After finally seeing "Bowling for Columbine" ...

[Darth Wong]

... in its entirety, I can finally say with absolute confidence what a pathetic bunch of nitpicking crybabies the "I hate Michael Moore" and "BFC is a pack of lies" crowd is when it comes to this movie. The phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" has never applied more accurately.

They rant and rave about minor details which have nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with the central point of the film. They scream about anything and everything related to the NRA because that is SO GODDAMNED OBVIOUSLY their pet issue, so they act as if a few minutes of footage constitute the entirety of the film. They paint Heston out to be some wronged saint on a technicality, even though the guy DID openly thumb his nose at the parents of Columbine, which was the only point Moore ever tried to make. They rant and rave about whether that particular Lockheed-Martin plant made components which definitely go into missiles, as if that has ANYTHING to do with the point being made.

It's pathetic; do you fucking people even realize how ridiculous it makes you look to go ballistic on such minor nits in a fucking two hour documentary?

[Stravo]

But is it any good? I have it on my Netflix list coming this week and have been anticipating watching it. I enjoyed Robert and Me.

[StimNeuro]

... in its entirety, I can finally say with absolute confidence what a pathetic bunch of nitpicking crybabies the "I hate Michael Moore" and "BFC is a pack of lies" crowd is when it comes to this movie. The phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" has never applied more accurately.

They rant and rave about minor details which have nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with the central point of the film. They scream about anything and everything related to the NRA because that is SO GODDAMNED OBVIOUSLY their pet issue, so they act as if a few minutes of footage constitute the entirety of the film. They paint Heston out to be some wronged saint on a technicality, even though the guy DID openly thumb his nose at the parents of Columbine, which was the only point Moore ever tried to make. They rant and rave about whether that particular Lockheed-Martin plant made components which definitely go into missiles, as if that has ANYTHING to do with the point being made.

It's pathetic; do you fucking people even realize how ridiculous it makes you look to go ballistic on such minor nits in a fucking two hour documentary?

Wait.. when did Heston thumb his nose at the parents of Columbine?

[Darth Wong]

But is it any good? I have it on my Netflix list coming this week and have been anticipating watching it. I enjoyed Robert and Me.

I thought it was quite good, and it did provide food for serious thought, particularly as many Canadian provincial governments are trying to move more toward an American-style model of welfare and social services (that's the issue that most people don't even know is in the film at all because of the shrill ranting of the NRA crowd who have made it out to be a gun-control advocacy film).

[Dahak]

But is it any good? I have it on my Netflix list coming this week and have been anticipating watching it. I enjoyed Robert and Me.

I really liked it.
Had a humoristiundertone which was quite pleasing.
And for a German, actually hilarious on occasions

[Illuminatus Primus]

What is the American-style model of welfare and social services vs. the Canadian model?

[Kynes]

Interestingly, I just watched it this weekend too.

I think you're dead on, Mike; the criticisms of the movie (while probably true) are totally and wholly irrelevant. It's not a gun-control advocacy movie; it's a documentary about the culture of fear in the United States. You'd think people would notice this when Moore explicitly makes the point that Canada has more guns and less gun violence.

The film's conclusions are easily critiqued, I think (Canada may have more guns but has a stricter licensing system and not as many handguns, for example) but NOT on the level of "hurrrr they didn't really bowl that morning!"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Interestingly, I just watched it this weekend too.

I think you're dead on, Mike; the criticisms of the movie (while probably true) are totally and wholly irrelevant. It's not a gun-control advocacy movie; it's a documentary about the culture of fear in the United States. You'd think people would notice this when Moore explicitly makes the point that Canada has more guns and less gun violence.

The film's conclusions are easily critiqued, I think (Canada may have more guns but has a stricter licensing system and not as many handguns, for example) but NOT on the level of "hurrrr they didn't really bowl that morning!"

I would really like it proven that Canada has more guns than the U.S., something that I find incredible. Even more guns per capita seems unlikely--unless, of course, you include illegal guns (someone--who worked in the Coroner's office there--once told me that there are enough illegal AKs and SKS' in the B.C. area to arm a PLA light infantry division), perhaps. Though of course it might depend on what sort of classification system you use, since with the lack of registration exact data for guns in the USA is naturally impossible to obtain.

As for the culture of fear in the USA--isn't that an inherently good thing about our society? We should fear any aspect of our country which has the remotest capability to gather power about it, but in particular we should mightily fear our government. That fear is the best brake on the excess of the government. Sometimes, quite simply, fear can be--like all other emotions--healthy, having its uses.

[Crown]

As for the culture of fear in the USA--isn't that an inherently good thing about our society? We should fear any aspect of our country which has the remotest capability to gather power about it, but in particular we should mightily fear our government. That fear is the best brake on the excess of the government. Sometimes, quite simply, fear can be--like all other emotions--healthy, having its uses.

I find that contempt works just fine for me here in Oz ...

[Vympel]

But is it any good? I have it on my Netflix list coming this week and have been anticipating watching it. I enjoyed Robert and Me.

Roger and Me.

[pellaeons_scion]

I find that contempt works just fine for me here in Oz ...

I would have said Apathy. This country (Oz) get up and go, got up and went a loong time ago. I think the only thing that could stir this place to any kind of action would be to a)Ban beer b)Remove the Dole c)Outlaw all codes of football

Aside from that, our pollies pretty much know theey can get away with almost anything.

On the Mike Moore show though, I quite liked it. I know its a bit of hyped entertainment, but Ill cheer for anything that challenges the current ideals of the time ( within reason). I know Ill get killed for this, but I say good for him for trying to bring another side of the story into the light.

[Crown]

That's because they are all essentially the same. They just have different masters, the Liberals have Kerry Packer, and Labour has the ACTU (that's the union board right?). As long as we maintain a good balance of power between the two, we limit both of their stupidities, and hopefully maximise their good qualities.

Although we were all ingrained with contempt for politicians at an early age, and I am sure that you have heard the following joke'

A politician is presenting evidence during question time, and a member of the opposition stands up and yells; 'Hey you are lying!'

'I know,' responds the first politician. 'But hear me out!'

They're all the same.

[Darth Wong]

I would really like it proven that Canada has more guns than the U.S., something that I find incredible. Even more guns per capita seems unlikely--unless, of course, you include illegal guns (someone--who worked in the Coroner's office there--once told me that there are enough illegal AKs and SKS' in the B.C. area to arm a PLA light infantry division), perhaps. Though of course it might depend on what sort of classification system you use, since with the lack of registration exact data for guns in the USA is naturally impossible to obtain.

Canada doesn't have more guns than the US; Kynes was exaggerating Moore's point. Moore only pointed out that Canada is hardly a disarmed nation, and it's true that the ratio of gun owners is roughly the same here as it is down there. Ergo, Canada's low crime rate is not a function of being collectively disarmed, but rather, a function of the way we treat each other. He pointed out the huge difference between a Canadian slum and an American slum to prove his point.

And the point was that Americans are made by their media to live in constant fear of The Other; a nameless, faceless threat to their security which changes from time to time but always forces them to sleep with a collective gun under their pillows. It also means there isn't much sympathy for someone once he or she is recognized as a member of The Other.

As for the culture of fear in the USA--isn't that an inherently good thing about our society?

No. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering

We should fear any aspect of our country which has the remotest capability to gather power about it, but in particular we should mightily fear our government. That fear is the best brake on the excess of the government. Sometimes, quite simply, fear can be--like all other emotions--healthy, having its uses.

And like every other emotion, it is bad when it is present in excess. America's culture of fear is hardly restricted to paranoia about its government (did you even watch this film)? There is fear of The Other, fear of one's neighbours, fear of whole social classes, etc. And when you treat people with a complete lack of human decency and sympathy (see lack of universal health care and "fuck 'em, let 'em get a job if they want to be treated like human beings" attitude), it's rather odd that anyone should be surprised when they return the favour.

[Coyote]

I think there is something to the 'culture of fear' idea, but Duchess, it is 'who are we made to fear' that we should be asking. Americans have an inherent skepticism about government power (I think that is what you were implying) but that is nothing compared to fear of the new, strange, unusual-- especially when it comes to people.

Fearful people, egged on by advertisers, buy things to make them feel more secure. I little bit of fear spurs people to become consumers-- and with the news edia's unofficial motto 'if it bleeds, it leads' can be seen as helping to spur that fear a bit. Also, keeping folks reactive to inflated threats doesn't give them time to ask a lot of questions.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As for the culture of fear in the USA--isn't that an inherently good thing about our society? We should fear any aspect of our country which has the remotest capability to gather power about it, but in particular we should mightily fear our government. That fear is the best brake on the excess of the government. Sometimes, quite simply, fear can be--like all other emotions--healthy, having its uses.

That fear did wonders against PATRIOT and her misformed brethren.

[MKSheppard]

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?200 ... 9059990811

Moore alters "Bowling" DVD in response to criticism (9/2)
By Brendan Nyhan

In the newly-released DVD version of his Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," filmmaker Michael Moore has altered a caption that he fictitiously inserted into a 1988 Bush-Quayle campaign commercial -- one of a number of misstatements and deceptive arguments we criticized when the film was released last year. Ironically, on the same day the DVD was released, Moore issued a libel threat against his critics on MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," saying, "Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel."

While we were among the first to call Moore on the inaccuracies in his film, most notably the alteration of the Bush-Quayle ad and his misleading presentation of US aid to Afghanistan in a timeline sequence, we were far from the only ones. Dan Lyons of Forbes Magazine also revealed several important lies or distortions, including the fact that the scene during which Moore receives a gun at a bank was staged. And David Hardy, an Arizona lawyer specializing in gun issues who has worked for the National Rifle Association, has compiled a voluminous list of allegations, including Moore's heavy and misleading editing of NRA President Charlton Heston's speech in Denver after the Columbine massacre.

Moore has generally refused to concede error in response to critics, in one case writing an angry email to Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert denouncing several charges as "Internet crap" and "not true." In subsequent correspondence for Ebert's online column, Moore wrote, "if I state something as a fact, I need the viewers to trust that those facts are correct."

While promoting the DVD release, he was asked about the charges by guest co-host Jerry Nachman during a August 19 appearance on "Buchanan & Press." Moore then attacked Hardy while accusing critics of libel:

NACHMAN: Michael, I want to start with what your critics chiefly say. And that is, while you criticize President Bush for being a fictitious president, as you called him, winning in a fictitious election, a lot of your critics say that your documentary should have been more like an Oliver Stone movie because of the liberties you took with chronology and facts in both "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine." You've heard that criticism, I'm sure.

MOORE: Well, yes. No, the NRA and some gun nut Web sites have really come after...

NACHMAN: Well, it's not...

MOORE: ... the film.

NACHMAN: ... it's not just gun nuts. I mean it's people who have tried to lay out a chronology of what you said happened...

MOORE: Like who?

NACHMAN: ... when it happened...

MOORE: Like who has done this...

NACHMAN: Well...

MOORE: ... that is not a conservative right-winger that has a vested interest in wanting to attack me instead of debating me on the issues I'm raising?

NACHMAN: This guy...

MOORE: Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel.

However, the release of Moore's DVD proves otherwise. As we first documented, when "Bowling for Columbine" was released in theaters, it featured a 1988 Bush-Quayle ad called "Revolving Doors" (Real Player video), which criticized a prison furlough program in operation when Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts. Though Horton was furloughed under the program in question, the ad did not explicitly mention him, unlike the more famous ad aired by the National Security Political Action Committee, which had close ties to Bush media advisor Roger Ailes.

But because this part of "Bowling" attempted to show how portrayals of black men are used to promote fear in the public, Moore apparently inserted the caption "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." into the ad, using a text style nearly identical to the ad's original captions. A casual viewer would assume that the text was part of the original ad. The fictitious caption more directly connecting Bush to Horton is used to back up Moore's statement, which runs over the sequence, that "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man."

However, according to the archived video of the ad linked above, media reports and interviews with a high- level Dukakis official and political experts, the caption did not appear in the original ad. Moreover, it was incorrect -- Horton raped a woman while on furlough, but he did not commit murder.

In a tacit acknowledgment that the caption was both phony and factually incorrect, Moore has altered the text in the DVD version. The caption now reads "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Clearly, every fact in the film was not true, and critics who pointed the alteration of the Horton ad (among other things) were not committing libel.

Moreover, Moore's correction doesn't make the insertion of text that wasn't in the original ad any more excusable. And he has conspicuously failed to correct the rest of the film's distortions and inaccuracies. While it is too late for the Oscar voters he deceived, Moore still owes it to the public to set the record straight.

Addendum:
The DVD also contains further proof of Moore's tendency to stretch and distort the facts. Hardy has criticized Moore for claiming that the plaque at the US Air Force Academy near a B-52 on display "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972. It was the largest bombing campaign of the Vietnam War." This phrasing insinuates that the plaque praises the bombing of civilians. It actually says the B-52 "shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi" on that date. The plaque does celebrate "the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26 year history in the command," including "Aircraft 55,003, with over 15,000 flying hours," which presumably included bombing runs over Vietnam such as the one on Christmas Eve, but it does not "proudly" proclaim that it was used to kill Vietnamese civilians. According to Ebert, Moore's response to this criticism was as follows: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing."

The DVD captures Moore exaggerating this still further, saying during a speech at the University of Denver on February 26, 2003 that the B-52 participated in the massive Christmas Eve bombing campaign. "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent civilians." In both cases, his representation of the plaque is extremely dishonest.

Update 9/2 5:12 PM EST: A number of readers have written in to point out that Moore's statement is a tautology -- that is, it is correct by definition to say "Every fact in the film is true." However, in context, he implies that all of his factual claims are true -- asserting they are facts -- and attacks critics of those claims with a charge of libel. As such, we stand by the post as written.

[MKSheppard]

even though the guy DID openly thumb his nose at the parents of Columbine

Uh uh, was this the edited speech that moore butchered to make it look like
he was saying something else?

[Darth Wong]

Thanks for proving my point about whiny crybaby nitpickers, Shep.

BTW, Heston's speech was not altered to change its meaing at all. I've seen the entire speech transcript, and not one damned thing about its intent was altered. Heston DID thumb his nose at the people from Columbine who didn't want him there. Deal with it.

Similarly, the article you quote is just another example of the whiny crybaby nitpickery bullshit that I was talking about. Omigod, there was a caption that was not entirely correct and said that Horton killed someone when it should have said he "only" raped someone! Oh no!!!!! And the lettering of the caption looked sort of like the lettering used in the original ad, so HE'S A BIG FUCKING LIAR!!!!!! And the plaque celebrated the bomber wing's glorious exploits (bombing people), but it didn't really put it in those precise words! Egad! Call the press! Fraud!!!!!

Fuck, you're pathetic.

[MKSheppard]

Fuck, you're pathetic.

*flips on Fox News*

"Ahhh, I love propaganda that I KNOW is propaganda, not crap that
gets passed off as truth by Moore and his ball lickers."

A lot of the stuff Moore does is really equivalent to what Dickstar
does - twist the meaning of words, etc etc.

[MKSheppard]

Heston DID thumb his nose at the people from Columbine who didn't want him there. Deal with it.

And how so? That annual meeting was scheduled well in advance of the
Columbine shooting, and they cancelled a lot of the stuff that normally
went on out of respect for the victims, and they STILL get slammed?

Fuck, that's pathetic.

[MKSheppard]

This mess reminds me of Michael Bellisides' Arming America,
which was nitpicked, and torn to fucking shreds by the pro-gun forces.

Moore's big mistake IMO, was touting his stuff as documentaries, when they're more dark comedies.

Or now you're going to tell me that the History Channel is a reputable,
reliable source

[Xenophobe3691]

Fuck, you're pathetic.

*flips on Fox News*

Never mention that channel again! That's the only American news organization available in Israel (CNN is for Europe), and just watching Anne Coulter made me wanna jump in the screen, grab a chainsaw, and start hacking.

[MKSheppard]

Never mention that channel again! That's the only American news organization available in Israel (CNN is for Europe), and just watching Anne Coulter made me wanna jump in the screen, grab a chainsaw, and start hacking.

You'll never hear me being an apologist shill for Fox News the way some
people are papering over Michael Moore's colossal fuckups in BfC

[Perinquus]

Thanks for proving my point about whiny crybaby nitpickers, Shep.

BTW, Heston's speech was not altered to change its meaing at all. I've seen the entire speech transcript, and not one damned thing about its intent was altered. Heston DID thumb his nose at the people from Columbine who didn't want him there. Deal with it.

You've repeated the allegation that he thumbed his nose at the people of Columbine Mike, but you have yet to point out how he did this.

In fact, the NRA and Heston apparently tried not to do so. While it is true that they held a meeting in Denver ten days after the tragedy, the meeting had been scheduled to take place long before the Columbine tragedy, and it was an annual members' meeting that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. There was no way to change the venue on sudh short notice, since that would have required notifying upwards of 4,000,000 members of the organization, and there was no way to know exactly how many, or which of the 4 million would be attending.

So the NRA went ahead with their meeting in Denver, yes. They could not fail to do so by law without losing the legal status the organization has. But they cancelled all other events that normally take place at these meetings (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies).

So how are they thumbing their noses at the people of Columbine?

Perhaps you mean Heston's speech. The one where he says: "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

These sentences are clipped out of different parts of a speech and strung together to give a false impression of callous intent. When Heston uttered the words "Don't come here? We're already here!", he was simply referring to the previous three paragraphs, where he pointed out that thoudands of NRA members were already living in the area, and that there were probably NRA members among the police and fire and SWAT team personnel who responded to the scene of the Columbine shooting, so the the NRA was already there.

Moore edited the speech to make it look like Heston and the NRA callously rushed to Denver in defiance of people's wishes, when that was not the case, and he edited the speech to make it appear that Heston was arrogantly stating that they had come in spite of people's wishes, when Heston was not saying that at all, and was merely stating that the NRA was, in a sense, already represented in the area before the request not to come to Denver was ever made by the mayor of that city.

He also added an excerpt - the "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" quote, with a shot of Heston waving a musket over his head - which was culled from an entirely different speech given a year later in South Carolina, and spliced it in there to make it appear again as though Heston was defiantly expressing contempt for the people of Columbine's sensibilities by grandstanding in the aftermath of an atrocity.

This is dishonest as hell Mike, and you know it. It's inexcusable in a work that represents itself as a factual documentary.

[MKSheppard]

This is dishonest as hell Mike, and you know it. It's inexcusable in a work that represents itself as a factual documentary.

Why is it okay for Michael Moore to lie, and make up shit, but not for
DarkStar to do so in a SWvsST debate?

Please, get back to me when you have a solid answer on that that doesn't
involve screaming outloud against "nitpickers" when you yourself nitpicked
DarkStar's bullshit arguments to hell and revealed him to be a lying SOB.