Why did my wife now decide to start a blog? Especially since she's always ignored mine? Because, I kid you not, I won an auction on Ebay. An auction she was so aghast at my winning that she decided she needed a blog to fully mock me.
I'm not sure how often she'll post. She's a wonderful writer, and is currently working on the finishing touches on a Haggadah for Children which she's used with her classes the last two years.
Just to be fair. No, really. I'm going to let Mr. Moore have a say. Not only a say, but an uninterrupted one. No 'Fisking' (none, actually is needed, since, really, this letter comes self-Fisked).
On his web site he has an open letter dated March 17, 2003:
Monday, March 17, 2003
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.
Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!
Did you know there's a Casablanca Cinema Festival? Did you know they screened "Bowling for Columbine" there? Did you know they had a ceremony following the screening?
""We praise the courage of American stars who said no to war in Iraq," said Mohamed Bakrim, secretary general of the association of the Casablanca cinema festival.
(Michael) Moore, one of the first signatories of the "Not in my name" appeal, symbolizes resistance to war and to violence, he said adding "with their commitment against war, American stars have given another image of America.""
"As you know, Michael (Moore), who won an Oscar for best documentary, then made some anti-war statements during his acceptance speech and got booed. He was really mad when he was giving that speech. I haven't seen him that angry since he was charged for two seats on a Southwest airplane flight."
Michael Moore, in an interview posted on Entertainment Weekly blames the booing on, apparently, people supporting him.
"It was so loud my wife, who was standing next to me, couldn't hear what I was saying. One of my buddies who worked on the film and was up on the top balcony said there was a pocket of people there, and I hadn't finished my first sentence and, like, on cue, they just started [booing] up there. First the ''No! No! going through the sound system and then the [booing] up there. Then the people in the balcony who were supportive of what I was saying started booing the booers. They were shouting at them to shut up! So now it's a cacophony of booing, making it sound much worse than it was."
And, in case anyone was wondering which 'stars' supported Moore:
"In the cutaways -- I've watched it now -- you see Martin Scorsese starting to applaud, Ed Harris is applauding, a number of them are actually applauding."
There are more, three pages of them. They sure do know their audience, don't they?
:: Peter 3/26/2003 09:07:00 AM [+] ::
:: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 ::
I originally posted this on my son's site: babypundit but decided to post it here as well.
"Joshua celebrated his one month birthday on Sunday. American soldiers, men and women fighting to protect my wife, my children, and myself, were paraded (alive, wounded, dead) on Al Jazeera television. Andy turns 4 in a little over a month. American citizens, men and women fighting to protect the UN, the French, and, of course, Saddam Hussein, paraded as well. And, lest we forget, the 'Arab Street' cheered that American soldiers were dying.
Andy knows The Pledge of Allegiance. Joshua knows he is loved, where to find food, how to cry. There are people, complete and absolute strangers, who are, right this moment, putting their very lives on the line for my children. To protect them. They are there, in a foreign land, far from their own children, their own parents, their own loved ones, so that my children will be safe. They stand there, ready to die, to defend my children.
And people protest against them? People cheer their deaths? These people sicken me.
American soldiers, men and women I will never know, have never heard of, will never speak to, are fighting, for us. Willing to die, for us. Willing to risk everything, for us.
God bless them.
God bless America.
Every night, holding my children while watching grainy video footage of a war half a world away, I know, deep down, that God has blessed me. With a wonderful wife, beautiful children, and the knowledge, sure and strong, that I live in the most free nation in the history of this planet. America the beautiful. Amber waves of grain. Purple mountains majesty. God bless the USA."
Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to make sure as many people see this as possible. It seems there is always someone somewhere adding still more definitions to the word "stupidity."
4. "The students said the cartoon was indecent and anti-American. In addition to the apology, they are demanding that the paper publish an article honoring Corrie's life."
:: Peter 3/25/2003 10:02:00 AM [+] ::
What is the war really about? Oil? Terrorism? Tyranny? Saddam?
Well, according to this column by Sarah Whalen, who, by the way, allegedly "teaches at Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans; she is an expert in Islamic law and taught Islamic law at Temple University School of Law.", the war is all about Israel. Well, except, of course, when it isn't at all about Israel, which is where she is by the end of the article.
Now, if the column was 6 pages it might be slightly understandable how the first paragraph and the last paragraph have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But we're talking 7 paragraphs here. And two of those paragraphs are 1 sentence.
Here's the first sentence:
"War is raging in Iraq. This war is not about Armageddon, or even about oil. It’s all about Israel."
Hey, it's not about oil. Ok, we can all agree on that one, can't we? But, Sarah, you say it's all about Israel. Can you tell us why you've come to that conclusion?
"US President Bush, on the eve of invading Iraq, posited a “new” plan for peace in the Middle East that proposes a Palestinian state. One aim bandied about is to convince Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders. Israel’s response is that it is entitled to continue its absolutist reign of carnage against Palestinians and, literally, over anyone who dares to cross its path or question its actions. It is after all forever under siege by those who deny its right to exist. But if US ground troops are in the Middle East, Israel’s protection is assured, and Israel logically will have to back down. The United States believes that it can use this militaristic opportunity to come into the Middle East, but establishing a United States of New Iraq is hardly its most important aim."
So, what you're saying is that since the US will be protecting Israel then Israel should be safe even with indefensible borders? Ok, I can vaguely see where you might come to that conclusion. But, you end that little paragraph supporting your declaration that the war is "...all about Israel." by declaring that establishing a democratic Iraq isn't the "most important aim." which, if I'm not mistaken, you've said, repeatedly, is ...all about Israel."
Which brings us to paragraph number 3 (counting the first sentence as a separate paragraph, of course): "New buildings will go up, of course, to replace the ones we have bombed into rubble, but the aim of ground troops is to bolster Israel’s government, and through this, bolster secularism and secular governments generally in the Middle East. “Be more like Turkey used to be” is the new motto for peace in the Middle East. Especially in Islamic states. Because as Osama Bin Laden proved unequivocally to a doubting West, few things are more powerful than a powerful idea."
Ok, ground troops are to 'bolster' Israel's government (not 'protect'? Didn't you mean to say 'Protect' there? Just to bolster? So, it's ok if Israeli civilians die? Or are they to be 'bolstered' too?) But, then you conclude with a love letter to Osama. Which has, what, exactly, to do with Israel and why this war is "...all about Israel" which, if I'm remembering correctly from way, way back a paragraph ago, is your point?
Next, another one sentence paragraph. These aren't even long sentences. "And few ideas are more powerful than Islam."
Oh, I don't know. How about liberty. Equality. Freedom of speech. Of religion. Of press. Human decency. Human rights. Animal rights. Women's rights. Gay rights. Democracy.
Look at what she says again: "And few ideas are more powerful than Islam."
This is an American saying this. Stating, in print, with her name attached, that everything which America stands for, all those rights and freedoms which brave American soldiers died to give us, are, to her, weak in comparison with the theocratic, repressive, muderous regimes of Islam.
But wait, her point, (well, granted, it's not exactly a sharp one), but her 'point' was that this war is ...all about Israel."
Which, means, to her at least, that the war is all about "Islam.
Yes, I know she said, earlier, that the war is ...all about Israel" but she's since changed her mind apparently.
It's America, she's free to do so.
"It is Islam’s all-pervasiveness that alarms the West and pushes it toward this pre-emptive war. What the West wants now, the United States included, is a Middle East where Islam is shorn not just of obstinate leadership, but of its sometimes explosive, primal force. An Islam relegated to a Friday congregational sermon and communal exchanges of goodwill is what the West is looking for."
Paragraph 5. And we have completely lost her 'point' from paragraph 1. This war, according to Sarah, has nothing at all to do with Israel. Instead, now it's all about 'Islam.' And, to her, an Islam "shorn not just of obstinate leadership, but of its sometimes explosive, primal force."
I'm sorry, is she implying that that is a bad thing? Is she really saying that Islam without the explosions is lessened? Are the explosions, actually, a good thing to her? Their "primal force" something somehow beneficial to mankind in some way? Is this woman actually breathing?
"The Shariah of course will be the first thing to go, Western culture having totally stripped the law of its power to cause fear and instill obedience. No more of those “barbaric” punishments. The West has spoken."
She sounds actually upset that Sharia will no longer be the law of the land. Ah, the glory days, when women were sentenced to death for the crime of being raped. Ah, the good old days, when homosexuals were murdered for the crime of being alive. Ah, the strolls down memore lane when Jews and Christians were slaves. And, taking a cue from Rueters, she actually uses scare quotes around the term 'barbaric.' Did you catch that? Apparently causing fear and instilling obediance is a good thing in the law. We wouldn't want our subjects to be happy or anything.
And, she concludes: "Islam will soon exist throughout the Middle East only in the way that Westerners find most palatable — stripped down to its ornaments. The new Islam will consist of poetry, architecture, and voluminous costumes that Arabs will occasionally put on for weddings or state occasions, recalling how modestly they used to dress in obedience to God’s will in the days before the last Iraq war, much as Swedes and Danes and Germans now throw on the occasional traditional costume. A few presents for Eid and perhaps a few days off every few years for the Haj will round out the religious calendar. Once in a while, you can get a permit from your city council to barbecue a goat or a sheep."
Ah, so sad, that the Germans no longer get to wear those traditional Nazi costumes.
And this has what to do, exactly, with this war being "...all about Israel" Sarah?
But, my favorite part of the whole column is simply this: a Loyola University New Orleans Google search on Sarah Whalen produces absolutely ZERO hits. None. She's nowhere to be found at Loyola University New Orleans School of Law.
Searching on "Sarah Whalen Loyola" does produce the Depatment of Religious Studies: She's not listed under 'Faculty. She's not listed under 'Emeritus Faculty. But, listed lastly under something called 'Extraordinary Faculty' is one little sentence (a trend where she's concerned apparently): "SARAH WHALEN teaches a course on Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur'an."
I wonder if Loyola knows that Sarah Whalen is going around telling people she teaches at Loyola New Orleans School of Law.
Perhaps an email, or two, might be in order:
I don't have a clue as to the HTML for inserting an email, so, the email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Or, the Religious Department: Ikkeulman@loyno.edu
UPDATE: The email for the Department of Religion doesn't work. And the lawrview email is still the only email I've been able to find for anything related to the School of Law. Here is the text of the email I sent to them:
I was hoping you might be able to clear up some confusion. There is an article on www.arabnews.com by Sarah Whelan which states that she is a professor at Loyola New Orleans School of Law and I was unable to verify this on your website. Though I did find one brief mention of her on the website of the Department of Religion. Is she, in fact, on the facult of the School of Law? Were you aware that she was claiming to be so, if she's not?
As always, I will let you know if I hear anything.
:: Peter 3/24/2003 10:12:00 AM [+] ::