Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
actually I love living in both.  I could easily move to London or Paris tomorrow and be very happy.  But I'm also very happy right here.  I feel I'm truely not biased.  In fact I think it's a unique situation having two places that have so many similarities, yet at the same time political and econcomic differences.  It provides a chance to try to look at each, and learn.  I do not think that one approach is clearly better than the other--instead I see features in each that I like better.  If I were King I would meld the two approaches, and I think come out with a system that was better than both.

but my criticism of Jerome, and occassional comments by others on this site, is that I don't think we should be presenting a distorted view on this site intentionally.  Remember here is what Jerome said,

But that'(s exactly my point .

<snip>

 The fact is that this presentation is no less true than the one e endlessly get in the media all over the place, i.e. that the US "free-market" economy is superior to Europe's sclerotic version. THAT's also a "marketing piece". That's the point I'm trying to make. The reality we're being sold is just marketing ans has only a tenuous link to reality.

Thus my version provides balance and perspective, and it's even technically true.

I don't feel a need to market to others on this site,,,or present a point of view that counterbalances propoganda.  I would rather that very bright people like Jerome argue their position.  That's really the main reason I come to this site--a very bright and very diverse group of people.  and I'm not an idealogue--I have things that I have learned and opinions that I happily present.  But I've learned things here, and more generally in life, that have changed my views in many, many areas.

We are each going to be wrong about some things we argue, and that is fine.  But if you add on top of that an intentional presentation of a biased view to counterbalance MSM or right wing nuts or whomever--it's just not what I would like to see in our discussions.

by wchurchill on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 02:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes a  I see.. but I think Jerome is also fair in saying that you could do the same thing than the WSJ does.

Actually in itself it is not a distorted picture.. just as it would not be a distorted picture if the unemployment numbers were presented properly...prolem is that they are not presented properly.

In any case, once you have settled with an opinion is generaly very difficult to change...facts notwithsstading(plus in most cases the sicentific narrative has no clear-cut naswer or even sn answer at all). BUt here most people do not make their minds easilo and they like the scientific and factual narrative more than others...it's great.

I do not expect more from this site :)

take care wc

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 03:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The thing is - I know that my version is biased, just like I am able to know that the opposite version is biased. All I'm saying is that having bias going always the same direction is noxious, and thus a different bias is useful, as a way to restore some balance in perceptions, even if it's no more "true". he cnfrontation of several versions gets you closer to some form of truth. A one sided reality does not.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 04:07:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And what have you been smoking?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Mar 30th, 2007 at 05:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series