Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Michael Moore Responds to "Wackos" on Bowling for Columbine

By Eloquence in Op-Ed
Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:21:56 PM EST
Tags: Movies (all tags) 		Movies

"Bowling for Truth", "Moore Lies", "Moore Watch", "Michael Moore Hates America" -- the right wing has been busy in its campaign to discredit filmmaker and author Michael Moore and his film Bowling for Columbine in particular. Last month, I wrote a response to the critique by NRA lawyer David Hardy, which has been the main source for many of the anti-Moore sites. But I was somewhat disappointed by Moore's responses to the criticisms -- Moore has always been Internet-Savvy, but up to this point, there was only a somewhat meager FAQ (the link is now dead; Google cache).

In light of his pending book publication in October (Dude, Where's My Country?), Moore is now fighting back against the "Lying Liars" (an Al Franken expression which Moore has borrowed for the title of his response). On his Wacko Attacko page, he answers in detail to the most common criticisms of the film.

His response to the famous "bank scene" (transcript) is particularly interesting. In my analysis I had to give Moore's attackers the benefit of the doubt and conclude that some prearrangement took place without Moore's knowledge. Moore now presents outtakes from the scene which not only show that it happened exactly as he says but also that both the bank and the media have deliberately deceived the public about the bank's policy. The WSJ noted in an editorial:

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says.

This paragraph contains more deception than Moore's entire film. A Forbes article repeated the claim: "You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check."

In the outtake, Jacobson explains the policy more specifically. Moore can pick the gun up immediately from their vault (which is not "two hours away", as some reports have claimed) -- he specifically asks Jacobson whether this can be done in the bank and Jacobson responds that it will only take a few minutes. The outtakes show him going through the complete background check and a bank employee returning from the bank's vault with the gun. The policy which the WSJ article refers to, the outtake shows, applies only to people who cannot come to the bank to pick up their gun. In these cases, customers have to pick it up at a licensed firearms dealer near them because the gun cannot be shipped directly. It's not Moore who lies -- his critics do, with impunity.

Concerning the claim that the Columbine shooters did not go bowling that morning, Moore provides scans of witness reports. But even though several witnesses remember seeing the shooters, Moore himself did phrase it as a question in the movie: "So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane?" Yet his critics accuse him of lying.

Moore uses the same, obvious explanation for Heston's NRA speech that I have offered in my analysis. He does not respond to the charge that he tricked viewers into believing that Heston's speech in Flint, Michigan happened 48 hours after a little girl was shot by cleverly highlighting a specific passage of a press release. I have debunked that claim in my analysis, however, and Moore responded by private mail to me that he agrees that it is a case of bad editing ("I would do it over differently if I could").

There is a lot more meat to his response to his critics, and he clearly shows that the media are repeating the false claims about his film without any investigative work whatsoever. It remains to be seen whether his Internet campaign can make a difference, but he promises that he will keep readers informed about the latest "wacko attacks".

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Google
o "Bowling for Truth"
o "Moore Lies"
o "Moore Watch"
o "Michael Moore Hates America"
o Bowling for Columbine
o response
o critique
o FAQ
o Google cache
o Wacko Attacko
o transcript
o outtakes
o Forbes article
o scans of witness reports
o Also by Eloquence

Display: Sort:
Michael Moore Responds to "Wackos" on Bowling for Columbine | 519 comments (481 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
Good stuff (3.27 / 18) (#1)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:59:29 AM EST

I find the ongoing furore over the film very interesting - its a war between the liberal and conservative media, and shows how both sides work - emotive language from the right (although Mr Moore can be accused of that too), evidence and balance from the left.

+1 FP.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

Shut the fuck up. (1.90 / 21) (#3)
by BinaryTree on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:09:18 AM EST

You stupid leftist ideologue.

Great Film (3.90 / 20) (#4)
by SleepDirt on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:09:27 AM EST

The very fact stories like this keep popping up shows what a major impact BFC made on people. Even if Moore wasn't 100% correct on his facts or without bias (rarely does a documentary pass this test) he has gone a long way in getting people to reconsider their ideas on gun control.

The funny thing is that the people trying desperately to discredit this film are only helping Moore by keeping BFC in the news. The facts they're arguing about really make almost no difference. The message of the movie is quite clear.

"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." - Hunter S. Thompson

Losing battle (2.50 / 18) (#6)
by SwampGas on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:16:03 AM EST

The constant debate is foolish.  He's anti-gun, some other people aren't.  End of story.

The horse is just about dead.

+1 (4.07 / 14) (#26)
by Attercop on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:12:00 AM EST

Whether you are for or against the film, surely no-one can have objections to the truth about it being revealed?
I see no reason to believe these additions to the whole are not the truth

Moore is a troll (3.56 / 25) (#37)
by baberg on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:47:06 AM EST

I enjoy Michael Moore's films, at least the ones that I've seen. And I started to read his rebuttal that you linked in this article. But then I get to the phrase:
...if I go after the Thief-in-Chief...
What the fuck is that? He just can't resist the chance to get a dig in to the President? Nevermind the fact that the rest of the world has moved on from the elections of 2000. Nevermind that the President has nothing at all to do with criticisms of Bowling for Columbine.

Michael Moore saw a small chance to fire a shot at the President, and he took it. How fucking immature can he be? Based on this article, and the comments he made at the Academy Awards, I have come to the conclusion that Michael Moore is a troll, and a pretty bad one at that. As such, I shall stop feeding him, both literally (with my money) and figuratively (by never listening to him again).

Moore the antithesis of balance. (3.50 / 30) (#38)
by duffbeer703 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:47:13 AM EST

You cannot film an unbiased account of the Columbine or other violent criminal tragedy through the context of the gun control debate.

Did Mr. Moore examine the Columbine shooters use of Ritalin combined with poor medical care? How about their parents complete lack of common sense or responsibility? Or the ineffectual school administration that does nothing to halt the systematic harassment of mentally unstable students? Or the medical community who accepts the use of narcotics to control the behavior of children?

No, he didn't. Instead he seeks out what his audience wants to see -- ignorant or incompetent gun owners and passionate people whose views clash sharply with his audience.

Instead of asking the hard questions (ie. Why did nobody spot a pair of socipaths plotting mass murder for weeks) he took the easy path -- "Guns are out of control!" And if you dare criticize St. Moore, you are branded a right wing lunatic.

Problems on both sides (4.36 / 36) (#46)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:31:01 AM EST

The problem here is that both sides are viewing this as an anti-gun vs. pro-gun debate. Every inconsistency that is pointed out in Moore's movie - even if it has nothing to do with guns - is viewed as a victory for the gun lobby. Every rebuttal is likewise seen as a victory for the anti-gun lobby. Since when did we decide public policy based on whether or not Charlton Heston is a racist? The arguments this movie provoked are not arguments over whether gun laws should be strengthened or weakened. They are arguments about Moore's journalistic integrity.

Credibility is a major factor in communicating a message, especially in a so-called documentary. While some of the criticisms of the movie are ludicrous, by and large Moore's credibility has been shot. The "while our children sleep" missile monologue alone is enough to remove this movie from the documentary category. It's sensationalism, and it's no better than the 10 o'clock news on your local Fox affiliate.

But really, what does his credibility matter? Most of the criticisms of the movie have nothing to do with gun policy. It's just flawed argument by the conservatives - Moore sensationalizes a rocket factory, Moore brings the bullets to K-Mart, Moore makes some questionable cuts in Heston's speech. So what? Does that mean we disregard any point he's trying to make? Moore still has a message. If you've watched the movie (and many of the critics haven't) you'll know that his message is about the culture of fear in the United States. It's a message about the dumbed-down media we consume, and the trust we place in sources that appear to be authoritative.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.

i was anti-gun (3.00 / 12) (#48)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:32:38 AM EST

until i saw this doco and of course the need to kill drduckhead

let's face it (3.65 / 20) (#73)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:54:57 AM EST

the reason why there are so many anti-Moore sites (face it, people still think Nixon was misunderstood - we have tapes but they have "he was a god fearing Republican") is that he made a popular movie that represented a real left challenge to the corporate/christian right. Has anyone looked at these sights, they make those Moon-landings-were-fake sites look good.

ciao

+1 FP (3.00 / 9) (#89)
by flinxt on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:59:29 PM EST

for the comemnts! ;)

droll.

Moore is an idiot (2.82 / 17) (#95)
by Mister Pmosh on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:07:47 PM EST

The thing that amuses me the most, in this post-9/11 world and with things like the patriot act, you would expect the left to pick up firearms as necessary. Instead, people like Moore will just whine about guns, and then whine when the government takes him into custody without charging him for a crime and sends him to Guantanamo. Perhaps his supporters will try and whine some more when this happens, or do something drastic and get a famous person to whine.

I'm a fairly liberal person, but people like Michael Moore are an embarassment and waste of space that distract from the real issues. He's just like the Ann Coulter of the left.
"I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl

Sorry, but there are still unanswered questions. (3.54 / 22) (#105)
by RobotSlave on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:32:58 PM EST

You can spin things however you like, but you can not get around the fact that we still do not know what happened between frame 210 and frame 225.

The crucial first shot was clearly fired while the limosine was occluded by the sign reading "Stemmons Freeway, Keep Right," and Moore must be held accountable for deliberately picking a deceptive camera angle.

The concrete abutment might seem like a perfectly reasonable vantage point to the naïve or incurious viewer, but the fact of the matter is that Moore deliberately chose his camera position to conceal the beginning of the critical sequence. This lie by omission is at the heart of his larger deception, which as we all know was swallowed far too readily by the Warren commission.

You can make all the excuses you want for his devious propaganda piece, but frame-by-frame analysis shows conclusively that Michael Moore was a knowing and willing participant in the larger plot.

I like your definition of clever (3.75 / 24) (#107)
by jjayson on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:39:22 PM EST

Apparently what you and Moore mean by cleaver is "able to fool people." I have no question that Moore's intention many times through out the movie was to mislead me. And it worked. I left the threater thinking that Littleton really did build weapons, that the NRA really did intentionally sneeringly throw their meeting with Heston's speech and all right after the school shooting, and many other things.

I don't like the fact that Moore would try to mislead me and then call me stupid once he did it.

It seems that the same thing that Moore rails against -- the media being sensationalistic, hyperbolic, and creating a climate of fear -- is the same thing that he does. Even if he didn't try to mislead anybody, he clearly tried to make us scared. He just sinks to the level of those he attacks and uses the same emotional trickery he hates. What the fuck is up with that? Why is he allowed to do it, yet get upset when other news outlets do it?

Moore has no integrity. Before seeing BFC, I read Stupid White Men and he pulled some of the same crap. I think that Moore needs to stop trying to get his message out and let somebody else do it. He has come to the point of being universally laughed at, and he only hurts the chaances of anybody believing any message that he has.

What a fool. Having so much power for good, but then fucking it all up.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo

So? (3.75 / 28) (#127)
by trhurler on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:55:29 PM EST

The problem with Moore's movie is not factual accuracy. Granted, it isn't entirely correct, but that's hardly its worst failing. Its worst failing is that it is a creation of Moore. Notice that on his linked web page, his arguments against various people's claims usually consist of not mentioning the claims and just calling the people "someone who thinks Bush is too liberal" or some similar meaningless crap. Well, that's what his movie does, too.

He deliberately makes Charlton Heston(a spokesman, and not a policymaker,) look like a cruel idiot. Those of us who have any sense were pissed off by the scene where he went to Heston's home; the man clearly wasn't prepared, and he clearly is a man who doesn't do public appearances without preparation, and so you shove a camera in his face and start hammering him with arguments, and that's supposed to prove anything other than that you're a bigger ass than he is?!

He repeatedly conflates empathy with argument. The grieving father mixed in with the NRA speech - does it actually mean anything, or is it merely intended to make people who already fear and hate guns and the people who own them angry and self righteous?

He acts as though guilt and fear based PR campaigns against the likes of K-mart are some kind of heroic activism. Frankly, what K-mart should have done was to hand him a copy of the FBI's justifiable homicide list for the previous year and tell him to kiss their collective ass.

In short, the movie has precisely zero arguments, and when Moore responds to its critics, he uses no arguments - he just calls them wackos and nazis and right wing nutballs and so on, because he has no arguments. He's a semi-talented filmmaker, but in most ways, he's just like Joe Sixpack: he doesn't actually try to have REASONS for his positions. He doesn't argue for what he believes in. He just ridicules what he hates, fears, or happens not to like, and uses appeals to emotion to "justify" what he does like.

The best part of his web page, by the way, was the part about "shutting the movie down on a technicality." The ONLY technicalities that might apply would be libel or slander, and even Moore has to know this. He could have fabricated half of the movie and gotten away with it - but hey, a little exaggeration in support of emotionalist bullshit that's totally devoid of any argument won't hurt, will it?:)

Michael Moore is nothing more than a demagogue who isn't good looking enough to run for office.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie
stop!! (3.88 / 9) (#135)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:27:26 PM EST

can people who are complaining how bad a documentary BFC is, could they please give examples of what are good documentaries (of a politcal nature - since we can all agree Cosmos and Life on Earth are great documentaries), then some of us pro-BFC people can see where we have gone wrong

ciao

Michael who? (3.78 / 19) (#140)
by Rahyl on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:51:19 PM EST

Who the hell is Michael Moore?

I swear, if you people cared half as much about the half-truths, white lies, double-talk, and outright deception spouted by your elected representatives (if you even know who they are), you'd realize that Michael Moore is a complete *nobody*.

Michael Moore is a film maker and story teller.  Nothing he does will have an impact on your life.  Your representatives, on the other hand, are far more important people to be concerned about, Republicans and Democrats alike.

You may not be into politics but make no mistake; politics is very much into you.

Michael Moore is a doo-doo head (3.80 / 15) (#148)
by avdi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:32:01 PM EST

The title is not intended to reflect my opinion of Michael Moore; rather it is a comment on the maturity (or lack thereof) reflected in his responses to critics.  The fact that he titles anyone who dares to question him a "wacko" pretty much sums it up - the man is not interested in dialogue as much as he is in schoolyard namecalling.

While Moore has a knack for attracting knee-jerk ideologue rage, a number of non-partisan and even left-of-center publications have found serious holes in his most recent film, as well as his older work. Perhaps chief among these has been SpinSanity, a non-partisan site which tears apart the work of Ann Coulter as readily as it rips into Moore.  SpinSanity has been fact-checking Moore for a long time, and even with this latest article he has still failed to address some of the issues they identified.  Moore, however, is apparently more interested in dividing the world into the enlightened Us and the "wacko" Them then in factual accuracy, as an illuminating quote from a television interview he did illustrates.  There he tries to label every one of his critics as a "conservative right-winger that has a vested interest in wanting to attack me".  Moore surely knows this isn't the case, but it wouldn't fit into the us-vs-them worldview if he admitted that some people are actually debating his fast-and-loose treatment of the truth rather than attacking out of sheer ideologically motivated enmity.

And ultimately that's why I can't bring myself to take him seriously or give any weight to what he says.  I don't care which side of the fence you are on - if you see the world as us-vs-them, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.  If you write off the factual arguments of your opponents because they subscribe to the wrong point of view; or, if you lump anyone who disagrees with you into a fictional category of mindless attackers then you have nothing useful to bring to the public discourse. It doesn't matter if it's "the good" vs. "the evil", "patriots" vs. "traitors", or "ordinary people" vs. "wackos" - it's juvenile and accomplishes nothing.  If Moore wants his opinions to be respected he needs first to respect his opponents.  That's something most of us learn in kindergarten.

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir

I'm confused (3.16 / 6) (#158)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:04:28 PM EST

Was Mr. Moore trying to be ironic?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -
So, what are we discussing? (4.12 / 16) (#163)
by raukea on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:25:38 PM EST

It seems strange to me that this whole discussion seems to get stukc on technicalities and other such issues. Do you peope actually expect a documentary to be absolutely unbiased and perfect? It does seem a bit stupid to try to destroy Moore's whole argument with stuff like: he edited tat bit all wrong, or he was too sentimental and he tried to make us feel afraid while criticizing the media's way of making people feel afraid.
I do not live in the US, I'm merely an observer, and thus have less reason to get all angry about this, but if the case of BFC is to be destroyed, perhaps the critics should try to address in some way the most impressive facts, to me, in the film. These being the incredible amount of deaths due to guns per annum for example.
So. Are the critics blaming Moore for presenting his argument in the same way ad flair as almost everybody does nowadays, or for seeing problems that aren't there. Everybody always disagrees about form and conclusions are subjective as well. But the main issue the movie was trying to address is real, right? That too many guns are used to kill people in the US?


Quod me nutrit, me destruit.
Yes, I've seen the movie (4.22 / 27) (#175)
by scross on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:13:57 PM EST

I felt like the movie really critised two things about US life. Neither of them have much to do about guns.

First, he lashed into the news media. Comparing the news media of the US with news media of other counties. He railed at how the US Media riles up people with so much fear and anxiety.
Second, he questioned a society that lets people get so far down that they have nothing to lose.

The movie talks a lot about guns. The movie does point out (not loudly, but it's there none the less) that gun ownership is not the reason for gun violene. As an example, Canada has high gun ownership, but low gun violence. The big difference between the two societies is a strong social support system and media that insn't as sensationalistic as the US media.


Cheers, Sarah

For your next Moore article (2.27 / 22) (#179)
by godix on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:24:21 PM EST

Perhaps you could tell us about the next time he wipes his ass after taking a huge honking shit (which of course he'll videotape, mix in with a NRA speech, add a few cartoons, and label as a documentary). K5 will vote it to front page, it seems there's enough people here who mistake BFC and the responses to it as intelligent dicsussion instead of the mastrabatory bullshit they both really are.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
Dumb Fucking Pinko (2.17 / 29) (#182)
by ph317 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:56:45 PM EST


Wake up to reality.  Go to your nearest gun range, rent a weapon, and pay one of the guys behind the counter for an hour's time to teach you to shoot.  Work your way up from there slowly until you aren't afraid that demonic guns will jump up out of nowhere and shoot you all on their own.  Eventually you'll become a real man, it just takes time and patience to undo the brainwashing you've been exposed to.

If I could ask just one question.... (3.90 / 20) (#193)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:55:50 PM EST

If I could ask just one question of Mr. Moore it would be this ....."What has changed?

What has changed between now and the 1950's. The per capita rate of homicide/violent crimes was much lower in the 50's then now (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html)

So Whats different?

Easier Access to Guns? ..... Sorry, gun laws now are much more restrictive then they were then.

More Guns? ....... Sorry, a greater percentage of American households owned a gun back then.

A Bigger Millitary/Industrial Complex? ......Sorry, the U.S. millitary was FAR  bigger in the 50's then now.

U.S. foreign policy? .....Hmmm, anyone remember a little thing called the Korean War. Seems to me we were engaged in plenty of interventionism back then.

A Conservative in the Whitehouse?..... "I like Ike!"

Racism?...... Yeah people of color were so much better off back then.

American glorification of violence?.... Ever seen a 50's Western.

It seems like alot of things Mr. Moore and company talk about have absolutely no correlation to the issue at hand.

When exactly did the homicide rate really start to take off? If you look at the chart you can see it spikes in the late 60's and early 70's ... past couple years it's actualy going down.

Hmmmmm.... wonder what big changes were occuring in American society in the late 60's and early 70's right around when the homicide rate took off.... anyone care to venture a guess?

Unintentional nail-hitting (3.00 / 8) (#196)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:40:22 PM EST

I think that, in his drooling fervor to prove that guns are in some way inherrently bad and that all gun owners are crazed and insensitive, Moore ended up making a very important point - one he probably didn't want to make, that is.

In reference to whether or not the murderers of Columbine High were bowling the morning of: Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb as blaming Marilyn Manson.

Good point! Couldn't we imply, through direct proxy, that just because the killers used guns, does not mean that guns are/were responsible for the murders or the actions of the murderers? This is, of course, opposite in logic to most of what Moore implied.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

After seeing the K5 Discussion (3.09 / 11) (#218)
by gte910h on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:06:31 PM EST

...I went out and rented the documentary. First off, I want to say its well done, and it is really cool how it got K-Mart to stop selling handgun Ammo. The other thing is I think even if Michael Moore is Anti-Gun (which I'm not sure he is from watching the documentary), I think his point is that the fact were afraid and armed is the problem, not the fact that we're armed. He keeps bringing up the Canadian gun ownership ratio (7 million guns to 10 million households). He DOES hint that he think that the Bombings and such that the past two presidents have been through are something that are a bit crooked, and disingenous for their reasons for going to war (implying that Bush II's wars are a solution to get our eye off the corporate scandals). He does seem mean to Charleston Heston in the piece, but he does bring up an important contradiction many american's would hit if they looked at their situation enough: Charleston Heston admits he's never been a victim of crime. He admits he has NO need for a gun where he lives for personal protection. Yet he keeps a loaded handgun in his home. I am anti-gun control. However I'm starting to also feel there is something deeply insideous with the popular american press. Then again, reading K5 doesn't help that feeling.

After reading the K5 discussion.... (4.09 / 21) (#219)
by gte910h on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:07:56 PM EST

...I went out and rented the documentary. First off, I want to say its well done, and it is really cool how it got K-Mart to stop selling handgun Ammo.

The other thing is I think even if Michael Moore is Anti-Gun (which I'm not sure he is from watching the documentary), I think his point is that the fact we're afraid and armed is the problem, not the fact that we're armed. He keeps bringing up the Canadian gun ownership ratio (7 million guns to 10 million households).

He DOES hint that he think that the Bombings and such that the past two presidents have been through are something that are a bit crooked, and disingenous for their reasons for going to war (implying that Bush II's wars are a solution to get our eye off the corporate scandals).

Moore does seem mean to Charleston Heston in the piece, but he does bring up an important contradiction many american's would hit if they looked at their situation enough: Charleston Heston admits he's never been a victim of crime. He admits he has NO need for a gun where he lives for personal protection. Yet he keeps a loaded handgun in his home.

I am anti-gun control. However I'm starting to also feel there is something deeply insideous with the popular american press. Then again, reading K5 doesn't help that feeling.


People don't understand the reason for the 2nd (3.87 / 16) (#239)
by xutopia on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:03:36 AM EST

amendment.

Back when the constitution was written, the right to bear arms was added to protect the freedom of people soo that if the goverment went haywire they could revolt and install a less corrupt goverment.

Today the American goverment has a billion times more firepower than it's citizens does with its missiles and tanks. Yet you as a citizen are not allowed to have nuclear bombs and such. The second amendment, for its intended purpose is useless today, all it does is allow justification for anyone to own a firearm or assault weapon.

I know one thing. I'd prefer that people be allowed to drive without a licence than having a gun without one.

Lack of focus (3.60 / 5) (#240)
by Belgand on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:08:45 AM EST

One of my greatest problems with the film was Moore's complete lack of focus. Sure, he ostensibly tried to cover gun violence, but this never got in the way of his pushing the rest of his political views on us. Time was also devoted to: corporations...BAD!, nationalized health care, actually having to work instead of just getting a welfare check for sitting on your ass is a bad thing, Flint, MI... which he's never going to shut up about, enviromentalism and probably a few things I can't recall at the moment.

Does he make some sound arguments? Yeah, on occasion he does. He brings up a solid question of why the US has such a large problem with guns despite other countries consuming the same culture, having just as many guns, having a violent history, and otherwise being quite a lot like us. He sullies this a bit by not using per capita statistics, but it's a fair point. He makes a good argument about media sensationalism, but sadly he's quite sensationalist himself and never fails to pull a publicity stunts when he can get away with it.

The fear argument, though, is never really tied directly to gun violence. He just sort of lets it hang for a bit and then moves on to something else. He never really seems all that interested in wrapping it up or trying to come to any conclusions regarding it. This is the greatest flaw, it seems like he doesn't really care what the problem is.

Primetime Doco (3.00 / 4) (#241)
by AIDENWA on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:43:35 AM EST

Bowling For Columbine is probably the only documentary most of my friends have ever paid money to see. I could almost say the same for myself had I seen the movie.

The South Park-style segment (don't you like how, on his page, he defends his proper rip-off of South Park's style against allegations that he outright licensed it?) and the incidentally cartoon-like cut of Heston's speech make it easy to enjoy Moore's sensationalist brand of edutainment.  

Though the amazing but formulaic Discovery Channel documentaries about Real Things have successfully refused to attempt innovation, and have maintained effective status as kitsch pastime, they have slightly waned in popularity, partially due to the recent events in TV culture such as Jackass and reality TV. The Discovery Channel, even while continuing its traditional programming, has flailed about in search of ways to bring documentary to primetime.

Documentary, like Dramatic Theater, has become a form that is sufficiently removed from the limelight but profitable enough that its power can be harnessed impressively. Thus, documentary, the cheapest kind of film to produce, remains shrouded in obscurity, waitig to be properly capitalized on. It is a massive force, but it represents no threat to the entertainment industry. When Hollywood desires for there to be documentary in public theaters, it will be there. And here it is. We now have a choice, as we in America love to have: the choice between BFC and Revenge of Tutankhaman: Ghosts in the Strip Clubs of Las Vegas. Moore's film was the year's token documentary. It was edgy and smart. No one sought out Moore's film because they wanted to learn anything about anything, but they actually came out thinking they had.

This is the new Prime Time space occupied by the documentary.

Oh, is he sad (3.36 / 11) (#243)
by Quila on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:24:40 AM EST

About the speech editing you said Moore responded by private mail to me that he agrees that it is a case of bad editing ("I would do it over differently if I could").

Of course he would! He got caught the last time he clipped up speeches so badly so as to make the tone appear to be exactly the opposite of what they really were. Next time, he'll make it harder to spot the obvious manipulation.

And then he has the nerve to say Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Bull. Any simple listening of the original speech showed that the message was that why would the Mayor want the NRA out when they're already here -- as in thousands of Denver residents being in the NRA. He wants to kick his own citizens out? Well, probably since he's rabidly anti-gun and NRA members wouldn't vote for him.

He still doesn't explain his portrayal of the NRA of making a reactionary march to Denver, not caring about the situation, when it was a planned event and all but the bare required minimum was cancelled out of respect.

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay

This is sad, turning a perfectly innocent and neutral hunk of metal into an image of evil. The rifle deserves better.

Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!  It's from the government, so it must true!  "I did not have sex with that woman." Yep, must be true! Also "There are weapons of mass destruction ready to deploy in Iraq." Yep, I believe it because the gub'ment told me so.

BTW, stats in other countries are often calculated differently. Some count suicides, some don't. Britain never counted IRA shootings in its stats.

Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact.

Then you would think they could at least get KKK and NRA founding dates correct, or maybe show how anti-KKK the NRA has been rather than making them look like sister organizations.

You can call the film entertaining and thought provoking, as it was. But due to an abnormally low fact/fiction ratio, it does not fit the definition of documentary.

This sums it up: So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN?

Call CNN and tell them you're tired of hearing Moore's inane blatherings on national TV. Sad, since I used to love him on TV Nation.

The movie 'jumped the shark'... (3.75 / 8) (#246)
by splitpeasoup on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:41:06 AM EST

...IMHO, at this point: Moore, at the conclusion of his meeting with Heston, sets down a picture of the little black girl next to a pillar in Heston's home, with ostentatious tenderness and a ridiculously sappy expression. Sincere or not, this ridiculous display makes the whole movie seem a quivering mass of liberal emotion, and casts doubts on how objective or rational it could possibly be.

As someone else pointed out, the chief flaw of BFC is not its real or perceived factual errors. That line of criticism is as disingenuous as jumping on Bush's six words about Iraq purchasing uranium, while ignoring the rest of what he has done to push the war, not perhaps in literal lies but in a gradual blurring of reality into subjective, self-serving mush.

If Moore wants to be taken seriously, he needs to avoid falling into the same trap, bending over backwards, if necessary, to ensure he is not only literally correct, but also objective with regard to the issues he discusses.

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Moore and Gibson. . . (3.14 / 7) (#247)
by Fantastic Lad on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:01:34 AM EST

Why I will be watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" very carefully.

~ Or ~

What's up with Mel Gibson these days. . ?

Let's take a look at what Mel has done recently. . .

"Signs" --That film about crop circles and alien invasion. Synopsis:

"A local pastor, recently having quit the robe after the death of his wife in a car accident, and the subsequent loss of his faith in God, rediscovers his belief in the Almighty through seemingly serendipitous events which allow his children and brother to survive an attack by evil, (and incredibly stupid,) crop-circle aliens."

-Message: "Trust in God, because Mel Gibson does, and he's a really nice guy! --And look at the proof of God's magic we provide by way of scripted serendipity. God makes you miserable so that he can love you better, cuz he's all knowing and you're not, so stop questioning, ye of not-enough-fluoride. --Oh, and don't forget: Crop Circles are creepy and bad. Don't believe in them, but if you should happen to slip and accidentally start thinking, then please, under no circumstance should you examine Circles without a gut-full of irrational fear!"

~~

"The Passion" --Gibson's new film about the last 12 hours of Christ. Synopsis (I presume):

"Christ is crucified, Jews are made to appear money-grubbing and cruel."

And the crowd goes wild. --The ADL is already going bananas over this, and it's still in the cutting room. . . (And this fact is also getting press, I notice.)

~~

"Fahrenheit 9-11" --The co-production between Mel Gibson and Michael Moore. Synopsis (I presume):

Many questions asked about the poor state of affairs in the US, few answers found, but lots of troubling stuff stirred up, innuendos provided by the likable and cuddly Moore. And similar to, "Bowling for Columbine", facts will probably not be quite as important as the message. (Oh, the evils of skewed film editing!) And I strongly suspect that the Jews will be popularly implicated through this film.

And the crowd goes genocidal.

--Everybody trusts Moore, after all. They gave him an Oscar for his previous film, and for his inspiring performance on Oscar night. (Now, I don't actually doubt that Moore really thinks he's doing the right thing, but man, the Evil Overlords seem to be playing him like a fiddle! I mean, come on! WHO are they going to allow to send the kind of message Moore did on Oscar night unless it fits in with somebody's Black Book Daily Planner?

At one Oscars show I seem to recall that they pulled the plug on that squinting, weird-sounding comedian whose name I've forgotten, because he started talking about masturbation. His broadcast never reached the other side of the country! --Yet Zionist-controlled Hollywood allowed Moore to slam the Bush administration on one of the world's most heavily viewed programs? Oh yeah, no agenda there!)

I suspect also that part of Moore's (probably unwitting) message is to make it cool and acceptable for people the world over to judge the US insane, violent and out of control, (which it is). This will make it easier to go to war with America when the time comes.

One might, however, ask, "But the Oscars?? --The very pinnacle of Zionist-owned Hollywood? Can't the Zionists add? Don't they realize what will happen to world opinion when it is popularly realized that the Mossad may well have had something to do with 9-11. . ?"

Oh, wait.

The Zionists don't want the Jews to survive. Hm. For some reason, I keep seeming to forget this little detail in all the hubabaloo.

-FL

NRA legal department (3.50 / 6) (#250)
by The Central Committee on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:15:16 AM EST


Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have.

I know you yanks are a litigious bunch. But have the NRA actually taken out lawsuits against people who deliver anti-gun messages.

You personaly are the reason I cannot believe in a compassionate god, a creature of ineffable itelligence would surely know better than to let someone like you exist. - dorc

and now for the grain of salt (3.66 / 12) (#254)
by Lode Runner on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:21:57 AM EST

This little gem over at City Journal should put Moore in perspective.

As much as the Right wishes that the Left takes Moore's arguments seriously, that's just not the way it is. (Make that the American Left; there are plenty of prominent European lefties who've taken to the notion that Moore is something more than the Progressive court's Yorick.)

Assumptions (3.41 / 12) (#285)
by izx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:49:51 AM EST

People who agree with Mr. Moore generally decry "violence" or "gun violence".  That apparently assumes that all violence is morally equivalent.  All violence is NOT morally equivalent.  Defense and attack are NOT morally equivalent.  This is so basic, it should be assumed, but evidently not by Mr. Moore.

Without clarity on this one issue, the gun debate will never get anywhere.  Is violence in self-defense justified?  Would you kill in order to save a life and prevent a murder?  Yes, absolutely, if it is the only way.  To refuse to defend yourself is equivalent to committing suicide.  To refuse to defend others, and stand by and do nothing so that you don't dirty your hands, is cowardly and despicable.

We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves and others by any means necessary, whether they be violent or nonviolent.  There is no "violence" as a universal category.   There is criminal violence (an attack on peaceful people), and there is justified or even praiseworthy violence (an attack on those committing criminal violence, with the goal of stopping them).  Violence is not the problem, cowardice is the problem.  Indeed, people who decry all violence are the ultimate moral cowards.

I will only point out that at the next high school shooting after Columbine (at Pearle, MA), the perpetrator was quickly stopped by the vice-principal pointing a gun at him and asking "Why are you shooting my students?"


bowlingfortruth? (2.83 / 6) (#301)
by borbjo on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:37:39 PM EST

bowlingfortruth.com makes a correction on their main page:
"*Note: I made a mistake! I said that 'Bowling For Truth has had an incredible opening with over 16,000 unique hits in just the last 3 weeks!' - I rechecked the stats and those are just website referrals - the actual number of visitors is 246,540!"

.. wow! 246,540 visitors! Or, err.. a quick look at their stats page show that they are lying! Bowling for TRUTH my ass!

Appropriate (3.63 / 11) (#315)
by osm on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:43:14 PM EST

It's appropriate that Michael Moore would borrow an expression from Al Franken. I have not seen any of Moore's movies and I have not read any of Franken's books. After seeing both of them speaking in various venues, I have no interest in either one. They both strike me as being highly irrational with no interest in any "truth" that doesn't support their overly-emotional, foaming-at-the-mouth fantasies - basically they are the left's answer to Anne Coulter, who is just as psychotic.

I really think it's unfortunate that any of them get the attention they do, but people like a spectacle. I suspect that the majority of Americans are mostly middle-of-the-road. Watching these nutcases go at each other is about like watching a Godzilla movie or Jerry Springer for the politically-interested.

--------
4thelulz.org

Obviously (2.81 / 11) (#348)
by wij on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:56:24 PM EST

Michael Moore defines Truth. Therefore, his opponents are lying liars. QED

"I am an intellectual of great merit, yet I am not adequately compensated for this by capitalism; this is the reason for my opposition to it."
Disney funds Moore (3.00 / 7) (#352)
by AIDENWA on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:18:10 PM EST

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86678,00.html

Disney, of course, are also responsible for a classic documentary Lemming scene.

ah, whatever. (3.92 / 14) (#353)
by sfenders on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:37:42 PM EST

I like Moore's style; very entertaining, makes some good points.  But given the kind of cheap shots and emotionally-manipulative innuendo in Bowling for Columbine, it seems ridiculous for him to be taking offense when his critics fail to live up to any standard of rational argument.

The things that bothered me about the film had nothing to do with the kind of criticisms he responds to.  Things like whether the bank scene was "staged" seem beneath notice.  There were larger problems.  

For instance, the K-Mart thing.  I mean, are guns the problem, or not?  I thought the film made a pretty good argument that fear, bravado, and paranoia were more responsible for the problems than the availability of cheap ammo.  Even if that's not the case, picking on the retailer that happened to sell the particular rounds that were used in a crime seems pointless, when dozens of other shops would be happy to take the business.  I found a little dark humor in reading about K-Mart going into Chapter 11 the same week I saw the film.  And the way he brought the kids into it, playing on their emotion, looked to me like it was motivated by disingenuous exploitation rather than any desire to do good.

The performance at Charlston Heston's pad also came off as shallow and ... well, stupid.  Both of them seemed about equally pathetic in the scene.  In making fun of the old guy, Mike made an ass of himself by not really having anything to say.  It was just "Point at photo and look sad."  Yeah, good argument Mike, that'll show him.  It was an interesting idea, but his performance was bad enough that I don't think it should've made the cut.

Still, I thought it was mostly a good film, despite the moments of crass dishonesty.  Moore's style sometimes leads him to failed attempts at high drama, but he's got the humor and imagination to make up for it.  If the film doesn't make a convincing case for anything, it does at least provide plenty of ideas worthy of consideration.

Of course, the more visible critics choose to ignore the meat.  They like to leap to the worst conclusions at the slightest provocation, taking any excuse they can find to believe what their prejudices tell them they should.  They pick on the superfluous details (getting them wrong much of the time) while missing any opportunity to make deeper criticism.  That gives Moore the room to make his simplistic response and have it appear somewhat relevant.

It's a festival of bad assumptions, failed analogies, faulty logic, and emotionally-laden rhetoric on both sides.  Public debate on this kind of hot-button topic is usually like that I guess.

Bad memes (3.81 / 16) (#404)
by Magnetic North on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 01:48:30 PM EST

There's people who's bad at taking criticism, and then there's Americans.

Michael Moore dares to come with some constructive criticism of the great ol' USA, and thus he must obviously hate America.

Get some fucking perspective. Even if you were the greatest nation on earth to live in (just you wish), it can't be so good that there is no room for any.. not any.. criticism at all!

This is what makes it so exhaustive to argue with Americans. If you even so much dare to hint that there is something that the US maybe, just maybe, should handle differently.. boy, you're in for a lecture.

It might be that you're more open towards each other, but several things make me think that you're not. For example: "Oh no, we're at war, if you criticize our president you could just as well wish for our boys to die.. and we're always at war!". Or what about just having two political parties, where the only discernible difference is the hairdos of the representatives.

The idea that you're the definitively best country in the world, in each and every respect, seems to be so deeply programmed into you, that faced with criticism, kneejerking is all you can do. It's a bad meme, but I bet you can fight it.



--
<33333
Is Bowling for Columbine really pro Gun Control? (3.76 / 13) (#409)
by scissorsmacgillicutty on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 03:56:38 PM EST

I saw the film twice and what I took away from it was not that there is a pressing need for Gun Control legislation, but that there is a pervasive culture of violence and fear in the United States. I've encountered liberal/left critiques of the film that take it to task for that very reason; by not addressing the availability of guns in the US, BFC obscures rather than clarifies the issue of violence in the States.

For me, neither of these positions trump the other. If, as the liberal/left critics of Moore would like, we have stricter gun control, I think there would be a corresponding rise in violence and murder by other means. On the other hand, guns are more lethal than knives and other weapons, so if they were controlled we would have fewer fatalities.

The film itself is well-crafted, effective, and engaging. That's not to say it's above criticism—for example, I think the connections Moore tries to draw between US foriegn policy and our domestic culture of violence and fear are quite strained—but the standard objections given (and now rebutted by Moore himself) are petty nitpicking.



Makes me weep for my nation (2.78 / 14) (#426)
by GooseKirk on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:58:51 PM EST

I absolutely refuse to believe that any sentient human being can take this "criticism" seriously. You mean to tell me that out of two fucking hours of heartbreaking, thought-provoking, serious crap, the best the right-wing can come up with is to attack the chronology of the three-minute gag piece that opens the film, and PEOPLE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY?!?

OK, even setting aside the fact that this criticism is FUCKING RETARDED, stop and consider the kind of person who would watch that bit of film, read that criticism, and then think, oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense, Michael would wait 10 days and take his gun BACK TO THE BANK and WALK IN WITH IT and say, don't you think it's kind of dangerous handing out guns in a bank? And consider the kind of person to whom that would be some sort of critical distinction - whether or not they actually handed him a rifle right there in the bank, woah, that totally discredits everything that guy has to say. Although, true, if they didn't hand him the gun right there, it would make the bit NOT FUNNY, and therefore not really worth doing in the first place. And why the hell is it so hard to believe a bank would hand out rifles in the first place? Yeah, it's wacky to people who don't live in deer-hunting country, but we're not talking space-aliens-raped-my-baby hard to believe. What the fuck fucking fuck. Two hours worth of material, and this is what people find to talk about. This country fucking sucks, and that's such an awesome example of where everything's gone perfectly wrong.

I'm not normally in favor of eugenics, but I'd personally snip the balls of any mongoloid who subscribes to this "criticism." We're definitely better off as a species without 'em.

Self Defense is the real issue (3.41 / 12) (#439)
by noise on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 04:04:51 PM EST

Does the automobile murder? Is the bathtub responsible if you slip while showering and crack your head? Is the personal computer itself responsible for the downing of an airliner during a hack on the air traffic control system?

The U.S. Constitution disallows prior restraint (according to the supreme court) unless it can be shown that a thing is inherently dangerous. Uranium is inherently dangerous. It can kill you without human involvement. Guns can not. Cars can not. Bath tubs can not. Unstable explosives can. Disallowing prior restraint is what keeps us free (as free as we are anyway...)

The correct way to deal with firearm misuse is through proper training. The NRA is the largest supporter of such training. Children that have been through such training respect life and respect the power of firearms. I know quite a few, do you? I have never known one of them to commit a crime. The NRA promotes a culture of self defense and training to support that defense. The NRA glorifies self defense. Self defense is not violence but a reaction to violence with the objective of self preservation. The NRA does not advocate handing out guns willy nilly. They support your right to own guns and recommend training. The NRA is tough on violent crime.

The entertainment industry as a whole irresponsibly promotes a culture of violence among the young. If you are over 25 and do not believe that, it is time to grow up. However, such entertainment is not inherently dangerous.

Critics of violence should concentrate on what leads people to commit violence and not on a tool for self defense. To equate self defense with violence because both can kill is insanity. On protects while one murders. It is no more complex than that. Those who do not value the right to self defense do not value life. The right to defend yourself is the real issue, not guns.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama, Tibet

The if there were no guns no one could attack you with one while true is silly. All that would do is place the attacking advantage squarely back in the hands of violent cuttlery wielding males. The Dalai lama owns an air rifle and defends his birds with it by firing into the air when the hawks come around. Gee, that sounds like what usually happens when a legal gun owner is threatened. Free Tibet protestors who are also advocates of gun control should chomp on that a while.

Moore expresses nothing of note in his film, except that he is an ass.

mumble mumble (2.33 / 6) (#486)
by JonDowland on Wed Oct 01, 2003 at 08:03:51 PM EST

'guns don't kill people, people do...' whine whine whine If people watch the film more closely, Michael Moore does not claim that guns are the sole reason america is a violent place to be. Indeed, he claims the exact opposite. Yet, there appears to be a glut of posts defending guns here. It's like the response to 'why do you own a gun' being 'because I am allowed to' .. what a fantastic reason.

He's a sexist, racist bigot (1.50 / 4) (#493)
by HombreVIII on Sun Oct 05, 2003 at 03:57:14 AM EST

And as such he shouldn't be considered any better than someone who wrote a book entitled "Dumb Black Bitches". Moore thinks I'm stupid because he doesn't like my color or that I'm in the minority sex? I dare him to come a little closer and say that. Of course, anyone having a problem with me defending my race and sex only have that problem because of which race and which sex that is.

A much better argument why Moore is full of it (none / 0) (#508)
by greggman on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:18:35 PM EST

It has nothing to do with his lying (or not) and everything to do with his message and sources

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/11/franke-ruta-g-11-22.html

Michael Moore Responds to "Wackos" on Bowling for Columbine | 519 comments (481 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!