Apparently I haven't been reading the New Yorker enough. Here's the third article of the night (morning?), this one an excellent profile of Naomi Klein (who the New Yorker's James Surowiecki did a convincing impression of last month).
On Klein's reaction to the recent financial bailout, Larissa MacFarquhar writes:
It was just as she had written at the end of the book: memory was shock’s antidote. (Another difference, of course, was that the government wanted to enact not Friedman-style reforms but the opposite: enormous interference in the market. Still, since the point of this interference was to bail out banks, this difference did not strike Klein as of much importance.)
And obviously libertarians aren't alone in being frustrated at her imprecise terminology:
It is clear, in “The Shock Doctrine,” just how deeply she disdains the political. She tends to conflate very different right-wing groups—neoconservatives, crony capitalists, libertarians. (In the end, “The Shock Doctrine” is not so much anti-Friedman as anti-corporate.)
The author spends a little too much time on Klein's family life, but it's great nonetheless. Naomi Klein's husband sums it up best in saying "Some people feel that she’s bent examples to fit the thesis."
And, for you typography buffs in the audience, the New Yorker's infamous umlaut makes an appearance.