|
29 Apr 03 - 10:15 PM (#943241) Subject: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST I can't recall now where on the forum I read comments/questions as to whether there was really a website trying to foment a backlash against Moore winning the Academy Award for 'Bowling for Columbine'. There are actually a number of them. Two particularly bizarre ones I have come across so far: http://www.revoketheoscar.com/ and this one: http://www.moorewatch.com The extremes that the right wing nuts will go to these days, to destroy people with whom they disagree, still takes my breath away. It is one thing to disagree with someone's politics. But this stuff goes so far beyond that, it is incomprehensible to me. Although I suppose it is no coincidence that the PayPal buttons are displayed on the front page of both sites. The only thing better than destroying the lives of the people whose politics they dislke is, I suppose, making money while doing it. |
|
29 Apr 03 - 10:48 PM (#943255) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest I liked 'Roger and Me' but haven't seen 'Bowling for Columbine'. Don't expect I'd find much humor in disarming America, if that's what it's about. PayPal, for example. PayPal is being sued under the new USA PATRIOT Act for financial infractions. Saw the story a couple weeks ago but didn't mark it. the Patriot act is supposed to protect against terrorism, but it's first BIG use is against a money-collection company which is doing well. This is Organized Crime strong-arming the local merchants, folks. The Mafia 'protection' racket modernized and nationalized. And if Michael Moore or anyone else ever succeeds in disarming America, it'll only get worse. The PayPal suit is what they do when we're ARMED. No telling what they'd do (the organized criminals running the US govt) if we were dis-armed. Did a google search for 'paypal patriot act'...first story out of the gate: "Online auction company eBay said its PayPal auction payment unit is being investigated for possible violations of the USA Patriot Act. In its 10-K financial report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, eBay said its PayPal unit received a letter on March 28 from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Missouri about the alleged violations. The letter says that PayPal violated provisions in the Patriot Act between October 2001 and July 2002 by providing payment services to online gambling merchants..." PayPal & the PATRIOT Act The mafia and gambling debt collection...now codified into US law. The business of America is now to suck the lifeblood out of successful businesses...and run them overseas if possible. America's in for some hard, hard times, folks, and I'd rather face these vampires with guns. The Nazis in charge are going to grill Michael Moore on a spit while they screen 'Roger and Me' someday, and I bet he comes up with a dandy sequel to 'Columbine' in the process. |
|
29 Apr 03 - 11:06 PM (#943260) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST That they would even give an award to such an imbecile like Moore is totaly beyond logic, but thats Hollywood for you. |
|
29 Apr 03 - 11:42 PM (#943271) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Barry Finn Why would you consider him an imbecile? Don't answer about his politics do better than that. Barry |
|
30 Apr 03 - 01:13 AM (#943303) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: DougR I saw a report on Fox News Channel (a slight pause while some of you upchuck)that consisted of an interview with the lawyer in Tucson that is suing the sponsoring organization of the Academy Awards. The complaint was that Moore fictionalized the documentary, and the rules of the Academy are that documentaries are to be just that ...documentaries, no fiction. DougR |
|
30 Apr 03 - 01:19 AM (#943307) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST Thanks Doug you answered Barry for me ;-) |
|
30 Apr 03 - 06:31 AM (#943375) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: ard mhacha Come back Joe McCarthy, but then Joe would be classed as a leftie in this US tyranny. Land of the free,my ass.Ard Mhacha. |
|
30 Apr 03 - 10:15 AM (#943514) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Leo Condie I don't particularly like Michael Moore, due to various reasons, but at least somebody's out there doing anti-establishment stuff and getting recognition. unfortunately, it's not bill hicks. |
|
30 Apr 03 - 05:07 PM (#943835) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Sam L Haven't seen it yet, but, there's a reasonable distinction to make between "fiction" and the hyperbole Moore sometimes indulges in, at least in his comments. In a larger sense, all documentaries are fiction, they edit, they select, they add up to an account that someone is responsible for. It'll be interesting to hear what the film contains that is allegedly fabricated. |
|
30 Apr 03 - 09:36 PM (#944058) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,pdc Actually, one site, which I will link below, makes a very compelling case that Moore actually faked, through either omissions or clever editing, much of the speech that Charlton Heston was supposed to have given at Littleton, Colorado, shortly after the Columbine shootings. I have been a big Michael Moore fan since "Roger and Me," and didn't want to believe what I read at this site. But the evidence is quite overwhelming. Here is the site: you have to check through it fairly thoroughly. Bowling Fact or Fiction? |
|
01 May 03 - 01:55 AM (#944155) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Nerd The three things Moore is usually taken to task for are: 1) the Charlton Heston speech, which edited together phrases from several different speeches. 2) the claim that the Columbine students went bowling with their classmates the morning of the shooting. This is genuinely in dispute, with several eyewitnesses swearing they were there and several swearing they were not. 3) the scene in the bank where Moore gets a gun as a premium. According to the bank, normally you would have to go to a gun shop to get the gun, but Moore's producer had called ahead and asked them to have a gun in the bank. Moore says that this is a lie, and that they in fact had a whole vault full of guns. Either might be lying, but no one disputes that he showed what "really happened" that day in the bank, without "fictionalizing" anything. In any case, the surprising thing is that you can easily get a gun as a bank premium, not that the gun is physically in the bank! I'm willing to concede that Moore's tricks, especially the one he played on Heston, may have stretched the boundaries of truth. But the only reason people are yelling about revoking the Oscar is because they don't agree with his politics. If "Winged Migration" had won, would people be complaining that "the birds wouldn't have acted that way if your plane hadn't been there?" How about "juxtaposing this shot of the flock of ducks with that one was fictionalizing the film because they were really filmed miles apart and on different days?" I think not. People normally don't care about this kind of thing, but when there's a political message they react according to their political position. Indeed, if Moore's editing had made Heston look more sensitive rather than less, the very people who are complaining would be happy as clams. So it's not about truth, it's about politics. In the end, documentary filmmaking doesn't tell an unramified truth, and people who claim it does or think it should probably don't watch too many documentaries and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously when they say they know better than the academy. |
|
01 May 03 - 08:30 AM (#944311) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: mooman The only problem I have with Michael Moore is that he hasn't gone far enough yet in unearthing the squirming vileness that is corporate USA and I also regret there aren't a few more like him prepared to challenge the corporate lies and nonsense of certain media giants. mooman |
|
01 May 03 - 09:12 AM (#944338) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST To make any claim that Heston was duped, which I think is bullshit, is what bothers me. Heston and his handlers are, in fact, very calculating and obsessed with "getting their message out". That is why the NRA refused, even after appeals by many political, social, and religious leaders, to postpone or cancel the NRA annual meeting in Denver 10 days after Columbine. No one seems to be disputing Moore's reporting of Heston and the NRA doing exactly the same thing--making an appearance in Detroit, Moore's hometown, just days after another tragic school shooting, involving two elementary students. Why do we suppose that is? I'll tell you why. That school shooting--of they youngest gun victim in a school shooting in the US--isn't on the national radar. Columbine is. Heston and the NRA know that. People seem to forget that some of us aren't buying Heston's Alzheimer's act. He is a professional actor after all, people. Reagan put his professional acting skills to the same use that Heston has used his with the NRA. Moore exposed a side of America that the right wing doesn't want us to see--the underbelly of the political, judicial, and corporate collusion to keep the guns flooding onto Main Street, in the US and around the world. He also exposed a side of certain kinds of Americans, from violent criminals, to the well armed mentally insane, to the largest lobby group in the US, to the weapons manufacturers, to the weapons distributers and sellers. At least K Mart was honest enough to pull their damn ammo off the shelves when one of the kids with the bullets still in them showed up to protest in their wheel chair. Which was the scene I found the most painful to watch in the entire film. I have absolutely no sympathy for a rich, jaded, cynical, power mongering old man, who has done nothing but sow the seeds of hate, bigotry, and intolerance for the benefit of the right wing extremists who have taken over the US without an official shot being fired from the Beltway, but leaving the streets of the US awash in the blood of hundreds of thousands of it's citizens in the past 30 years. Frankly, Charlton Heston won't arrive in hell soon enough for me, and I thank Michael Moore for exposing him for the fraud that he is. Not that I feel really strongly about gun violence or anything! But I live in a major urban area, where a lot of people have died needlessly from this shit, including a lot of children killed in the crossfire. I am sick of it, and I want the guns off the streets. And I don't give a shit if that bothers the Clinton Hammonds of this world. |
|
01 May 03 - 09:41 AM (#944353) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST P.S. I want to take away their SUVs too. |
|
01 May 03 - 03:37 PM (#944389) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Beccy "That is why the NRA refused, even after appeals by many political, social, and religious leaders, to postpone or cancel the NRA annual meeting in Denver 10 days after Columbine." Just one thing... The NRA did not commit murder in Columbine. Two fruitcake, homicidal, VERY disturbed boys committed that atrocity. Don't give me any vagueries about how the NRA's powerful gun lobby. Do you know what constitutes that gun lobby? Normal Americans who don't want someone to take away their firearms. It's no "evil corporate" strawman. It's your neighbors, family, and maybe even *gasp* some of your friends that pay dues to the NRA in order to have their voices heard in Washington. I want ILLEGAL guns off of the streets. You know- those same ILLEGAL guns that were not LEGALLY sold by law-abiding citizens. You know- some of those guns that were STOLEN or ILLEGALLY PURCHASED?? We DO have laws in this country regarding everything from how you cross the street, and how you purchase a home to how you procure and maintain firearms and people break them every day. Do you REALLY think that if you made gun ownership illegal that gun violence would just magically disappear? Not gonna happen, folks. Rant over... Beccy |
|
01 May 03 - 03:48 PM (#944404) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Little Hawk Look, if you want to remove the deadliest weapon in most North American households, it's the television. Just like in 1984. The television is the mind-controlling tool that has lobotomized North American in the last 50 years, and is now busy lobotomizing the rest of the World. Its purpose? To sell "product" and homogenize culture. Its effect? To destroy the capacity for independent thought and action. Take your gun and shoot the damn TV! By so doing, you will instantly reduce the influence of the $ySStem on your life and that of your children by 85% in one simple, decisive action. You will have time to actually participate in life again...to read...to play music...to socialize with other people in an effective manner...to exercise...to do hobby work...to function like a living being instead of like a sponge. If you don't have a gun, just use a handy blunt or sharp object, like a crowbar or an ax. DON'T give your TV away to the underprivileged...you will make life even worse for them than it was before. Kill the little electronic bastard NOW, and bury it in the backyard. - LH |
|
01 May 03 - 03:51 PM (#944407) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: DougR Pretty good rant, though, Beccy. :>) DougR |
|
01 May 03 - 06:26 PM (#944520) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Raedwulf Hawk's was better, Doug, sorry! ROFLMAO! "Kill the little electronic bastard NOW, and bury it in the backyard." Perfect! :)))) When it comes down to it, what is Oscar anyway? A gilded (or at least, highly impure) impostor with no balls whatsoever. Says it all about Hollywood, really, doesn't it? Oscars aren't about talent, they're about brown-nosing, backscratching & politics within Hollywood. Who cares? I can never understand why the bloody ceremony is apparently of such interest across worldwide TV... |
|
01 May 03 - 06:33 PM (#944523) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST Michel Moore is a card carrying member of the NRA. The problem is much greater than illegal weapons. Murders and accidental shootings with legal firearms have occurred by the tens of thousands in the last 30 years, since the weapons manufacturers decided obscenely huge profits were to be made from small weapons being sold as consumer goods. |
|
02 May 03 - 09:28 AM (#944847) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Sam L Raedwulf, the oscars are a very important ritual observance for many orthodox pessimists and skeptics. They restore our lack of faith in humankind. |
|
02 May 03 - 09:42 AM (#944857) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST What Fred says is very true. But what is also true is that the Oscar bestows a certain legitimacy based upon box office receipts, that will now make it somewhat easier for Moore to raise money for future film projects. I consider that a triumph (albeit a fleeting one, to be sure) over Hollywood cynicism. It allows us to occassionally have a last laugh. 'Bowling for Columbine' is hardly the best documentary ever made. But it is the most financially successful documentary in history. And that fact, combined with the huge success of his bestselling book, probably means something in socio-political terms, although it is difficult to put a finger on what exactly. For the most part, I think it is simple--Moore has gotten away with saying the political and corporate elite have no clothes, no scruples, no morals. But does that signal the welcome end of this era of Dixiecrat corruption, graft, and greed? Well, none of the crooks have gone to jail, and even when the politicians are found guilty of crimes and wrongdoing, they keep their jobs. Not a single corporate executive has gone to jail for looting their companies, cheating the citizenry out of billions of desperately needed tax revenues, and engaging in widespread fraud and deception made legal by the votes they bought in Congress. Is there light at the end of the tunnel, or is that just the train coming at us? |
|
03 May 03 - 12:00 AM (#945287) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: toadfrog Gee, (1) I read everything on that site saying Moore is a liar, and I fail to see where the meaning of anything Heston said was distorted. It was compressed to make it seem punchier. I don't like the idea, but after all, Heston did say all those things and he was quoted as saying and I see no injustice in cutting out the boring stuff he said in between. The meaning was not changed. (2) How does anyone know whether it is "illegal" guns that make problems? It seems that at gun shows, anybody legally can sell guns to anybody else off the trunk of a car, no license and no questions asked. People mail me catalogs where I can buy an armalite or its equivalent with a kit to make it full automatic. Who knows where they get my name. Who needs an "illegal" gun? (3) On the other hand, that part about Lockheed at the beginning did bother me. Aside from whether they were really making weapons, it's a long stretch to associate Lockheed with the shootings. |
|
03 May 03 - 01:33 AM (#945300) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Gun-crimes up 11% this year in California...with the most restrictive gun laws around. The criminals will always have guns, and the oppressive military regimes will always have guns. Law-abiding citizens need to have guns. NEED to have guns, to keep the playing field level. Buy guns and ammo now. You'll be glad you did. |
|
03 May 03 - 08:57 AM (#945360) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST toadfrog, Moore wasn't trying to link the parts about Lockheed in the film to the Columbine shootings. That is a major piece of disinformation the right wing is trying to put out about the film. The film's title does refer to Columbine, but the film itself isn't about just Columbine. It is about the culture of gun violence in the US, which Moore attempts to link (not very successfully in the film, IMO) to the militaristic culture of the US that has created the largest military machine in history. That is a large part of the problem with these idiots trying to destroy Michael Moore. Very few of them have seen the film. And if they did see the film, they wouldn't even grok the basic premise of it. The premise of the film was one man's study of the culture of gun violence in the US and military violence around the world, examined through the lens of his own home state. In other words, each vignette in the film has links of some kind to the state of Michigan. That is a major piece of the plot that never seems to get talked about when people discuss the film. If you see the film, which is well worth seeing despite it's flaws, you will see immediately that Moore uses this plot device to link what would otherwise seem (to those who don't see the links already) to be disparate threads. |
|
03 May 03 - 10:15 AM (#945377) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Peg I do not agree that the film is only about gun violence, gun culture and militarism. It also spends a great deal of time examining the influence of the media upon American citizens, and the manipulative and savvy way that media keeps Americans in a perpetual state of fear...so much fear that they helplessly cling to anything that makes them feel empowered to fight against the unnameable enemy (which is variously portrayed as disease, assault, rape, murder, fire, natural disaster, and the oh-so-scary presence of African-American males in the neighborhood). Marilyn Manson is interviewed in this film and is very articulate and insightful about these issues. He states that American culture is based upon fear and consumption: that these two impulses work together to keep people enslaved, and that the media promulgates both, and I think he is absolutely right. |
|
03 May 03 - 10:23 AM (#945379) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST I don't disagree with you Carol. But the right wing is really focused on trying to discredit Moore, and is distorting what the film is about. Here is a link to the 'Bowling for Columbine' website FAQ, which tells us what the filmmaker says the film is about: 'Bowling for Columbine' FAQ When the distortion reaches the current level, even in this thead, I think it is best to go back to the source, and get the word straight from the horse's mouth. |
|
03 May 03 - 10:24 AM (#945380) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST Oops! Sorry Peg! I meant to agree with your post. |
|
03 May 03 - 10:48 AM (#945386) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST And this is a cut and paste of the synopsis of the film provided at the 'Bowling for Columbine' website: ""Bowling for Columbine" is an alternately humourous and horrifying film about the United States. It is a film about the state of the Union, about the violent soul of America. Why do 11,000 people die in America each year at the hands of gun violence? The talking heads yelling from every TV camera blame everything from Satan to video games. But are we that much different from many other countries? What sets us apart? How have we become both the master and victim of such enormous amounts of violence? This is not a film about gun control. It is a film about the fearful heart and soul of the United States, and the 280 million Americans lucky enough to have the right to a constitutionally protected Uzi. "Bowling for Columbine" was the first documentary film accepted into competition at the Cannes Film Festival in 46 years. The Cannes jury unanimously awarded it the 55th Anniversary Prize. From a look at the Columbine High School security camera tapes to the home of Oscar-winning NRA President Charlton Heston, from a young man who makes homemade napalm with The Anarchist's Cookbook to the murder of a six-year-old girl by another six-year-old, "Bowling for Columbine" is a journey through America, and through our past, hoping to discover why our pursuit of happiness is so riddled with violence." |
|
03 May 03 - 03:19 PM (#945490) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Beccy: Hard to say that the NRA's out protecting the "rights" of normal gun-owning people after their little diatribe against taggants in explosives such as balck powder. Taggants are little microscopic particles that survive the explosion and can be detected in the debris. They can help to trace the source of the explosives after a bombing. The NRA initially resisted this requirement, based on hokey "evidence" that the taggants would somehow make the explosives less stable (LOL). But the real reason for their ire was the idea that there's enough nunguts in the NRA that are really loony and don't _want_ to make it easier for anyone to trace any kind of weapons. After coming under criticism, the NRA did relent on opposing taggants (IIRC), but it does give a good clue of the makeup and the aims of a good portion of the NRA. Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo |
|
17 Sep 04 - 01:57 PM (#1274263) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST If they can bar Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame just for gambling, then they should DEFINITELY revoke the Oscar of Michael Moore and his films of lies. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM (#1274271) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: pdq Not quite the same thing, GUEST. Admission to the Baseball Hall of Fame requires many years and incredible skill and dedication to achieve. The Oscar is a gold-plated dog turd given to people for political reasons. Always was. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 07:01 PM (#1274553) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Peace Physicians vs. Gun Owners Physicians The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health &Human Services) Now think about this: Gun Owners The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do" Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!! |
|
17 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM (#1274570) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: pdq Michael Moore knows that, and his new book will be called "Boweling of Colonostomies". |
|
17 Sep 04 - 08:00 PM (#1274622) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Bill D brucie, where you GET dem statistics? I see that silliness posted all over the internet, but I don't find a RELIABLE source. Anyone can copy & paste, but if those #s were true, it would mean that surgeons and such were killing people every week, since Podiatrists and Ophthalmologists don't do in very many. Makes me wonder if some malpractice attorney didn't make up some statistics... |
|
17 Sep 04 - 08:03 PM (#1274625) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Bobert Well, I reckon I ougtta be good and safe since I got 3 guns and none of them is out to get me but I'm not too danged sure about my doctor? Bobert |
|
18 Sep 04 - 01:53 PM (#1275060) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Amos No-one has ever claimed that accidents involving guns are the big issue. As our Furless Leader had aptly demonstrated, the big issue is when someone mixes high-powered weapons (handguns, rifles or bigger) with psychotic intentionality. A |
|
18 Sep 04 - 07:39 PM (#1275205) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Nerd Yeah, how many murders are committed with doctors? How many Doctors are employed in muggings? Ever heard of a drive-by doctoring? |
|
18 Sep 04 - 08:20 PM (#1275244) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller Well, the way I look at it-- All the firearm death statistics, the 2nd amendment interpretations, all the pro- or anti- firearm arguments are beside the point. The point is, prohibition laws don't work. The Noble Experiment didn't, and prohibiting drugs doesn't. Prohibiting porn never has worked. Prohibition laws make things profitable for dealers in the prohibited, and encourage organized crime, and disrespect for law. What we need is education, but that's not popular because it takes more time than passing a gun control law. Or anti-drug legislation. And if we want people educated we'll have to do something about poverty, and maybe build more schools & fewer jails. And that takes money as well as time, and a painful change in priorities. Much quicker and cheaper to pass ineffective laws. clint Seems to me prohibiting terrorism isn't working too good either. |
|
18 Sep 04 - 08:53 PM (#1275268) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Big Al Whittle the pro gun lobby always seems very vocal on this site. I don't know if that resembles how it is in America itself. I think perhaps Michael Moore is saying it for a lot of people who feel unease at the present situation and don't want to face the browbeating and ridicule, anybody who sticks their head over the parapet on this site does. I can only surmise that might be the case, as the subject is a wee bit less than fascinating for the rest of us who aren't directly involved. |
|
18 Sep 04 - 10:04 PM (#1275298) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Peace BillD, It's a joke I found on a gun lovers' site. Googled doctors, guns, joke (or something like that). Besides, guns don't kill people, bullets do! Make bullets illegal and the rest becomes academic. |
|
18 Sep 04 - 10:13 PM (#1275301) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller Damn straight. And how about making excess gastric acidity illegal too? I'd like that. I'd *really* like that. clint |
|
18 Sep 04 - 10:25 PM (#1275305) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Joe Offer Brucie, can you go a little farther with your statistics? How many intentional deaths are caused by doctors, as opposed to intentional deaths caused by guns? Accidents are one thing - murder is another. -Joe Offer- |
|
18 Sep 04 - 10:44 PM (#1275314) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Peace Good point. But, the doctors' mistakes are burried. |
|
19 Sep 04 - 01:53 PM (#1275673) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: shepherdlass So far, Moore's inaccuracies (reported with surprising zeal by the right) seem comparatively minor when viewed against the BIGGIE of recent times - Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction that could be armed and ready in 45 minutes". |
|
20 Sep 04 - 07:05 AM (#1276295) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Wolfgang The statistics Brucie has cited come from a joke page, but they are very roughly correct (look here for a better reference, one sided, but the numbers are alright). The joke comes not from using the wrong numbers in a statistic but from using an inappropriate comparison (this is by far the most common erros in susing statistics and not the outright lie). Let me just tell you another example so you see how it goes (the numbers used are from Europe, with less of random killings, and they are correct!): There are women, I have heard, who are afraid at night in dark public places when they see the shape of a male approaching and are sighing in relief when they see it is their partner/husband. How silly are they to be relieved when they see their partner instead of an unknown male, for it is well known that more women are killed each year by their partner than by males not being their partners. That's how it goes: you take correct statistics and make a silly comparison. More children are killed by one of their own parents than by anybody else. Shouldn't we take children away from their parents at birth to increase their safety.... The whole gun debate is a bonanza for anybody looking for abuses of correct statistics (in addition to that, a minority of the statistics are actually falsified, but that's not the main problem) Wolfgang |
|
20 Sep 04 - 09:43 AM (#1276402) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST Interesting comparison Moore made in Bowling For Columbine between gun ownership in the USA and Canada, and the respective murder rates for each country.... The comparison makes a salient point. Canadians own lots of guns, yet even with the adjustment made for the population disparity the murder rate for the entire country is miniscule compared to the murder rate in the States. Makes one wonder why. Marilyn Manson's contribution to the documentary was key, my opinion. He is a very astute (and music industry savvy) individual - still can't hang with his music long, though. His guitar player, John 5, has a new album out of eclectic music that - get this - includes some bluegrass and country "chicken" picking. It is a strange world in which we live. |
|
20 Sep 04 - 11:06 AM (#1276445) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: dick greenhaus Outlawing guns, IMO, is a fine idea. Gun control, as it exists and is proposed, simply doesn't work. If something doesn't work, try something else. (Pragmatist's Manual. rule 1) |
|
20 Sep 04 - 03:32 PM (#1276636) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller Sure, outlawing guns will work. Outlawing liquor worked, didn't it? Outlawing marijuana is working right now, isn't it? clint |
|
20 Sep 04 - 03:48 PM (#1276648) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Frank Beccy says, "Do you REALLY think that if you made gun ownership illegal that gun violence would just magically disappear? Not gonna happen, folks. I say it would make it harder for those who find it easy to use them now. If assault weapons were not on the street and illegal handguns, there would be a decrease in gun violence in the US which is greater here than any other country in the world. What kind of message does that send? No, it would not eliminate violence but it wouldn't make it so damned easy for those disposed to commit it. Frank |
|
20 Sep 04 - 04:11 PM (#1276661) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Jeri I was going to say the same thing Clint Keller did, but he got there first. Guns won't magically disappear if they're outlawed, and they won't stop being made and sold and owned. The only thing that will change will be who's doing the making and the selling, and possibly the owning. The crime rate won't go down, because criminals aren't usually concerned with where their guns come from or if they're legal. Another niche for organized crime to fill. |
|
20 Sep 04 - 05:26 PM (#1276727) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Wolfgang Outlawing liquor worked, didn't it? Good example, Clint. It did decrease the use of it, didn't it? Wolfgang |
|
21 Sep 04 - 02:04 AM (#1277005) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller "Outlawing liquor worked, didn't it? Good example, Clint. It did decrease the use of it, didn't it?" I don't really know. I haven't seen any statistics, and I don't know how you'd get reliable ones. There was a lot of homebrew around, and those people, like my grandfather, may not have gotten into the statistics. I don't know how you'd get figures on speakeasy/bootlegger sales. I do know that it was a great boon to Al Capone and the boys. It was difficult to get a conviction for bootlegging. Jurys didn't like to convict, and lots of cops and judges were bought. Institutionalized corruption, almost. I once looked through the arrest records in my hometown, and a lot of people who were community leaders at that time had convictions for liquor violations. This was in the '50's. I would imagine that it cut down on drinking by some casual drinkers, but not by alcoholics. But it also made drinking seem daring and glamorous, so no doubt some drank beause it was cool, like I did in my teens. Cary Grant and William Powell drank dashingly, right after repeal at least. I haven't checked dates to see if any of them were speakeasy scenes. When I was a kid Sherman Billingsley's Stork Club was a symbol of sophisticated cool, and it had been a symbol of cool when it was a speakeasy and Billingsley was a bootleger, too. Then there were people drinking wood alcohol after filtering it through a loaf of bread in the belief that it would "purify" it. And that sort of thing. 50 years ago it was illegal for the Indians -- Native Americans -- to drink and I don't think it cut down their consumption here, and it increased the drinking of wood alcohol and such. Of course that's "anecdotal, " like a lot of this post. The analogy with drugs at present and homosexuality in the recent past is really better, but people are more emotional about drugs and homosexuality than alcohol. Like guns. Lots of people want things prohibited because it's "right," whether it stops them or not. Especially legislators, who like to pass laws to indicate disapproval, whether or not they work. clint |
|
21 Sep 04 - 02:14 AM (#1277008) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller --And even if someone can't get a gun doesn't mean he can't or won't kill. Although it may be comforting to get killed with a rock instead of a gun. I heard a medical examiner say he thought there were a good many murders by automobile, becuse an observant villain would notice that deaths by car are almost invariably considered accidents and not investigated for homicide. We need a cultural change, and it won't be quick. You can't pass a law requiring it. clint |
|
21 Sep 04 - 02:30 AM (#1277014) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: beardedbruce GUEST,Frank "If assault weapons were not on the street and illegal handguns, there would be a decrease in gun violence in the US which is greater here than any other country in the world. " Assault weapons are fully automatic, and thus already illegal for most of us to own. Illegal handguns are, by definition, illegal. How would passing any more laws change the number or availability? And what country requires it's adult male citizens to keep fully automatic weapons at home? I guess the Swiss have the highest murder rate in the world? Of course, if you really want to reduce the crime rate, just outlaw freedom of the press, and freedom of religion: All part of the same bill of rights. Keep everyone locked up, and remember that anything not required is forbidden... |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:00 AM (#1277247) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Wolfgang Clint, to a short and debatable analogy I gave a short and debatable response. I'm glad you did not respond in kind. I agree that a decrease wil only be observed in a part of the population and perhaps not in the problematic part of the population. I agree as well that prohibiting something will not shut off the demand but canalise it into the illegal part of the community (Al Capone etc.). Therefore, since the access to legal guns is very difficult in Germany, I would have to turn to illegal sources if ever I felt a need for a gun. But that is true for anything that is illegal. And there is no country in this world in which nothing is illegal. Look at sex with children, for instance. It is illegal in each country I know. But there is a demand for that illegal activity. So whoever thinks that they need to do that whatever the consequences has to turn to criminals in order to get what they want. This consideration will not bring us to make sex with children legal, so the poor kids are at least not in the hands of criminals. A very extreme example I know, but I only want to make the point that the assessment whether the advantages and disadvantages of making something legal/illegal have to be discussed on a case by case basis and not by analogies. Wolfgang |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:05 AM (#1277252) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Wolfgang (what an incomprehensible sentence) read my last sentence as: ...but I only want to make the point that the assessment whether there are more advantages or disadvantages of making something legal/illegal have to be discussed on a case by case basis and not by analogies. Wolfgang |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:11 AM (#1277258) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST As Moore has pointed out, and someone mentioned above, the level of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with the legality or illegality of various types of guns. It has to do with our culture of violence, and the worship of violence as the preferred means of settling a grievance and/or evening up the score. Vengeance is a widely shared value in the US. We all have our guns in the US. No one has ever stopped Americans from owning guns, legally or illegally. It has also given us the highest murder rate in the world, especially among children. Makes you proud, doesn't it, that our guns make us so safe that we have the highest murder rate in the world? |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:35 AM (#1277275) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,TIA Another brilliant uses of statistics: Most automobile accident injuries occur within 25 miles of home at speeds less that 30 mph. Therefore, when you get near home, speed up. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:43 AM (#1277281) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Amos What works pretty well, right now, is registering automobiles from manufacture through their whole life cycle. I don't really know if it reduces the number of vehicles abuses, actually, but I assume it does, since reckless drivers can be traced by their plates. A |
|
21 Sep 04 - 02:42 PM (#1277536) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Wolfgang TIA, nice example. Other solution: never park closer than 25 ml away from home. (Somehow I have the impression that really would reduce the number of accidents though for different reasons) Wolfgang |
|
21 Sep 04 - 03:20 PM (#1277566) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: Nerd bb, as I've pointed out on another thread, several US government agencies recognize the existence of SEMI-Automatic assuault weapons. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 03:57 PM (#1277597) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Frank Brucie, People do have assault rifles in their homes. They are stolen and sold on the streets. No locked gun cabinet is secure enough. If they weren't available, this would help stop their proliferation. Perhaps next we should advocate freedom to own hand grenades. Where does this stop? As to prohibition, the logic is this. We prohibit crime. Does this mean that we should lift the ban on murder, rape, arson, fraud, drunk driving etc.because if we don't people will do it more? That's crazy. As to the effect of the media on the masses, it has become more and more irrelevant in its journalistic accuracy. As to the Second Amendment, there are no well-ordered militias today that need to defend against foreign invaders. The so-called right to gun ownership is questionable. Guest, Micheal Moore is only doing what Fox News does 24/7. The only difference is that in my opinion, Moore is far more factual and accurate. And fair and balanced. As to Charlton Heston, he knew what he was getting in to. He's been in show business for years. He represents one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and was selected as its spokesperson precisely because he knows what he was doing. Frank |
|
21 Sep 04 - 04:53 PM (#1277651) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller Wolfgang I can't quite get the words sorted out, but There is a difference between prohibiting actions and prohibiting material objects. Prohibiting drunk driving makes more sense than prohibiting possession of a bottle of wine for use in after-dinner drinks, or for use in gettting quietly looped. A target-shooting gunner is not more dangerous than a target-shooting archer. It would be ok to pass a law requiring a backstop behind the targets. And then, there's consistency. Are all you gun-ban people in favor of reinstating Prohibition, and including tobacco as well as alcohol? Of course that's more of an aside than an argument, but it's worth thinking about. Even if guns were successfully prohibited, are you sure that homicides would be decreased? There's a lot of bludgeoning and machete work in the world as it is. But my basic argument is that as far as I can see, we have a cultural problem, not a material problem. It seems to me that it's not the people with guns, it's the people with the will to kill. Members of my family have had firearms, including handguns, at least since the American Civil War, and haven't murdered anyone. Some people have kitchen knives and use them homicidally. They're cultural things. clint |
|
22 Sep 04 - 02:44 PM (#1278491) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller sorry -- "IT'S a cultural thing." Or subcultural? clint |
|
22 Sep 04 - 04:01 PM (#1278539) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Frank By this logic, we might as well produce poison gas, nuclear weapons and a SDI program that doesn't work. If you have the means to kill, you will have killers. Frank |
|
22 Sep 04 - 08:54 PM (#1278751) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: GUEST,Clint Keller Frank, if I could un-invent firearms I would. I just think you can't hardly keep anything out of the hands of people who want it. Particularly Americans. And I think that passing ineffective laws is a bad practice. That's all. I don't remember the dates, but when Europeans introduced firearms to Japan they were extremely popular, but the Japanese were able to stop their use and prohibit them for many years, maybe even generations. I'd have to look it up. But that was a different culture. Very authoritarian, which had lots to do with it, but I think the fact that the Japanese accepted the idea that guns were not honorable had more to do with it. But Our Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys. And they tell me that Japanese gangs carry short-swords. clint |
|
23 Sep 04 - 08:15 AM (#1279032) Subject: RE: Anti-Moore 'Revoke the Oscar' website From: kendall It's all England's fault anyway. If they hadn't treated we colonists so shabbily we wouldn't even HAVE a second amendment. |