I found an interesting little article on al-Jazeera (ugh) on Michael Moore (double ugh) and his European book tour for Mein Bushkampf err… Dude, Where’s My Country (massive ugh, followed by urge to vomit).
Before I continue, I feel obligated to mention Spinsanity’s devastating takedown of the numerous lies and fabrications in the book. They have even written a companion piece to the review listing some of the misinformation they found in the book.
Here’s the money quote from one German:
Another fan said he gave legitimacy to negative images of the United States and an outlet for frustration with Washington’s policies.
“He reinforces all the stereotypes we have of America,” said Stefan Baumann. “We can point to him and say, see, even Americans are saying that about themselves.”
Now this is exactly what is wrong with the European view of America. The European media is almost entirely anti-American. The European press gives a view of a America that would be almost entirely unrecognizable to anyone who actually lives in this country. A review of the movie Legally Blonde 2 in a German newspaper treated the movie as though it were a scathing indictment of the US government rather than a mindless piece of pop-culture fluff. Michael Moore’s tired rants are held up as being the gospel truth and not one of his ridiculous assertions are challenged. The editorial cartoons in Le Monde display a level of simplistic and reactionary anti-Americanism that they border on hate speech. With the exception of some parts of the UK media, finding anything that has even the slightest pretense of objectivity when it comes to the US is nigh-on impossible in Europe.
Herr Baumann has exactly the right point – the reason why one sees this in Europe (and one saw this even before Bush was President) is that it reinforces the stereotypes of Americans as greedy warmongers who have been hoodwinked by a sinister cabal of Jewish "neoconservatives". That view is rarely challenged, and the pages of Le Monde, Die Zeit, and The Guardian all parrot that line reliably.
Unfortunately that means that the European people are being sold a biased and skewed vision of America. As Europe continues to decline economically and demographically, the cognitive dissonance between the Euromedia’s view of the world and the truth will only continue to grow.
The editorial cartoons in Le Monde display a level of simplistic and reactionary anti-Americanism that they border on hate speech.
I am glad you mentioned that. Le Monde’s cartoonists draw American GI’s to look like Nazis. See for yourself.
first, this drawing is NOT from Le Monde. I know France is a small country, and you have no idea of the differences between “Liberation” and “Minute”, but -please confirm- this drawing is not from Le Monde. My bet would be “Le canard enchainé”, looking at the poor quality (artistically and intellectually) of this picture.
“Americans as greedy warmongers who have been hoodwinked by a sinister cabal of Jewish “neoconservatives”
If you want to convince an european (me) that this really is “a biased and skewed vision of America”, you will than have to explain:
-how can dick Cheney still be on Halliburton payroll?
-why was the ministry of petroleum the only building not bombed in Baghdad?
-why the US give 3bn $ a year (-238m$ this year because you’re really angry at them!!), and nothing to palestinians? Can anyone expect that this will work fine, without frustating or turn other people jalous?
and so many other questions, you can just assume that this definition, maybe a bit simplistic is a reality today in the US government.
I can tell you that we europeans at least can make the difference between the US, and the Bush government! There are many americans in Brussels as well, and let me tell you that Bush is looked at with even less sympathy than I do (and that tells you a lot right!!)
Finally, even though there’s nothing I want more than Bush out of charge, I must admit that if he does, this would really be a disaster. Any democrat would -faster than required- pull out of Irak just like in vietnahm, leading to the atrocities we’ve seen after the US left the peninsula.
“Laissons les gens haineux face à eux-même, avec leurs petites idées”
C.Aznavour
He isn’t. He receives a pension, but that isn’t the same as being on their payroll. Under federal conflict of interest laws one can’t be on the payroll of a company that does business with the government and be a federal official at the same time.
Why would it need to be bombed? There were plenty of buildings in Baghdad that weren’t bombed because they didn’t need to be. We hit Saddam’s palaces, the airport, the Republican Guard facilities in town, and any other building that had strategic value. The Oil Ministry wasn’t one of them – furthermore it had valuable information on Iraq’s oil system that would be critical to rebuilding the country. Bombing it would have been stupid.
Again, that’s simply untrue. In 1999 under the Wye River accords the US gave significant aid to the PA to establish a police force, including giving them US weapons. Those weapons were later used in attacks against Israeli civilians. More recently the US donated money towards assisting in water purification and disease control in Jenin
Considering that most aid goes directly into Yassir Arafat’s pockets so he can do great things like keep his wife living in luxury in Paris rather than building schools or hospitals.
BTW, the cartoon is another despicable work by the equally despicable Willem from Liberation.
-how can dick Cheney still be on Halliburton payroll?
Yea. How can he? Didn’t he quit in 2000 when he joined Bush in the presidential campaign?
why was the ministry of petroleum the only building not bombed in Baghdad?
You’re telling me that everything single building in Baghdad got bombed except for that one? Wow. Talk about precision weaponry.
In any case, if we bombed the ministry of petroleum, you’ld be the first one crying your eyes out about US crippling the new Iraq’s ability to sustain itself via its oil production.
why the US give 3bn $ a year (-238m$ this year because you’re really angry at them!!), and nothing to palestinians?
I am pretty sure that we gave $ to palestinians, but in any case. The socialist in you is coming out. Why should we be giving money to the palestinians? Did we take a loan out and now have to repay it? We don’t owe them, do we? Look, if you are fine with the fact that PA has no accountibility and Arafat stashed away billions in his personal accounts – that’s fine. But, I, as an american tax payer, is against my money being sent to some tyrant’s bank account.
Can anyone expect that this will work fine, without frustating or turn other people jalous?
Again. Why do should we give money to the palestinians?
“Why do should we give money to the palestinians?”
Because they need help, because we can give it, and because it will keep many of them from thinking that the US wants them dead, thus keeping them from joining groups that like to kill us.
Because they need help, because we can give it,
How does it make them different from the rest of the 3rd world?
and because it will keep many of them from thinking that the US wants them dead,
If they think that we want them dead, then I don’t think any amount of $ will change that.
thus keeping them from joining groups that like to kill us.
You mean kind of like an extortion?
“You mean kind of like an extortion?”
Call it what you want–it keeps Americans from getting killed, and it keeps more people from signing up to become killers.
“If they think that we want them dead, then I don’t think any amount of $ will change that.”
Why do so many in the Arab world think the US is their enemy? In many cases, the answer is because the only education available to them was a religious one, funded by Wahabbist radicals and Islamic fundamentalists. It’s in the madrassas that recruitment starts. But you can’t blow up a madrassa and get away with it–like it or not, it’s still a school, complete with kids. The only way to beat them on the education front is to make secular or state-sponsored education more accessible to families in the Arab world. Otherwise, Donald Rumsfeld’s immortal question will receive a “no” answer:
“Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the clerics are recruiting, training and deploying?”
You beat them by outspending them. “Extortion”? How can that be, when it serves our purposes as well?
We give nearly $2 billion to Egypt per year in foreign aid. Behind Israel they are the single biggest recipient of foreign and military aid. Yet Egypt is also one of the hotbeds of terrorism. The #2 leader of al-Qaeda Ayman al-Zawahiri is Egyptian as was September 11 ringleader Mohammad Atta.
Giving more money to Middle Eastern governments, especially ones as corrupt as the Palestinian Authority won’t do anything to combat terror. We will have to stop the spread of radical Islamiscism through the madrassas, but not through conventional foreign aid channels.
“Conventional foreign aid channels” includes such things as ESF spending. In 1996, Egypt pulled $800-900 million in ESF funding. That kind of assistance is a problem, as it’s just a bulk payment to a government. What we should be increasing are Development Assistance packages, which are earmarked for specific purposes or areas and are much better watched. We should also increase the amount of food aid to countries, since this does actually benefit us directly, as what isn’t given in actual food supplies is given in loans to purchasee American agricultural products–in other words, it’s an agricultural subsidy that just happens to help keep poorer countries fed.
What’s the real problem with aid to Egypt? Well, it’s that we seem to prefer buying them bullets and bombs instead of books. In 1996, we spent over $1.3 billion in military aid for Egypt, while providing $815 million in economic aid. Jordan got $171 million in military aid, but only $11 million in economic aid.
We’re giving about the right amount, but we’re using it poorly. $2 billion to Egypt would make huge inroads if we weren’t using it to promote the anti-Israeli factions in the government and instead used it to build schools, infrastructure and health care programs.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0896/ijee/ej3faf2.htm
Call it what you want–it keeps Americans from getting killed, and it keeps more people from signing up to become killers.
Dude. You the school bully your lunch money once – and he’ll be coming back for more. Oslo is a prime example. One sided diplomacy does not work.
But you can’t blow up a madrassa and get away with it–like it or not, it’s still a school, complete with kids.
No, you blow up bin Laden and his supporters. You got after the head. Arabs hate loosers. Muslim or not.
JR,
instead used it to build schools
We give plenty of $$$ for school to PA. Have you read what’s in their school books?
“You the school bully your lunch money once – and he’ll be coming back for more.”
I’m just assuming you meant to have a verb in there somewhere. Nevertheless, this is not a schoolyard bully we’re talking about. See, Jay and I were actually debating relevant facts concerning US foreign aid to countries that have terror ties, and so far your contribution has been to agree with me about blowing up bin Laden (just as soon as we find him–going on how many days since “dead or alive?”) and trying to make an inappropriate analogy.
You give the schoolyard bully your lunch money not because you want him to stop harassing you, but because you want him to not beat you up. Think what you want, but these countries aren’t going to win a fight with us, and they know it. What they can do is sit back and snipe with a BB gun–it won’t kill us, and we’ll still be stronger than them, but it’s going to hurt nonetheless. What increased Development Assistance does is teach these guys that a.) we can beat them and b.) we’d rather help their people than fight them. When they think we’re not trying to destroy them, they’ll stop trying to fight us (or, as they believe, trying to fight back). We need to encourage a shift in perception while we attack the terror networks, or else they’ll just keep coming back for more. You don’t fight a hydra with just a sword; you need a torch to win. Our military campaign has been a good sword (at least Operation: Enduring Freedom was) but it’s preventive measures, like limiting the influence of religious fanatics through slowing the proliferation of anti-Americanism in the madrassas, that will be our torch in this fight.
Got a better idea as to how we can limit the effect of the madrassas? I’d love to hear it, if you can tear yourself away from your self-righteousness for a second and try pragmatism.