Letters to the Editor
-
@ WT (side note)
The Economist has its own vested interest in the war against the wogs. They spend most of their time and effort admiring the burden that they as white men are carrying for the rest of us, and being mildly irritated that we aren't more grateful to them for shouldering it.
They only sound more reasonable than Time because they pander to a different class. The British accent might also have something to do with it, don't you think?
It's more than that, though--the perspective in The Economist IS more reasonable because it's pandering to a different class. There's nothing "unreasonable" about saying, "Let's go to war to pillage wealth!" It may be immoral, but it's reasonable, and even RATIONAL. Saying, "Let's go to war to spread democracy!" is unreasonable, IRRATIONAL, and incredibly prevalent.
The rich have a legitimate desire to know what's going on in the world, and the perspective in The Economist is refreshingly honest about that. The writers there never for a moment try to hide their contempt for the impoverished, unlike stuff from American pundits. It's a far better news source than ANYTHING available from a US publisher.