In an earlier post, ("None dare call it fascism"), I reacted to the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamic extremist.

More recently, Glenn Reynolds noticed that Michael Moore was strangely silent about the murder (after all, they're both directors).

I wondered too, but I assumed anyone who'd consider fellow filmmakers who behead Americans to be analogous to American patriots might refuse outright to criticize Islamofascist murderers of any variety. Then today I saw a BBC report that Van Gogh "has been described as the Netherlands' Michael Moore."

While it's not a nice thing to compare a murder victim to someone who'd be likely to show solidarity with his murderers, it adds jealousy to the list of reasons why Moore hasn't condemned the brutal murder of a fellow filmmaker.

Maybe Moore couldn't figure out a way to use Van Gogh's death to his own advantage. How could he blame Bush for the murder?

Moore does not hesitate to blame Bush for the deaths of his fellow countrymen, however, as he did by posting this mosaic of dead American soldiers.

[NOTE: Moore has now taken the full mosaic down from his web site, and directs his readers to the Washington Post's "Faces of the Fallen."]

Do I have to have a friend or relative in that picture to be upset? How does Moore reconcile his stated support of the troops with the fact that he's using a picture juxtaposing them on the face of a man he absolutely abhors and considers responsible for their deaths? If Moore thinks they died for the evil Bush instead of for their country, then how can he claim he "supports the troops?"

I suspect he does not support the troops, any more than he sympathizes with Theo Van Gogh.

MORE, BUTT MOORE: Not to make light of the grotesque, but Power Line has posted another Moore mosaic. Bottom line: it's a gas!

UPDATE: The deafening silence surrounding the Van Gogh murder is not limited to Michael Moore. As Roger L. Simon notes, all of the (usually vocal) Hollywood has fallen silent:

It's stunning how silent the American artistic community, Hollywood in particular, has been about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. Do they even know what happened to one of their own? Have they even heard of him? Do they care someone was killed for making a film which protested violent abuse against women? Are they even interested? So far nothing from Hollywood. Not a word that I've heard anyway.

Or has the murder of artists now become politically correct?

UPDATE (11/10/04): Via Glenn Reynolds, here's Austin Bay on the strategic significance of this foul murder:

Holland benefits from the democratic rule of law, and Bouveri is already in custody. However, his crime is a glimpse of how the "murder tool" is used by political and religious reactionaries to thwart moderate voices and frustrate freedom's advocates throughout the Middle East. For decades, Palestinian moderates have complained that they literally live under the gun, fearing reprisal and death.

Is the international press describing Bouveri as a Dutch insurgent or an Islamic insurgent? No, and he certainly isn't, except perhaps in the demented, self-loathing minds of arch-leftists like Michael Moore. The thugs in Fallujah, whether inspired by Saddam or bin Laden, aren't insurgents, either. They are reactionaries whose only route to power is murder. Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi now says the rule of law is coming to Fallujah. It would be nice to see a few of van Gogh's film-land friends (who claim to value political and artistic freedom) send Allawi a letter of thanks.

I hope Moore's malignant narcissism isn't helping to keep the iceberg afloat.

Stay tuned!