Thread: This is Lame! More Neutering of the American Male!

Originally Posted by Sailor

Cannot speak for Belga in special but not all European news agencies have English services. Some, specially the big ones do, but most doesn't as their broadcast are usually targeted on domestic audiences. Some, but not all have short daily broadcasts in foreign languages 2-4 times a day.
Although English is a sort of a world language, not all in Europe speak it. In some countries not even most people understand it. Excluding UK and Ireland English is not an official language in any European country.

I know this, but AFP has an English service (and German, Spanish, Arabic, and Portugese as well), and the BBC has broadcasts in a lot of different languages. ITAR-TASS and Deutsche Welle (which I can hear on my local PBS affiliate) also have English service. I'm just surprised that the seat of the EU and headquarters for NATO doesn't have an English language mirror site for their news agency.

Oh, and just to set the record straight, the US has no "official" language. My voter information pamphlets come in two languages locally, but when I lived in Southern California I could get them in about twenty different languages. Most people here speak English, but there are no laws compelling anyone to use it or even to know it.

The thing here is that there are 6 to 10 major political parties, and a coalition of 6 or more is needed at federal or state level to get a majority. There is also a lot of overlap between party lines. It is not possible anywhere to draw a line and divide one party from the others. It is also not unusual for family members to have different affiliation. There is generally also no animosity or 'them vs us' mentality.

This makes it very hard for media to play divide and conquer. With a 2 party system like the US, the situation is very different.

And the format where news readers spin opinion would not be accepted here. We don't do things that way. We like news to be reported so that we can make up our own mind. The US format has been tried a couple of times (not in the news itself but in daily commentaries) and it died every time. I guess people here don't like listening to other people opining about the news.

Well, I don't know about Belgium. Sounds like a utopia, except for the 6-party coalition Government - how does anything ever get done? It's bad enough when you get 6 people in a room to get agreement, let alone 6 parties.... but I don't know, maybe it works awesomely well, which is why the European Parliament and Committees decided to meet in Brussels....?

Everything has a spin on it, it's just a matter of how subtle it is IMO. It's like Vegemite. You can slather it on your toast in a heavy-handed fashion (like the Americans do), and it is bitter and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Or, you can just use a small amount and get a more enjoyable Vegemite experience. But the Vegemite is still there.


Edit: In Statistics, we check for bias in mathematical estimators of population parameters. The issue is not bias - if we know and understand the bias we can adjust, and often correct, for it. It is those estimators where we cannot assess the bias or its magnitude that cause the issues. So in some ways overt bias is much more preferable to covert and subtle bias. The problem nowadays is that people are time-poor and harassed, and they do not have time to compare various sources of news to tease out the bias from the fact. So they latch on to their favourite "estimator" (usually the sample mean - which is what focus groups etc tell the news media and politicians to target) and hang on to it for dear life.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Well, I don't know about Belgium. Sounds like a utopia, except for the 6-party coalition Government - how does anything ever get done? It's bad enough when you get 6 people in a room to get agreement, let alone 6 parties.... but I don't know, maybe it works awesomely well, which is why the European Parliament and Committees decided to meet in Brussels....?

One of greatest advantages of multi party system is that it forces politicians to look for compromises rather sole benefit for their own parties only. Maybe Europeans have bad experiences from one party getting too much power. It is not uncommon that both reds and blues (as well as yellows and greens and purples) find themselves sitting in a same government. Currently we have six pack government. Never mind who wins the elections, you can always be sure that they have to take care not only for their own party but also for those who didn't vote for them. And not all issues government has to think are political; they could be about health as well (see #1 of this thread), not much to do with "politics".
Of course there are drawbacks in every system and ours is maybe slowness in making political decisions (although it might be good thing too).
The reason why EU politicians now have to rush meetings here and there over Europe is rather financial and global. A matter of another topic, like the one here hadn't gone off topic so long time ago

do they sell tobacco to kids in europe???

cause the drinking age is like... 11 or something...

Originally Posted by paco664

do they sell tobacco to kids in europe???

cause the drinking age is like... 11 or something...

That's like asking the length of a rope really
Europe is a rather diverse place, what's rules and norms in one country doesn't necessary go with the next one.
Drinking age in my European country is 18.

Originally Posted by Bruno

This makes it very hard for media to play divide and conquer. With a 2 party system like the US, the situation is very different.

That's the biggest problem with the political system in the US (aside from money), the entrenched two party system. There are many smaller parties but the deck is very stacked against them. The two major parties hate the smaller parties, as well. If they siphon off too many votes they could cause the 'opposition' to win, and even people who would be inclined to vote for a 3rd party know that their vote would be a 'throwaway vote' and will vote for the major party most of the time. As a result it's a 'kill or be killed' winner-takes-all approach to government which is bad for everybody and then the country is run by a handful of party insiders. The major business interests and lobbyists like this setup, as well, as it sets up a reliable bribery, er, donation scheme.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Everything has a spin on it, it's just a matter of how subtle it is IMO. It's like Vegemite. You can slather it on your toast in a heavy-handed fashion (like the Americans do), and it is bitter and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Or, you can just use a small amount and get a more enjoyable Vegemite experience. But the Vegemite is still there.

Them's fightin' words! I don't think anyone here eats that stuff. Nobody that I've ever known, anyway.

Originally Posted by paco664

do they sell tobacco to kids in europe???

cause the drinking age is like... 11 or something...

As was said: how long is a rope?

Cigs are not sold to -16.
Alcohol is not sold to -16
Hard liquor is not sold to -18

This is for Belgium.

That said, alcohol use is acceptable from 12 - 14 onwards, as long as it is in moderation and under supervision. For example, teens might get a glass of wine with a family diner or at a wedding. I was allowed to drink our local hard liquor when I was 14. I got a glass the size of the last falange on my pinky. My father would fill it for me once per week. With each birthday I got a slightly bigger glass. With my 18th it was a regular shot glass.

And drinking beer was acceptable from 16 onwards. It still is today. Some older people still think that alcohol and driving go together, but the younger generation is veyr much anti-DUI. It is considered seriously uncool.

Different countries have different regulations though. In France, everyone drinks wine from the cradle onwards

yeah.. that would never fly here..... in this country you aren't smart enough to decide what is best for your kids...