Oscar night

This is from a family friend. They are career military folks.
This is in response to the Michael Moore episode that took place while he was giving his acceptance speech.

Hey Michael,
Do you think our brave imbedded reporters think this is a fictitious
war?
Do you think the soldiers or marines in the sand think this is a
fictitious war?
Do you think our sailors sitting out in the gulf think this is a
fictitious war?
Do you think the brave men and woman in the United States armed
services serving all over the world think this is a fictitious war?
Why do you think they serve?
They serve so that people like you can express their opinion at any
appropriate or INAPPROPRIATE time of their choosing. You sir, as brilliant
as you are, picked a very inappropriate time to state your message. I
was very proud of the many people who booed you. I am sure many of those in the audience oppose us sending our troops into harms way but opposed you even more for your distasteful remarks. You sir, did the academy that chose to recognize your work with high esteem a very great disservice. Shame on you Mr. Moore, shame on you!

Sadly,
Margie Anderson (mother of a very brave and dedicated soldier who is
serving her country this day somewhere in the northern dessert.)

I just thought that I would share this with you all. Their daugher is in the same unit that now has 5 members held POW.

[Auspicious]

Yeah, the tone of that speech was very ill-advised . . . yet pretty predictable for Moore. With the exception of Oscar night, though, I'm glad Moore exists and does what he does. I think he stirs up genuine debate on the left and I think Bowling for Columbine was one of the 10 best movies of last year.

I think salon.com's analogy was the most apt: Moore is an "outdoor pet" and if you bring him indoors you can count on him peeing on the furniture.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature ... index.html

"Example 2: Michael Moore. I thought he was less likely to get an Oscar this year than O.J. Simpson was. Everybody knew he was going to stink up the room if he won, and, sure enough, he displayed his usual talent for getting kicked out of buildings. It's our night, fat man, said the Academy, and we're not about to be whined at by a guy with cole slaw on his pants. If Moore had been only slightly more graceful and less abrasive, he could have said anything he wanted to; he had the support. But he's just not a pet you can bring in the house. He craves disgrace, he has no self-control. Last night, it wasn't what he was saying that was the problem, but the waddling, honking and gland-spraying with which he said it."

Julie -- That is a perfect description of Michael Moore. While I was watching, I was thinking: oh please, just take your award and shut up. But what should I have expected....
Still haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but it is on the list.

I think salon.com's analogy was the most apt: Moore is an "outdoor pet" and if you bring him indoors you can count on him peeing on the furniture.

Oh yes! I LOVED that Salon article. I also liked Slate's comment that he's the Rush Limbaugh of the far-Left--he voices what they believe, but is mostly crude, bombastic and embarrassing in his delivery style. I've long admired his gutsy journalism in taking on Corporate America ever since "Roger & Me", and I do believe he's a voice for those who don't always get to speak for themselves, but I'm appalled at some of the things he does to get his point across--one of them being his Academy Awards screed with the troops and their families watching. Our military is full of the "common man" that Moore speaks for, and that alone puts him dangerously into the hypocrite zone.

What's done is done--we're at war, whether we like it or not, and we've made history in a very horrible way. All the protests in the world will not change that. So what I'm going to do is support the troops that are over there, and hope they can get home to their families very soon. And then I'm going to get ready to register to vote so I can do my bit to try and get El Presidente the warmonger and friends out of the big chair in 2004--if we're still allowed to have elections, that is. That's what I think--and in case you're wondering, I was a registered Republican for over 15 years, but I'm not anymore.

[Rapunzel]

I think salon.com's analogy was the most apt: Moore is an "outdoor pet" and if you bring him indoors you can count on him peeing on the furniture.

Oh yes! I LOVED that Salon article. I also liked Slate's comment that he's the Rush Limbaugh of the far-Left--he voices what they believe, but is mostly crude, bombastic and embarrassing in his delivery style. I've long admired his gutsy journalism in taking on Corporate America ever since "Roger & Me", and I do believe he's a voice for those who don't always get to speak for themselves, but I'm appalled at some of the things he does to get his point across--one of them being his Academy Awards screed with the troops and their families watching. Our military is full of the "common man" that Moore speaks for, and that alone puts him dangerously into the hypocrite zone.

What's done is done--we're at war, whether we like it or not, and we've made history in a very horrible way. All the protests in the world will not change that. So what I'm going to do is support the troops that are over there, and hope they can get home to their families very soon. And then I'm going to get ready to register to vote so I can do my bit to try and get El Presidente the warmonger and friends out of the big chair in 2004--if we're still allowed to have elections, that is. That's what I think--and in case you're wondering, I was a registered Republican for over 15 years, but I'm not anymore.

Can you tell I disagree? Although I do definitely agree Moore is a hypocrite - but he says what those who refer to themselves as "the Left" believe but won't say because it would expose their hypocrasy and outrageous beliefs. I detest Hollywood's opinion of politics (for which Moore is the messenger - just not a very suave messenger).

Note: This post now spell-checked for Ahava's sake (note the underlined, formerly mispelled word). I'll try to remember to spell check my posts in the future. (Ahhhh, to be a gifted "speller" ).

[Auspicious]

I guess this is why our leaders are chosen by vote instead of by consensus.

[Meenah]

Except for the last election!!!!

[Auspicious]

:P

[Rapunzel]

Once again: We have an electoral college, people. That is part of our Constitution and it is important to understand how it works and why the writers of the Constitution found it necessary. Also, keep in mind we do not live in a "straight" Democracy - we live in a Democratic Republic. It's important to know the distinction.

[mommax3]

I am just curious here ---

for those of you that were upset about the way the election turned out, (and I will be the first to admit that I don't understand much about that whole mess at all, although I wasn't unhappy with the result) in hindsight, would you rather have had Al Gore at the helm during Sept. 11 and the aftermath? REALLY? Or are you more upset about the way things were handled in regards to the election itself?

I was not excited about either candidate in the last presidential election, but I voted for Bush (even though I didn't think much of him at the time) because I could not STAND Al Gore or the thought of hearing his voice on a regular basis for the next four years. Also, I do tend to match up with Republicans more than Democrats on issues that I feel the President has a lot of control over.

However, after 9-11, I have been increasingly impressed with how Bush (and his "people" ) have handled things, and I am so glad Gore is not in office -- I think we would have had a lot of pontificating and not much else. I know a lot of you don't agree with me here, but that is where I am coming from and why I asked the question above.

Also, in regards to Michael Moore, I have always enjoyed his point of view and I loved "Roger and Me". I agree with everything that has been said about him so far.

I really, really don't understand his point of view, though, about this war being fictitious. I don't want us to be at war, and I have not been "fooled" into thinking (as liberals have accused war supporters of being) that Saddam is responsible for the attacks on 9-11, but he has been up to no good for all the years that he has been in power, and he is no friend of ours. Why wait until he does "something"? He was clearly in violation of the U.N. resolutions, and had been for some time. The parallels to Hitler and the Nazis are frightening to me. What is the difference?

Anyway, I am just curious to hear your thoughts.....

Sally

Matt,

Thank you for sharing the e-mail with us. Margie Anderson has a brave daughter and we are praying for her, as well as for her family during these trying times.