BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM

Little Hawk, the things that might (I say only might) count against that version of the Bounty story are that:

1. "By the book" in those time included severe floggings (up to 500 strokes), keel hauling, and hanging for minor offenses.

2. At best ships on that kind of journey were extremely uncomfortable and often near the verge of starvation. Scurvy and beri-beri from the lack of fresh food, 12 month old salt pork or beef kept in wooden barrels, weavil ridden hardtack (always choose the lessor of two weavils) made the conditions near muntiny at the best of times.

3. As soon as Bligh was reinstated he was shipped to the Botony Bay as governor colony where they promptly mutinied.

Bligh might have gotten hard duty made harder by a bad rap or he might just have been a right hard bastard or both.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM

Strick - I figured someone would say that. :-) What did Bligh do?

Well....one of two things:

1. the fictional version (a la Nordhoff & Hall) - he brutally tyrranized the crew until they mutinied...VERY unequal treatment.

2. the more probable real version - he was a "by the book", somewhat stuffy, but not unusually severe commander who had the bad luck to expose his crew to a sailor's paradise in Tahiti, complete with lazy days, nubile and totally willing native girls, great food, and a wonderful climate...and then he set out on a long voyage away from said paradise...and his sailors decided they'd rather go back to paradise, thank you very much!

The point is, Bligh learned from that experience, and he practiced equality (coupled with good discipline and chain of command) when marooned in the longboat. A good leader is always willing to endure the same privations that his men must endure.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:56 AM

Sorry, Raptor, someone warned me I'd get cranky if I stayed here too long.

I repeat myself too often, but...

It was Columbine. The truth was powerful enough. Maniuplating it just discredited the more important message in too many eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Raptor
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:31 AM

Strick I must admit to not knowing enough about Enron to discuss it without talking out my ass, Sorry I brought it up!

I believe we must agree to disagree when it comes to what constitutes a liar in a filmaker or a president!

Good day to you sir!

Respectfully Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 10:29 PM

"That's what Captain Bligh did after being cast off in a longboat with about a dozen other desperate men..."

But, dude, what he did to get put in that boat! ;)

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 10:26 PM

As someone else noted...the greatest injustice is not poverty, but massive inequality. It is that which sparks both crime and violent revolution. When people are all in the same boat together, they should have the sense to share on a relatively equal basis. That's what Captain Bligh did after being cast off in a longboat with about a dozen other desperate men, and he got almost all of them alive to Australia, against all odds. Without sharing equally they would never have made it.

The people in a society are also in one boat together, traveling across dangerous waters, and the same principles apply. A relatively even level of material equality in the basics of life (food, drink, shelter, medical care, and other necessities) is the foundation of both liberty and justice in a decent society.

The rich few who run your society DON'T want you to know that...or even think about it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:31 PM

A quote from upthread: "Low income poverty people in the US own cars, VCR.s, cell phones, air conditioners, and televisions."

Unless you can provide evidence for that claim, it must stand as a complete fabrication, exaggeration, or utter b.s.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:23 PM

Look, Raptor, there's an easy way to say what I mean. I regret I didn't say the first time. Why make up all that crap and stage the things he did? The truth was powerful enough. All Moore did was discredit himself.

The deal with Heston was more complicated than that. Quotes would have been OK. Moore rearranged the quotes he used and set it up to make it look as if some of it happened right after the attack when it didn't.

I didn't say you said anything, just pulled together the arguments I read every day here and laid them side by side.

Let's not start on Enron unless you can prove that anyone at the Bush Administration did anything to help them (Ken Lay's indictment will happen in the next 8 months, Skilling needs to turn over on him) or that some how Bush was responsible for corporate fraud took place before he was elected.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:12 PM

I say Bush lies?

Don't you think he does?

Saying there is weapons of mass Destruction to justify a war to divert attention from Enron or whatever else was going on and leading the brits into it too is a big lie!(read a newspaper)

Letting Charelton Heston make an ass of himself but not putting the Whole speach in to his movie is not a lie!

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:09 PM

Have to agree with both Raptor and Strick here...

Yes, Michael Moore monkeyed around with the facts in order to make a more effective anti-gun film...

And, yes, the points Michael Moore made in the film were very good ones in that they exposed some of the ugly underbelly of North American society, which is a society that tends to encourage gun worship in a number of ways...for what? To make money, that's for what.

The film was rather unfair to many gun owners...but it was a valuable statement at the same time, and a wake-up call to American society.

Take a look at all the "shooter" games that are being marketed to kids these days, and you will see that there is something very sick going on out there...and it's all for a lousy buck.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:01 PM

Gracious, Raptor, all I said was that Moore either made a comedy you shouldn't rely on or a documentary you can't rely on. Twisting the facts won't bring those kids back, nor will twisting the facts make anyone more against psychopathic kids taking guns to school that they already are. It just makes people who try to use it seriously to convince others look stupid.

Here's the difference. Ever seen The Oxbow Incident? Pure fiction, but one of the most compelling arguments against mob justice ever made. That I might have respected. Not this.

BTW, what the hell did this have to do with any of that other crap? You say Bush lies, but I'm supposed to listen to Moore inspite of the fact he does too?

It'll be someone from China or India that takes my job, though I suspect I know how to prevent that from ever happening. I might get fired for hanging around here, though.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:52 PM

Kids still died and its still bad! Thats the point!

I don't care how Heston said his speech. KIDS DIED! Guns are Bad!

The fact that you can get a gun from a bank is fucked. Wheather you have to wait or it comes loaded instantly is not the issue, the issue is that KIDS DIED Moore did not make that up!

Strick I hope you never loose a loved one! Or loose your job cause some rich prick can make more money from Mexican labour! Or have to go on welfare to feed your family and not see them cause all your time is taken up going to some job 50 miles away from your run down home!

Mike Moore is adressing these issues while Your Government is Not!

If you listen to the Bush Regime you will find that Moore lied about all of thier truths! Such as Weapons of Mass Destruction!

Mike Moore has the Balls to stand up to the things he finds wrong in todays society. I applaud him for that!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:35 PM

"The Lockheed Martin plant satellites vehicles not "weapons of mass destruction" (they made ICBMs until 60s, the last of which was taken out of service in 1984, a little before Moore's movie)"

Read that:

"The Lockheed Martin plant makes satellites vehicles not "weapons of mass destruction" (they made ICBMs until 60s, the last of which was taken out of service in 1984, a little before Moore's movie)"

Dang multi-tasking.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:27 PM

I really didn't care whether they went bowling or not (though that sorta short cicuits the movie title, doesn't it? that's not a trivial mistake).

You may not have read the Spinsanity article but here are some the things that are wrong in the movie:

The bit about getting the gun at the bank was staged, it didn't happen
The US never gave aid to the Taliban, humanitarian aid was given to the UN that went to Afghanistan
The Lockheed Martin plant satellites vehicles not "weapons of mass destruction" (they made ICBMs until 60s, the last of which was taken out of service in 1984, a little before Moore's movie)
He edited Heston's Denver speech to misrepresent when it took place and what he said
He agumented the Eddie Horton ad to make it look more racist

Do you think I'm talking about whether they really had shreadies for breakfast?

To quote Spinsanity:

"When the most popular documentary of the year is riddled with blatant lies and distortions, it's a cause for concern. When the film is part of a pattern by one of the nation's most prominent political celebrities, it's disturbing. And when the media gives Michael Moore free reign to spread his lies and distortions with very little critical analysis, it's a sad comment on our democracy."

Some of this might be plain sloppiness; some of it look malicious. It's a funny movie, but I so is Space Balls. I wouldn't use that as a source for facts to support social change either.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 07:59 PM

Strick You are correct about independantly checking facts. That is wise but, I think wheather the kids went bowling or skipped that class or wheather Moore said they Bowled or he just showed a girl who said they bowled is missing the point that Moore made! You can't blame the Music they listened to any more than the fact that they participated in bowling!

The point that music = gun violence is about as sensable as
Bowling = Gun violence

Quibling about wheather the kids bowled that very day seems to miss the whole point.

Triing to discredit moore as a liar because of a few points that are small and insinificant is petty!

The fact is guns killed these kids at this school and that is bad!

If Moore said they had shreadies for breakfast when they actualy had Corn Flakes the kids still died and that is still bad!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM

"...not believe much of what he says unless you check it independently."

That's a very sensible attitude to take - most especially when you are dealing with much of the mainstream media.

............................

..."Low income poverty people in the US own cars, VCR.s, cell phones, air conditioners, and televisions. They probably would be considered wealthy in most parts of the world"...

I always like what William Morris wrote after he visited Iceland, and had his eyes opened to a society which, though poor, had far greater social equality than his native England:

"...the most grinding poverty is a trifling evil compared with the inequality of classes"...

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:54 PM

Raptor, make a movie about anyone you want. Moore's misrepresentations are more than chronological as that link and the links it contains show. I will admit in several of the cases, he's not really lying, he's just guilty of not bothering to check his facts. Come to think of it, that sloppiness is just another reason to not believe much of what he says unless you check it independently.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

Yeah, You're right. Moore Took true facts and reported them in a untimely fashion and not in a chronilogical order so he must be a liar! And George Bush is not a fair target for documentairy authors or filmmakers!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM

I can understand people who think Moore is funny, just not anyone who takes much of what he says too seriously. He's plays pretty fast and loose with the truth. Have a look at what SpinSanity says about his latest book (with comments on "Bowling" and lots of links).

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

I really like these guys when it comes to pointing out how people twist things to make their point (what Al Franken calls lying). They're also reasonably objective, slapping all sides around pretty regularly.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:18 PM

"I think Moore manipulates data and facts to make his point."

EVERY film-maker does that, documentary or not...

I think as 'propegandary film' goes Bowling is a damn good one...

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:08 PM

If you want to credit Moore with being a good film maker be my guest.   If you make a documnetary, I think the facts should be accurate.   I think Moore manipulates data and facts to make his point. Let me give you a few examples.

The title of the movie "Bowling for Columbine" is based on the fact that the two shooters went bowling in their bowling class the morning of the shooting.   Police records show that the two skipped class that day.

Moore claims the boys parents worked for Lockheed making missles which contributed to his shooting spree.    The father worked for a division of Lockheed making satelites for cable TV.   When asked about this error Moore stated that they could be making missles in the future.   A pretty lame response.

Moore cited how awful the rally in Michigan was just days after the shooting.   The rally was actually 8 months after the shooting. Coincidently, Moore was staging his own rally in Michigan that day. Was he insensitive?

I can go on.   The movie is full of inaccuracies done on purpose to make Moore's points.    Good film maker.   Lousy facts.

To the person from England who criticized the USA for its excessive poverty.   They recently ran statistics about poverty in the USA.   Did you know that the average person in poverty in the USA lives in a bigger residence that the average person in London or Paris.   Low income poverty people in the US own cars, VCR.s, cell phones, air conditioners, and televisions.    They probably would be considered wealthy in most parts of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:59 PM

This was a pretty good thread - and one which we owe to Rick Fielding, who wound it up and started it going.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Raptor
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:30 PM

I know I'm severly late on this topic but I just saw this film and I cried when the kids with bullets in them actualy got K-Mart to stop selling bullets.

If for nothing else that is good enough to give an award to Micheal Moore!

Guns Do Kill people!
Too many people!

Do people actualy hunt with a nine millimeter!
Are they being used to feed famillies?

Forbes Mag tries to discredit Mike Moore.
Forbes is all about the rich white folks who get rich on the backs of the poor.
Mike Moore is a poor man who lost his job when the rich slobs that owned his company moved it to another country so they could save money on cheep labour, so he made a film about this to increse awareness.

Good for Mike Moore And good for K-Mart

Wonderfull movie, A rare thing in these times of poor entertainment comming from Holywood!

I enjoyed the point about the fact that the cops weren't going to arest people for the polution that kills people!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:19 AM

I’m certainly no expert on the classification of commercial films or the rules that determine their classification. I just figured the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was the body that determined the classification of “Bowling for Columbine” and that the film met the Academy's criteria. I probably tend toward GUEST's definition but, as it turns out, I'm not a member of the Academy. I also tend toward the academic definition of folk music—or Art Theme's definition, whicever is more restrictive—but the commercial world classifies Bob Dylan's music as folk.

I've taken the trouble to hunt down the Official Rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences because I was curious about their definition. The inquisitive reader will find the rules for documentaries on page 24 of this 55-page pdf file.

One can search the awards database at the Acadamy site or at ABC's Oscar.com site. All the information I can find leads me to the conclusion that a particular point of view is expected by the Academy for consideration as a documentary feature and it looks as though most of the past winners have presented their material from a chosen point of view.

While doing the background on documentaries, I chanced upon this review of “Monkey Trial,” a documentary about the famous Scopes Trial that pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Bryan over the Biblical story of creation vs. Darwin's theory of evolution. I hadn't realized that the whole trial was just a stunt by the city fathers of Dayton, Tennessee, to generate some commercial activity in their town. Now that's funny.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:30 PM

Some films which have been classed as documentary are in fact in some ways works of fiction, with rehearsed scenes and dialogue, more especially some of the pioneering documentaries - and I think that in fact it is quite fair calling them documentaries.

The defining thing about a documentary is that it is primarily interested in giving viewers an understanding of some situation or people, rather than in telling a story, even if it uses a storyline as a way of achieving this.

Michael Moore's approach is polemic rather than reportage, and he is quite open about that. Some people make films which at least aspire to lay out the facts objectively, and leave any judgement about them to the viewers. Michael Moore doesn't do it that way.

But then, in truth, a very large proportion of people making documentaries and programmes that claim to be "onjectve" are in fact in the business of producing covert propaganda - and sometimes the people making them are so embedded in establishment ways of thinking that they probably don't even realise that.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 11:08 AM

Mark Clark, I have to disagree with you about documentary film and folk music being a good comparison. There is no other definition of documentary, other than it is not a work of fiction, while still telling a story about a subject. The number of styles used by the filmmakers are endless.

It would be nice if "Bowling for Columbine", being as popular as it has been, would have had the knock on effect of getting people into theatres to see other documentary films, but sadly, that hasn't happened.

I believe the huge popularity of the film, along with the huge popularity of Al Franken right now, are indicative of real winds of political change blowing. Moore especially, by speaking from the perspective of a working class person, has certainly touched a nerve with the public for speaking up, speaking out, and challenging the status quo. I saw Franken on C Span last night, and he too was saying something is most definitely going on when audiences in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 people are showing up at Barnes & Noble for his and Molly Ivins' book store appearances.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:35 AM

Strick...
Getting louder? What do you mean but "getting louder"?
This is for Strick's "getting louder" voice mu comments in italics


TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

Yes, cool story, used to set up a rhetorical joke. Which police forbes.com? have you proved that Moore has lied or that there are conflicting stories. As I recall moore said, "witnesses said that the boys had been bowling"



MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.
ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

No Strick and Forbes Moore asked what the kids might think. Since the rockets built at the plant were originally designed as ICBM's and since the plant manager said many of them are built for Pentagon payloads. Moore told no lies here. Hes closer to the truth than forbes.com...    


WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.
ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

Moore said that the boy got the gun from his uncle's house. Is not mentioning the drugs a lie? Are you saying that the drugs caused the kid to bring the gun to school and kill?

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

Moore had the lady from the bank describe the whole process. Including the background check. The lady from the bank said they had guns in the vault. Just exactly which detail are you quibbling with?

The "louder" voice here is Strick's he's just carrying what he has as childish arguements with me from another forum. As you can see from the above his principal weapon is rhetoric If you really want to see him twitch, say soemthing nasty about his hero George Bush. :)

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 12:45 AM

I always appreciate a story told from the perspective of working men and women. I figure the moneyed interests will always get their story out but you often have go digging to get the perspective of working men and women. What always amazes me is that people who aren't being paid will sometimes adopt the view of the moneyed interests even though they can never benefit and are often hurt by the very ideas they espouse. It's as though they think some really rich guys will notice that they took their side and lay some major wealth on them out of gratitude.

Oohhhh, Put it on the ground,
Spread it all around,
Work it with a hoe,
It will make your flowers grow.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 12:13 AM

Moore himself says that he tells the story from the perspective of working men and women who never have their perspective presented. Roger and Me definitely did that, and I believe that Bowling for Columbine offered an argument against right wing governmental blame on Marilyn Manson, rock and (shudder) roll, etc. Normally, the average worker has to accept what "authority" states as true.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 12:05 AM

Part of the discussion here seems to revolve around the percieved ethical responsibility of a “documentary” film maker. Keep in mind that Moore's films are called documentaries because they are made in the style of a documentary and so are classed as documentaries by those in “the business.” This is much the same thing as Bob Dylan being classified as a folk singer because his compositions are performed in the style of a folk singer. None of Dylan's songs are actually folk songs.

Moore works to tell his story from his perspective in a way he hopes we all find compelling and entertaining. Some people think anyone with Moore's point of view is automatically scum. I don't think Moore expects to change the minds of those people. Moore is really aiming at people whose minds aren't made up and who may be too busy or too apothetical to have even formed an opinion.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM

was...rather unusual.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 07:22 PM

>>The professional profilers insisted that the DC shooters were white too, remember?<<

I had forgotten that. I suspect that's the hunter/killer psychotic profile though. A rare and aberrant species that we caucasoids get to claim in our membership. I still doubt that the middle and upper middle strata get to claim a major share of that 11,000 per year.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 07:09 PM

McGrath--and the Dunblane massacre shooter was...?

heric, Columbine is a suburban high school though, as have been many other sites of school shootings.

I don't agree that Heston was made a caricature in the film.

You are, I presume, aware of the NRA headquarters, located conveniently in suburban Washington DC? And this story:

Suspected Parkway Shooter Arrested

You can read about the alleged shooter's father here, at the People for American Way's website:

Daddy David A. Keene's political activities

Besides his chairmanship of the ACU, Keene sits on the NRA board and often praises the organization's legislative efforts in his column that runs on the ACU web site and in their publications.

And it all happens in the lily white, middle class environs in and around Fairfax, Virginia. Fairfax was the first in the nation to break the $90,000 median family income bracket and is statistically considered to be America's wealthiest county.

The professional profilers insisted that the DC shooters were white too, remember?,

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 06:25 PM

A male American.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 05:54 PM

I wasn't going to speculate other than doubting it was a middle aged middle class white excessive-television-watching couch potato.

My guess is that it is a young male of low socioeconomic status, rural or urban and rarely suburban (due to economics), and of no particular race.

The importance of that, if true, is that Charlton Heston and his caricatured followers (middle aged middle class white guys with guns at home or at the gun range) would be quite irrelevant to policy making, even though they stay in the eye of the storm. In other words, Heston, like Dick Clark, was possibly part of the notoriety calculation, rather than being included for either substance or credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 05:12 PM

"I would like to see a "profiler" draw up the true profile of the dominant, caricatured, gun killer. Moore didn't try that."

I agree it would be wonderful if we could draw up a true profile of the dominant, caricatured, gun killer. But I'm confused as to who YOU think that might be.

Moore didn't try that because it is an impossible task. Statistics in that area are no better for gun killers than they are on the police engaging in racial profiling, ie it has been done so rarely, there are no reliable statistics.

So when it is impossible to prove statistically, we Americans tend to rely upon our emotional and intellectual reactions to the anecdotal evidence presented to us by the mass media. For instance, I wouldn't deny that there have been some black male school shooters. But anecdotally, it appears, according to reports in the mainstream media, that school shooters are predominantly white males.

On the other hand, gang related killings, anecdotally, are most often presented to us by the mainstream media as having been predominantly carried out by black males. So, do I believe that most school shooter murders are perpetrated by white males, and most gang related murders are perpetrated by black males because it is true, or because this is the way that the media has reported on the issue of male gun violence, and framed the debate for us, as Fred Miller suggests above? And if that is the case, ie that the media is guilty of presenting anecdotal evidence as if it were statistical evidence, which they do all the time, in order to perpetuate myths about male gun violence in our society, then why are we holding Michael Moore accountable for pointing out those very sorts of discrepancies (though not "proving" them or providing easy, simplistic answers) that the mainstream media uses every single day in their so-called "objective" reporting of "facts"?

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 05:11 PM

Oh my goodness you can google the question to your heart's content. Look-see, for example (these are victim stats, not perps. But upon further googling, I don't expect I will learn that middle class white male excessive television watchers shot'm all up):

"Young people between the ages of 15 and 24 had the highest firearm death rates in every racial group (rates based on 10 year period 1989-1998). Rates were the highest among Black and Hispanic youth between the ages of 15 and 24 years, then decreased sharply in the older age groups. Rates among Whites increased gradually across the age span, with firearm suicides driving the rates among older white males. Rates for elder San Franciscans could be calculated only for Whites, because there were fewer than 6 deaths per age-group in the other race/ethnic categories.

Whites accounted for 36% of all firearm injury deaths, Blacks accounted for 31%, Hispanics accounted for 11%, and Asians accounted for 22% in 1998. . . . It is important to note that controlling for socioeconomic and other demographic variables often eliminates patterns that manifest in terms of race."

http://www.tf.org/tf/injuries/firea4.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:55 PM

Guest: I'm a middle class white American - male, no less - and I understand the fear of unemployment and living the hard life of say, Flynt, Michigan. As a result I fearfully WORK HARDER, which is the main thing I'm trying to correct in fostering my self-development.

I have also live urban for the past fifteen years at least. Ten years ago (but no longer) my neighborhood was very dangerous late at night. As a result, I simply avoided certain areas at certain times. Making the leap to fear causes gun purchases and a willngness to pull the trigger is a place I just can't get to. But, that's what I did appreciate about the film. Moore accepted and acknowledged that that doesn't quite make sense, either. (I think he had to do to get to the point about YOUTH trigger-happiness, much less pre-schooler trigger-happiness.) That six year old, after all, was neither white nor middle class, nor could he have had too much time watching COPS on his resume. Marilyn Manson doesn't answer the Colmbine teenagers, but nothing apparently does.

Fear of black males doesn't do it either. I believe he over-emphasized that one on the notoriety calculation. I would like to see a "profiler" draw up the true profile of the dominant, caricatured, gun killer. Moore didn't try that.

It is, after all, a great mystery.


(Clinton: Your #2 is over-the-top.)

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:53 PM

As you will Guest. I heard critisims about the movie and offered sources that referred to those criticisms, made by people who've seen the movie, available for anyone here to see and judge for themselves. Offered links to both sides of the argument. I'm unworthy to repeat them without seeing the movie? I saw it and saw what was done for myself. At least one of the major criticisms is true, one that's unworthy of the filmmaker. I'm holier than thou because I looked for myself?

Peace Guest. I'm not knocking the movie or the need to rationalize gun issues in the United States. I just don't trust Michael Moore and wish there was someone more trustworthy taking up the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:50 PM

If those are the most significant "distortions" the critics could come up with in the film, they wouldn't have added up to much, even if they'd been accurately reported by the people knocking the film.

And looked at more closely they add up to a lot less than that.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:38 PM

Holier than thou heric,

I criticized Strick for attempting to critique the film and defend the right wing nuts creating all these conspiracy theories about it, without having actually seen it.

I have not had any problem discussing the film with people in the thread who actually have, which are mostly people like yourself who have just rented it on DVD or video.

I rarely watch television either, but I have a good grasp on the culture and climate of perpetual fear thing. I think it is epidemic amongst middle class white Americans in particular, whether they watch tv or not.

And I agree, "Roger and Me" was much more deserving of an Oscar than "Bowling for Columbine" which succeeded in getting people talking, but as film, wasn't executed as well as one would expect a Cannes and Oscar winning film to be. It wasn't nearly as cohesive a story line, or as well written as "Roger and Me".

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:38 PM

Sorry, the review I read of Franken's book saying it was designed to be read by people who agree with him was enough for me. As was a friend saying that it wasn't as good as his previous work. He said to save my money. Couldn't speak to it at all.

On the other hand, it is clear that Moore's editing of Heston's speech in Denver was designed to be misleading, to give people who view the film a false impression of what Heston said and when. That's a lie, plain and simple. I'm not claiming he's lying in general to discredit his cause. I'm saying he's lying in this particular because he twisted the facts and that damages his cause. I saw it for myself at your suggestion. Film and transcript in hand, it's undenyable. What sort of proof were you expecting? Would you like a copy of the speech?

If I find Moore as untrustworthy as Rush Limbaugh as a result, well that's my business. He's the same kind of clown as Jerry Springer. Disagree if you will, but dismissing me with the same tactic you describe being used agaisnt Franken, well, that's ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:35 PM

"someone who's trying to persuade with what they purport to be facts"
Show me facts that are not subject to interpretation...

"since Moore feels entitled to change the facts to meet his goals"
Find me someone, ANYONE who isn't... especially in entertainment...

" In my mind Moore's no different than Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Springer"
Why does he have to be? And is anyone any different? no...

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:26 PM

Okay - I saw it last night. I hope I won't get lambasted by this overboiled intellectual Guest running on overtime here, for having seen it too late - I apologize in advance for my tardiness, all right?

My impressions, for what they're worth: Pretty good humor, pretty honest in stating his biases and in revealing that the answers were not to be had. Rather luke warm in the been-there, seen-that, department as a re-hash of the Roger & Me style. The former should have been the Oscar winner.

I personally still could not have edited the Heston material as he did, although I don't think it was too over-the-top (Heston did have a silly smirk on his face as he said "Don't come here? We're already here,"- but that could be a function of his poor public presentation, which is his true debilitating handicap over the decades.) But, then, I'm not an intellectual egghead, or an artist, so my opinion isn't worth much. If Moore wants to perform a cost:benefit analysis on credibility versus notoriety, he's the creator and Oscar-winner, so that's okay with me.

I otherwise adopt the comments of Fred Miller above, adding that I think Lockheed and Dick Clark were both largely part of the notoriety calculation, and with one more point: I don't watch television. I don't grasp this whole culture and climate of perpetual fear thing. But my conclusion and recommendation to the rest of you is pretty simple, then, too: Trash your TV sets, and thereby, necessarily, lighten up. (Was that Moore's unstated conclusion: Addicted to television/addicted to fear?)

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:24 PM

"So there's no repercussions for creating a documentary in which the filmmaker re-writes history to suit his purpose, for example?"

It's done everyday. Called the network news documentary.

BTW Strick, you and no other critics of Moore's film, has proved he lied about anything. You are, however, guilty of painting with much too broad a brush, when you compare him to Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Springer.

That same tactic (claiming that the messenger is lying) is currently being used by the political right to discredit Al Franken, who actually had a boat load of Harvard grad students assisting him with the research for his book (it was written while he was on a fellowship at Harvard), and has included 26 pages of cites to substantiate his claims in it. Nonetheless, according to the political right pundits, which includes the Limbaughs, the Blitzers, and the Russerts, it is all a pack of lies. That is just plain lazy ass yellow journalism of the worst sort. Say your political enemy is lying over and over and over, without ever offering any substantive proof that they are lying, and pretty soon everyone agrees, the guy is a liar.

Well, not all of us are biting at the political right's bait and switch tactics there, Strick. Though you apparently have taken a big bite out of their misinformation campaigns, and swallowed them hook, line, and sinker, as they say.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 04:12 PM

Actually if stalking prey like Moore does was the issue, what would Mike Wallace do?

"Ya... the onus is NOT on the filmmaker to 'present unbiased fact' but rather for the view to watch critically..."

So there's no repercussions for creating a documentary in which the filmmaker re-writes history to suit his purpose, for example? A liberal version of "1984"?

Since we're supposed to view the film critically, I assume I have permission not to see the films of someone I know routinely presents falsehoods as the documentary truth? Why bother if I have ample reason to distrust the integrity of the filmmaker? I'm not talking about Mel Gibson changing the facts in "Braveheart", of course, but someone who's trying to persuade with what they purport to be facts. And I assume I'm entitled to ignore any argument another poster makes from one of Moore's movies or books since Moore feels entitled to change the facts to meet his goals? I judge the authors of books, left or right, that way, why not filmmakers?   

You really don't see that lying not only debases Moore's arguments, it weakens valuable cases being made by other anti-gun activists who become guilty by association? In my mind Moore's no different than Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Springer, someone who cares less about the truth than ratings. It's less about the message than enriching Michael Moore.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 03:37 PM

The cutting an editor does is as much the art of filmmaking as the writing, acting, and directing is. However, the point of that is totally lost on these right wing nuts.

Moore's most vociferous critics don't give a shit about the art of documentary filmmaking though. If they did, they would be criticizing his style, which I mentioned above. Moore's documentary style includes stalking subjects in his films and tv shows. He did it to brilliant effect in "Roger and Me" which neither the right wing nut conspiracy theorists or the mainstream media talking heads who hosted the "blast Moore" talk shows seemed to know anything about. Hellooo--if your are going to critique the filmmaker/review the film, shouldn't you at least know something about their body of work?

But the attacks against Moore had nothing to do with his artistic style. He is being attacked for expressing political opinions and points of view which rarely, if ever, are seen in the mainstream media, because those political opinions (which are on the radical left, not the liberal left, as so many claim) are anathema to the values of the mainstream media conglomerados and their supporters.

You see this sort of disconnect all the time with the talking heads. I was watching Washington Week on Friday night, and there were all the sparkling political experts representing all good mainstream media conglomerates like PBS, US News and World Reports, the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post blah blah blah blah. They were talking about the field of Democratic candidates running for president, and how messy the debates were for the media types to spin. And they said "why don't those losers just drop out of the race, and give the REAL field a chance..." meaning of course, those Democratic candidates of the far left, whom they named--now Sharpton, now Kucinich, now Mosley Braun...

The media whores who pounced on Moore and his film and his book "Stupid White Men" have that same disconnect with reality beyond their moronic Beltway state of mind that the right wing nuts have with the concepts of "fact" "truth" and "documentary".

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 03:05 PM

" I think any documentary filmmaker has the right to take that Jane Fonda footage and do with it whatever they please"

Ya... the onus is NOT on the filmmaker to 'present unbiased fact' but rather for the view to watch critically... Which I'm sure any film-maker (docu or fiction) prefers in an audience... The problem is in the quality of ones criticisim... The reviewer linked to above, obvioulsy has precious little grasp on the concept of film making... Especially documentary film making... Where ya, one edits and cuts and such for effect... The Heston stuff in question was pretty blatantly cobbled together from different speaches... he's in different clothing for crying out loud... any dullard can see that...

"some of us realize how thin and amiguous is the veil between truth and fiction"

There's a veil???

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 02:57 PM

Thank you for deciding to actually see the film you were previously reviewing without benefit of having actually seeing it Strick. I appreciate that you have taken your precious sweet time to do so, despite the fact that you seemed pretty certain in advance of what your reaction to it would be, based upon what you read about it at right wing nut conspiracy theory websites (most of those guys haven't seen the film either, I might add).

As to your example above. I think any documentary filmmaker has the right to take that Jane Fonda footage and do with it whatever they please, manipulate it any old way they want, and enslave it to the service of the story they are telling in their film.

You see, some of us realize how thin and amiguous is the veil between truth and fiction, and what a joke the concept of journalistic objectivity is. Some of us who regularly watch documentary films also know that they are frequently told from the highly subjective point of view of the filmmaker. There are no documentary filmmaking "rules" that dictate how the subjective opinions and point of view of the filmmaker must be depicted in the film. Nobody gets kicked out of the documentary filmmaking category at the Oscars for expressing their political opinions and point of view. That is just plain ridiculous, and shows how shaky a grasp on reality the right wing nuts have, nothing more, nothing less.

Subject: RE: BS: RE-visiting 'Bowling for Columbine'
From: Strick
Date: 28 Sep 03 - 02:32 PM

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Guest. I've now rented and watched the movie. With a transcript of Heston's speech in front of me. (The first time I ever been exposed to anything remotely related to the NRA since I don't have or use guns.) So at this point I'm entitled to express an opinion, right? Or is still trolling so long as someone's point of view differs from yours? Perhaps, it's just a personal dig, Oh Nameless One?

Here's my problem. Once you open this door you have to accept that it swings both ways. A hypothetical: a Viet Nam vet filmmaker wants to make a film about Viet Nam war protesters. He starts with a clip with that famous still photo of "Hanoi Jane" getting off the plane in Hanoi. He takes a speech she gave in Califorina at roughly the same time and edits it together making it seem that not only is she even harsher in her criticism of the war that she's giving a vividly anti-American speech from the capitol of an enemy power. He never really says that, he just makes it look that way with his editing. It's OK from his point of view because everyone knows, well, everyone he knows knows, that Jane Fonda is anti-American. Her "born-again" Christian thing is just a sham.

The facts are identical, so explain it to me. At what point does a filmmaker stop producing documentary and start producing propaganda? Or again, is the difference between the two merely what you agree and disagree with? Integrity is irrelevant so long as it supports a message you support?