I had some trouble writing about this article,<a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802" source="The Economist">The incompetent or the incoherent?</a>, because I couldn't decide whether "douche-baggy" was a word. It's really way better than "pompous", which also fits, but feels far to weak. Pretentious also sounds too friendly. This opinion piece, which succinctly showcases every reason you should never, ever read the Economist sober, starts off humbly: <bq>With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd</bq> Then, just when you're thinking that the Economist is going to list reasons why Kerry is weak ... they launch into a litany of things that Bush <i>tried</i> to do right, but just missed on. Only dyed-in-the-wool corporate fetishists could call <iq>... Bush's record during the past three years ... inspiring</iq>. Their biggest problem with his Presidency is the introduction of <i>officially</i> arresting people and holding them indefinitely, with a little torture thrown in. They seem to see the loss of standing for America as a problem, rather than the torture itself. There are fantastic justifications of invading Iraq, like this one: <bq>Although the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt.</bq> Which, Möbius-like, manages to prove itself with itself. Why? Because. They show no indication that they have noticed any other military analyst's opinion when they say, that <iq>[t]he eventual success of the mission [in Iraq] ... [is] still possible</iq>. How can you take it seriously? They, as all others, neglect to define "success". And it's so understated to mention that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still rages, <iq>with America readily accusable of bias</iq>. Well struck. That's giving it to the Americans. They fault the president, not for <i>supporting</i> Israel, but for failing to hide it well enough. The description of Kerry seems to draw almost directly from Republican mailing materials, noting repeatedly that <iq>positions have oscillated</iq>, which <iq> is a worrying sign</iq>. American presidents <iq>should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership</iq>. Bush has that in spades, then, does he? Economically, they hammer him for having <iq>chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate</iq>. A journal named the economist should know that protectionism is the only thing <i>ever</i> proven to grow a weak economy. Of course, this is the same journal that claims that the US actually engages in free trade. Then they just used the words <iq>vacillator</iq>, <iq>oscillations</iq> and <iq>flip-flopping</iq>, all in one paragraph, just to prove that the US Republican Party's brainwashing has a formidable reach. They kind of backhandedly note that it's hard to judge a Senator's voting record because of <iq>the technical nature of many Senate votes</iq>. What they mean here is that bills tend to have names like "send food to our troops that are dying for our freedom", but they include funding for 3 MREs and then list 450 different ways in which Halliburton will earn a total of 45 billion. The Economist calls that <iq>technical</iq>, when any normal person would call it <i>ridiculous</i>, <i>insane</i>, <i>pathetic</i> or an out and out <i>crime</i>. In fact, the entire article reads like a lament for a President who didn't turn out to be quite as adept a colonialist as they thought, or wished, he'd be. The whole thing with expanding the empire is ok .... just do it right. While <iq>[they] agree that [Bush's] broad vision is the right one</iq>, they admit he has <iq>made many mistakes</iq>. This is a disservice to readers in need of actual information. You see, they mention earlier that Bush's goals are, broadly, <iq>democracy, human rights and liberty</iq>, which, you've got to hand it to him, are pretty broad. The <iq>mistakes</iq> he seems to have made have been to work against all three of these things, in every country in the world, for the last four years. Talk about euphemizing.