Who the Fuck is Michel Moore??

[Gandalf]

Michael Moore is a socialist filmmaker. BFC is a documentary about American gun culture...his other films include Roger and Me and Canadian Bacon.

I've never seen it, since I'm not inclined to see what I know in advance I won't like.

Canadian Bacon was his? Cool.

[Nathan F]

OK, this is odd, it goes from Michael Moore to the war in Iraq???

the offtopic posts have been split~Olrik

Anyways, we had this exact same discussion on Moore a while back, and both sides ended up rehashing on the same arguments, neither side really winning. I still say that BFC is libellious (sp?) and full of deceit, while others might think otherwise. I have a feeling that our endless arguments aren't going to really sway any side to the other.

[Drooling Iguana]

After watching the movie and reading a few of the articles both criticizing and supporting it, the basic gist of the arguments seem to be that, while if you take the statements in BfC at face value there's no deception involved, if you interpret them in a certain way, turn your head to the side and squint a bit, you might come away think that he's implying things that aren't true. Basically, once you strip away the rhetoric, the critics are accusing Moore of over-estimating the intelligence of his audience.

[Peregrin Toker]

It'd be more accurate to say he's a propogandist for the far left.

Not to go off topic, but...

I have never seen "Bowling For Columbine", but I take this statement with a grain of salt since I have noted that in America, you're classified as a socialist if you support a working welfare system or oppose the war in Iraq. The McCarthy era has apparently left many Americans fearful of even vaguely left-winged ideas.

In Europe, we reserve the labels "socialist" and "communist" for those who support more than just welfare, market regulation and high taxes. (in other words - European socialists wholeheartedly believe in collectivization of private property, unlike Ted Kennedy and friends)

Columbine can be more easily explained as an example of a widespread societal trend of people believing that forcing your will upon others is the only way to solve a problem, because nothing else will work under any circumstances. When someone has that mindset combined with a lot of anger, bad things will happen.

As mentioned before, I haven't seen BFC... so I ask whether Moore implies in his movie that widespread gun ownership in the USA is directly connected to this "might makes right" mentality?

[Drooling Iguana]

As mentioned before, I haven't seen BFC... so I ask whether Moore implies in his movie that widespread gun ownership in the USA is directly connected to this "might makes right" mentality?

No. He makes a big deal out of the fact that we have just as many guns in Canada.

[Peregrin Toker]

As mentioned before, I haven't seen BFC... so I ask whether Moore implies in his movie that widespread gun ownership in the USA is directly connected to this "might makes right" mentality?

No. He makes a big deal out of the fact that we have just as many guns in Canada.

and he blames some sort of "culture of fear"???

What exactly is this "culture of fear" I've heard about??

(It's obvious that I've never seen BFC, isn't it?)

[TheDarkling]

and he blames some sort of "culture of fear"???

What exactly is this "culture of fear" I've heard about??

(It's obvious that I've never seen BFC, isn't it?)

It has been a while since I watched it but as I recall he goes about Canada asking people if they lock their doors (they said they don't) so he then went along and tried a couple (which weren't locked but it was in the daytime unless Americans lock their doors at all times in which case he may have a point), he then talked about news programs on both sides of the border and how in the US they were meant to create fear, I think he went onto say this fear was mainly directed at the faceless black youth.

[Stormbringer]

Except that you have not successfully exonerated the culture of fear as a cause, other than to simply state your dismissal of it.

Except Moore didn't prove any sort of meaningful connection. He just pointed fingers with really backing it up.

The "culture of fear" argument is hardly based solely on the notion that a particular Lockheed-Martin plant somewhere in America made missile components rather than satellite components.

No, it's based on the secondary facts such as the satelites and the supposed NRA connection. There's no real arguement of Moore's; it's just BS innuendo. That's all his arguement

Do you really think that Columbine can be simply explained away as spoiled kids and laziness?

It's can indeed by explained. Neither had a parent that bothered to teach the kids right or wrong. Quite simply you had pair of kids that had no moral framework and so they just got angry and acted out on their worst impulses. They were simply pissed off little fuckers that had no conciense what so ever.

The fact is that is a far more pertinent cause than any nebulous and half proven "culture of fear." Do you really think pair of rich, suburban American teens are so influenced by the NRA and Michigan Militia that
they'd do that?

[Stormbringer]

It'd be more accurate to say he's a propogandist for the far left.

Not to go off topic, but...

I have never seen "Bowling For Columbine", but I take this statement with a grain of salt since I have noted that in America, you're classified as a socialist if you support a working welfare system or oppose the war in Iraq. The McCarthy era has apparently left many Americans fearful of even vaguely left-winged ideas.

There's no question that Michael Moore's political veiws are to the extreme left. His veiws consistently match those of the extreme liberal. Even his defenders will acknowledge that he is indeed one of the far left.

Certainly he's no where near the conservative side of American politics.

In Europe, we reserve the labels "socialist" and "communist" for those who support more than just welfare, market regulation and high taxes. (in other words - European socialists wholeheartedly believe in collectivization of private property, unlike Ted Kennedy and friends)

I know he's not a communist nor did I ever claim he is. I do believe he is in favor of semi-socialism along the European model but that's a matter of public record.

[MKSheppard]

I think he went onto say this fear was mainly directed at the faceless black youth.

HAHAHHA

Michael Moore is a stupid git. It's the fucking truth - if a black teenager walks up behind me
looking like a gangbanger, I'm going to slowly reposition myself to either
waste him with a quick pre-emptive strike or to run like hell.

And my friend from New York said that up there, they locked their Car doors
in the freaking GARAGES...if that doesn't tell you what "dispossessed" inner
city youth do for fun...well...

[MKSheppard]

Canadian Bacon was his? Cool.

His one good movie.

"Sir, Omega team cannot be used against caucasians!"

[MKSheppard]

"Sir, Omega team cannot be used against caucasians!"

Actually it was:

"Sir, the Helms amendment and NSC order 725 both specifically prohibit the use of Omega Force against Caucasians."

[Peregrin Toker]

and he blames some sort of "culture of fear"???

What exactly is this "culture of fear" I've heard about??

(It's obvious that I've never seen BFC, isn't it?)

It has been a while since I watched it but as I recall he goes about Canada asking people if they lock their doors (they said they don't) so he then went along and tried a couple (which weren't locked but it was in the daytime unless Americans lock their doors at all times in which case he may have a point), he then talked about news programs on both sides of the border and how in the US they were meant to create fear, I think he went onto say this fear was mainly directed at the faceless black youth.

I see the problem - I don't consider it paranoid to lock your doors at night, in fact it can be prudent if you live in a place where burglary is rampant.

I think my family does this - yet nobody talks about "Danish culture of fear"....

There's no question that Michael Moore's political veiws are to the extreme left. His veiws consistently match those of the extreme liberal. Even his defenders will acknowledge that he is indeed one of the far left.

How far left?? Is it true that he's the equivalent of Ralph Nader, or is he even further left than that.

Certainly he's no where near the conservative side of American politics.

Yes, but simply being left-of-center doesn't make you a socialist.

I know he's not a communist nor did I ever claim he is. I do believe he is in favor of semi-socialism along the European model but that's a matter of public record.

You called him a "propagandist of the far left", implying that he was a communist.

[Glocksman]

You called him a "propagandist of the far left", implying that he was a communist.

I suspect the center of EU politics is further left than the center of US politics.

By US standards, Moore is out there on the far left. By EU standards, perhaps not so far out.

Conversely, I suspect that GWB would be considered much further to the right in the EU than he is in the US.

[Glocksman]

Forgot to add:

Just visit his website at http://www.michaelmoore.com and take a look at the archives and read for yourself and decide where he fits on the poltical spectrum.

[Posbi]

I never liked him that much (even though it seems the majority of Germans do like him...but then many people also like neon-coloured tight swimming pants, figures), but he finally lost me after I fund that 10th chapter of a book of his were he's basically just discriminating all Germans...

[Stormbringer]

How far left?? Is it true that he's the equivalent of Ralph Nader, or is he even further left than that.

He's in that general neighborhood.

Yes, but simply being left-of-center doesn't make you a socialist.

No, but being an advocate of it does. And Michael Moore's in general in favor of European model socialist country.

You called him a "propagandist of the far left", implying that he was a communist.

How does that make him a communist? I never implied that nor do I believe it. Far left does not automatically mean communist.

[Wedge]

after reading all the responeses I wonder if it is worth the effort to go buy and destroy as many of the DVDs of this crap-umentary as I can

That would be the hell of a good idea, I truly give you moral support to do that, wait not only moral support I encourage you to do it, I encourage everyone to do it. Yes, because buying as many DVD's as you can, you give him money, and with that you money you stupidity gave him, I would be able to see another of his documentaries.
I have and advise for you russellb6666 look BfC, and make you OWN fucking opinion, and do it with most of the things, not like you have done here. What would have happened if everyone would have said it was a fine, nice documentary, would you have told "yes i'm going to buy a copy now and worship it" ? I liked the documentary, what it let's you conclude after seeing it is that in the USA there aren't so many deaths by firearms because of the amount of weapons, to make this clear he gave the example of Canada where there is also a huge amount of weapons but not as nearly as deaths. So he (michael moore) tries to find out why. The answer he finds is, that's because "the culture of fear" and other social issues (for example the 5 year old kid who killed a litlle girl in class, he sais that they were living in his uncle's house, and the mother had 2 works in wellfare programm, she had to go to work 5 am so she couldn't supervise her kid and that's why it happened, because nobody had time to look for the kid). If you agree with this answers or not is up to you, but I recommend you to see it.

[Crown]

Damn Wedge, you beat me to it.

russellb6666, if you are curious go out rent it, and make up your own mind.

[Darth Wong]

It has been a while since I watched it but as I recall he goes about Canada asking people if they lock their doors (they said they don't) so he then went along and tried a couple (which weren't locked but it was in the daytime unless Americans lock their doors at all times in which case he may have a point),

There is less fear of crime here because there is less violence in general. But smart people on both sides of the border lock their doors.

he then talked about news programs on both sides of the border and how in the US they were meant to create fear, I think he went onto say this fear was mainly directed at the faceless black youth.

That part is somewhat true. I used to live on the border and I've seen YEARS worth of American TV news. Their news shows (particularly the local TV stations' news shows) are entirely based on fearmongering. They advertise the nightly news all day, and a typical ad sounds like this:

"Tonight on UPN50 newsline, find out about a deadly new threat to your health! ONLY ON UPN50!!!!"

I suppose that if you are used to that, it seems normal.

[Gandalf]

Canadian Bacon was his? Cool.

His one good movie.

"Sir, Omega team cannot be used against caucasians!"

"Gentlemen, there's a time to think, and a time to act. This is not a time to think."

[weemadando]

so basically he just took a bunch of different pieces fo speaches and things and threw it together so it looks like America would be better off with out guns. Is this a correct assesment of the documentary??

To be fair, only about a quarter of the documentary is based on fudged facts, misdirection, and other dishonest means of presentation. The remainder seems to be legit.

Legit in that it hasn't been edited to decieve the veiwer. It's stilll insanely biased and takes the worst examples and uses them as standard.

Oh come on. Its EDITING! I won't have this fucking argument again. Just because a speech is EDITED doesn't make it false. Technically then, all of the soundbites that you hear on the news are false. All of the blurbs on books are false. All movie trailers are false. All newspaper articles in which someone are quoted are false.

Yes, he had some factual errors in the movie, particularly in regards to the Lockheed Martin plant. But the simple fact remains that in the case in point: EDITING DOES NOT ALTER MEANING! I've watched the unedited Charlton Heston speech and the Bowling for Columbine version, which, though more colourful, does not in any way shape or form alter the themes and points of the original speech.

[weemadando]

And I am yet to see ANYONE make a reasonable counter-argument for the culture of fear claim, especially in regards to the gun-related death statistics...

So, going by the laws of debate and scientific conventions, that theory (the culture of fear) remains the accepted one until someone can debunk it or create a better one.

[The Dark]

There was an article in defense of BoC over at Kuro5hin.org, with many comments below.

Here's some pieces of the article:

2) The Lockheed-Martin interview. This is perhaps the criticism repeated the most often, and it also the most inaccurate. First, the actual quotes from the film are often reproduced incorrectly. The dialogue goes as follows:

Moore: "So you don't think our kids say to themselves, gee, dad goes off to the factory every day - he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?"

Well, as the son of a Lockheed Martin employee who does build missiles, I can honestly say that question never entered my mind. Of course, I don't consider the Patriot missile to be a WMD. The newest ones don't even carry a warhead, they're pure kinetic-kill AMMs.

McCollum (PR person): "I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us."

First, note the word "our" in Moore's question. Moore is not from Colorado -- his question is generic, not meant to refer specifically to the Lockheed Martin plant in question. McCollum understands it this way -- otherwise he would protest against the plant being mischaracterized. However, critics of Moore have cleverly ignored McCollum's response and presented Moore as spreading lies about the Lockheed plant.

Even Lockheed did not believe the public to be that gullible. In response to one Moore detractor, McCollum wrote: "Although other units of Lockheed Martin Corporation elsewhere in the country produce weapons to support the defense of the U.S., we make no weapons at the Littleton-area facility Moore visited." Of course, critics have conveniently ignored the fact that Lockheed Martin does supply weapons of mass destruction to the US military, and that the company is the nation's largest military contractor. As Moore correctly points out, it is bizarre for a society to openly embrace the production of destructive weapons, but on the other hand see no connection of this to everyday violence -- children learn by imitating adults.

Do they? My father was raised in an abusive household. His mother was an alcoholic who beat her children. He has raised his voice to me once (and I deserved it), and has never hit me at all. Why? Because he saw violence as a child and wanted no part of it. Yes, Lockheed Martin does build weapons of mass destruction. They have a total of ~8,000 employees in their Missiles and Sensors division. More than half are in the sensors portion. To give an idea of scale, the 8,000 is roughly 6% the number of workers Walt Disney World has. The number who work on actual missiles is slightly under 3%. For a supposed militant society based on fear, that's a mighty small number for the largest defense contractor. And I'll notice Michael Moore didn't mention that more LockMart employees work on the space program than on missiles. Or that there are more LockMart employees involved in housing construction that missiles. Or just about any other division of the company.

Yes, Moore makes this point through slight exaggeration by moving with the camera through the LM plant -- but he makes no incorrect statement. It is typical for his critics to jump on what is at most a slightly misleading implication, but in doing so, they themselves have, unlike Moore, made many incorrect claims.

If he wasn't addressing the Littleton plant, than why would the Columbine shooters think their fathers built missiles? In fact, they're one of the NASA subcontractors I mentioned earlier. If they had any curiosity at all into their fathers' work (like I do), they would have quickly found no military connection at their fathers' work. They certainly were not going off to a factory that "builds missiles." I do consider this an incorrect statement in its obvious implications, which Lockheed Martin apparently found convincing enough to require a public statement to dispel. That is not precisely standard operating procedure.

[Glocksman]

Just because a speech is EDITED doesn't make it false. Technically then, all of the soundbites that you hear on the news are false. All of the blurbs on books are false. All movie trailers are false. All newspaper articles in which someone are quoted are false.

Oh horseshit.

There's a difference between editing for brevity and editing to alter the content or tone of a speech.

Moore didn't edit for brevity, he 'edited' the speech by adding a line from a second speech that was given a year later and by picking out 7 scattered sentences out of an 11 paragraph speech and splicing them together.

Transcript of actual speech compared to the one 'edited' by Moore.

Moore's editing altered both the tone and content of Heston's speech by making him appear belligerent (both the added line from the speech given a year later and by stringing widely separated sentences together) and uncaring.

EDITING DOES NOT ALTER MEANING!

Read that transcript and tell me that the editing didn't change the meaning.

The speech as given is where Heston is saying that the NRA is already here because people from all walks of life all over the country are members, including people in Denver and the state of Colorado.

Moore's 'edited' speech has Heston defying the Mayor of Denver and falsely appearing belligerent. The meaning was changed by Moore.