<HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff" STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff; "><DIV>Dear David,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once again, you misread me. I'm beginning to suspect that that's deliberate. <STRONG>The Economist</STRONG> did endorse Kerry in 2004, but their endorsement, as they put it, was reluctant. Their endorsement of Bush in 2000 was enthusiastic. They bought all that horseshit about his being a uniter and not a divider, citing as evidence Bush's record of working productively as a Republican governor with the "Democrats" in the Texas legislature. Now, we all know that Texas has a weak governorship, a holdover from Reconstruction, and that Democrats down there are not much like Democrats in, say, California or New York. As far as I can tell, Mr. Bush's job in Texas was to cut a few ribbons, make nice with the real powers that be in Texas -- the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House -- and to sign 157 death warrants. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>The Economist</STRONG> never backed away from its endorsement of Bush in 2000. Instead, through cock-up after cock-up, they adopted a defensive posture re: Bush until their reluctant switch to Kerry. (And, in their explanation of that switch, they still felt obliged to say that they still believed they'd made the right choice in 2000.) <STRONG>The Economist </STRONG>was gung-ho in their endorsement of Bush's invasion of Iraq; they chose to "look on the bright side" regarding his massive tax cutting program, his appalling budget deficits, and his irresponsible and massive increases in government spending, and they never failed to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt on Homeland Security, the International Criminal Court, faith-based initiatives, and so on, and so on. I grew sick of reading their increasingly lame defenses of Bush's indefensibly bad policy, but, by God, I have read <STRONG>The Economist</STRONG> every week since 1988. Why? Because its generally well-written, if not always well thought-out, and that's more than I can say for the majority of America's conservative rags. (Also, I enjoy the book reviews, the obituaries, and the in-depth international coverage. Good cartoons, too.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, I did notice that the reportage you cited was not from the desk of <STRONG>The Economist</STRONG>. I may be stubborn, but I'm not blind. Listen -- I hate to get personal, but do you need a martini or a diazepam or something? I would never dream of promoting illegal drug use (especially not on a list with such a nice Sheriff's deputy among its membership) but I'm thinking a little puff on a big fattie might go a long way toward restoring your previous good humor. You need to relax, Dave. You need to go with the flow. Quit smoking that bad Crossfire/McLaughlin Group stuff and start toking up on the old Bob Marley. I'll provide the metaphorical rolling papers by publicly and sincerely bowing to your superior statistical knowledge -- all hail the stockbroker! No, really. I mean, what the hell do I know? I never got past Mathematics of Finance. My interests in college were girls, linguistics, girls, medieval literature, girls, beer, and girls. Oh, and in addition to my Engish BA, I acquired minors in French, genetics, and girls. My graduate work was, of course, in Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, feminist theory, and girls. (Finally got my priorities straight -- well, so to speak.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>BTW, Dave, you can't give me a demerit. I'm not a sorority girl. Though I certainly rushed many sororities, none would take me -- at least not officially.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A-hem,</DIV> <DIV><BR>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.auntie-establishment.com">www.auntie-establishment.com</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PS: On a cheerier note, those who are interested in The Auntie Establishment & Brother Carl Show might want to check out our updated webpage. Brother Carl and I have added a really fine painting of ourselves . . . </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial">----- Original Message -----</DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt Arial; COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> David M. Budge</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:35 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> Joan Opyr</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Cc:</B> Vision2020 Moscow</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Body Count in Iraq</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>Dear Ms. Three-legged Mule, I agree entirely with your second paragraph. I am not a regular reader of Economist but occasionally am referred to their work. I cannot comment on any previous prognostications they've made about Iraq.<BR><BR>Allow me, with all due respect, to remind you of a few (perhaps inconvenient) facts. First, this reportage was not from the editorial desk of The Economist. Secondly, when the editors endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004 they referred quite bluntly to Bush as "incompetent" a week before this article was published. Accordingly, I find little evidence that this article shows any "apologist" leanings but I do well understand the statistics. Also, Human Rights Watch, hardly a patsy for the Bush adminsitration, questioned the varacity of the report<BR><BR>Twain said "There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics" (and me with a not-so-insignificant education in quantitative analysis - what was it? - "Don't try to teach your grandmother to such eggs"?" I'd be glad to brag about my education if you wish, but I'm not inclined to.)<BR><BR>You get one demerit on credibility. I'll ignore it as blind bias. Something that I am guilty of as well from time to time.<BR><BR>Dave Budge</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msncom'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>