Maybe I'm weird, which is probable, but I find reading the Economist one of my greatest pleasures in life. It is such a wonderful read that I'm afraid of taking out a subscription to it. Why? Well, you can have too much of a good thing and the result of this excess is that the good thing ceases to be 'good' and becomes reduced to the status of merely a 'thing'. I would hate for this situation to arise with regard to this exceptional publication.
The Economist is exceedingly un-biased in my humble opinion. Not only does it not take sides, but it also manages to remain objective, and the express common sense. This is something which this increasingly complex world really needs. Politicians would do well to reflect upon its comments and observations, heck, they may even win a few votes as a result. Sadly though, it is necessary to have an ego the size of a planet, combined with skin about as thick as the Earth's mantle to be one of these 'leaders'. Only, such a big ego, mixed with armoured skin tends to lead towards a form of blindness, blindness in the face of good reason. This, not surprisingly, causes more than a few problems. As the Economist often points out, but not only does this journal focus upon the blunders, it also gives credit where it is due and is even optimistic at times. It's rare to find this kind of balance in the media nowa days. It is refreshing too.
I would dearly love to see some of the brains behind the Economist involved in policy and decision making at a national, if not international level – if, of course, they would be capable of applying their common sense before the fact, so to speak.
There is one politician, who is quite big in Italy, who finds the Economist's observations difficult to accept. This person has even gone so far as to have claimed that the people behind the magazine are all communists. Funniest bunch of commies I've ever come across, I can tell you.
However, one has to know that in the democratic society which is modern day Italy, speaking out openly against certain people would seem to be a great way to achieve lasting anonymity.
Has speech ever really been 'free', I ask myself at this point. In answer, I have say that one thing is certain though – 'free' speech does have a cost.
Digression, as usual, what I really wanted to say was if you ever happen to come across a copy of this publication, pick it up, read it and ruminate over its ramblings.
Heck, I've almost convinced myself to subscribe. Nah, its too much of a good thing.