Bowling For Columbine

So many people have referred to this movie, I felt the need to to watch it and see what is was all about.

I must admit that I went into it with an attitude, but i soon decided that I was viewing to listen and not judge.

It is important to note that non-Americans will get a horribly skewed view of the average American from this movie and their input is not helpful. You really have to live and breathe our society, before you know how to couch this movie in the big picture.

I am assimilating the movie now, maybe I need to let the emotions cool before I post my opinion.

What did you guys think?

Is Michael Moore evil?
Is Charleton Heston evil?
Are they both good people, with conflicting views?

I haven't seen it yet, some fairly reliable sources highly recommended this movie to me. I don't think Michael Moore is evil, but I have heard Charlton Heston say some bonehead things. Hope to see this one soon.

You'll get a pretty twisted view of Canadians as well.

:ninja:

I lock my doors.

Michael Moore rocks.

Charlton Heston is a symbol of all (or a part of all) that is wrong with America.

I'm glad I'm Australian.



:)

I can't even bring myself to comment on Michael Moore. :x

Actually Michael moore is very apreciated in France :lol:
I don't think he's so much against american society
He was on french tv like one year ago, and was talking about the war which was about to be waged in Irak. He said adressing to the french that we must remember that Georges Bush isn't the president of USA as he wasn't elected democraticaly.
But still, I think you can breathe how much as you want american society, you will see more than one wrong thing.
Talking about criminal laws for example. I gotta a friend who has studied american and english right, and he told me that if you repeat once a little crime like steeling a pizza for example you can go in jail for years. I mean that's really something we can call "Bullshit".
However he told me, commercial laws are really well done especialy in California.
He told that for example if a provider or compagny doesn't provide punctually one of its customers then the compagny gotta pay financial penalities. This doesn't exists in France.
On the economical side, USA did & does some shit too. ( France also that's true but this is not the subject here :lol: ). Just look at Mexico and Colombia.

hobbes,
I found Bowling for Columbine vastly entertaining and thought provoking.
Then again, I have been a longtime fan of MMs.

I expect j2 will arrive here at some point and present a ah,..somewhat different perspective.

I saw him give a lecture in Belfast in August of this year. It was during the West Belfast festival and he was received very warmly, perhaps with a little too much awe. His appearance was heralded as something of a coup and his gravitas resounded accordingly.

There was a sense that he was preaching to the converted when he discussed gun control and the war in Iraq.

What did permeate his bordering-on trite loftiness, though, was what I saw as a deep, almost despairing love for his country.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@3 November 2003 - 09:00
It is important to note that non-Americans will get a horribly skewed view of the average American from this movie and their input is not helpful. 

---

being australian i must be being unhelpful

but i do appreciate the window that MM provides on the america which is more often portrayed by CNN, NBC, ABC, etc.
i don't think my perception of what it might be like stateside is too tainted by either source.

i like you hobbes am keen to know what americans think about this film.
have your thoughts settled enough to tell us what you're thinking about it?


i found the dislocation of perceptions of violence which the people who lived amongst the military suppliers was deflatingly chilling, for them, death from a bullet shot by a maniac in their community, and death from massive industrial weapons deployed by the state in other peoples communities, are not morally comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@3 November 2003 - 00:00
It is important to note that non-Americans will get a horribly skewed view of the average American from this movie and their input is not helpful. You really have to live and breathe our society, before you know how to couch this movie in the big picture.

---

A bit shortsided view from you imo, as if people that have an outside view on things and problems don't have good things to say about these issues??

If your assumption is true how come western politicians can interfer in for instance middle east issues or the balkan conflict? By your standards "they haven't lived and breathe that society, so they don't know how to couch this" ;)

I guess everyone with an open mind can take a look at this kind of issues and have (or form) a good opinion.
Think these kind of movies gives "outsiders" a chance to get a closer look at the internal US issues on gun control and stuff, and helps us to try and understand you folks over there a bit better ;)

I think in Europe these gun issues and shootings (on schools) are not such a big problem as in the US (yet) but over here these things take place too.
On the subject, i thought it was a very good documentry. And for me made it clear that gun control "all over the world" is needed , imo it can take away a lot of big "accidents". No guns = no shootings.

The Americans like to feel to have a right to protect yourself. Maybe it is better to protect yourself by not allowing guns at all, then to have a bigger gun.
I like to think of a scene from Crocodile Dundee, where the crocodile figure is ambushed by a street gang in new York. They threaten him with a stileto. The cool dude sais "that ain't a knif, this is a knife (while taking out a very big hunting knife). The gang back of... is this fun? yes it is but also it is exactly why having a gun is not protecting you, if everyone has a gun, the "bad guys" just gonna use bigger and better guns... so everyone protects themselves better and... well the only ones who benefits this is the arms industry.... And imo those are the ones that like to have "the right to have arms" alive... for nothing more then money issues...

On a bigger scale if we can control guns/weaponary we maybe can find solutions for the big African problems, where war lords can destabilize complete countries and terrorize millions of people just because they are rich enough to buy and wear arms. The fact i mention this is that sometimes i ask myself, that if we can't control guns how far off are we "civilized nations" to get the same as what is happening over there????

I watched about half of B for C and while i completely agree with the theme of gun control, I just couldn't get over the fact that Micael Moore is a complete pillock.

Quote:

---

He told that for example if a provider or compagny doesn't provide punctually one of its customers then the compagny gotta pay financial penalities. This doesn't exists in France.

---

Isn't that just breach of contract? ie not delivering on time? Surely every country in the world has that law, it would be impossible to do business without it? :blink:

Quote:

---

A bit shortsided view from you imo, as if people that have an outside view on things and problems don't have good things to say about these issues??

If your assumption is true how come western politicians can interfere in for instance middle east issues or the balkan conflict? By your standards "they haven't lived and breathe that society, so they don't know how to couch this"

---

Imo Hobbes is probably justified in saying that it doesn't portray america(ns) fairly, it seems a highly one sided piece of media, but I was a bit surprised that he seems to not want (non-Americans) outsider opinions, as I think it does provide an interesting alternative perspective. Perhaps just trying to avoid comments from people who swallowed it without question?

You keep family problems, in the family.

I was just more interested in Americans' thought on the movie in this case. It is an unflattering look at ourselves. Do we dismiss it, ignore it, or learn from it?

Late for work, so just this quickie.

@Echi- I found the reporter covering the girls death to be chilling as well. He turned his emotions off and on with the camera. She was a story to him not a person. Moore did a good job showing what a "business" the news has become. They like the shock of a shooting, and view it as ratings and not as a tragedy. I don't think the reporter was even aware how Moore was using him to make a point.

I'm plumb worn-out from bitching about Michael Moore, so I'll let someone else do it:

Michael Moore: Flatulent Shit-head

by Dr. Rufus Jackson
March 21, 2003

The media just loves Michael Moore. Of course not as much as Michael Moore loves himself and his fallacious attacks on "authority."

Moore has a history of pissing up ropes. "Roger and Me" was Moore's first foray into being an irritating prick. It's a documentary in which Moore follows General Motors CEO Roger Smith. Moore tries to embarrass him into explaining layoffs at a GM plant in Flint. The layoffs are never explained. My guess would be that GM came to the realization that Flint sucks and is inhabited by uneducable troglodytes. Michael Moore was born there. Maybe that was the beginning of the end for Flint.

More recently, Moore weighs in on the Columbine massacre. The poor delusional jackass is always trying to get to the bottom of something in his own hapless, socially retarded way. This time the NRA and guns get in Moore's sizeable craw.

Michael, blaming guns for Columbine is the moral equivalent of blaming spoons for you being an obese asshole.

Moore is just one in a long line of idiots that doesn't understand that a gun is an inanimate object. I've personally carried a gun in my car for five years and haven't killed anyone yet. Of course I've yet to meet Michael Moore.

Moore's latest foray into half-baked ideas is his letter to President George W. Bush on the verge of Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can read his drivel, in it's entirety on michaelmoore.com. You might want to have an empty bucket handy as his inane ramblings tend to induce vomiting in most sentient beings.

In this, my first "You're An Idiot" column, I'm going to take this asshole's logic apart, piece by piece. Moore's blather is in red, just like his political leanings. This is easier and almost more fun than kicking a drunk's ass.


George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC


Dear Governor Bush:

Hey cock-bite, even my six-year-old daughter knows he's the President of the United States. Had we gone to war under that lecherous, congenital liar Bill Clinton, I'd have at least shown him some respect. It must be tough being such a smarmy prick, but you seem to have adapted well.

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:
Apparently the 2,920 days of Bill Clinton were no problem for you. You remember Bill Clinton, the former President who bombed a laxative factory in Sudan and a "terrorist camp" in Afghanistan in a lame attempt to get people to stop talking about his blow jobs at the hands and mouth of a fat Jewish girl from Beverly Hills. He was so great. His attacks may not have actually done anything, but by golly, he tried real hard.

[Read President's Clinton's "Hey-look-at-me-aren't-I-Presidential-stop-thinking-about-fat-girls-giving-me-head" speech.]

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.

Sure Michael, obviously you've done your homework: cnn.com Poll: Two-thirds of Americans support Bush ultimatum 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!Nice straw-man argument, lard-ass. Since you appear to be such a fucking moron, let me give you a little lesson in fallacious reasoning:

Straw-Man:


Person A (Bush) has position X (The liberation of Iraq).

Person B (Michael Moore) presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X - George Bush wants to kill Iraqis).

Person B (Moore) attacks position Y (killing innocent Iraqis – "George, you shouldn't do that!")

Therefore X (liberating Iraq) is false/incorrect/flawed.

I guess we can't really blame you for the University of Michigan failing to teach this sort of thing in freshman English. Maybe if you'd stuck around and gotten an education then a "gun nut" wouldn't have to teach you how not to be an ignorant asshole. But where's the fun in being thorough when you can just throw bombs and convince the media to kiss your wide ass, right Mike?! 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! Ignorance is bliss, isn't it Michael? Apparently not long after you wrote this fantasy piece, Iraq launched missiles…missiles they claimed they didn't have. Wonder what else they have hidden? Being the genius you are, I'm sure you know that Hussein would never try to attack this country. I'm sure you're on the CIA's mailing list. You must know we're only going there for oil and the fun of hunting innocent civilians.

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction.

Of course if you weren't such a moron, you'd know that a majority of Americans have NEVER elected a President. Can't you just say what you mean or do I have to interpret EVERYTHING for you? It's odd that once the war began, U.S. Special Forces have secured…a facility containing…WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!, something the limp-wristed U.N. weapons inspectors couldn't find while prancing through Iraq.

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.

There's nothing more pathetic than watching people hitch their fate and that of the economy to the President. If you were here in front of me (no doubt blotting out the majority of light in the vicinity) I'm sure you would proceed to tell me how bad the Reagan economy was and how great the Clinton economy was. I'm sure you'd tell me how that is "truth" too. You're a partisan prick of the lowest order. Truth is as foreign to you as a salad.

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.

Are you fucking blind? Check the poll results.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN.

The Pope! The Pope knows ALL about sin. Hell, he heads the world's largest organization of pedophiles. Mabye Il Papa should concentrate on the Catholic Church's problems – like keeping the clergy from fucking young boys. That being said, there's a deeper issue here. Apparently you think the Pope is taking a moral stand on the issue of war. Of course if we look at your WORDS in an interview with Tikkun.com in December 1998, it would almost appear that you don't like what the Pope stands for. You said: "Then there's a much larger group of Catholics who have just chosen to ignore the idiocy of the edicts from Rome on birth control, abortion, women's rights." So the "edicts from Rome on birth control, abortion, and women's rights" are "idiocy" but he's right on when criticizing the war. The Pope may think the war is wrong, but I don't take any advice from men who wear dresses and take life-long oaths that involve swearing off pussy, and neither should President Bush. It's no surprise that this Pope has turned his head. He's not the first Pope to do that and probably won't be the last.

But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! And we all know what geniuses of public policy the Dixie Chicks are. "That's it President Bush! The Dixie Chicks don't want this! Call it all off!!" That's almost as ridiculous as Martin Sheen doing political ads because he pretends to be the president on a tv show. Someone needs to tell you and your friends that PRETENDING to be someone doesn't inject you with any degree of intelligence. How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? You're really a fucking moron, aren't you? 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. You mean like Bill Clinton? Hey, if it's good enough for poor Bubba, it should be good enough for everyone else.

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!

Last time I checked, dickhead, we have a VOLUNTEER military. That doesn't mean that we Shanghai kids who DIDN'T FUCKING VOLUNTEER. I don't think anyone in the military doesn't understand going in that they could be killed in combat. You on the other hand appear to be so stupid that it might be news to you. You also slipped in the word "enlisted." So what's up, now officers don't count? Do your homework, lard-ass.

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?

Isn't that rich? You're extolling the virtues of France by brining up events that happened 225 years ago? Aren't you going to bring up Jefferson fucking his slaves? I mean he was white, why not take a crack? I guess that wouldn't exactly bolster your airtight case, now would it. 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? Well, how could we have survived without the ol' surrender monkeys! Them's some fabulous inventions! Can't live without Chevys! We all know how much you love General Motors!

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.

Oh, you're right on this one. I agree, the French couldn't POSSIBLY have any reasons for being against war with Iraq. Only the same reason you continue to pump out your low-brow blather: TO MAKE MONEY.

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.

No shit? I wonder why that is? Maybe because he has starved the Iraqi people for the last twelve years? Maybe because he likes to kill people for looking at him the wrong way?

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!

More scintillating bullshit from the college drop-out…aimed directly at the "idiot" who has an undergraduate degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. That's nothing compared to a college dropout who used to run a weekly rag in Flint, Michigan.

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!!

"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, half-truth, blah, blah, innuendo, blah, blah, blah, red herring, blab, blah, blah.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

Hey! You finally got something right! Congrats, jackass. You're An Idiot.


The Esteemed Dr. Jackson

How very reasonable and even-handed.











Michael Moore may be sensationalist, he may be excessive, but in many cases he has a strong point.


To take but one example:

Quote:

---

Michael, blaming guns for Columbine is the moral equivalent of blaming spoons for you being an obese asshole.

---

Eddie Izzard does a rather good quote on this subject:

Quote:

---

Sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people. True. But the guns help!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey@3 November 2003 - 11:30
How very reasonable and even-handed.











Michael Moore may be sensationalist, he may be excessive, but in many cases he has a strong point.


To take but one example:

Quote:

---

Michael, blaming guns for Columbine is the moral equivalent of blaming spoons for you being an obese asshole.

---

Eddie Izzard does a rather good quote on this subject:

Quote:

---

Sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people. True. But the guns help!

---

---

How moderate of you to notice, Liam. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@3 November 2003 - 15:35
How moderate of you to notice, Liam. :)

---

Oy. The pun thread is in the Lounge :P

I'm rather surprised at you j2, posting this tripe. I wonder what you would have said if someone else had posted it?

Quote:

---

It's odd that once the war began, U.S. Special Forces have secured…a facility containing…WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!, something the limp-wristed U.N. weapons inspectors couldn't find while prancing through Iraq.

---

Really?? Why haven't we heard about this?



:)

I love that one.


"No, you can't possibly have weapons of mass destruction. That's not allowed. You're far too irresponsible. You might actually use them. We'd never do such a thing as to use a massively powerful weapon and wipe out millions of innocent civilians' lives at the same time. We're the good guys."

Quote:

---

Apparently not long after you wrote this fantasy piece, Iraq launched missiles…missiles they claimed they didn't have.

---

Quote:

---

U.S. Special Forces have secured…a facility containing…WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

---

1. what missiles?
2. someone better tell georgey, rummy and the world media that they've found the fabled WMD, i'm sure tony blair will be releived aswell [this one sentence completely negates Jackson as even a vaguely reliable source]

for someone supposedly concerned with correcting the facts Dr Jackson is seems obsessed with michaels girth, between what i've seen of jackson's writting vs. moores writting it's the later who comes across better.

i hope that this isn't the best rebutle [sic] of moore you have j2.

Didn't like that, huh?

Are you willing to be convinced otherwise?

Or are your minds closed to the possibility?

Hmmmmmmmm....... how 'bout this, then?




BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Documentary or Fiction?

-David T. Hardy-

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

1. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict, not the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of Bowling--Ben Fritz caught it back in November, 2002.

To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the presidental race took advantage of the the veto.

The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).


I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS version of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading footage. But as Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it back in in the DVD version! He did make one minor change, switching his edited-in caption to "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Obviously Moore had been informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He responded by correcting his own typo, not by removing the edited in caption, nor by revealing that the ad being shown was not in fact a Bush-Quayle ad.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."



I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration." As for the rest, well, "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was." Sure. That's why he left out:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings."

"So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the movie: click here to see it frozen.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.



(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston. Incidentally, if you have the DVD version and the right player, you can freeze frame this sequence and see it yourself. Then go back and freeze frame the rally, and you'll make out various Bush election posters and tags.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the day.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston misleading questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

A further question: is the end of the Heston interview faked?

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.



This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family.


5. The Taliban and American Aid. In discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. [Various numbers are given for the amount of the aid, and some say several million went for clearing landmines.]

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low.

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:

To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752 homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.
After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

(As Spinsanity notes, Moore goes even farther in his add-on DVD. There, he tells us, "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent civilians.")
8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying "Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist." Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like.

If Heston fails to explain this in Bowling, we've got to note that Moore (despite his claim that he left the interview almost unedited) cut a lot of the interview out. Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes. About three-quarters of what Heston did say was trimmed out. [Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have to await another investigation!]

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

I suppose we might go farther, and ask if Moore's film is not illustrative of what it condemns. Moore argues that the media (a) distorts reality, and (B) hypes fear of other Americans, because © fear is good for a fast buck. Moore distorts reality, hypes fear of other Americans ("are we nation of gun nuts, or just nuts?") and, well, made several million fast bucks.
10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as another?

Incidentally, Moore has issued a webpage responding to criticism. In so doing, he actually admits that much of the above criticism is accurate. He did splice the Willie Horton ad, and Heston's "cold dead hands" was never spoken at Denver, and his statistics do stem from those of the Center for Disease Control, which include self-defense and police shootings of perps. As far as the rest of the criticisms above -- strange, but Moore doesn't have an answer. Here's my response.

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there is art in this movie, it is a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

A further thought, on a topic far broader (no pun intended) than Moore. Moore's film is unquestionably popular. He's attracted an almost-cult following. And judging from the emails I've received, plenty of his followers don't care a bit about whether they were misled. Can broader lessons be learned from this?

Suppose for a moment that Moore's behavior can be explained as a product of Narcisstic Personality Disorder, that he fits the clinical symptoms to a T, that indeed Bowling is a grand acting out of this character disorder. Does its popularity suggest something of far greater concern than one more narcissist in Hollywood? And does that in turn hold a key to mass slayings?


Hey, this cut-and-paste stuff is FUN-easy, too!! And so much to choose from!

Ok, this thread is not going as I had hoped. I actually posted it because after watching the movie, I realized that I didn't hate it. I think I might have even enjoyed it a little, in spite, of my expectations going in. I didn't like it all, far from it, but at times he actually made valid points. Also, I was unaware that Canadians were perfect.

As for Lamsey,
If you were worth your salt as MOD, you would take that War and Peace post by J2, read it aloud, recording it as an mp3, and host it on your server. You could then place an audio link at the beginning of J2's post so we wouldn't have to strain our eyes reading it. Whether you choose to include glottal stops is up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@3 November 2003 - 18:46
As for Lamsey,
If you were worth your salt as MOD, you would take that War and Peace post by J2, read it aloud, recording it as an mp3, and host it on your server.

---

I only have 50MB of webspace ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@3 November 2003 - 19:46
...Also, I was unaware that Canadians were perfect...

---

But now you know. ;)

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey+3 November 2003 - 17:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey &#064; 3 November 2003 - 17:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@3 November 2003 - 18:46
As for Lamsey,
If you were worth your salt as MOD, you would take that War and Peace&nbsp; post by J2, read it aloud, recording it as an mp3, and host it on your server.

---

I only have 50MB of webspace ;)[/b][/quote]
It served the desired purpose, then.

I apologize to those who suffered through my post; such exhaustively researched work (as Mr. Hardy&#39;s) is intended to change opinion or to enlighten somehow.

I thought it a splendid deconstruction of Mr. Moore and his movie; be that as it may, I doubt it changed any minds here, where Moore&#39;s fans are legion.

Much to my despair, I am coming to understand the vanity of such endeavor. :(

I suggest, therefore, that you begin this thread anew, so that it might flourish-I will desist in my efforts to detract from Mr. Moore&#39;s position as the standard-bearer of the liberal un-intelligentsia. ;)

Go you forth now to construct an unblemished monument to this greatest of all liberal icons&#33; :)

Hobbes-will you please start? :D

J2,

The reason the thread didn&#39;t go as I had hoped was based simply on how it fell back to the same "America against the world" theme. Those not native to America might support Moore&#39;s work simply as it lends itself to their agendas. That is specifically why I was interested in America&#39;s response to the movie.

Moore held a mirror to our our faces and by his design the reflection was unflattering. I was wondering if Moore was persuasive enough in his arguments to make people think, to be flatly rejected, or to simply be ignored.

I have no agenda about Moore and to be honest I have not read your "copy and paste"athon yet, as I tend to gag when attempting to swallow a meal in one bit. I think I will nibble on it for awhile ;)

I was only commenting on the movie and my reaction to it. To be honest, I am not well versed enough in Mr Moore to know his hidden agendas for which the movie was his vehicle. As I said at the outset, I expected to be irritated by this movie, I had avoided it becasue I thought I would sit there shouting, "bullshit" at the screen. In reality, I found myself vaguely liking it. Now that is not the attitude a Michael Moore supporter would go into the movie with, eh?

I haven&#39;t seen too much of Moore, but what I have seen, I&#39;ve liked. I&#39;ve seen him confront people over issues, who obviously weren&#39;t pleased to see him, and I&#39;ve seen him get results.


:)

My first experience with Moore was "Roger and Me"; I heard about it, watched it, and came away a bit puzzled-I was a bit familiar with the "Flint" (Michigan-my state) story, and some of what I saw I found to be at odds with what I knew.

A wee bit of research into Mr. Moore&#39;s modus operandi revealed his penchant for "ambush" journalism; the head of G.M. was an easy target, and the rest was nothing more than a contextual "cut-and-paste" (emphasis on CUT).

To see Moore revered as a "counter-culture hero" makes me wonder whether his fans are capable of even the most basic discernment.

Of course, if it takes the effort to read a long-winded post such as the one above, I understand how intellectual laziness and short, media-bred attention spans (not you, Hobbes) foment the problem.

Most would find it easier (though less enlightening, certainly) to spend 2 hours watching "Bowling for Columbine" than 10 minutes-or less-reading the post, which fact is, in itself, revealing. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@4 November 2003 - 15:44
J2,

The reason the thread didn&#39;t go as I had hoped was based simply on how it fell back to the same "America against the world" theme. Those not native to America might support Moore&#39;s work simply as it lends itself to their agendas. That is specifically why I was interested in America&#39;s response to the movie.

Moore held a mirror to our our faces and by his design the reflection was unflattering. I was wondering if Moore was persuasive enough in his arguments to make people think, to be flatly rejected, or to simply be ignored.

I have no agenda about Moore and to be honest I have not read your "copy and paste"athon yet, as I tend to gag when attempting to swallow a meal in one bit. I think I will nibble on it for awhile ;)

I was only commenting on the movie and my reaction to it. To be honest, I am not well versed enough in Mr Moore to know his hidden agendas for which the movie was his vehicle. As I said at the outset, I expected to be irritated by this movie, I had avoided it becasue I thought I would sit there shouting, "bullshit" at the screen. In reality, I found myself vaguely liking it. Now that is not the attitude a Michael Moore supporter would go into the movie with, eh?

---

I think there are basicaly few differences between people from richs countries

For me an american=a french=a german =an english=a spanish=an italian=a canadian=an australian=a scott=an irish=a portugish=a belgie.
We are all the same, differences are either minor or just setted up by the media of each country:
Are French are more humanists?: MY ASS&#33;&#33;
Are Germans more stricts?: MY ASS to&#33;
Are Englishs pretentious? Americans heros? Spanishs hairy? Just fuck that&#33; we&#39;re all the same kind within our country a majority of rich people who fuck a minority of poor ones. And the more important: All of our countries exploit, and impose salvation to the thrird world.

the criticisms you raised j2, were valid, yet they really only amount to damning MM for engaging the same techniques that the commercial news and current affairs programs use presenting &#39;facts&#39; to us each day.

in comparison with the commercial media i can&#39;t see any outright lie being perpetrated, and can&#39;t really fault a film having bias and an agenda, as they are both important elements in story telling and film making.

hunter s thompson is a counter culture hero renowned for his regaling tales of the 60-70s, MM is something different

an oscar is not a &#39;counter culture&#39; accolade

i am glad to have had these issues with MMs work raised as i didn&#39;t know, but some hyperlinks would have been greatly appreciated
as would some more stateside opinions

Echidna-

the criticisms you raised j2, were valid, yet they really only amount to damning MM for engaging the same techniques that the commercial news and current affairs programs use presenting &#39;facts&#39; to us each day.

Not quite true.

Is it your contention that Moore is engaging in "journalism"? I think even he would disagree, as he considers himself an oracle, and thus would not deign to have what he does suffer a term so mundane as mere "journalism".

I will admit the "truth", such as it is, is difficult to sort from the chaff of "news" or "current events" reporting, but most often these are sins of omission and comission rather than outright lying and manipulation; THAT line is occasionally crossed, but not with the same degree of alacrity as Mr Moore.

An example of egregious network news reportage:

ABC news has made a habit, during "Man on the Street"-type interviews, of randomly discovering people who, strangely enough, seem to be incredibly well-versed as to the "Questions of the Day".

Turns out they have been hiring activists and the like to conduct these little sidewalk interviews; they got busted for it first during the 2000 elections when they were discovered to have run into the same "disgruntled non-voter" at two different locations, interviewed by two different reporters, on the same day.

This has been noted to have happened on other occasions since then.

in comparison with the commercial media i can&#39;t see any outright lie being perpetrated, and can&#39;t really fault a film having bias and an agenda, as they are both important elements in story telling and film making.

I&#39;m sorry, but I am unwilling to accept "lies" anywhere, anytime, for any reason, from a "news" source, a documentary, or a shill like Michael Moore.

Please restrain yourself from the "Bush lies, Cheney lies, the U.S. lies" mode; I stand by my point.


hunter s thompson is a counter culture hero renowned for his regaling tales of the 60-70s, MM is something different

Hunter S. Thompson is a trip; I grew up on his stuff-Hell&#39;s Angels, Fear and Loathing, etc.-and you&#39;re right, he and Moore are different.

Thompson presented his stuff as HIS view, and, at bottom, was a very effective detector of hypocrisy and general "bullshit".

Moore, on the other hand, contends that EVERYONE with a brain agrees with him.

This is most assuredly not true.

Neither does Thompson possess Moore&#39;s penchant for insulting those who disagree with him.

an oscar is not a &#39;counter culture&#39; accolade

True enough, though not relevant to my point.

In any case, it was awarded for best "Documentary"; which status is questionable at best.

i am glad to have had these issues with MMs work raised as i didn&#39;t know, but some hyperlinks would have been greatly appreciated

I&#39;m afraid I&#39;m not proficient enough to post these things with all links intact; my PC literacy isn&#39;t up to snuff, and for this I apologize.

as would some more stateside opinions

Sorry again; I&#39;m apparently the only one in the world who doesn&#39;t love Mr. Moore (apart from the few dissenters whose opinions I&#39;ve duplicated here). :)

how about this? rather than referring to michael moore as a documentarian or a journalist, we refer to him as a social/political satirist? would that tip the scale over from "fat obese *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* lying hypocrite" to "genuinely entertaining agitprop comedian who occasionally manages to make a valid political statement"? or does the fat hypocrite just weigh too much?

does michael moore really bend the truth any more than the average news outlet does?

Quote:

---

A wee bit of research into Mr. Moore&#39;s modus operandi revealed his penchant for "ambush" journalism

---

i think you&#39;re giving ambushes a bum rap. the ambush is a time-honored tradition. the original 60 Minutes staked its whole reputation on the thrill of ambush journalism-- nowadays it&#39;s completely toothless, it&#39;s celebrity interviews and andy rooney. the american military has considered the ambush to be a legitimate battle tactic ever since the revolution. firing factory workers en masse and completely relocating operations is sort of an economic form of the ambush. maybe i&#39;m just cynical, but i tend to think that ambush interviews are necessary because (given the choice) a lot of people would choose not to grant interviews at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@5 November 2003 - 11:59
how about this?&nbsp; rather than referring to michael moore as a documentarian or a journalist, we refer to him as a social/political satirist?&nbsp; would that tip the scale over from "fat obese *bleep* *bleep* *bleep* lying hypocrite" to "genuinely entertaining agitprop comedian who occasionally manages to make a valid political statement"?&nbsp; or does the fat hypocrite just weigh too much?

does michael moore really bend the truth any more than the average news outlet does?

Quote:

---

A wee bit of research into Mr. Moore&#39;s modus operandi revealed his penchant for "ambush" journalism

---

i think you&#39;re giving ambushes a bum rap. the ambush is a time-honored tradition. the original 60 Minutes staked its whole reputation on the thrill of ambush journalism-- nowadays it&#39;s completely toothless, it&#39;s celebrity interviews and andy rooney. the american military has considered the ambush to be a legitimate battle tactic ever since the revolution. firing factory workers en masse and completely relocating operations is sort of an economic form of the ambush. maybe i&#39;m just cynical, but i tend to think that ambush interviews are necessary because (given the choice) a lot of people would choose not to grant interviews at all.

---

If people actually thought of Moore that way, fine, but we both know that isn&#39;t how it works.

As to your preference for "ambush" journalism, I wonder: Do you mean merely "tough, honest" questioning (which isn&#39;t even taught in J-school anymore) or do you mean you would prefer more questions of the "Do you still beat your wife?" variety?

Anent 60 minutes:

Mike Wallace is not my cup of tea politically, but he knows how to do a tough interview if he wants; we don&#39;t see enough of that.*

I hope that is what you mean, 3RA1N1AC. ;)


*And when we do, it&#39;s never a Liberal on the receiving end-has anybody ever gotten to grill Ted Kennedy over Chappaquidik?

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@5 November 2003 - 09:25
Anent 60 minutes:

Mike Wallace is not my cup of tea politically, but he knows how to do a tough interview if he wants; we don&#39;t see enough of that.*

---

i meant that michael moore&#39;s partycrasher approach in "roger & me" (and the style of many local news crusaders, such as the ones that work "consumer advocate" angles) descends directly from the early years of 60 Minutes and mike wallace, who would just show up at people&#39;s doors with the camera already rolling, shove the microphone in their face and start grilling them.

i&#39;m not talking about wifebeater questions-- that&#39;s left-field questioning that you can spring on people at any time, whether in the studio or on the street. i&#39;m talking about the "surprise confrontation with a reporter" scenario, in which the subject can&#39;t run away without looking like a weasel. so with the deer-in-the-headlights effect, there&#39;s a pretty good chance of getting a more candid response directly from the horse&#39;s mouth, rather than a canned response from lawyers or low-level p.r. workers.

and personally, although i do think michael moore&#39;s later films are entertaining, "roger & me" was the only one that i would classify as "great." accuracy aside, it had a focus and sharpness that his later work lacks. and he&#39;s essentially been repeating himself ever since then, both in style and in tone.

For what it&#39;s worth, I thought "Roger and Me", was, at the time, funny and more than a bit poignant.

Everything Mr. Moore has done subsequently (again, MY opinion only) has had the effect of cheapening any positive sentiment generated by "Roger and Me".

Kind of the reverse of Clifford Irving: Irving started out writing a total hoax story about himself and billionaire Howard Hughes-was completely and utterly discredited, and has since written some decent stuff.

I have to confess I have not seen either of MMs films. I am familiar with him through his programme &#39;TV Nation&#39; which was a satirical and often affectionate look at life in the US. It was an interesting mixture of ambush journalism, genuinely funny interviews and oddball characters.

He would appear to be first and foremost a satirist rather than a traditional documentary maker.

I read most of the thread (although I did give up on the Mr. Jackson chap who was a tad too polemical for my taste - it is possible to be rude without being tasteless imho)

All I can say is I would like to see even fewer guns in the UK than there are at present and I think it is good our police can conduct their business for the most part unarmed. I can see no benefit from all and sundry owning devices whose sole function is to kill. Regardless of the fine tuning regarding numbers, even taking the lowest figures of 8,000ish in the US and between 60 to 300 in most other major countries, and then adjust for population, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that something is out of kilter. The US should have figures in the region of 600 to 800 to be be broadly comparable.

The question, why are gun deaths so high in the US? is, therefore, a valid one. However, as I said, I have not seen the movie so I cannot say if this question is addressed thoughtfully or not by MM. I guess by the debate on here he has at least got people talking about it and that might be as much as any movie can ever hope to achieve.

Talking about naughty editing or loose figures will not, I suspect, in itself prevent another 8,000 to 10,000 deaths occurring again this year.

Biggles-

Relative to your post:

I strongly suspect that data I&#39;m having difficulty pinning down would reveal an extraordinary number of gun-homocides here in the U.S. are traceable to the various permutations of the drug trade, specifically due to the U.S. being a mainstay for importation (the "anti-drug" stance of our government aside) and the incredibly complex and gang-oriented distribution networks which riddle our urban (and to a lesser extent, suburban) areas.

Absent hard data, I would guesstimate well in excess of 50%.

A contributing factor will also be (no doubt) the haphazard and somewhat selective application of existing firearm laws. There are a bunch of them, and they don&#39;t get much play, to my way of thinking.

I&#39;m also giving some thought to why such data isn&#39;t able to be plucked like fruit from a tree. :(

I think this last is an unfortunate side-effect of the high degree of polarization between the competing lobbies. ;)

J2

You may well be right. As far as I am aware, most of the scattering of gun deaths in the UK are as a result of turf wars over illegal activities. The two gun rampages of the last 20 years or so, Hungerford and Dunblane, stand out as strange aberations in the statistics.

I really don&#39;t know enough about US urban street crime to comment. I read about things like drive by shootings but they don&#39;t make much sense to me and I have no idea how representative they really are of life in down town LA.

One figure that struck me as sad is the high number of child deaths caused through playing with guns parents have forgotten to unload or hide. I believe the US accidental gun deaths are actually higher than our total gun deaths, even after adjusting for population. Again, I am not sure if that is a readily available statistic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@8 November 2003 - 15:44
One figure that struck me as sad is the high number of child deaths caused through playing with guns parents have forgotten to unload or hide.

---

this is a major point of controversy, i think, because it&#39;s not good enough to simply hide a gun. if you leave a child alone at home for even a few hours, it&#39;d be stupid not to expect that he&#39;ll eventually rummage through the parents&#39; closet and see if they&#39;ve got any lurid stuff hidden, or to have a peek at their gifts before christmastime. it&#39;s only natural. the only way to absolutely be sure that a child won&#39;t get hold of it is to lock it up in a safe, but then that sort of defeats the purpose of keeping it around for defense against burglars-- in an emergency, the last thing a gun-owner would want to do is fumble around with a lock.

so i think a lot of gun-owners are unwilling to take the necessary step to make absolutely sure that their child can&#39;t get hold of the gun, because --at least in their minds-- it defeats the purpose for which they bought it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@8 November 2003 - 20:33
so i think a lot of gun-owners are unwilling to take the necessary step to make absolutely sure that their child can&#39;t get hold of the gun, because --at least in their minds-- it defeats the purpose for which they bought it.

---

Yes-

In many such cases, laws having to do with negligence are not brought to bear (who could stand to prosecute grieving parents?) and societal lessons are never taught/learned.

As you say, 3RA1N1AC: Too many gun purchases are made without a proper examination of motivation for doing so, and the necessity of teaching gun safety to adults is ignored.

An appreciation of the danger of firearms does not accrue merely by having achieved the age of majority. ;)