--- Matt <lbo4 at beyondzero.net> wrote: "I always thought those that read and loved it actually did support the US Empire quietly but didn't want to admit it since they were thoughtful Democrats, and Democrats don't use those terms. The Economist justifies the position with a British smug and slightly superior, yet envious, tone, which feels oh-so-right."
The core of the Economist's coverage are the countries of the former British empire. I dont know if any other magazine in the world equals it in breadth of coverage. So, to subscribe to it, and have it peeking out of your briefcase, is a badge of worldliness and intellectual power. The WSJ has a similar totemic function.
I used to wonder, in grad school, why these pubs were so popular with English Lit professors. Same reason my idiot CEO in later life had his conspicuously displayed in the reception area every morning.
BobW
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:28:09AM -0400, ravi
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with your view of The Economist and its
> readership -- many of my
> > otherwise intelligent and left-leaning tech
> friends subscribe to the rag
> > (I am not sure how much of it they read) because
> of this strange
> > attraction it holds (perhaps there are Anglophilia
> issues here).
>
> I always thought those that read and loved it
> actually did support the
> US Empire quietly but didn't want to admit it since
> they were
> thoughtful Democrats, and Democrats don't use those
> terms. The
> Economist justifies the position with a British smug
> and slightly
> superior, yet envious, tone, which feels
> oh-so-right.
>
>
> Matt
>
> --
> PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471
> aim: beyondzero123
> PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 yahoo
> msg: beyondzero123
> http://blogdayafternoon.com
>
> Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law
> itself is nothing else but reason.
> -Sir Edward Coke
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>