FACT-CHECKING THE
SPECTATOR: Reader Steve Gardetto writes from Estonia to identify a serious howler in Simon Heffer's "Americans are Cowards" article:
As an American who's lived in Europe for the last eight years, I tend to pay special attention to articles by Europeans about how Americans are afraid to venture abroad after this or that war, terrorist act, etc. Thus I quickly clicked to the story in The Spectator on this topic. Unfortunately, author Simon Heffer couldn't even get through his first paragraph without "dropping a clanger": his claim the double-Oscar-winning actor in "The Best Years of Our Lives," veteran Harold Russell, had lost his hands in combat in Normandy in 1944. I've seen the powerful film several times, and thought right away that something about that statement wasn't correct. Five Google-minutes later, a half-dozen sites confirmed my recollection that Russell's injuries occurred in North Carolina. It's a small point to be sure, but the lesson is that it was so easily verifiable:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/obituaries/134399243_russellobit03.html
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9457,00.html
Heffer had apparently done some research, because comments about Russell and the film continue throughout the article. It's so much easier to check the facts these days (someone in the Blog world got off a memorable line: "We can fact-check your ass!"). I would've hoped the literati who use American films to snipe at American foibles would want to get their facts straight first, but apparently this basic step is beneath them......
Nothing's beneath them, Steve.
Another excellent point that many readers have made is that lots of Euros are complaining about the absence of Americans since September. They seem annoyed to discover just how dependent they are on Americans economically, as well as militarily. As reader Jim Martinec notes:
The Chairman of Chelsea Football Club called Americans cowards back in November. His claim was that his club was being hurt financially because Americans were not traveling to see them play. Of course one can reflect on how ridiculous it is that a soccer team must rely on foreign visitors to maintain financial solvency.
One might easily answer that a) Americans do not need the British to maintain their economy. The simple fact is that they need us more than we need them. The other answer: b) Is that the US economy took a serious hit on Sept. 11 and Americans are simply not wasting their money by putting it in the hands of greedy foreigners.
Perhaps they should be brave and face the truth that their economic well being is more reliant upon America than vice versa.
I do know a number of people who are swearing that they won't travel to Europe any time soon as a result of the various anti-American comments emanating from the Eurocracy and the commentariat there. That can't account for all of it, of course, but it doesn't help. I know that instead of my usual case of French beaujolais nouveau for the holidays, I stocked up on excellent Chilean and Argentinean merlots and cabernets, which were cheaper and just as good -- and which didn't come from countries that were loudly criticizing the U.S. And I doubt I'm the only one. Again, stuff like this isn't going to make or break an economy, but it does add up. Furthermore, the idiotic comments of Eurocrats guarantee that we will
taunt them some more.
UPDATE: Reader H.G. Bare forwards a copy of this letter sent to
The Spectator:
Would you please advise Mr. Heffer, that, contrary to his arrogant article, the major reason for Americans not visiting Europe is that they have no reason to get even closer to the source of the recent spate of insulting criticisms of our country.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to my request.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader who calls himself "Ross the Anointed" sends this:
If you read all of Simon Heffers article you come across this paragraph:There is, of course, no question but that the response of that country to the attack on its people and our civilisation has been resolute, nhesitating and unflinching. It is hard to believe that any other country in the developed world would have had the determination and conviction to respond in such a way, even if it had had the military resources to do so. Mr Blair might have done it, though it would have had to have been without the support of many in his own party. Judging by their footling response to 11 September, big European countries such as France or Germany would probably have reacted by plunging into chaos and self-doubt.
In fact if you look at the bulk of Heffer's writing in the Daily Mail you can see he is very pro-american, and utterly loathes Chris Patten and the E.U. Bearing in mind that opinion polls in the U.K suggest around 90% of people support the USA, I think there may be a danger of you and some your readers becoming "Jesse Jacksonised" ie. scouring the worlds press for some trivial thing which you can construe as racism/ anti-americanism. That said the behavior of some our more left-wing media outlets was appalling in relation to your treatment of the Taliban it was hardly the majority view.
I read the paragraph, but to me it seemed like ass-covering, since it hardly overrides the sentiments expressed in the remainder of the piece. But I freely admit that I'm not familiar with the rest of Mr. Heffer's writing, and so may not have interpreted it as he intended. Are Americans oversensitive? I guess the question is compared to what? Certainly not compared with those Europeans who seem to regard it as a personal affront when Americans call terrorists "evil." But the criticism that I've levelled at Eurocritics has repeatedly stressed the difference between "elite" and general public opinion, and I think that most of the attack-bloggers who are, and will be, savaging Heffer understand that distinction too.
STILL ANOTHER UPDATE: This is the item that won't die -- but it keeps generating interesting email. "Ross the Anointed" has this tidbit to add in response to the above:
First of all I am really impressed at how quick you respond to e-mail. It is quite funny that Ken Bates is accusing any one of cowardice. About six weeks after Sept 11th his team of very well paid soccer players were drawn against an Israeli team, Haipul Tel Aviv, in a European soccer competition (for obvious reasons Israel plays in European competitions, not mid-eastern ones). No fewer than six of his first team squad refused to fly as it was too dangerous. They get paid $50000 a week to travel to Chelsea games and they won't do it, so how he expects Americans to pay to do so is quite beyond me. Happily enough Chelsea were beaten by the Israeli team.
Reader John Hawkins adds this trenchant observation:
I agree with you - we're not afraid of going to Europe, we're just sick of Europeans bitchin' and moaning about us. If we wanted to go someplace where the locals will scold us and call us simplistic warmongers, we could save a lot of money and just go to San Francisco or Berkeley.
Except, we're not going there either. The recession has people staying at home. The American tourism industry is hurting. I was in Hawaii two months ago, and the swank resort we stayed at was a ghost town. Occupancy rates were under 20% (I wondered why the price was so reasonable) in the middle of winter.
Besides, going to Europe entails flying, and flying is a horrible experience these days. The biggest danger I face flying isn't being blown up by a terrorist, it's being arrested for verbally drop-kicking some arrogant idiot at the security check-point.
Yes, there's a recession on, the airlines have
gone out of their way to make flying unpleasant and slower, and -- go figure! -- travel is down. I've got a couple of trips scheduled in the next couple of months, and my big worry isn't terrorism, it's the people whose lives seem to revolve around making my travel experience an unpleasant one.
