Portfolio Magazine

I dropped by Chapters today and for the first time in a very long time, browsed the magazines. I subscribe to several magazines but I wanted to read the cover article by a magazine I have never been interested in before: Portfolio. I admit I was attracted to the red shoe on the cover more than the article initially so I glanced at it but didn't bother to read it. However, last night I was watching Masterpiece Theatre (Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility Part I) and I left the TV on PBS for a couple hours. At some point very late at night, there was a panel discussion on women and the corporate ladder. The ladies had some seriously bad hair and makeup but I guess they were experts. I wish they would get a stylist expert since appearance does matter whether you like it or not. Anyways, they mentioned the article on gender equality and I thought I would like to know more about it. I read the article today but it really didn't say anything new. Women don't get top jobs and maybe it was getting better a decade ago but its actually getting worse now. It basically says it's easy to get to middle management, over 50% of managers are women but Wall Street or C-level jobs are slim to no chance. Also, they said that WSJ ranked the 50 women to watch and these women decidedly do not emphasize their feminine attributes and basically look like men. Not exactly a new concept is it?
Link to article here.

I read another article about Coach that I found far more interesting and while most of it I could read from a blog like 'Business of Fashion' it had some fresh points since it actually interviews the CEO of Coach. While I have mostly outgrown Coach products (although I really wouldn't mind a Coach umbrella) I think they are a great brand. However, I'm kinda sick of most of the logo bags. Please stop making those!!
Link to article here.

Overall, Portfolio was an ok magazine. It was very easy to read but not really substance oriented like Economist.

WSJ Opinion: Does Obama Understand Defeat?

Some guy named Bret Stephens from the WSJ editorial board wrote something that I have been thinking for a long time:

"But here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? [Referring to John McCain's 100 years in Iraq policy] What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It's not as if this hasn't happened before."

and then he concludes with:

"In his speech, Mr. Obama noted that there was no point trying to best Mr. McCain in matters of experience, that what counted was good judgment. Very true. How one can have the latter without the former is a question for the rest of us to consider."

That's a good question. Also, how is he going to get national accord in Iraq? He says that needs to be done so the American troops can leave but how will it be done??