Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Whose chance? [A for the record deconstruction of the Economist on France] | 9 comments (9 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
New aphorism (4.00 / 7)
To create a new aphorism: "Those who don't study history are forced to make it up".

I give you a gold star for the effort of reading stuff like this on a regular basis, but perhaps you should just be out enjoying the springtime instead.

As long as the financial sector pays the WSJ, FT and the Economist to say what they wish to hear they are not going to change their tunes.

As we have discussed recently ideologues and their blind followers are immune to facts.

If we really want to change social policy we need to come up with a narrative which explains why following the existing path is going to disfavor the wealthy class. Several times in the past the fear of revolution caused changes to social policy that aborted more fundamental adjustments.

On the other hand there are a greater number of examples where failure to realize the resentment from below ended with the ruling class being eliminated.

What I'm afraid of is that the wealthy will realize that something needs to be done, but then just make some superficial changes which will abort any populist movements that are starting to form.

In the US I think a real health care plan would be enough, I'm not sure what the big issue is in France.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Apr 14th, 2007 at 02:39:05 PM EST
Re: New aphorism (4.00 / 3)
I agree with Robert. This is just like reading Soviet-era Pravda. The touch is very slightly lighter, but the content is equally predictable and idiotic.

I lost all respect for the Econo - which was hard when I didn't have much to start with - when they published a feature last year which stated that George Bush should automatically be deferred to, because he was the longest-serving and most experienced leader in the G7.

This was so patently insane on so many counts, that it really became impossible to treat the Econo's editorialising as anything other than a more serious version of The Onion, or perhaps the Framley Examiner.

If nothing else it was factually wrong in a very obvious way, because Blair had been around since 1997. Only they'd - you know - forgotten him.

Making such a ridiculous mistake isn't even journalism. It's poop.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Apr 14th, 2007 at 03:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: New aphorism (4.00 / 2)
I lost respect for the Economist already in the nineties, and lost all when they wrote about the California power crisis.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 05:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enjoying the spring time (4.00 / 3)
I was, actually. I wrote most of the above diary sitting on the beach in Normandy, where I fianlly managed to escape for the week-end.

Very strange to have a US Military Cemetary a few hundred meters away from here, and having to read all that shit about France at the same time.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Apr 14th, 2007 at 03:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: New aphorism (none / 1)
Those who don't study history are forced to make it up

ROTFLMAO!

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Apr 15th, 2007 at 12:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whose chance? [A for the record deconstruction of the Economist on France] | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: