Their current issue's story about Israel and the Palestinians bugs me because it mentions the wall, but not the reason it was built - yes, it divides the poor Palestinian people, but it has also virtually eliminated what were weekly suicide bombings. If those bombings had not taken place, there would be no wall.
From their survey of the city in last issue:
Then they have some livability index of major cities, which scores Hong Kong at 41 and Los Angeles at 47. Maybe I am prejudiced, but I find Hong Kong to be a polluted rat's nest. (With excellent subways, though.)
From their survey of the city in last issue:
One feature common to most of the spilling-out-all-over cities of the developing world is a huge difference in wealth between the slum-dwellers at the bottom and the rich at the top. In virtually every misgoverned city, which is probably most of them, the politicians in power are among the rich. Any well-governed city is likely to have an honest administration.What's the implication there? That rich people are not honest and will not run a good city?!? Yes, the Economist has been drifting Bolshie for a while, but seriously. Guess what? Two paragraphs down they are praising Richard Daley of Chicago...you don't think he's rich? You don't think he's part of the elite?
Then they have some livability index of major cities, which scores Hong Kong at 41 and Los Angeles at 47. Maybe I am prejudiced, but I find Hong Kong to be a polluted rat's nest. (With excellent subways, though.)

