Personally I think it's more cultural. There's a certain 60's- 70's- type they remember from college they never liked, whose causes they're always looking to slam. That's why they go after high-profile metric standarization, which they associate with this type, and not low-profile cellphone standardization.
So I just accept WSJ for what it is. I eagerly read their business news with my coffee in the morning, but only turn to the editorials when I feel like a little whine. Nat > -----Original Message----- > From: kilopascal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 2002 April 24 23.28 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; U.S. Metric Association > Subject: Re: [USMA:19622] RE: European Union regulations > > > 2002-04-24 > > There was really no reason for the Wall Street Journal to even > bring up the > metric issue concerning the martyrs. But, they did so, because they are > virulently anti-metric. They had a very "angry" editorial when > the martyrs > lost their first case, and even printed a negative obituary on Pierre > Trudeau because he "forced" Canadian gas stations to sell in > litres instead > of gallons. > > This newspaper is a staunch supporter of American business > practices to the > point that America is always right and everyone else is wrong. As we > discussed in some other threads, American standards are FFU based and > therefore metric is anathema to the strength of American business. Every > time the metric system wins a victory, it means less opportunity for > American business out of tune with the metric world. > > As the EU grows stronger and the metric system gains even more ground, > expect the Wall Street Journal to be even more virulent. > > > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, 2002-04-24 19:18 > Subject: [USMA:19622] RE: European Union regulations > > > > Here's the relevant excerpt from the WSJ. I attach the rest of > the article > > to show it in context. > > > > Interesting they imply the standarization of measurement standards is > > somehow bad, yet the standardization of cellphone standards is somehow > good. > > > > Go figure. > > > > Nat > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > The rules often start as an attempt to reconcile various national > standards > > within the EU, to make cross-border commerce easier. EU critics in > Britain, > > Ireland and elsewhere regularly bash EU bureaucrats for impinging on > > national sovereignty. The British press recently hailed the "metric > > martyrs," its name for four British grocers who are appealing > an EU ban on > > the use of imperial measurements, such as pounds and ounces, in favor of > the > > metric system. > > > > However, some EU rules have made European companies more competitive in > > global markets. In 1991, the EU mandated a single mobile-phone standard > > called GSM, so that new digital phones sold in the EU would > work anywhere > > within the bloc. The U.S. didn't pick a nationwide standard, > and thus fell > > behind in the global race to sell mobile phones and transmission > equipment. > > > >
