what had happened in Ulster, where over a 100 Romanian immigrants were attacked and harrassed out of their homes, and eventually, by their own choice, back to Romania. Of course, "own choice" ignores a simple, disgusting fact: they had to go, because no one saw fit to stand in the way of the racist white men who threatened to kill them if they chose to stay. Here's the rest of that horrible, horrible story.
-Here's one for you Britain, it comes from America: tax-increment financing. That's when you pick a location, borrow a shitload of money to build basic infrastructure, and use the future property taxes (which will hopefully be higher) to pay back the loan. If you've ever been down South, now you know why they never turn that old abandoned grocery store into a shopping center, and choose instead to build a new one down the road. Get it?
-I'm pretty much bored with jokes about bad British teeth, and so is the Economist, and so, according to this article, are the British themselves. At the same time, I watched the F-Word about three hours ago and this one table of young Cockneys had some of the nastiest shit I've ever seen hanging where a grin should be. Ah, Personal Anecdotes: is there no fact you will not ruin?
-"Mr. Blair is not likely to say, 'Ok guys, you got me--I did it out of lust for glory and infatuation with George Bush.'" That's Bagehot on the inquiry into the war in Iraq. Bagehot beats life, again.
International
-The section this week has two articles, both of which seem to have been pulled from the "this might work, run it" file. The first is...about poor people who travel to escape environmental degradation. Awesome, that's a real charmer. Thanks! The second one is....about the World Bank realizing it might need to worry about the environment. I'm sorry, when did the World Bank get so awesome at being the World Bank that it was time for it to add a fucking hobby? I don't think I missed an issue. Did something happen?
-Like a lot of people, I've got a secret clique at my office where my little coffee trio talks about which interns we hate, why we hate them, and question how in the fuck they got the gig in the first place. Then we beg one another to go to the girl who picks the interns and tell her to stop shoving her head up her ass when she interviews interns, because there's no way that this is the best available out of the 40-plus she interviews every few months. Seriously, that one dude couldn't cut paper in a straight fucking line with the use of a paper cutter that is on a goddamn track.
Kind of lost the plot for a second. Anyway, if you have those sorts of conversations via your work email, watch out. Some company has developed a technique to ruin the fun.
-Problems in the Formula One racing world, and while it's an interesting enough article, I have to say: I don't really get Formula One racing. I liked that Cronenberg flick, but that was about funny car racing. And it had the Enter The Dragon dude in it. He's awesome. You ever see this? Best business monologue ever. Seriously, watch that one. Good times. It's about prop 13. Oh man, I just stopped while typing to watch it again. "Crouch bunnies". Man that's good.
-Although LinkenIn is absurdly disturbing to me on a personal level, you can't help but read an article about the Freemasons without thinking "anything that would destroy these archaic networks of drunken white men is a good thing." Bring on the bandwidth, I say. It's time to euthanize the "old boy networks".
-While Americans may have started purchasing stuff again, the Economist is curious if the emerging economies of Asia are going to take a more serious dive into the fray as well. Whether they do or not, the feeling in this article is that they should, and it's an interesting reason why. Not because it would "save the economy", but because the Asians that supply the products for Western consumers, while subsidizing the economies of the West with undervalued currency, should be enjoying the fruits of their very real labor. It's a novel take from the publication.
-Money market funds finally ended up not doing well, and the magazine thinks that has opened the door to the sort of regulation they believe it's always needed. Lot of regulation talk for a free market magazine lately.
-While the numbers of people who will willingly dump a home loan remain low, they skyrocket when neighbors (or friends) make the decision. While one questions whether the term "unethical" should be brought to the table, maybe the Economist is just a bunch of Kant-ian categorical types. Go figure. I thought we were all agreed about fucking over the man at every opportunity.
-The Economist could have found a not-featuring-Uma picture for their brief look at the charitable work of two hedge funds, but they picked one with her in it anyway. (She's engaged to Arpad Busson, who runs one of the mentioned hedge funds.) She doesn't get mentioned in the article though, so don't go looking for gossip.
-Sometimes science hurts children, and not in the way you're thinking, gross-out boy. No, sometimes science takes a look at the method used to determine the sizes of dinosaurs and goes about the business of ruining one of the best moments of a young childs life: when they fantasized about gigantic lizards. Thank god Calvin isn't here to see this. Don't read this one unless you're, like...mature or something. It made me really sad, that's all I'm saying.
-Here's a solution to a very specific problem: how do you get informed medical consent from the mentally impaired? Answer: you use Second Life. Nothing irritates more then when something you have a patented loathing for becomes useful in a real world fashion.
-Although common sense might dictate the belief that humans started hoarding food stuffs on an immediate basis, history tells us they didn't. Why they started doing so though remains to be figured out, but the trek may have gotten a jumpstart, courtesy of an archaeological site in Jordan. Ah, Jordan. I knew you were useful for something beyond serving as the host for Michael Bay's technological masturbation festival. That movie was so fucking horrible.
-Tired of being depressed? The old cynic's advice is to expect failure. Turns out that's scientifically accurate as well! This is great stuff here, and taken in conjunction with the recent story about how useless self-help books are, the Economist is proving itself to be the best gadfly that pop psychology has ever had to deal with. Considering a big part of pop psychology and self help is to ignore "the news" because "it's always depressing", god knows if the information will find purchase.
-From Werner Herzog's book, Conquest of the Useless. "At the market I ate a piece of grilled monkey. It looked like a human child."
Books by Werner Herzog don't need reviews. They just need to be bought.
-As far as the Economist is concerned, the "ideal book about the financial crisis" has yet to be written, and they list their complaints with five books in one review. It's like a capsule bullet mash-up, except it's about financial literature. And they already picked their ideal book about two months ago, when they praised Vincent Cable's The Storm. So yeah, this article has some problems.
-Greece has built a home for its statues, and they've issued a demand for their return. (The statues are the property of the British Museum.) Although this article's main opinion got touched on in the opening "Leaders" section, it gets more background information here.
-Although Atom Egoyan's Ararat wasn't a big favorite for...well, anyone, if I remember correctly, I always liked it. That might have been because I ended up watching it with a theater full of elderly Armenians, an experience that, while remarkable, isn't one I'd like to repeat. But the film was haunting, and it sounds like Rebel Land might be just the book to sit down and draw out the intensely controversial (and upsetting) story all over again.
-If Ralf Dahrendorf had died just a few days later, he would've been the guy that went ignored in place of Surprise! You KNOW! for next week's issue. Unlike certain other individuals--whassup, Gunter Grass?--Dahrendorf was willing to put his own ass in jail for protesting the Nazis back in his youthful days, and he sounds like he took that integrity with him throughout his life, which consisted of being a pretty argumentative dude. His appreciation for socialism is a bit too much for the Economist, but there's a clear level of awe on display here. Ralf was a man who lived a life of the mind, and acted in accordance as much as opportunity allowed. 80 isn't a good argument for "too soon", but it's fine for a "he'll be missed." Hope there's more like him.
I rather liked Ararat, too. But it's manditory for Canadians who ever took a film class to enjoy Atom Egoyan's films, I think.
Posted by: Chad Nevett | 2009.07.02 at 15:01
A recent Newsweek had a George Will editorial about that Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act; apparently they ruled 8-1 (Clarence Thomas opposed, natch) to keep the rules. Will complained about it, saying "what, is it still 1972 up in this bitch?" Actually, it seemed like he made a decent argument, but fuck if I know anything about this stuff.
Hey, I congratulated myself for guessing that you were talking about Angela Merkel, but then I looked back and realized that you mentioned Germany, so I'm taking half of my points away for that one.
There was really an article about British people not liking to be reminded about the bad teeth stereotype? This magazine is hilarious. I love that stuff like that is mixed in with impenetrable financial talk and global news. Of course, they've also mentioned Captain America and Jon & Kate recently...
And finally, it's "toe the line". TOE! Nobody's towing lines around all over the place; that makes no sense. Sorry, pet peeve.
Posted by: Matthew J. Brady | 2009.07.05 at 16:16