This is actually about two issues:

1. Is the Economist any good as a source of information?  I gave up on the miserably rag back in the med 90s because of their slavish devotion to the concepts of Neoliberalism. Since then I have managed to bring a dinner party conversation to an abrupt halt by expressing my contempt for the Economist.  What I said was, "If you believe Ben Franklin, the American Revolution was fought so we wouldn't have to take those ideas seriously.  Yet way too many people read the Economist because they think it is as cool as quoting Shakespeare.  Barbarian nonsense is barbarian nonsense even if it DOES have a British accent."

2. Does the presence of a religious minority disrupt society? This is actually a good question--so I am NOT surprised the Economist blew it.  For the record, my observation is that folks of roughly the same economic status mix pretty gracefully--no matter their religious practice.  If, however, one religious group is doing much better or worse economically than the norm, they will stand out and become targets--especially if their religious practice causes their non-standard economic status.  I am willing to bet that if the kids of the Paris suburbs has a reasonable economic future, they wouldn't be rioting.  Thinking that they are rioting because they are Muslim is just so much useless bigotry.

Since the economic positions of the Economist directly CAUSE most of the economic frustration that kindles those riots and religious frictions, they must either change their editorial stands, or find an irrelevant scapegoat.  

UGLY people!!!!  The ONLY reason to read the Economist is to keep track of what the REAL bad guys are thinking.


"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"