Micheal Moore....Hatriot?

  1. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39118



    By Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner
    2004 WorldNetDaily.com


    He was lauded with a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. A.O. Scott of the New York Times calls his movie a "passionate expression of outraged patriotism." At the June showing of "Fahrenheit 911" before the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science in Los Angeles, he received a standing ovation of over a minute.

    And Michael Moore's most recent work spits in the face of my dead countrymen.

    As yet another innocent person has their head severed by Islamic "extremists," Moore apparently glosses over the fact that democracy, in general - and America, specifically - is under attack. I am innately aware that Michael Moore is first and foremost a provocateur, and he thrives on controversy.

    I am also sure he will smile gleefully at this op-ed piece, because I mention his film, which is free advertising. He has gone on record on his website as saying he hopes we will watch his movie, even if we disagree, because his facts and analysis are correct. He notes that he has a "dogged commitment to uncovering the facts."

    I am not holding my breath. With the aforementioned facts in mind, I must still speak. Michael Moore has released the cinematic equivalent of a French kiss to all who hate America. He is the leading exponent of hatriotism.

    "HATE-RIOTISM" describes the new breeze blowing through the American media. It is now "cool" and "relevant" to mock everything for which our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Criticizing democracy and America has long been in vogue in continental Europe from those who look with disdain at American "naivete," while still lamenting the Islamic onslaught.

    Now imported to our shores, hatriotism is the simplest way to get the growing contingent of professional protestors who populate television audiences to cheer: Mock America. Mock our involvement in Iraq. Mock President Bush ... and get rousing applause.

    The only problem is ... America has freed my kinsmen.

    I am a Persian Turkish immigrant raised as a Sunni Muslim, and in the interest of full disclosure, I must state that I left Islam in 1982, and became an American citizen. Yet, as I survey the current cultural landscape, I cannot help but be less than enthused when Michael Moore states that his film is a call to true patriotism.

    The present conflict is not a war against Islam, and neither is it a "war for oil." In the previous six military endeavors, American troops sided with Muslims who were under attack, and there are much less extreme methods of garnering oil. This is a war of ideologies, and with "Fahrenheit 911," Moore clearly shows his.

    His visual narrative of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Mich., mother who sent her sons to the military and "lives to regret it," as Roger Friedman of FOX News notes, is "unexpectedly poignant."

    I wonder - was Moore equally moved when he heard of the honor killings which daily threatened the lives of Muslim women in Afghanistan? Was he equally as outraged at the female circumcision practices in my countrymen's lands, because it lessens the threat of adultery?

    In fact, I wonder ... where were all the "hatriots" when our soldiers freed all the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban? Where were the feminists when our soldiers liberated the Afghan women to be educated for the first time in years?

    The irony is, for all of their false bravado behind the First Amendment and their right to "free speech," the hatriots are exercising this right because American men and women shed their blood to afford them this right against those who would seek to oppress it. I would invite Michael Moore to my homeland to make a movie criticizing Turkish oppression and see what happens. The freedom he enjoys now was purchased with a dear price.

    The central fact of the current controversy is the conflict between Islamic theocracy and American democracy. Islam has not now - nor has it ever - allowed religious freedom or freedom of expression. The best the Islamic republics can offer is "religious toleration." Based on the "Pact of Umar," religious toleration allows non-Muslims to enter Islamic republics, but they must pay a tax (jizyat). They can practice their faiths, but they cannot convert anyone from Islam. To do so means deportation ... or worse.

    Further, Islamic prophecy foretells of worldwide conversion to Sharia law under Islam, and thus, those who are fighting against us are "holy warriors." In this instance, I would say our president is half right. He says we are not at war with Islam. I agree. However, a significant portion of Islam is in fact at war with us.

    And Michael Moore is blind to it all.

    The clearest definition of religious freedom and freedom of expression I can make is this - the religious freedom America offers means that I would fight and die for a Muslim's right to build a mosque in every city in America. It is precisely this freedom for which our soldiers are fighting.

    In recent days, it has become fashionable for those like Moore to say, "I support the troops, but not the war." This is the equivalent to saying, "I support doctors but not surgery." The position they hold is ludicrous at best, and insulting at worst. When my brother - also a professor and my co-author of five books - and I came out in support of the Iraqi intervention, we began to be accosted by peace protestors when we spoke. I found this amusing.

    Allow me to say it emphatically: I support the troops - and their mission.

    Our soldiers - your sons and daughters - are fighting to preserve Michael Moore's freedom to produce such works that mock their very existence. I hope he realizes that. They are allowing my countrymen the right to freely express themselves without being stoned to death as a consequence. Or have their heads severed slowly while their executioners are chanting "Allah hu Akbar."

    There is one final irony. There is a film producer who has worked for years, chasing down Michael Moore in an effort to interview him. The young man, named Michael Wilson, is making a documentary titled "Michael Moore Hates America." So far, Moore has dodged him at every turn. Anyone who knows cinema recognizes that this is the exact tactic Moore took in his film "Roger and Me," as he chased an automobile executive for an interview.

    Do you see the paradox? Because Michael Moore is now in the mainstream of hatriotism, and now the young conservatives are the radicals, Moore has become his own worst nightmare. Michael Moore has become that which he mocked. He has become an aloof elite.

    Count me among the radicals.
    •  
  2. 62 Comments

  3. by   2ndCareerRN
    Michael and them: Moore foes hold fest

    By Paul Bond
    Just as his "Fahrenheit 9/11" opens nationwide, several filmmakers are readying documentaries aimed at debunking Michael Moore, and a new film festival is being planned that will feature such works as well as other movies well to the right of Moore's films.

    Scheduled Sept. 9-11 in Dallas, the American Film Renaissance, as the festival will be known, has just been announced by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it is bankrolled primarily by some "big-time conservative donors."

    Hubbard currently is negotiating to show two films critical of Moore.

    The first is "Michael Moore Hates America," made by newcomer Michael Wilson and funded partially by Brian Cartmell, who made a small fortune when he sold his Internet domain registration company, eNic, to Verisign. The feature film, made for $200,000 and featuring appearances from Penn Jillette and John Stossel, among others, is looking for a theatrical and DVD distribution deal.


    The second is the bigger-budget effort "Michael & Me" that was made by talk-radio star and soon-to-be TV host Larry Elder. The 90-minute documentary takes on Moore's 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," Elder said.

    "My film is a defense of those who own guns and of the Second Amendment," said Elder, whose "The Larry Elder Show" from Warner Bros. Prods. starts Sept. 13 on CBS affiliates in most major markets.

    Elder said that he borrows liberally from Moore, including a "Bowling"-like animated segment that has Elder interviewing an obviously tense Moore. "He's sweating and sweating to the point he's reed thin, then he pulls out a gun and shoots me."

    Moore didn't agree to an interview for either Elder's movie or Wilson's. "I did ambush him at a book signing in Santa Monica, and that's in the film," Elder said. "I asked him how many times Americans used guns for defensive purposes. He had nothing. No blooming clue."

    For Moore's part, he said he's familiar with the title "Michael Moore Hates America" but doubts the movie even exists, beyond the trailer that can be seen on the Internet.

    "You're being duped by the kooky right," he said. "I've been waiting to see this movie. It sounds like great science fiction."

    Moore said he hadn't heard of Elder's film "Michael & Me."

    As for the festival, Hubbard said that about 10 films are confirmed, and he'll cap it at about two dozen. Film reviewer Michael Medved is a confirmed guest as is Lionel Chetwynd, whose Showtime movie "DC 9/11," starring Timothy Bottoms as President Bush, will be shown.

    "I'm itching to show that anywhere I can," Chetwynd said. "Like with all cable films, you want to keep it out there as long as you can to get it in front of as wide an audience as possible."

    Hubbard and wife, Ellen, both attorneys, co-founded the festival in the spirit of competition. Boycott efforts, like the one from the group MoveAmericaForward.org that is asking exhibitors not to show Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," "are for the weak," Hubbard said.

    "We want everyone to see Michael Moore's film," he said. "We also want everyone to see 'Michael Moore Hates America.' Conservatives complain about institutional bias in Hollywood. They need to stop whining and get out there and produce."

    "Documentaries," added filmmaker Wilson, "are not 'Lions of the Serengeti' anymore. In this politically charged climate, they're skewed to an agenda, be it Michael Moore's or mine."

    Not all films screened at the American Film Renaissance will invoke Moore. Patrick Wright's documentary, "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" focuses on Ann Coulter, the Fox News pundit. It was recently screened at the Maryland Film Festival.

    And the war on terror also is expected to be a dominant theme at the American Film Renaissance.

    "Liberal Hollywood has basically ignored the subject," filmmaker Jason Apuzzo said. His entry to the festival is "Terminal Island" and stars his wife, Govindini Murty, with a cameo from Irvin Kershner, director of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Never Say Never Again." Kershner, who Apuzzo is careful to note that he doesn't share the same politics as Apuzzo and Murty, nevertheless mentored the couple in the making of their film.

    "Conservative messages don't have a chance in contemporary Hollywood," Apuzzo said. "But there's another side in Hollywood. We are small in numbers but passionate."

    "Terminal Island" is a black-and-white feature film about a woman being stalked by a Muslim terrorist who is himself being stalked by a bounty hunter.

    "When you shop a script like this around," said Murty, "studio execs say, 'Is this about Muslim terrorists? We don't want to touch it.' "

    So why have a couple of lawyers from Texas created a film festival? "I've always been interested in the cultural and political messages in film," Jim Hubbard said. "To be frank, whenever there is such a message, it's liberal. For 40 years the left has had a near monopoly, and we're going to counter that."
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1000552469
  4. by   2ndCareerRN
    For those that would like to see the trailers from the other film.

    www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
  5. by   Spidey's mom
    Thank you . . . very interesting.

    (Do you ever feel like the Lone Ranger?)

    :chuckle steph
  6. by   caroladybelle
    Slight problem with your statement about your "freedom" for Afghan women.

    Afghan women are still be subjected to "honor killings", abuse and frequently prevented from exercising those rights that you say have been returned to them.

    And the USA, instead of working to insure they have rights, has instead been fighting in Iraq.

    In fact, the US has appointed men to posts in Afghanistan that frequently continue to abuse women in much the same fashion as the Taliban.

    While a few more girls may get to go to school, there really has been little change in the status of women in that country.

    As far as feminists and Afghanistan, well, MS. Magazine has had articles in the 1980s and early 1990's and currently on the threat that the Taliban posed to womens' rights and treatment of women in Afghanistan. I kept several. At that time, you might recall, the USA was supporting the Taliban "freedom" fighters in their efforts to take back Afghanistan from Soviet control.

    Feminists were warning of the dangers of the Taliban, when USA Conservatives were supporting the Taliban. And sadly, women had more rights in Afghanistan (well documented in literature) when they were with the Russians, compared to the USA supported Taliban.
  7. by   Tweety
    Michael Moore, you love him or you hate him. I think the review you posted is a bit extreme. Our democracy is only under attack because we interfere in other people's business. But we could go on and on and on. Michael Moore's a bit extreme as well.
  8. by   warrior woman
    Geez, I always thought that being able to speak one's mind was what made this country great. Alas, I can see that that very freedom being undermined today. People just don't want to question things and speak for themselves. They want to be spoon fed by the party line just so that they won't have strain themselves into having an original thought of their own. This country was FOUNDED on dissent and dissatisfaction with the status quo. It seems that dissent of any kind these days is being not only ridiculed, but quelled altogether in order to "keep the peace" "not panic people" In my limited view, That is the most dangerous attitude that can can be taken. We must have the right to speak our views, and peaceful dissent, and assembly if we are truly to remain a "free society." We can agree to disagree, just don't attempt to silence me in order to make the PTB feel better. Thank you. Peaceout.
  9. by   Gomer
    Quoting from a right-wing publication is just as bad as Moore's one-sided liberal opinions.
  10. by   Spidey's mom
    "I am a Persian Turkish immigrant raised as a Sunni Muslim, and in the interest of full disclosure, I must state that I left Islam in 1982, and became an American citizen."

    So Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner has no idea what he is talking about or no new fresh perspective on the issue? He has no personal experience that might benefit the discussion? His opinion is posted on worldnetdaily so it must be "right-wing"? He is "right-wing"?

    Welcome to America Dr. Caner . . . .

    steph
  11. by   2ndCareerRN
    Just the first page of a google search on "afghan women new freedoms"

    CNN.com - Afghan women celebrate new freedoms on International ...
    ... Afghan women celebrate new freedoms on International Women's Day.
    KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- In a dramatic departure from years ...
    www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/ asiapcf/central/03/08/womens.day/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

    BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Afghan women find new freedom
    ... Tuesday, 13 November, 2001, 17:20 GMT Afghan women find new freedom. Most women
    in Alliance areas already choose to wear the burqa. By the BBC's Louise Hidalgo ...
    news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ south_asia/newsid_1654000/1654459.stm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

    BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | New Afghan women's magazine snatched up
    ... University. 06 Dec 01 | South Asia Tunes of hope at Kabul University.
    13 Nov 01 | South Asia Afghan women find new freedom. 29 Nov ...
    news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ south_asia/newsid_1813000/1813798.stm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
    [ More results from news.bbc.co.uk ]

    ABCNEWS.com : Baby Steps for Afghan Women
    WNT Afghan women wait for new freedoms, but see some change. For Afghan women,
    even these post-Taliban days of hope remain clouded by caution and fear. ...
    abcnews.go.com/sections/ wnt/DailyNews/Afghan_women020908.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

    Afghan women demand more power, celebrate new freedoms as world ...
    ... Afghan women demand more power, celebrate new freedoms as world marks
    international women's day. By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press ...
    www.southcoasttoday.com/ daily/03-02/03-09-02/a02wn019.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

    Waxing and waning freedom - Afghan women aren't out of the woods ...
    ... Christian Science Monitor reports on some new freedoms for women. ... to the joy that
    30 women in Afghanistan ... Since 1992, Afghan women have been banned from driving ...
    www.theinternetparty.org/freedom/ f_s.php?td=20030131203017&section_type=fre - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

    Women in Afghanistan: Human and Political Rights
    ... which is struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and ... represents an improvement, many
    Afghan women still lack ... Keep track of new developments with this special ...
    womensissues.about.com/cs/afghanistan/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

    Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
    ... number one Old Fears in the New Afghanistan Self ... Than in Gulf War: Dracovic Afghan
    Women Die Giving Birth at ... HRW Reports Rights Abuses by Afghan Governor Ismail ...
    rawa.fancymarketing.net/ - 47k - Jun 25, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

    Message on the US-Afghan Women's Council
    ... brutal repression of Afghan women. Today, Afghan women are enjoying
    new freedoms and opportunities. Now is the time for America ...
    www.state.gov/g/wi/9842.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

    CNN.com - Kabul residents relish new freedoms - November 14, 2001
    ... relish new freedoms. KABUL, Afghanistan -- Women are unveiling their faces and men
    are shaving their beards one day after Taliban forces fled the Afghan capital ...
    cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/ WORLD/asiapcf/central/11/1
    I would say there are still problems, but many new found freedoms for women in A-stan. At least they aren't being publicly executed at the arena anymore for not wearing their burqas when venturing into public.

    Yes, some of these sites are 2-3 years old, but do you think things have reverted back to the "old ways"?

    bob
  12. by   elkpark
    Well, yes, there have been news reports more recently (maybe not on Faux News ...) that things have gotten worse in Afghanistan since Shrub quit pretending he cared about Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. The Taliban is back, and things are going back toward the way they were. The US puppet government barely controls Kabul itself, and the rest of the country is run by the same old warlords, who are largely free to do whatever they want. A quick Google search of "Afghanistan Taliban resurgence women" yielded the following more recent reports (among many others) from a variety of sources:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00322.htm ("Afghan Women Still Face Repression 2.5 Years On")

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...146134,00.html ("Rule of the rapists: Britain and the US said war on Afghanistan would liberate women. We are still waiting")

    The following quote is from our own US State Department annual (2003) report on human rights in Afghanistan (The entire report is at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27943.htm):

    "... As lawlessness and sporadic fighting continued in areas outside Kabul, violence against women persisted, including beatings, rapes, forced marriages, and kidnappings. Such incidents generally went unreported, and most information was anecdotal. It was difficult to document rapes, in particular, in view of the social stigma that surrounds rape. Information on domestic violence and rape was limited. In a climate of secrecy and impunity, it was likely that domestic violence and rape against women remained a serious problem.

    Throughout the country, approximately 100 women were held in detention facilities. Many were imprisoned at the request of a family member. Some of those incarcerated opposed the wishes of the family in the choice of a marriage partner. Others were accused of adultery. Some faced bigamy charges from husbands who granted a divorce only to change their minds when the divorced wife remarried. Other women faced similar charges from husbands who had deserted them and reappeared after the wife had remarried. In 2002, Kabul's Police Chief said that the police would continue to arrest women if their husband or family brought a complaint to the authorities.

    The law also provides that women are required to obtain permission from a male family member before having an application for a passport processed.

    Women in the north, particularly from Pashtun families, were the targets of sexual violence throughout the year. According to human rights sources, Uzbek, Tajik, and Hazara commanders perpetrated many of the attacks in the north and west. Local commanders, particularly in the north, used rape as a tool of intimidation against the international and local NGO community. There were credible reports of soldiers and commanders loyal to Pashtun warlords raping girls, boys, and women in provinces in the southeastern part of the country.

    There also were reports that minority women sometimes were subjected to forced marriage, which sometimes resulted in self-immolations. Although statistics were not available, hospital doctors reported that these self-immolations were increasingly common among young women in the western part of the country. In September, a fatwa was issued which allowed a woman to marry again if her husband was missing more than 4 years. Reports of suicide among women were often related to forced marriages. There were reports of death threats against women activists.

    Discrimination against women in some areas was particularly harsh. Some local authorities excluded women from all employment outside the home, apart from the traditional work of women in agriculture; in some areas, women were forbidden to leave the home except in the company of a male relative (see Section 2.d.). In 2002, President Karzai decreed that women have the right to choose whether to wear the burqa. However, credible sources reported that women and older girls could not go out alone and that, when they did go out, they wore a burqa for fear of harassment or violence. Most said this was because armed men were targeting women and girls. In Jalalabad and Laghman Province, government officials also were policing other aspects of women's appearance. Government-owned television banned the appearance of women singers on television or radio (see Section 1.a.). The curbs on women singing on television date to 1992, when a government of mujahideen replaced a communist regime.

    A report released by the International Organization for Migration claims that trafficking was an increasing problem. Human rights violations related to trafficking take the form of forced labor, forced prostitution, and sexual exploitation of children (see Section 6.f.).

    Government regulations prohibit women who are married from attending high school classes and during the year, the education ministry ordered all regions to enforce this rule. During the year, thousands of young women were expelled from school because they were married. Deputy education minister Sayed Ahmad Sarwari was quoted as estimating more than 2 or 3 thousand married women were expelled during the year. Supporters of the legislation say it protected unmarried girls in school from hearing "tales of marriage" from their wedded classmates.

    In areas outside Kabul, local authorities reportedly continued to exert strong pressure on women to conduct and dress themselves in accordance with a conservative interpretation of Islam and local customs ..."

    (Please note that, when the article talks about "married women" being expelled from school, girls in Afghanistan are often married off by their families as young as nine or ten years old.)


    http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDet...12&extID=10026 --
    Rights still lag for women in Afghanistan

    by Bill Tammeus | May 08 '04

    "For five brutal years Afghanistan's fanatic Taliban rulers made life miserable for most citizens of the country, but especially for women. The Taliban's version of Islam, on which it relied to justify its actions, was radical, twisted and misogynist. Not long after American and allied troops invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 to evict the Taliban -- as well as the al-Qaida terrorists who had made Afghanistan home -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said this:
    'The recovery of Afghanistan must entail the restoration of the rights of Afghan women. Indeed, it will not be possible without them. The rights of women in Afghanistan will not be negotiable.'
    But 2 1/2 years later, there is persuasive evidence that the lives of women in Afghanistan are little improved. The harsh Taliban restrictions that silenced Muslim women, forced them to stay mostly out of sight and treated them like chattel are creeping back in much of the country. It's a shameful development.
    So far the country's new Constitution, which promises that "the citizens of Afghanistan -- whether man or woman -- have equal rights and duties before the law," seems to be having little effect in liberating women, although the number of girls going to school now is significantly higher than under the Taliban.
    A few examples of how bad things are: Just recently the southeastern province of Nangahar banned women from performing on TV and radio, declaring female entertainers to be un-Islamic. Afghan officials and human rights workers say women often are beaten and deprived of rights in other ways.
    In some western provinces, life for women is so unbearable that dozens, perhaps hundreds, have committed suicide by setting themselves on fire. Ismael Khan, the warlord who rules the western city of Herat, has brought back many repressive rules, including forbidding women from working or from being seen with men who are not close relatives.
    Ahmad Bassir, Herat correspondent for Radio Free Afghanistan, reports that women there see no difference between their lives now and under the Taliban. Most human rights progress, says Amnesty International, is limited to the capital of Kabul.
    When Amnesty sent representatives to Afghanistan recently, it said that "violations of the rights of women and girls, including physical abuse, underage marriage (and) exchange of girls to settle feuds were widely reported ..."

    More, similar articles:

    http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/afghan0121.htm

    http://www.cursor.org/stories/secondcoming.html

    http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av030804.shtml
  13. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from Gomer
    Quoting from a right-wing publication is just as bad as Moore's one-sided liberal opinions.
    The OP questioned how feminists were reacting, so I referenced a well known feminist publication. One that has been covering the Afghan women....long before the Conservatives gave one whit about them.

    The Conservatives were more than a day late and a dollar short on that issue.
  14. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from stevielynn
    "I am a Persian Turkish immigrant raised as a Sunni Muslim, and in the interest of full disclosure, I must state that I left Islam in 1982, and became an American citizen."

    So Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner has no idea what he is talking about or no new fresh perspective on the issue? He has no personal experience that might benefit the discussion? His opinion is posted on worldnetdaily so it must be "right-wing"? He is "right-wing"?

    Welcome to America Dr. Caner . . . .

    steph
    Dr. Caner, hmmmm

    Is he female?

    Is he in the class of women (or men) that routinely are denied education due to class, gender, financial concerns?

    He left in 1982..an entire generation has grown up and developed in that time...does he know the current situation intimately from living in its confines as a person of the common class, and of a disregarded gender?

    (This is not the USA - Afghanistan, unlike the USA, has had massive upheavals and changes in government, during that time period).

    He is a doctor, somehow I do not believe that he has existed as a commoner woman refused education, basic human rights, forced marriage, required confinement in a burqa, and lack of basic medical care during the 1990s Taliban dominated country.

    The fact that he had power enough to become a Doctor and leave Islam behind, says a great deal about the connections that he/his family had...connections not available to the common Afghani woman.

    There generally is a difference in experience.

close