Ergotism

The economist says Obama is better, sort of.

Well, as usual, I’m dubious of anything written in The Economist, but at least I’m glad they’re pumping up Obama. I do find it sort of disheartening that they’d publish a second-rate poll. I mean, it’s not as if they don’t have the money to commission a real poll.

I don’t like seeing quotes like this one printed without any sort of rebuttal, “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.” Well, I certainly hope they’re not non-ideological. Non-partisan is one thing, but non-ideological? Is that even possible? Are they just being sloppy and using “ideological” to mean radical? I would hope not, but I think that might be what’s going on here. Then again, later on they contrast “ideological” with “pragmatism.” So maybe that’s what they mean. But still, since when is pragmatism not an ideology? If you think it’s not, William James would beg to differ. These parts of this article seem to be like a Sarah Palin statement — a bunch of words in a row containing no actual meaning.

The wan attempt at balance also strikes me as poor form. “…the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.” Why even bother saying it? If we’re to believe what The Economist is strongly implying with their admittedly unscientific poll, should John McCain really feel “buoyed” by the fact that he has the support of about 15% of economists? That’s like trusting the one out of seven dentists who doesn’t recommend Crest. Which set of data is the meaningful one? Is it the gross count of 530, or the unscientific poll? The Economist doesn’t say, or give a good reason to believe either. Fair And Balanced wins again. I mean, the title of the article is Economists Back Obama Overwhelmingly, but they never really make that case in anything other than a sloppy manner.