Original Transcript
Bite the Wax Tadpole has managed to get a copy of the marked up original text of Teddy Kennedy's speech at the Democratic convention. Here's an excerpt:

We bear no ill will toward our opponents. In fact, we'd be happy to have them over for a polite little tea party. I know just the place: right down the road at Boston Harbor. I'll drive.

European Misconceptions: The Press

(Old) Europeans seem to share a nearly universal and unshakable belief that the European press and media are more accurate, objective and offer a wider range of opinion than their American counterparts. With few exceptions, they believe that the press and media in the United States print nothing but propaganda and that opposing opinions are simply not allowed. Germans in particular seem prone to believe in an active conspiracy which disseminates propaganda directly from the president to the media.

The vast majority of the people who hold that belief read American papers rarely, if ever. The claim that criticism of the government is not allowed in the American press doesn't even pass the sniff test, and it's easy to make the case that there is far more diversity among the mainstream American press and media than on the continent (the UK has a very lively press, of course).

I've been talking politics with Europeans (assorted nationalities but mostly in Germany and Holland) for a very long time, and perhaps my most disheartening discussion ever was an attempt to compare the German and American press coverage of, and editorial commentary on, the war in Iraq. I've had similar discussions on numerous occasions, but none that were quite so brutal.

This was about a year ago during a class in a German Language school that I attend regularly to keep my language skills from going stale, and the other participants were two Spaniards, an Italian, a Ukranian and a German (the teacher). A Japanese student and a Catholic Priest from India were also present but didn't participate much at all (frankly, they pretty much sat there looking stunned once the discussion got rolling).

I barely managed to state my thesis (that the German press expresses a much narrower point-of-view than the American press) before I was denounced by the others in more-or-less a single voice. When I brought out my assortment of German and American articles, in which the entire range of opinion expressed in the German press fit neatly into about 25% of the American spectrum, things turned truly surreal.

Their first line of "attack" was to change the topic. Instead of addressing the relative diversity of opinion in the US & German press, they asserted that the opinions reported in both the German and American press (uniformly anti-war) were "universal" and therefore obviously correct. Anything that was expressed only in the American press was, by the same measure, obviously propaganda unworthy of consideration.

When I pointed out that they had essentially ceded the question of diversity, they simply denied that they were doing so without offering any counterargument whatsoever.

Not having any real way to deal with "proof by vigorous assertion," I tried a new angle and pulled out articles in both German and American newspapers making a claim the others didn't want to accept (IIRC, they documented the likelihood that France and Russia were motivated by oil money and that the US was probably not). Citing their earlier principle that arguments that appear in both places were universal and therefore unassailable, I asked if they were willing to reconsider their original belief.

Their response was another (off-topic) tirade which claimed that the existence of this (lone) "pro-American" article in a German newspaper clearly refuted all claims of any sort of bias at all in the German press.

One last try. Around this time a couple of Wolfowitz interviews were being widely and wildly misquoted in the German press. I had the full transcript of both interviews handy, and tried to show the full quotes in context, so the others could decide how fairly he had been quoted. They flatly refused to even look at the transcripts.

At this point it was clear to me that they were clinging to their collective world view so dearly that nothing which might threaten it could even be considered. The fact that they refused to look (rather than confidently reading the interview on the assumption that they could dismiss it) also told me that, deep in their heart-of-hearts, they all knew just how shaky the foundation actually was. I gave up.

Please note that none of these people were zealots. They were perfectly ordinary, reasonable-seeming people with whom I'd spent many a pleasant evening drinking beer and talking about less controversial things.

That's what made this whole thing so disheartening. I love Europe (and especially Germany) and this discussion lead me to fear, deeply, for the future.

The kind of unthinking, narrow-minded blindness that was on display and which seems to be so prevalent in Europe today is fertile ground for a demagogue. The consensus opinion in Europe is already blind enough to make Jacques Chirac look like a hero and violent enough to have claimed the life of Pym Fortuyn. With the European economy continuing to struggle and its prospects for improvement looking grim, it's only a matter of time until a more palatable "savior" than Jacques Chirac arrives. I fear that day.

The Pot and Kettle Convention
Last night, Jimmy Carter took Bush to task for being a foreign policy disaster, so next I imagine we'll see Teddy Kennedy berating him for driving drunk.

Beware the malfunctioning automated (push?) poll

I just got a call from on automated poll on my mobile phone (?!), and it seems to have malfunctioned. Question 1 was Kerry or Bush. I selected Bush, and it then asked if I was voting for Kerry because I liked the Democratic platform or because I disliked Bush. I hung up the phone.

Speechless
Judith Billings, candidate for Superintendent of Public Education in Washington demonstrates her commitment to excellence in education:

"Everybody does not need to be a math whiz. Everybody does not need to be a spectacular writer."

It should come as no surprise Billings opposes both choice and accountability in education. Please vote this November to keep her away from our children.

As long as it's open season on mottoes...
Can we sue the New York Times for neglecting to print so much of the news that's "fit to print?"

Projection
So Arnold went and called the California legislature a bunch of "girlie-men" at a rally, and now his the usual suspects are up in arms, accusing him of homophobia.   Which is interesting, because he didn't say anything at all about sexual orientation. 

Arnold may or may not be guilty of clinging to negative stereotypes of gays -- I'm guessing "not" but we have no information. His protesters, on the other hand, leap effortlessly from "girlie-men" to "homosexual," which speaks volumes about their prejudices and preconceptions.

Hating America

I'm a few days behind, but Will Collier at VodkaPundit linked an long but fantastic Bruce Bawer article from the Hudson Review. Any American who has lived in Europe for an extended period (without going native) will recognize the attitudes and assumptions he describes.

Western Europeans are certain that that they know all about America and understand Americans, but if you scratch the surface, you discover that many have a crude, astoundingly negative and largely inaccurate caricature.

To be sure, most Americans have a cartoon image of Europe, but at least they don't pretend otherwise.

Over the next few days, I'll write up some of the ... interesting ... experiences I've had while living and travelling in Europe, or while dealing with Europeans in the United States.

The real "People's" Court
An Iraqi judge telling Saddam not to use such language in his courtroom amused most in the west, if it made any impression at all. We're used to judges maintaining order and decorum in the courtroom regardless of who's in the dock, so we missed the significance of this exchange.

But this is earthshattering stuff in the middle east. Here's Egpytian blogger "Land of the Pharaohs:"

I had my eyes wide open while watching Saddam Hussein in front of an Iraqi judge. What happened today resembled an earthquake in this country and in the region. For the very first time in history, Arabs are going judge their own rulers. This is unprecedented.
...
One of the most profound words I heard was from the judge. Saddam referred to Kuwaitis as "dogs" when he commented on his invasion of Kuwait. The judge firmly told him "that this is a court and any indecent words are unacceptable." Wow, an Iraqi actually told those words to Saddam. Then a simple policeman went and slowly pulled Saddam from his arms when the hearing ended.

There are a whole lot of people throughout the Arab world staring in stunned amazement at their TV, as an Arab court tries a dictator. It offers a tantalizing hope that the rule of law can actually work in the Arab world.

That's why it is absolutely crucial that the trial stays an absolutely transparent and absolutely Iraqi affair from start to finish. No US, No UN. Nobody but the people of Iraq.

If (colossal subjunctive) the rest of the trial of Saddam Hussein is handled well the exchange between the judge and Saddam could end up being cited as a historical turning point in popular attitudes, much like Reagan's "Evil Empire" statement.

Update: I was posting in a hurry and neglected to mention that this post was partially inspired by comments I was posting to related post by Athena at the always excellent Terrorism Unveiled.

Michael Moore is a big fat ... War Criminal?

You heard it here, first. Almost a month ago, I wondered what Michael Moore knew and when he knew it. Now the Associated Press finally has the story.

His stated reasons for not reporting his evidence are nonsense. Submitting his evidence quietly or even anonymously would have gotten the ball rolling without exposing him to accusations of self-promotion. The only plausible grounds for withholding his evidence of prisoner abuse is to increase the buzz around his film.

I don't have the Geneva Conventions handy, so I can't say for sure that his behavior actually constitutes a war crime, but it seems that hiding evidence of such for personal gain is more than a little dodgy.

I'll ask the question again: How much sooner could abuse have been stopped if Michael Moore hadn't sat on his evidence? How many Iraqis suffered to feed Michael Moore's vanity (and his bank account)?

While we're on the topic of Michael Moore and his crimes ... Does he have signed release forms from the prisoners and soldiers that he filmed?

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Much of the European press reports (as uncontestable fact) that fear of being branded "non-patriotic" for daring to disagree with George W. Bush is pervasive in the United States, to the point that it inhibits people's actions. To most anyone (that I know) who actually lives here, that notion is patently absurd. I live near Seattle and won't claim to speak for the entire country, but friends and family in other major urban centers report pretty much the same thing.

The truth is that dissenters here feel far more free to proclaim their views than those who support Bush and/or the war. For example, this truck:

Is regularly parked outside the building I work in or the local Home Depot, and never has a problem. Meanwhile, cars with discrete "W '04" bumper stickers are scratched or otherwise damaged with monotonous regularity.

To see true intimidation, violence, and suppression of free speech in this area, you have to attend an anti-war, anti-globalization, or pro-intifada rally and watch what happens to those who dare to disagree.

What's next? The Qwestagon?

My wife is very upset at Bill Frist's proposal to rename the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan. We both admire President Reagan and have nothing against memorializing him in some other way, but the Pentagon is a potent symbol in its own right. Renaming it is a crass and ultimately pointless gesture that would tarnish the Pentagon without really reflecting the legacy of President Reagan.

I don't have a strong opinion about putting him on a coin or a bill (if pushed I'd probably admit to being mildly positive) but I'd actually most like to see a Reagan memorial.

Update: But not on Mount Rushmore, please.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one brave woman. And a beacon of hope for (Old) Europe.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 raises an unexpected question.

It comes as no surprise that Michael Moore's latest anti-Bush polemic is a big hit at Cannes. What I did find a little surprising was the fact that it reportedly includes footage of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners:

In the light of the current controversy over pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused, his latest film is right up to date in showing American soldiers in the field mocking and posing with hooded Iraqi prisoners.

"This is the first footage of abuse and humiliation of these Iraqi detainees," Moore said.

This raises an interesting question: When was this footage taken and when did it come into Michael Moore's possession? It sure sounds like evidence of violations of the Geneva Conventionts being committed, which should have been reported immediately to the appropriate authorities.

Considering how quickly the military moved to investigate and shut down the abuses at Abu Ghraib once they were reported, it seems likely that they would have responded equally quickly to Moore's material -- possibly reducing or even preventing the abuses that have been splattered across the media landscape for the past few weeks.

Did Michael Moore report his evidence to the authorities? Or did he withhold it, knowing that it would boost his film? How many prisoners suffered unnecessarily for Michael Moore's vanity?

Update: I've since seen a report (in print) that the film was finished just 10 days before screening, so it is possible that the material in question was added at the last minute. I'd still like to know if that's the case.

Inside every silver cloud, a dark lining

The reaction to Abu Ghraib inside of Iraq has been muted in comparison to the rest of the Arab world. According to the LA Times, that's bad news for the coalition.

In the LA Times' view, Iraqi response is muted because Iraqis have experienced firsthand the depravity of the American occupiers and expect no better. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but not very loosely.

Of course, the story was written long ago as far as the LAT is concerned -- the "journalist"'s job now is to fit whatever comes along into the narrative. One rather suspects that if more Iraqis were delighted by harsh treatment for Baathist thugs, the LA Times would take the coalition to task for pandering to their base instincts and maybe sowing the seeds for civil war.

Iraq the Model has another take on the issue, as does his friend linked above. But they're just ordinary Iraqis and can't be expected to understand the Iraqi point-of-view as well as those highly trained journalists at the LAT do.

Update: The archive at Iraq the Model appears to be wonky. If the links above don't work, go to the main page and search for the entries on May 6 & May 8 2004.

Update: Here's another report on Iraqi reaction to the scandal and its aftermath, this time from a Marine Colonel in Iraq.

In a heartbeat.

Me too. (via Greg Piper)

If you're looking for evidence that the Vatican is a political rather than a moral entity, you need look no further than this (article in German).

Vatican: Torture Worse Than September 11th

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers is, by Vatican lights, a greater blow to the United States than September 11th. Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the Italian daily "La Repubblica" that the abuse scandal fuels the hatred of Arabs for the west and, above all, Christianity. (...) The torture scandal makes it even more important that the UN intervenes in Iraq and the US gives authority to Iraqi's as quickly as possible.

It's worth noting that Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo seems entirely preoccupied with political consequences of the two acts and with advancing the Vatican's political agenda (strengthen the UN, weaken the US). Nowhere does he evidence the slightest concern for the immorality of killing more than three thousand innocent people.

A Long and Interesting Read.

The Taguba report is available at GlobalSecurity.org.

The report is detailed and hard-hitting and should put paid to any notion that such abuse is typical or that the military is attempting a coverup. It won't, but that's just politics in an election year (and the press running with the narrative they prefer).

Cognitive Whiplash

If rumors of child abuse at Abu Ghraib turn out to be true, I tend to favor this suggestion, not just because it is appropriate (assuming a very high standard of proof is met) but because of what would likely follow.

In the immediate aftermath, the perpetrators of such heinous acts would be justly condemned by pretty much everyone. The European political class (and much of the American left) would, with their typical hyperbolic flair, go much further -- breathlessly placing them on the chart of historical evil-doers somewhere between Hitler and Pol Pot (though still well below President Bush himself).

Once the offenders were sentenced to death, however, the chattering classes would be required by canon to lionize them as heroes (see: Mumia).

One can only hope that such a rapid transition from "evil incarnate" to "poor, innocent saints" produces enough cognitive whiplash to snap a few necks.

Rachel Lucas comes out of hibernation, and the word "Asshat" suddenly starts appearing all over the place once again. Coincidence? We report, you decide.

In any case, welcome back Rachel - we've missed you.