Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on March 30, 2003, 04:15:22 AM
-
… to paraphrase my friend GTO332 – or whatever the number is. :)
”Bowling for Columbine” is not out yet over here, and probably will not be a box office smash, or anything like as much of a talking point as it might be in America, or indeed this BBS. As I have said before, the topic of guns is largely a non-issue here, and would be a boring topic for most.
I had to download it from Kazaa, and so far I’ve just seen Part 2. Tomato was here watching it with me. Hehe, when it got to the part where Charlton Heston cites the 2nd amendment as his reason/justification for keeping loaded guns at his gaff, we both groaned simultaneously. (I wonder what the neighbours must have thought – LOL)
Quite why Michael Moore would have been booed at his stage appearance for the Oscars (?) escapes me. It was just a documentary, a collection of interviews about guns. A taboo subject for some, for others the discussion of the subject is the taboo, it would seem. But I did not see anything that might be construed as contentious. OK, he did needle Heston a bit near the end as he pulled out the picture of the 6 year old girl who died as a result of gunshot wounds.
There were a few angles I might have missed in all our other discussions. One that Moore focussed on was that “America is living in fear”. Is it? He cited the fact that gun sales soared by 70% immediately after the atrocities of 911, and that sales of ammunition rose by 140%! :eek: I have commented on that myself in the past, as it hardly seems likely that agents of AQ would make house to house calls at residences in the US. Moore seems to dwell on what drives that “fear” – if that is a valid word to use in this context. TV entertainment was reproduced from Canada and from America. The Candadian version was tranquil. The American version depicted violence. With 7m guns in Canada, one might say that it’s not the guns that are the problem. But my favourite quote from Part 2 came from one of Moore’s interviewees who said: ”If more guns made for a safer society, then America would be the safest country in the world. It isn’t.” Indeed not, and one could be forgiven for believing the opposite...
Interesting to see that K-Mart suspended sales of ammunition after meeting Moore.
That’s all for now. I just wanted to get the blue touchpaper lit. It’s Mothering Sunday here today – in the UK Mothers’ Day falls 9 months after Fathers’ Day, as it should – LOL. An outing is planned, so TTFN. :D
-
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
Documentary or Fiction?
-David T. Hardy-
The first misconception to correct about Michael Moore's The Big One is that it is a documentary. It's not. Moore doesn't make those. . . . . it's best to consider Moore's films as entries into the ever-growing category of pseudo (or "meta") documentaries. Or, perhaps even more accurately, view it as an exercise in self-publicity.
James Berardinelli
The Michael Moore production "Bowling for Columbine" just 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 (despite its real value) receives but a tiny fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." The award of the documentary Oscar to a $4 million entertainment piece is unjust to the legitimate competitors, disheartening to makers of real documentaries, and sets a precedent which may encourage inspire others to take similar liberties with their future projects.
Bowling makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore invites 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 he never uttered.
These occur with such frequency and seriousness as to rule out unintentional error. Any polite description would be inadequate, so let me be blunt. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing, or it may be moving. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary must be non-fictional, and even re-enactments (much less doctoring of a speech) must stress fact and not fiction. To the Academy voters, some silly rules were not a bar to giving the award. The documentary category, the one refuge for works which educated and informed, is now no more than another sub-category of entertainment.
Serious charges require serious evidence. The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or that its conclusions are incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. Words are cheap. Let's look at the evidence.
1. Lockheed-Martin and Nuclear Missiles. Bowling for Columbine contains a sequence filmed at the Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility, near Columbine. Moore interviews a PR fellow, shows missiles being built, and then asks whether knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters in committing their own mass slaying. After all, if their father worked on the missiles, "What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?" Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep."
Soon after Bowling was released someone checked out the claim, and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.
Moore's website has his response:
".T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "
Nice try, Mike.
(1) the fact that some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting in the movie... it's hard to envision a killer making a moral equation between mass murder and a recon satellite, right?
(2) In fact, one of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: the Denver plant was in charge of taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and converting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units instead.
C'mon Mike, You got caught. As we will see below, the event is all too illustrative of Moore's approach. In producing a supposed "documentary," Moore simply changes facts when they don't suit his theme.
2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. The dominant theme in Bowling (and certainly the theme that has attracted most reviewers) is that NRA is callous toward slayings. The theme begins early in the film, and forms its ending, as Moore confronts Heston, asserting that he keeps going to the scene of tragedies to hold defiant rallies.
In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.
Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:
Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;
Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.
Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover 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 Heston and NRA arrogantly holding a protest rally 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." [italics added]. Moore successfully causes viewers to reach this conclusion. It is in fact false.
Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, 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 a response to his being given the musket, a collector's piece, at that annual meeting. Bowling leads off with this speech, and then splices in footage which was taken in Denver and refers to Denver, to create the impression that the entire clip was taken at the Denver event.
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 quite 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.
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, to create a speech that was never given. 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 to a meeting in North Carolina.
Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. The interlude is vital. He can't cut 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. Or why the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments of this supposed speech to keep the viewer from noticing.
-
Moore then goes to show Heston speaking in Denver. His second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd at the meeting, while Heston's voice continues) 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 has to take that out -- it would blow his entire theme. Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: 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! Heston was actually saying (with reference Heston's 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." It thus becomes an arrogant "I said to the Mayor: as American's we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a still photo of the Mayor as Heston says "I said to the mayor," cutting back to Heston's face at "As Americans."
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. As Heston speaks, the video switches momentarily to a pan of the crowd, then back to Heston; the pan shot covers the doctoring.
What Heston actually is saying in "We're already here" was not the implied defiance, but rather this:
"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."
Don't take my word for it. Click here for CNS's full transcript of the speech, and here for the comparison.
Bowling continues its theme by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, making the claim that right after the shooting, NRA came to the locale to stage a defiant rally. In Moore's words, "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 around some eight months after the shooting.
Fact: Moore should remember. On the same day, Moore himself was hosting a similar rally in Flint, for the Green Party.
Moore follows up the impression with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event and he "then went on to wherever we were going." In fact it was held at night as the last event of the tour.). This is hardly surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.
Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare for the interview, carefully continues the impression he has created, asking Heston 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 to come back at Heston, asking if he would have cancelled the event if he "knew" and "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. He takes full advantage of Heston and of the viewer.
Moore's purpose here is to convince the viewer that Heston intentionally holds defiant protests in response to a firearms tragedy. Judging from reviews, Bowling creates exactly that impression. Some samples: "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; italics supplied] Another reviewer even came off with the impression that 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." " What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?" asks a third.
Bowling persuaded these reviewers by deceiving them. There was no rally shortly after the tragedy, nor 48 hours after it. When Heston said he did not know of the shooting (which had happened eight months before his appearance, over a thousand miles from his home) he was undoubtedly telling the truth. The lie here is not that of Heston, but of Moore.
The sad part is that the lie has proven so successful. Moore's creative skills, which could be put to a good purpose, are instead used to convince the viewer that a truthful man is a liar and that things which did not occur, did.
-
3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, 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 (more likely) that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA. And viewers pick up just that message. "Throughout the film Moore mentions the history of the NRA and ties it closely with the history of white Americans' fear of African-Americans. He points out that the NRA was "coincidentally" founded in the same year that the KKK was founded." Source
Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.
Fact: The Klan wasn't founded in 1871, but in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that it technically became an "illegal" terrorist organization 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 suspend habeas corpus and to use troops to suppress the Klan.
Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus in South Carolina, sending troops into that and other states; 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 oppose Klan terror.
Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded in New York by two former Union officers, its first president was an Army of the Potomac commander, 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 as a sympathetic youngster 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 bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.
Fact: The uncle's house was the neighborhood crack-house. The uncle (together with the shooter's father, then serving a prison term for theft and cocaine possession, and his aunt and maternal grandmother) earned their living off drug dealing. The gun was stolen by one of the uncle's customers and purchased by him in exchange for drugs.
Links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
5. The Taliban and American Aid. After 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, and then shows aircraft hitting the twin towers to illustrate the result.
Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan.
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, but let's go with what Bowling uses.
Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them, but I kept trying. 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. So far as I can find, Moore is the only one using these numbers.
Germany: Bowling says 381: Where Moore could have found this number is beyond me. 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims. (And that is purely murder: if you add in accidents and suicides it becomes 12,888 for all, or about 1,207 for firearms.) No figure matches or comes close.
Australia: Bowling says 65. This seems to be close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied wildly 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. If suicides and accidents are included, the numbers become 516 - 687.
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).
Going back 1997 (first year listed in the 2001 FBI report), I can't find Bowling's U.S. number anywhere. If Moore got it from an earlier timeframe, he's juggling years to compare US historic highs to Australia's and Canada's historic lows.
It's possible Moore is adding in gun suicides and accidents, but in that event he should have added them in to the other countries, as well, which as noted above would kick Germany from 381 to 12,888.
Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.
Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication or errors, 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 rate half that of Japan itself. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.
In short, where Bowling gets its crime figures is largely a mystery. Many of them seem to trace back only to Bowling itself, and are not elsewhere reported: the most apparent explanation is that they were invented for the movie.
7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is getting into the act. In one scene, 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 enters the store and 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 either faked or illegal: Canadian law requires all ammunition buyers to present proper identification. (The law, in effect since 1998, requires non-Canadians to present picture ID and a gun importation permit. Moore probably told the store clerk there was no need to bother with details since he wasn't really going to buy the ammunition.). Even when Bowling is praising an area, the viewer still can't count on it to be truthful.
-
While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972." Strangely, the camera only lets you see the plaque from a distance where you cannot read it.
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, granted. But it illustrates that the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a document. (The B-52 was rather lucky: the American plane ahead of it and the one behind it were lost).
8. Race. At one point in the evolution of this webpage, I suggested that Moore tries to suggest that Heston is a bigot. Upon reviewing the movie again, I'd have to say that Moore does not make that point, although many of his viewers hold it after watching. E.g, " Heston's racist excuse that Americans are maybe more violent than other countries because we have a greater ethnic mix." Source. "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. Beyond revulsion I never felt pity for that privileged, ignorant hypocrite." 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 the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations. When Moore asks if Heston thinks it's "an ethnic thing," Heston responds (as the camera zooms in) "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 for violence.
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 subject to murder and beatings. 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 prior to 1963 offered little aid.
Charlton Heston got involved, beginning with picketing discriminatory 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 -- important precisely because it showed the strength (250,000 marchers) and acceptability of the civil rights movement, put spine into the Administration, and set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964. Source.
Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (also attended by NRA's Executive Vice President, and presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). You can find photos of Heston's civil rights activism here, just search for Heston if the precise page doesn't link.
So when Heston is talking about ethnic diversity and "problems with civil rights in the beginning," he's not suggesting that race is a factor -- he's suggesting that racism is. Most of the viewers likely were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King giving some speeches, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like, and finds a possible explanation of violence in the legacy of racism.
9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that we are prone to irrational fears, and the media feeds off this in a search for circulation and the fast buck. Bowling cites some glaring 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 footage was taken in this regard 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."
Bowling for Columbine follows the very adage it condemns: "If it bleeds, it leads." Fear sells -- and can win you an Oscar.
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 peace and safety, 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!"
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.
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?
Conclusion
The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. One might hope that a documentary would be fair, but nothing rules out a rousing polemic.
The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it, whenever necessary, by deception. To trash Heston, tt even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic phrases into arrogant ones. Moore's object is not to enlighten or to document, but to play his viewer like a violin, to the point where they leave the theater with heartfelt believe in that which is, sadly, quite false.
The bottom line: can a film be called a documentary when the viewer cannot trust an iota of it, not only the narration, but the video? I suppose film critics could debate that one for a long time, and some might prefer entertainment and effect to fact and truth. But the Academy Award rules here are specific. Rule 12 lays out "Special Rules for the Documentary Award." And it begins with the definition: "A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture . . . ."
David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.
dthardy@mindspring.com
[PS--if I don't reply quickly--I'm getting about 200 emails a day on this, so often I can reply immediately only to the more amusing threats and have to leave the rest for a quiet moment.]
A few additions:
Wall Street Journal weights in on criticism of Bowling, as does Debbie Schussel.
A list of some criticisms not given on this page, and reasons why.
Where Moore did have a point, and should have done his homework.
Equal time: emails critical of this page. [NB: I'm getting around 200 emails per day, of which about 40 are critical, for a total of 250-300 to date, and I've had time to post a half dozen or so. Please don't feel ignored if yours doesn't make it. And don't try to jump to the head of the list with "You don't have guts enough to post this." It's been done. I get 4-5 of those a day.]
A brief reply to two responses I've received in emails:
Objectivity: (sample from email): "In other words is fiction and non-fiction that far removed from one another. My immediate response is NO!" "Your entire article is retarded. We're talking about making FILM. ALL film is subjective. Have you not even taken an entry level course in film before?"
Response: The point is not that Bowling is non-objective, or even that it is biased. The point is that it is intentionally deceptive, and that is a different matter entirely.
Nothing is real: I've received several responses to the effect that the camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth or falsity, hence lying is not unethical. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)."
Response: This certainly has given me some insight into how some in the media view things!
Can we agree upon one core premise: to deliberately deceive a viewer is wrong? I'm not talking bias, nor emphasis. Editing a speech to create sentences that were not spoken. Telling the viewer that this is the history, when you know the opposite happened. Talk basic ethics. Is that what you'd teach your children? Everything is subjective, so truth and lies are ultimately the same, all that matters is whether you're good at it?
Finally, let me plug a book I've published, on the Waco affair (OK, what's a page without some shameless commercialism? At least it wasn't one of those %$#^^@ popups, and I stuck it at the very end.)
-
Now then, after reading all that and without doubt coming to the conclusion that it was a basically dishonest film, what do you want to talk about?
:D
-
LOL... I read all the commentaries but no way would I have copied it all.... SALUTE TOAD
the real conclussion is that.... gun people and Heston in particular... are straight shooters and that liberal gun haters are lieing little weazels.... puns intended.
One can also conclude that the film industry has an agenda far more important in their mind than being honest and fair. All those high school dropouts and underachievers handing out awards for "documentaries" is laughable inany case... Bout as funny as if said dropouts and insulated movie stars were to get up in public and express their views on complex world events.
Bowling for coluimbine is the documentary version of the history work... The Arming of America... the paralells are inescapable... in "Arming" the author uses phony (made up) and incomplete probate records to "prove" that we never were an armed nation untill a few years ago.... He was given every literary award possible for his ground breaking work.... later.... some very cursory researchproved that his book was devoid of fact...
To the liberal weenie autor sets credit.... they stripped "Arming" of all it's awards (read took away).... Hopefully the sissy academy liberals will have the integrety to do the same with moores abortion.
lazs
-
its interesting how he has to distort reality to portray gun owners in a negative light. Why dont he just take Oprah by the hand and leave USA for another more "agreeable" nation? Lets not remake our country into something those bleeding heart whiners want...lets encourage them to leave. Gosh the left just finds more and more loopheads to further their causes...no wonder Lieberman is gonna get whooped in the next election...if that is all the demo have...i would rather see clinton run again.
-
From THE BEAST's 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2002 (http://www.buffalobeast.com/article.php?path=2002/09/&article=01_0)
42. MICHAEL MOORE
Misdeeds: Every would-be oppositionist in the country has lined up to blow Moore every since he put out the amazing film Roger and Me, anointing him as a leading political figure and a brilliant creative mind even though he's been an unfunny, egomaniacal blowhard for over ten years now. Moore wears his dissident credentials not on his sleeve, but on his head and his waistline: his mesh baseball cap and fat body are now the leading brand-ID marker for political discontent among the narrow, incestuous "enlightened left" demographic. Gertrude Stein said that "A mouth is a mouth is a mouth"; Moore shows that a media darling is a media darling is a media darling.
Aggravating Factor: The O'Reilly Factor is a hundred times more entertaining than TV Nation ever was.
Aesthetic: Upper-class poor hygiene and grooming habits disguised as working-class sloth.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
Now then, after reading all that and without doubt coming to the conclusion that it was a basically dishonest film, what do you want to talk about?
:D
ROFLMAO!!! Funny how the first two to respond were Mr. Toad and Lazs. :D Why am I not surprised? :confused:;) That's OK. Sometimes it's not the content of the reply, but the fact that the reply exists at all (and its length) that is the real answer. A four post wall-0-words is answer enough! Assuming those walls-0-words were brick, to reply would be like talking to a brick wall. Wow, Mr Toad - Mr. Moore really has put a bee in your bonnet! All I can say is, I now look forward eagerly to seeing Part 1. I'll read those walls-0-words afterwards. By the way, I didn't see the part about the missiles.
Fortunately, I am not someone who forms opinions based on a single documentary, and this one was no exception. I was content to see the reaction Moore received from the other participants in the film, especially that of Heston. I can't see how a movie can be "a lie" when all of it (Part 2 at least) is Moore posing questions, or advancing his own theories with which the viewer is at liberty to agree or disagree.
I have often wondered myself why American gun sales rocketed after 911. Moore suggests that those sales were driven by fear. I would think that they were driven more by ignorance.
If Bowling for Columbine were total bull****, then very few people would have got upset about it. The fact that so many did get upset was one of the reasons I wanted to watch it myself, and also shows that Moore has hit a few raw nerves. I have no axe to grind either way. I don't own a gun, and don't live in America. I agree that "documentary" was an incorrect classification of this movie. But it was very interesting - to say the least! :D:D:D
-
I posted that because it's a well written debunk of Moore's film that documents the dishonesty he used in making it.
Why reinvent the wheel. I've got other stuff to do.
I saw the film. I caught a few of the edits that showed Heston supposedly making one speech but wearing different clothes in the cuts.
Were I you, I'd read the brief and THEN watch the movie. Would make it easy to judge if the brief is correct. But, of course, if you choose to be deceived and want to be deceived, your way would be better.
Moore's just another liar, trying to sway opinion dishonestly.
Maybe he ought to run for office.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Were I you, I'd read the brief and THEN watch the movie. Would make it easy to judge if the brief is correct. But, of course, if you choose to be deceived and want to be deceived, your way would be better.
Hehe - I don't need to be told what to think - either by Moore, or by your brief - which was anything but brief. WTF! Before I watch the next "Question Time", or the next "Panorama", must I read a "brief" to know whether I am being told the truth? Someone has to view the film before being able to write the "brief". I may as well accord myself the same privilege. :D
Hehe, Mr. Toad! It's been a long time. Some things never change, and I'm glad you're one of them. :);)
-
Moore is an IRA fund gathering bastard and therefore a hypocrite of the highest order.
-
I think the point was missed here. He was booed for saying the war was fictitious and saying bush was too. It was his acceptance speech that got him booed.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Moore is an IRA fund gathering bastard and therefore a hypocrite of the highest order.
That would seem to be an completely unusal thing for someone like Moore, considering his work. I remember you posting he was at a fundraiser and found that incredible.
David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.
Would seem in his best interest to discredit Bowling for Columbine.
I think the point was missed here. He was booed for saying the war was fictitious and saying bush was too. It was his acceptance speech that got him booed.
Moore has said alot of the booeing was poeple booeing the booers...!?!
Tronsky
-
Beet1e,
In the interest of gathering all the information on the subject, are you going to comment on the information within Toad's post, or just about Toad posting in a baiting thread by you.....yep, somethings or people never change ;). Plus, you are no stranger to wall of texts :)
Tronski,
Will it might be in the author's best interest to discredit Moore's fiction, I don't think it lessens the validity of his work.
Moore saying people booing the booers.....hehe, definately a legend in his own mind.
Fact is, Moore is no more in the documentary business than any of us are.
Plus, I can see Moore giving to the IRA. His M.O. is to challenge the establishment.
Stringer
-
I don't know why the movie was classified as a documentary. It certainly wasn't. When you go see a Michael Moore film you're expecting entertainment, not an education. If the exact same movie were made by anyone else, it would be ignored or worse, attacked for trying to pass itself off as a documentary. As far as entertainment goes, it had its moments. If ya want facts, go read a book.
Oh... when you (Beetle) said:
"TV entertainment was reproduced from Canada and from America. The Candadian version was tranquil. The American version depicted violence."
TV entertainment here in Canada isn't reproduced. It's the exact same thing, beamed in from the US. All the channels are the same as if you were watching TV from a living room in Alabama.... ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC you name it. With only a couple of actual Canadian channels added. It's the local news he was talking about.
On a side note... I'd never heard Marylin Manson speak but my god... did he ever nail it when he said that line about "listening". Didn't even skip a beat when he said it. I was impressed by that.
-
Didn't figure you'd be interested in anything but your own preconceived ideas about the film.
You're the perfect Moore audience.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Tronski,
Will it might be in the author's best interest to discredit Moore's fiction, I don't think it lessens the validity of his work.
Moore saying people booing the booers.....hehe, definately a legend in his own mind.
Plus, I can see Moore giving to the IRA. His M.O. is to challenge the establishment.
Stringer
All valid points,
surely not even Moore could distinguish between different types of booing
giving to the IRA can't be excused for any reason.
Tronsky
-
ROCK, CHALK, JAYHAWK.....GO KU!
Stringer
-
Originally posted by Toad
Didn't figure you'd be interested in anything but your own preconceived ideas about the film.
ROFL!!![/b] Coming from someone who has not one, not two, not three, but four ready prepared walls-0-words about the subject, your above remark resembles a discussion on racial equality between Messrs. Kettle and Pot! :D
Stringer!! In the interest of gathering all the information on the subject, are you going to comment on the information within Toad's post, or just about Toad posting in a baiting thread by you.....yep, somethings or people never change . Plus, you are no stranger to wall of texts
Awww, how touching to see you rallying to Mr. Toad's aid. :) All jolly good ol' boys from Kansas sticking together, huh? ;):D A baiting thread you say? Well I knew it would be perceived as such, hence my "blue touchpaper" remark at the end. But actually it's not. I saw a movie about a topic that has been debated here before, I made a few observations, and commented on some angles I'd missed before. Maybe it's an issue close to your heart, but for most of the world's population we might as well be having a discussion about ratchet screwdriver ownership.
I wouldn't feel the need to read and comment on an essay if I were about to watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of the Lambs, The Wizard of Oz or any other movie. Why should Bowling for Columbine be any different? I am privileged, within this free society of ours, to watch a movie (or half a movie), hold an opinion on it, and comment on it on this BBS without being compelled to read and comment on four walls-o-words.
As for walls-o-words, my most recent walls predate your somewhat recent registration on this BBS, so you are clearly hiding behind this new identity for reasons best known to yourself. Earlier this month in your "first" post, you proclaimed that henceforth you would be communicating via "emoticans" (sic). You were true to your word for a while, but now I see that slowly but surely, you too are making the transition from "emoticans" to walls. Must be a Kansas thing. LOL! :D
And now, Part 1 of my Oscar award winning entertainment is downloaded and ready for my viewing enjoyment. I shall be gone for some time, so...
Toodle-Pip! :D
-
Hey, I went to see the movie a long time ago. Before anyone had a chance to document Moore's dishonesty Seems I've demonstrated my open-mindedness.
You on the other hand were posting how impressive Moore's argument is without even seeing the whole movie. Further, the dishonesty has been evaluated and documented now.
So basically, without even seeing the whole movie and ignoring the evidence that contradicts his major points... you're here touting it.
As for the wall of text, I suppose I could have just posted a link. But since you won't read a well documented article that is contrary to you opinion when it's placed in front of you, I seriously doubt you'd have followed the link either. :D
Let's see... I watched the movie and read the document and made up my mind.
You haven't even watched the movie and haven't read the document and made up your mind.
Who's the open minded one here? :D
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Moore has said alot of the booeing was poeple booeing the booers...!?!
Tronsky
I bet the lying arrogant bastard would say something like that after he made an bellybutton of himself and got booed off the stage.. :D
-
Mr. Toad, I don't agree. We both have our views, and would have those views with or without Moore's movie. Moore himself formed his own views the same way we did - by looking at what's going on in America. Not once did I make any reference to "how impressive Moore's argument is", so I don't know where that came from. :confused: The vast majority of the movie seems to be interviews - with gun owners, gun victims, and bereaved friends and relatives of gunshot victims. He doesn't need to possess powers of impressive argument. The movie speaks for itself. By the way, I watched Part 1 this morning. I really liked that cartoon about the history of America. :eek::D That did kind of make sense in a tongue in cheek way!
"From my cold dead hands" - my arse. Heston should have stuck to chariot driving. He was good at that, and there were no guns around. :p
-
Well, I went when it first came out. And I went to see if the guy had anything worthwhile to say; I didn't go to throw popcorn at the screen because I disagreed.
He did raise one or two good points.. .but he had no answers either. And when he could provide no answers, the film wanders away and loses itself and its honesty.
As for your evaluation,
The vast majority of the movie seems to be interviews - with gun owners, gun victims, and bereaved friends and relatives of gunshot victims. He doesn't need to possess powers of impressive argument. The movie speaks for itself.
pretty much sums it up.
The problem with that is shown in the document I posted for you that you've decided, in your open-mindedness, not to read.
He's rigged the film. The evidence is there. No movie speaks for itself. It's speaks primarily for it's editor, as the document shows.
But, hey... don't read the debunking and keep telling my you're open minded. I love that sort of thing!
:D
-
Beet1e,
Why the aggressive stance?
I just asked a question, and pointed out an obvious observation. :)
I have a cunning plan :)
Toodle Pip!
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
But, hey... don't read the debunking and keep telling my you're open minded. I love that sort of thing! :D
Mr. Toad, do you ever go to a movie without reading some sort of synopsis about it, like a Playbill? I don't go to a movie theatre that often, but whenever I have, I doubt that anyone in the audience would have read a synopsis/brief/wall-o-words. The parts I focussed on were the cartoon section/history of America, the one guy who did make a very good point that I quoted in my initial post, and the interviews.
Moore's film did illustrate the paranoia of the American public, and selected various themes. One was the African killer bees, another was Y2K. Now I was heavily involved in converting legacy computer systems to be Y2K compliant. It was work that had to be done, but we did it in a controlled manner the same as any other job. So I was amazed at some of the stories going around prior to the event. The news media had a field day, scaring people with stories suggesting that on 01/01/2000, TV sets would not work, cars would not start, and even electric kettles would not work. All news media hype, but the American public bought it, and had visions of Armageddon. One guy even constructed a shelter in upstate NY from the roofs of 45 yellow school buses! So this was another angle that made me think, and took place long before Moore's movie, so don't blame him!
Did I take precautions against Y2K Armageddon? I did not. I was burned out on the whole Y2K thing, so I looked for news bulletins coming from New Zealand where it was already 2000, saw nothing interesting, and went to bed at 11:30pm in disgust at the whole debacle.
If the NRA will make a movie in which it makes its case, I'll be interested to watch that too.
-
Yeah, I went to Bowling for Columbing without reading a synopsis for example. :D
OTOH, I also love to read a book and then go to a movie based upon that book. Gettysburg, for example. I find if I have detailed knowledge of the subject, I usually enjoy the movie more.
However, despite your reluctance to read a "wall of words" (I am truly sorry. I had no idea that a carefully constructed, detailed analysis of Mr. Moore's dishonesty would pose such a formidable barrier to your reading skills. ;) ) I hope you enjoyed the movie
But to pretend you're taking the entire experience in an open-minded way is, well, entertaining to say the least.
Questions about the "documentary" nature of Mr. Moore's work that won an Oscar as a "documentary" generated the recent interest in the factual aspects of his opus. It turns out it is far from a documentary. Polemic may be more apt.
So, watch the movie. Heck, watch it twice.
Don't read the examination of Moore's dishonesty.
All fine by me.
But please don't pretend you've been open-minded about it. :D
-
Oh, btw... I didn't have "four readily prepared walls of text".
I merely cut and pasted this debunking of Moore into four parts because of the post size limitation on the HTC boards.
And, I had read the posted article some time before you ever decided we all needed another gun thread.
So, as I said, I merely put the information in front of you thinking you'd find it harder to ignore than a link.
Obviously, I was wrong about that. :D
-
beetle i think you are missing the main point... the film claims to be a documentary... it claims a lot of things it says are facts and then it gets caught in the most outrageous lies imaginable... I am not reading a movie critique... It is a debunking of a huge lie.
your other point seems to be that Americans are stupid because they.... what? Arm themselves after 911? You, and moore seem to feel that they/we all of a sudden realized that the world was a very bad place because of terrorists and are arming ouselves against the perpetuators of 911...
you are both half right... huge highly publicized violent acts against civilians do remind us of what a violent place the world is. Gun sales go up when a strangler is on the loose or a serial killer... it is human nature to react only in crisis. sooo...
I am sure gun sales went up after 911. I am also sure that whatever percent they went up tho.... it was not the same as whatever moore said it was... I am certain that anything out of moores mout that is touted as a statistic or fact is.... a total bald faced lie.
I ask you.... If you were interested in say.. VW beetles and... a documentary was made that had every single fact wrong about the car... That had an obvious anti beetle slant and made up facts to push that slant.... what would you think of that "documentary"? why would you bother to watch other documentaries by that "film maker"?
lazs
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen! No aggression from me.
I agree, the film was not what I would consider to be a documentary. For that, Moore would have to have presented the subject matter in the first person. Some of it was, but most of it wasn't. I don't really see it as a matter over which one can be "open-minded" or otherwise, any more than I'm being "open-minded" about the cup of Yorkshire tea I'm going to make for myself in a few minutes. Every story has two sides (Aesop's Fables) but there can be no denying the grief on the face of that poor man whose son was shot through the face at Columbine. I don't need to read any walls-o-words to know that the scene was genuine. There can be no denying the fear of a guy who sleeps with a .44 Magnum under his pillow. And as for ”If more guns made for a safer society, then America would be the safest country in the world. It isn’t.” , I can find no flaw in that statement. My favourite part of the entire movie was the cartoon sequence, and I'd say it was pretty much on the mark. White, armed Suburbia indeed. OK, the movie stated that only white people (not blacks) could have guns. I am not prepared to accept that at face value. But was that ever true, in any state? I guess it would be academic if bullets cost $5,000 each! :p
Mr. Toad, I enjoyed the movie insofar as I enjoyed the "enlightenment", if I may use that word in this context for just a second. I saw some new material, many of the interviews were interesting, I enjoyed seeing Heston walking off into the sunset when Moore turned the screws a little harder... poor guy has arthritis, doesn't he? But I DO NOT "enjoy" seeing people shot, young promising lives cut short, and grieving relatives of young children. I wonder what their take was on this movie.
OK, Mr. Toad - to keep the balance, I'll read those walls - but first I'm going to make that tea... ;)
-
Heston has Alzheimer's. Gee, no wonder Moore looked so smugly superior talking to him.
So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then? Even Moore couldn't find a real answer and that's where his film wanders off into the empty space between his ears.
:D
-
There have always been and will always be fools in this world. Adding "The Academy" to the list.
Thanks for the post Toad.
-
LA times proved the people booing were mic'd up stage hands. anyways its one thing to debunk alot of the creatively edited shots its another to actually try and answer the questions the guys raise's in the film. I do think our culture is fear based. We are better consumers when we are scared and it sure the hell seems likes alot of you are living in fear and hate.
-
So... the only thing that's really important is that a movie says what you want it to say. Everything else is just a bonus.
MiniD
-
I missed this post over the weekend - played a good 2-1/2 hour
three set doubles match yesterday and spent the rest of the evening/night relaxing with my wife.
Thanks for posting the article Toad! I posted a link in the "Michael
Moore Wins an Oscar" thread a short while ago, but wasn't sure
anyone saw it. I'm surprised beet1e missed it there also. There
was plenty of time to look it over. It's disappointing to see how
people try to prove their point by using falsified information.
Come on beet1e, just take the time to read it. "Wall-o-words?"
You should know better than that.
mauser
-
I read that one too Mauser. Thanks again for the link.
MiniD
-
I guess beetle didn't learn his lesson from his last run of look at me threads...
Hmm just another lame thread...
Laz, Toad, why do you bother with this guy? LOL everything that could be said was said in the other thread, jeez he had not even seen the whole film when he started this wank off fest...
Hell Why am I bothering?
-
Mauser, I saw various threads about this movie, and that's why I decided to download it to see it. Do a search on Bowling and Columbine, and you'll find about 8 threads.
I've read the first two walls. :)
GTO -RA2 - that's it. Other people have been talking about this movie - why shouldn't I? I didn't even bang on about the theme. All I said was I had seen it, found it interesting (though not a documentary) and that some of the material had provided some new angles. How do you make a wank fest out of that? But if you have, I guess you could make a wank fest out of anything.
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then? Even Moore couldn't find a real answer and that's where his film wanders off into the empty space between his ears.
Well, if you recall the cartoon section, a key factor was the enslavement of blacks in the 19th century. Then when slavery ended, they got a bit pissed off. The black lady on the bus refused to move to the back when asked by the whites. And the whites got a bit panicky. Somewhere along the line the KKK gets a mention. The whites ended up in suburbia, and the blacks were left in the cities, where they were free to kill themselves.
And the point is... did Canada ever enslave blacks from Africa? I don't think so. Looking at the social problems that can be traced back to the 19th century, America created a social time bomb. Canada didn't.
LOL GTO! you try to stay away, but you just can't. :p So far as the fest goes, you're no longer King of the Castle. Did you see that episode of Seinfeld? ;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
.
but the American public bought it, and had visions of Armageddon[/u]. One guy even constructed a shelter in upstate NY from the roofs of 45 yellow school buses! So this was another angle that made me think, and took place long before Moore's movie, so don't blame him!
The american public did not buy it. Some crackpots did.
The media fuels the crackpots.
I know hundreds of folks here in my town and not 1 of them
stockpiled rations for y2k. And the african bees?
rofl....
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
LA times proved the people booing were mic'd up stage hands. anyways its one thing to debunk alot of the creatively edited shots its another to actually try and answer the questions the guys raise's in the film. I do think our culture is fear based. We are better consumers when we are scared and it sure the hell seems likes alot of you are living in fear and hate.
Yo dood! with M Jackson the baby swinger in his sig!
Check out this :D
http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1804
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well, if you recall the cartoon section, The whites ended up in suburbia, and the blacks were left in the cities, where they were free to kill themselves....
And the point is... did Canada ever enslave blacks from Africa? America created a social time bomb. Canada didn't.
Three questions then:
Have you decided then that all the blame belongs to the racial aspect and the number/availability of guns is no longer your main argument? :D
If so, are you saying that the difference is black on black homicide or black on both black & white homicide?
And, before you answer that......
Have you actually checked the stats by race in the US as compared to Canada?
:D
-
Ilove my gun's
(http://home.attbi.com/~c.hambleton/wsb/media/134502/site1014.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
Three questions then:
Have you decided then that all the blame belongs to the racial aspect and the number/availability of guns is no longer your main argument? :D
If so, are you saying that the difference is black on black homicide or black on both black & white homicide?
And, before you answer that......
Have you actually checked the stats by race in the US as compared to Canada?
:D
Mr. Toad, Mr. Toad! What's all this about an argument? This thread is about a movie which I found... interesting. We're not having an argument! Where did I argue? I'll read walls 3 and 4 if you'll reread my initial post, and you will see that I didn't say anything to start an argument. Of course, for someone like me, the very mention that I have seen that movie is enough for some people to think I'm starting one. ;) But since you ask, and since your questions are reasonable, I'll try to comment.
- No, I have not decided then that all the blame belongs to the racial aspect. Britain also is multi-racial. But we have fewer than 100 gun related deaths per annum, as compared with the many thousands that the US has. So it's not purely a social/racial issue.
- Having answered No to the first question, the second question is null.
- No I haven't "checked the stats" for homicide by race in Canada. Should I have done? I'll be glad to review yours if you have them, but not if they're written on the side of your movie theatre popcorn bucket. :)
In the US, however, the black on black homicides would seem to be a substantial proportion of the overall total. That is certainly borne out by the stats for Washington DC where, I believe, 60% of the population is black, and for New York - a city of some 10m blacks - more than any other city in the world (according to a 1980s Trivial Pursuit question). I don't know how many blacks there are in Canada, or whether any of their cities have black ghettos like South Central Los Angeles/The Watts district.
My parents were horrified when I told them in 1980 that I'd be living in Chicago. But whereas the (black) south side was like a war zone, the (white) NW suburbs where I lived were law abiding and peaceful. And I didn't need a gun. ;)
The relatively high US homicide rate stems from a combination of factors. As you have been at pains to point out, guns on their own are not the problem. But as I am at pains to point out, neither is a multi-racial society: Unlike America, we do not have thousands upon thousands of gun related homicides in Britain each year, despite the racial mix.
A can of petrol for the lawnmower, kept in a cool dry place out of sunlight, is safe. So is a box of matches. Out in the open, petrol spilt on the ground will quickly evaporate. And a lit match will, at worst, burn my fingers. Speaking figuratively, America has a lot of people spilling petrol, and a lot of people playing with matches.
-
Let's not be disingenuous Beetle. Look at the title of your thread and consider the history of such threads. Your protestations that you wern't looking for an argument (in my usage, argument as in debate) seem pretty....... transparent.
So, perhaps we can cut to the chase.
Beetle:
"Well, if you recall the cartoon section, a key factor was the enslavement of blacks in the 19th century"
followed by:
"And the point is... did Canada ever enslave blacks from Africa? I don't think so. Looking at the social problems that can be traced back to the 19th century, America created a social time bomb. Canada didn't."
But now:
"No, I have not decided then that all the blame belongs to the racial aspect."
You agree it's not race now? :D
So, if it's not race as you seem to be saying NOW...... we're back to:
So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then?
BTW, now that you've read the "debunking" what do you think of Moore's honesty? Did he take a "fair" attitude or did he attempt to create a propaganda piece?
-
beetle.. you asked why moore got booed off a stage for a "documentary" that was not, as it turns out, a documentary... As has been shown... it was a huge bald faced lie... that in itself is enough to be booed.
now... if you would have asked did we find that lieing sack of dung moore.... 'amusing'.... well... I problyu would have still said no... not without him admiting that he made everything up and that he had produced a satire. As a satire it was mildly amusing.
lazs
-
To paraphrase Dick Cheney, when asked if the US had chemical weapons to hand for deployment in Iraq, I said what I said, and I was very careful in what I said. :D
Let's not be disingenuous Beetle. Look at the title of your thread and consider the history of such threads.
Ah yes, I notice you use the word "disingenuous" after having had to backtrack following a false accusation. Give a dog a bad name, eh? Things are not always what they seem. We've had our gun arguments/"debates" in the past But it seems that the very mention of Bowling for Columbine is enough to start a "debate". As I said in my initial post, the very discussion of this topic seems to be a taboo for some, and not just the topic itself.
According to the BFC cartoon, yes - the enslavement of blacks was a key factor - a precursor in the construction of a social time bomb. But it was not the only factor in creating war zones like South Central Los Angeles. There, in addition to social/economic deprivation of blacks, we see major drug trafficking - and lots of guns...
You recently mentioned the nerve agent Sarin in the Peter Arnett thread. I take it you know that Sarin is composed of a number of chemicals or precursors, each of which is harmless on its own?
So yes - America's enslavement of blacks in the 19th century was instrumental in the construction of a social time bomb. But racial mixing and/or social deprivation on its own does not necessarily mean mass murder. We have racial problems here in Britain. I won't deny that. But our social time bomb, unlike the American version, has yet to detonate. Sure, it smoulders, and there are a few sparks from time to time. But don't try to shift the blame for a high homicide rate on to blacks and other ethnic groups, as that is only part of the problem.
-
I think that was Rumsfeld. But we digress.
Please show me where I backtracked, if other than to get you back on track.
I think you knew this would start a discussion. Deny it if you like. If the topic was taboo, why are we this far down the thread? ;) People are willing to discuss it; readily in fact. However, not everyone's going to agree and there's nothing wrong with that. Unless, of course, you're one of those guys that understands "free speech" to mean "I get to say what I want but the rest of you don't." And there's plenty of those on this BBS.
So... race is only part. As I said, if you want to delve further into the "race card" aspect of gun violence, you may want to compare Canadian stats to US stats before you opine. ;)
Which finally gets us back on track.
So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then?
You haven't really addressed this yet, other than to now say "race is only part of it". Indeed.
So, what's the rest of it? :D
BTW, you never did give us a review of the "wall-o-text" critique of Moore's dishonesty now that you've read it. I'd appreciate reading that.
Toodly-pip, old shoe!
-
Hehe. Blimey, Mr. Toad. We're starting to sound like a couple of politicians! Yelling at eachother across the despatch box without solving anything. I've never set foot in Canada, so I'm not familiar with it.
I think that was Rumsfeld. But we digress.
No, it was Cheney. I was referring to a 1991 interview I saw on British TV. You nibbled at the bait but didn't swallow the hook, so well done! Didn't Cheney have the job in 1991 that Rumsfeld has now? So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then?
You haven't really addressed this yet, other than to now say "race is only part of it". Indeed.
So, what's the rest of it?
Well let me ask you something:
So, what did you make of the British conundrum then? We've got a lot of blacks (and other ethnic minorities), much less homicide (than America). Is it the blacks then?
You haven't really addressed this yet, other than to cite the Canadian conundrum. Indeed.
So what's the rest of it?
:D
-
Beetle it is a wank fest because this thread is all about you. It is about your need to be in the spotlight.
You could have posted to any of the other threads, but no, you had to start you own.
Thats ok, you are going on the ignore list with people like blitz and Eagle CZ.... lol
-
GTO - goodbye and good shut! (as my Lancashire grandmother would have said - lol) Geez, was wondering how long it would take that guy to figure out the ignore function. :rolleyes: He's a slow learner, but he's OK really.
-
So you're officially back to your old ways now beatle? Well... it was nice while it lasted.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, it was Cheney.
From the Washington Times, Rumsfeld Warns Syria:
Asked whether the comments meant the United States was prepared to take military action against Syria to stop the shipments, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I'm saying exactly what I'm saying. It was carefully phrased."
Didn't bother to look up Cheney. This is the recent version to which I thought you were referring.
And now you answer a question with a question. Come now old chap. Let's be proper, eh? After you, Alphonse. I believe you were the one taking the "too many guns" stance in similar threads?
But what of the Canadians, eh? Prime role in the film you just watched, don't you agree? Focus for Moore, no? So what conclusion do you draw?
Do explain the Canadian conundrum.. because Moore surely never did. In fact, that's where the movie starts to wander about aimlessly. IMO.
And I still await your impression of the posted article the chronicles Moore's blatant dishonesty.
Toodle-pip.
-
MiniD
I've never had a thread locked, and have never been banned from the BBS. :)
Mr. Toad! Didn't bother to look up Cheney. This is the recent version to which I thought you were referring.
Ah, well there you are! Yes, I saw the Rumsfeld bit, and it reminded me of what Cheney had said 12 years earlier. The point I was trying to make was that there are times when I say something, and people believe I'm alluding to something else. Just the mention of BFC, and people think I'm on an anti-gun crusade, for example. Wasn't trying to trip you up. I especially liked the way you avoided the preposition at the end of the sentence above, so you are forgiven. (BTW Churchill once said that a preposition at the end of a sentence was something "up with which we should not put".)
Answer a question with a question - maybe, but as you were the first to bring up the topic of conundra, I thought it appropriate for you to go first. :D But it doesn't matter. In case it was not clear from above postings :eek: you seem to be saying that guns on their own (no social/racial unrest) do not give rise to a huge homicide rate. And I'm saying the same about social/racial unrest on its own (no guns present). Those are the Canadian and British conundra. But what of the American conundrum? Social/racial unrest AND guns present. :eek::eek: That's what we should be looking at.
I have now read Walls 3 and 4. Wall 3 began to look interesting, but degenerated into a splitting of hairs about individual stats and their method of collection. For example: 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, but let's go with what Bowling uses.
I believe the movie also quoted a value of 68 for gun related homicides in the UK. This is not mentioned in Wall 3. (note that this value of 68 is less than half the Canadian value, despite the fact that the UK population is more than double that of Canada). Wall 3 makes the somewhat benign observation that the values are raw data, not rates, in an apparent attempt to mitigate the impact of the American gun related homicide tally, given as 11,127. Admittedly, I don't know what period was being referenced. But it doesn't really matter. After all the stats research I had to do in those earlier threads, the figures are close enough. In some years the American gun related homicide was more than 11,127. In other years it was less. The relatively small deviations are not sufficiently significant to deflect my interest from the movie. In your own parlance, Wall 3 begins to wander about aimlessly. The aimless wandering continues in Wall 4. But just going back to Wall 3, who cares whether the KKK was formed in 1866, 1871, or any year in between? These are details which the various walls-o-words seize upon to discredit Moore and his movie.
More to come, but I now give way to the honourable Mr. Toad. :D
-
Still unchanged beatle. No real point or argument. What did the Americans do to deserve your scorn this time beatle?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No real point or argument.
I agree! My initial thread simply records the fact that I saw BFC and found it interesting. Fairly innocuous, I would have thought. Not intended as a wank fest. But thanks for reading, MiniD. I am touched by your interest in my threads, and grateful for the punt(s). :)
-
No problem beatle... afterall.. that's all you really want now isn't it... reaction?
I mean... its not like you picked out a topic that was just beat into the ground a few days ago and tried to put one of your old spins on it.
Nah....
MiniD
-
Originally posted by beet1e
you seem to be saying that guns on their own (no social/racial unrest) do not give rise to a huge homicide rate.
Yes. Said it many times before too. IIRC in Moore's... whatever..... he started down that road but the Canadian Conundrum put him at a dead end there. So he then wandered in the desert, much like Heston did as Moses in that movie. ;)
And I'm saying the same about social/racial unrest on its own (no guns present).
Quite possibly. But then you must consider the "sharp instruments" conundrum, eh? ;)
Social/racial unrest AND guns present.
Ah.. but If A is true, and B is true, that doesn't necessarily make A+B=C is true when high homicide rates (C) appear unrelated to either A or B. It's an area one would have to research but there's no "automatic answer" there either.
I believe the critiques dalliance with homicide numbers is merely to underline the basic premise that this is no documentary of any sort. If it were, Moore's numbers would be easily verified. The critiques point is that NONE of Moore's numbers can be found anywhere in those exact amounts. They're a hodgepodge of "close" and "no where close". Hardly a hallmark of an accurate documentary.
Same with the KKK/NRA dates.
However, what do you think of him "constructing" a Heston speech from a number of speeches, deliberately and clearly taking Heston out of context and "spinning" the result to Moore's own purpose?
-
Mr. Toad -
Quite possibly. But then you must consider the "sharp instruments" conundrum, eh?
Hehe, yes, but you must also consider that not all American gun homicides occur within socially deprived ghettos, and that whites also commit gun crime, often against other whites. However, what do you think of him "constructing" a Heston speech from a number of speeches, deliberately and clearly taking Heston out of context and "spinning" the result to Moore's own purpose?
That is very bad, and I have seen that done elsewhere. I didn't pay particular attention to the Heston speeches, so was not swayed by this in any way. As I said before, I was more concerned with the various interviews. If Moore did indeed seek to distort matters by rearranging speeches and the like, I would say that he would have been better to leave out that material altogether, rather than being discovered to be a fraud later. BUT!!! The acid test will be for the NRA to produce its own film, and for the Moore lobby to produce 4 walls of text in rebuttal. Then we will have a level playing field. :)
I think we are agreed that the film is not a documentary within the accepted parlance of the word.
But if Moore was a scoundrel, there would be no need for the American public to be so outraged by his work. There would be no need to boo him on the stage at the Oscars. The very fact that he won an Oscar, was booed on stage, and infuriated his critics in such a way that resulted in 4 walls of text demonstrates amply to me that the presentation of his subject matter has hit a few raw nerves. I know exactly how Moore must feel. I get people on this BBS telling me I'm full of **** and how they're going to ignore me from now on... - but they still keep coming back for more. :D
-
The "I said what I said, and I was very careful in what I said" bit I'm almost certain was Ari Fleischer, last week.... and was he said what he said, and he was very careful in what he said when he said it. Or something like that.
Ok... carry on. :)
-
Well, I digress. I do agree with the silvered-tongued Toad. At least with what he is pitching in this thread.
Hmmmmmmmmm.........
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The very fact that he won an Oscar
You do know how Oscars are awarded, right? "Members of the Academy"?
I'll give you this... I'll wager there are FAR more anti-gun people than pro or even pro + neutral people in the Academy.
Just like the war... they were making a "statement".
So I wouldn't take the award of an Oscar as any sort of validation. We've all seen Oscar winning films that were either boring or cr p or both.
And the NRA doesn't need to make a documentary to refute Moore.
Heck, even YOU admit this isn't anything remotely like a documentary.... now that you've waded through the article. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
The "I said what I said, and I was very careful in what I said" bit I'm almost certain was Ari Fleischer, last week....
That may well be, Nash. But Cheney said it in 1991. I saw the TV interview.
Mr. Toad, I don't give two hoots whether or not BFC won an Oscar. It's irrelevant to the subject matter under discussion. No idea about the Oscars. However, I did go to the dress rehearsal for the Tony Awards at Radio City Music Hall, NYC a few years ago. Met Raquel Welch. :):):) Heck, even YOU admit this isn't anything remotely like a documentary.... now that you've waded through the article.
Ermm... I do believe I said as much in my initial post - before I'd read the article. :D
My clock has just gone BONG - 1am. Time for bed, so...
Toodle Pip! ;) :p