Are Americans dumber than Britons? Probably! Or, at least according to Jon Friedman's "Are You Smart Enough to Enjoy the Economist?" column today, it's true.

Jon says "the Economist's content may be too meaty for a country that once celebrated a show called Beavis and Butthead." Always edgy, that Friedman. Maybe next he'll tell us about that newfangled Jackass.

But he may have a point – *shudder* – when he says an American population accustomed to reading Time magazine might find The Economist more challenging: "Time's recent cover featuring actor George Clooney, titled 'The Last Movie Star,' probably suits the U.S. palate better than much of the Economist's standard fare."

Time just can't compete with The Economist's political coverage, even when it comes to American politics, which, and we're just riffing here, a British rag might face a steeper hill covering.

Take the Feb. 26th Democratic debate. The Economist has a fairly thorough, well-thought out piece that mentions the candidates' specific positions on Iraq, NAFTA, and health care, and discusses how many delegates each needs to win. And that's a web-only piece! Time had, well, this front-of-the-book report card blurb.

We're not letting Friedman totally off the hook, though. Comparing The Economist to Time is akin to comparing The Guardian to the New York Post. A fairer comparison would have been between The Economist and Harper's, which has found an American audience even in our our charticle-addicted, Clooney-loving nation.