When Jim and I first decided to let others post on this blog we did so by saying that they were free to post anything they liked, even to publicly disagree with us if they chose.  While that’s still true, as one of the founders here, and thus one of the people whose name and reputation are on the line, I feel an obligation to step in and comment on this post.

Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Moore.  This purpose of this site is to be a repository of information rebutting the lies and distortions of Moore, as well as to provide links and commentary to related issues.  This post doesn’t qualify in any sense as being part of that goal.  Other than Moore’s criticism of the US government, something he is freely permitted to—and should—do, coupled with his alleged support for teachers, there is not a whit of connection between Moore and this story.

The fact is that both Jim and I believe that, to one extent or another, civil liberties have been eroded under the Bush administration.  I’m sure we’d quibble over the specifics, but I’d go so far as to say that we generally agree.  (Jim can chime in if he wishes to clarify his position.) Speaking for myself, I can clearly see that there has been a direct attack on habeas corpus, a gross expansion of executive power, and the use of legal trickery and mumbo jumbo to permit things like torture.  The author of the post mentions wiretapping of terrorist suspects.  What he doesn’t mention is that the Patriot Act empowers the government to wiretap anybody for any reason it likes, without a warrant.  There is no oversight of this power, no system of checks and balances.  Your rights can be taken away from you with the stroke of a pen by being designated an “enemy combatant.” I could go on and on, but these arguments are well-known.  Nobody objects to the surveillance of terrorism suspects, but I’m sure as hell not prepared to wipe my ass with the US Constitution to do so.

In this post the author holds up an example of Islamic intolerance as justification for the things Bush has done.  Look, things could be worse!  What an asinine rationalization.  It’s like someone raping your wife, then saying, “At least I didn’t kill her.” What are we, the lowest fucking common denominator now?  No matter how much our rights are eroded, hey, at least we can name stuffed animals whatever we like!  That’s a lame, weak-ass argument, about as intellectually cohesive as the drivel we usually receive from Moore fans.

Michael Moore is a public figure, and we criticize what he says and does.  What we don’t do is criticize him for things he doesn’t say or do, especially when they have nothing to do with him. So he doesn’t speak out on this specific issue, so what?  Christ, I could sit here and spend a few hours and come up with a list of 200 things he hasn’t talked about today.  Who cares? I could very well say, “Bush talks about freedom, so why hasn’t he done anything about Robert Mugabe?” It’s not his issue.  Criticize Bush over Iraq, criticize him over his actions, but don’t go inventing shit to criticize him over—that’s what Michael Moore did in F9/11.  As Jim and I have wondered endlessly, with so many completely valid areas to criticize Bush over, why did Moore feel the need to focus on bullshit conspiracy theories about oil pipelines?  He could have made a perfectly legitimate movie criticizing Bush, but he didn’t.  He could have made a completely legitimate movie criticizing healthcare policies, but he didn’t.

And the weak-ass jab at the ACLU?  Give me a break.  I have no love for that organization at all, but what do they have to do with the subject of the post?  Absolutely nothing.  The author simply threw up a bunch of things he finds objectionable—Islam, Michael Moore, criticism of Bush, and the ACLU—and leaves it to the reader to fill in the blanks in his mind.  That’s EXACTLY what Moore did in F9/11.

When Michael Moore makes a film about how wonderful and tolerant Islam is, then this will be an on-topic post.  Until then, this sort of thing doesn’t belong here.

One final point:  we all know how fucked up Islam is.  That being said, this woman voluntarily chose to live in Sudan.  She knew what she was getting into, and thus bears some of the responsibility.  I say this as someone who has voluntarily chosen to live in the People’s Republic of China, a country not exactly known for its civil rights record.  I know what I’m getting myself into here.  I’m willing to put myself into this situation, to abide by China’s laws and regulations, because I feel that the gains are worth the losses.  This is the essence of freedom.  So while I feel pity for this woman and her plight, I also understand that if she wasn’t prepared to accept the risks of her job she shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.

Update by yngcelt
Wow!  Your website gets mentioned in a film by the guy you made the website about and suddenly you get a swelled melon!  Truly sad!  You know, I have been coming to this website since 2004 and started posting after being INVITED to do so by Jim K.  In fact, he and I have exchanged some personal e-mails over the years and I have been proud to make his acquaintance and have offered him my prayers for his wife’s health without making a big show about it.  So, in my experience I would say that Jim is a very classy guy.  Even when a posting on this site has a thin connection to Micheal Moore, he still allows people to debate the topic and communicate in a reasonable and respectful manner.
That being said, I find it very hypocritical of a guy like Lee to criticize MY post after HIS post of some moonbat’s ranting and raving wherein the person calls Lee a “cocksucking moron”.  By Lee’s own standards, this post had nothing to do with Moore since Moore has never called Lee or anyone else a “cocksucking moron”, Moore didn’t write this particular e-mail to Lee and Moore hasn’t posted anything on his own site regarding this e-mail or “cocksucking morons” in general. 
I also find it rather hypocritical that Lee is going to judge MY posting after he has flooded the site with one posting after another of articles and e-mails that simply rehash what we already know about the propaganda film, “Sicko”.  It is full of lies, it is full of information and quotes that are taken out of context, it is basically Moore’s usual B.S. filled propaganda we have seen time and time again and will continue to see from him.  So this addresses Lee’s statement about how my post only rehashes what we know about Islam.
As for the Patriot Act and our civil liberties, I would like to see how all of our personal civil liberties have been damaged or taken away by the government in the same way as other countries.  In America, groups like moveon.org, democraticunderground, goldstar families, etc. are free to protest in the streets, call the President names, criticize him personally and criticize the government and run websites full of lies and distorted information about the President and anyone else they disagree with.  Imagine what happens to people like that in Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, etc.!  I truly believe that articles like this one that I posted here show us how much we should appreciate the freedoms we have in this country.  Freedoms that aren’t going away.  Freedoms that have been secured by the blood of patriots.
You know, I’m pretty thick skinned and I can take some positive and constructive criticism.  But when someone attacks me on the internet with their hypocrisy and foul language, I find it really cowardly and distasteful.  It doesn’t take any amount of testicular fortitude to type some slanderous statements and obscene words on the internet.  Heck, go to any liberal moonbat website and you will see that.  After being kicked off of moveon.org and democraticunderground for challenging their moonbat theories and defending our troops time and time again, I truly thought that Moorewatch.com was the last bastion of freedom of expression and the last place that anyone can share their beliefs and ideas without the fear of oppression or personal attacks by the site’s administrators. 
Guess I was wrong!

Update by Lee: A few points, Yngcelt.  First, you were invited here to post by both Jim and I, not just Jim.  He might have sent you the email, but we both discussed it first.  Secondly, how you can make the asinine assertion that posts about Sicko have nothing to do with Moore is beyond me.  Thirdly, we have been posting and ridiculing hate mail on this site since LONG before you ever showed up.  Fouthly, I did not delete your post.  I’m not deleting your response, either.  It’s still there.  But I really didn’t want someone coming to this site, and the very first thing they see is a post about Islam, with a piss-weak attempt to tie it to Michael Moore. 

As I said, so what if he doesn’t address this issue?  I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people and groups you support haven’t officially issued statements regarding this incident, does this to you also imply tacit support for Islamist on their part?  And as far as the Patriot Act goes, try to let this point sink in:  just because it’s worse in other countries does not mean that it’s acceptable here.  I don’t see why this simple point is so difficult for people to understand.  You know what?  Sudan was a worse place than America before the Patriot Act was signed, too.  Read this Reason interview with Judge Anthony Napolitano for further information, if you like.  Or is he an anti-American terrorist lover as well?

The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name “national security letters”] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime.

Remember that the British government permitted its soldiers to execute self-written search warrants. They called them “writs of assistance,” and they were one of the last straws that caused American colonist to rebel. It’s bitterly ironic that 230 years later a popularly elected government would authorize its own agents to do the same thing that when a monarchy did it, we fought a war of rebellion in reaction—which we won!

Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors’ offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office.

So FBI agents can write their own search warrant with just the permission of their superior, no judge at all, nobody at the main Department of Justice, and serve it essentially on any entity they want, and if they serve this search warrant on your doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, and that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman tells you they received it, then that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, can be prosecuted for a felony, face five years in jail. What part of the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” do they not understand?

This creates a Soviet-style conundrum for the recipient, who can’t even tell his or her lawyer or general counsel about getting the search warrant. You can’t hire outside counsel to challenge it, you can’t mention it to your spouse on the pillow, to your priest in confession—not even to a federal judge in a federal courtroom where all language except perjury should be permitted. This is a conundrum the likes of which government has never visited even under the Alien and Sedition Act. If they prosecuted you for criticizing [President John] Adams you could complain about it to your heart’s content without being charged with another crime.

But it’s not as bad as Sudan, so we should still be thankful that we have the right to criticize the government, right?  This is the argument you’re making?  You said:

I truly believe that articles like this one that I posted here show us how much we should appreciate the freedoms we have in this country.  Freedoms that aren’t going away.  Freedoms that have been secured by the blood of patriots.

How is this specific to Michael Moore?  I can name 50 people on the other side of the aisle that are just as bad, if not worse, than Moore in this regard.  What’s even more ironic is that you use opposition to the Patriot Act as an example of people not appreciating the rights we have here, when the Act itself is designed to take them away.  And what’s truly sad is that you don’t see this.  You say “Freedoms that aren’t going away.” I’d add the word “Yet.” And if we’re making lists of people who don’t appreciate the freedoms we have here, we might as well add yours, since you clearly don’t appreciate exactly what has transpired the past 6 years, and can only say “Things are worse in other countries” as a defense.  Go to Wikipedia and search for “free speech zone.” (I’d provide a link, but Wikipedia is banned in China.) Look at the photographs of the barbed wire cages, reminiscent of Soviet-style gulags, miles away from the cameras, and tell me that this is in any respect “free speech.” (Note, this policy began under Clinton, so this isn’t a Bush issue, it’s a freedom issue.  Bush has just made significant use of them.) “Yeah, you can speak your mind anywhere you like, provided it’s a mile and a half down the street behind that barbed wire fence.”

And since we’re talking about “rights” here, this site is indeed a bastsion of free speech.  We rarely boot or ban anyone.  I didn’t delete your post.  You have been free to respond to me.  You may do so again.  But also remember that you, by your own admission, were “invited” to post here.  You have no “right” to post other than that which we give you.  The Constitution gives you the right to your freedom of speech, but it is Jim and I who give you the right to post it on this blog.  Keep your posts relatively on-topic and you’ll retain that right. 

This has nothing to do with a “swelled melon” or anything else of the sort, yngcelt, it was just a really bad post from you.  Take the criticism and deal with it.

Update by JimK - I just wanted to chime in here, for obvious reasons.  Now, I in now way want this to seem like Lee and I are ganging up on you, yngcelt, but I kind of agree with him on this one.  Trying to tie this into Moore, or Moore’s pet causes is a bit of a stretch.  On top of that I think you reacted outrageously to Lee’s criticism.  You turned it really personal and petty.  Now I see this bad feeling is spreading to ther threads.

Stop.

Don’t let one reaction to criticism bleed into everything else and turn the site into a war zone.  Take a breath and chill out...this post was a little wonky, and that is a fair criticism that Lee made.  It;s the thinnest of thin threads you’ve used to try to make this Moore-related.

I’d also like to say that no one here has a swelled ego because the site was mentioned in Sicko.  If anything that has caused me more grief and stress and flooded my email inbox with hate.  It hasn’t really helped me, and Lee wasn’t even lucky enough to get any of the money; he ONLY gets the hate mail!  I really think he was just trying to let you know that you strayed a bit from what it is we do here, and he wanted to make sure that we didn’t end up taking shit for something neither of us wrote.

Lastly, it’s kind of silly to say that hate mail received by us, from Moore fans yelling about whatever it is they go on about- isn’t the right material for this site.  Of course it is.  half of it is specifically addressing things Moore says or puts in his films, and the other half of it is yelling at us for having this site!  You’re just lashing out and saying crazy stuff now because you’re mad, and I’m asking you to chill. 

All of our collective energy is better spent making great arguments for why Moore is almost always wrong.  ;)

OFF-TOPIC UPDATE!
OK, I know this post was already contested as being off-topic and since there have been “off-topic” posts in the past AND considering that nobody really seems to be posting any comments about anything, I ficgured I’d update this posting.
It seems that the Sudanese people are now calling for the blood of this nice British teacher for her horrible offense of allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Mohammed”!
Sudanese Call For Blood!!!

KHARTOUM, Sudan (Nov. 30) - Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.”

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

They massed in central Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed. They did not try to stop the rally, which lasted about an hour.

“Shame, shame on the U.K.,” protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons’ execution, saying, “No tolerance: Execution,” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

The women’s prison where Gibbons is being held is far from the square.

Several hundred protesters, not openly carrying weapons, marched about a mile away to Unity High School, where Gibbons worked. They chanted slogans outside the school, which is closed and under heavy security, then marched toward the nearby British Embassy. They were stopped by security forces two blocks away from the embassy.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons’ trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Many protesters carried clubs, knives and axes - but not automatic weapons, which some have brandished at past government-condoned demonstrations. That suggested Friday’s rally was not organized by the government.

A Muslim cleric at Khartoum’s main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons during one sermon, saying she intentionally insulted Islam. He did not call for protests, however.

“Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion,” the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

“This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad,” he said.

Britain, meanwhile, pursued diplomatic moves to free Gibbons. Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke with a member of her family to convey his regret, his spokeswoman said.

“He set out his concern and the fact that we were doing all we could to secure her release,” spokeswoman Emily Hands told reporters.

Most Britons expressed shock at the verdict by a court in Khartoum, alongside hope it would not raise tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain.

“One of the good things is the U.K. Muslims who’ve condemned the charge as completely out of proportion,” said Paul Wishart, 37, a student in London.

“In the past, people have been a bit upset when different atrocities have happened and there hasn’t been much voice in the U.K. Islamic population, whereas with this, they’ve quickly condemned it.”

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, accused the Sudanese authorities of “gross overreaction.”

“This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities,” he said.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a political advocacy group, said the prosecution was “abominable and defies common sense.”

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies, which represents 90,000 Muslim students in Britain and Ireland, called on Sudan’s government to free Gibbons, saying she had not meant to cause offense.

“We are deeply concerned that the verdict to jail a schoolteacher due to what’s likely to be an innocent mistake is gravely disproportionate,” said the group’s president, Ali Alhadithi.

The Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organization, said Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should pardon the teacher.

“The Ramadhan Foundation is disappointed and horrified by the conviction of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan,” said spokesman Mohammed Shafiq.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, said Gibbons’ prosecution and conviction was “an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at worst a cultural faux pas.”

Foreign Secretary David Miliband summoned the Sudanese ambassador late Thursday to express Britain’s disappointment with the verdict. The Foreign Office said Britain would continue diplomatic efforts to achieve “a swift resolution” to the crisis.

Gibbons was arrested Sunday after another staff member at the school complained that she had allowed her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Giving the name of the Muslim prophet to an animal or a toy could be considered insulting.

The case put Sudan’s government in an embarrassing position - facing the anger of Britain on one side and potential trouble from powerful Islamic hard-liners on the other. Many saw the 15-day sentence as an attempt to appease both sides.

In The Times, columnist Bronwen Maddox said the verdict was “something of a fudge ... designed to give a nod to British reproof but also to appease the street.”

Britain’s response - applying diplomatic pressure while extolling ties with Sudan and affirming respect for Islam - had produced mixed results, British commentators concluded.

In an editorial, The Daily Telegraph said Miliband “has tiptoed around the case, avoiding a threat to cut aid and asserting that respect for Islam runs deep in Britain. Given that much of the government’s financial support goes to the wretched refugees in Darfur and neighboring Chad, Mr. Miliband’s caution is understandable.”

Now, however, the newspaper said, Britain should recall its ambassador in Khartoum and impose sanctions on the Sudanese regime.

Associated Press writers Jill Lawless, David Stringer and Kate Schuman in London contributed to this report.

WOW!  I mean how nucking futs are these people??!!