After finally seeing "Bowling for Columbine" ...

[Nathan F]

Same here in Tennessee. If no one is at home, then the doors are locked. If someone is home, then the doors are usually unlocked, and it is not uncommon for visitors to come right in.

You live in a small town, don't you? What's it like in big cities?

Hehe, I live in, well, a little bit of both. I am going to school in the third largest city in Tennessee, Knoxville. It is, frankly, about the same situation here. When someone is in the dorm, then the doors are unlocked. But we always lock the doors when any of us are left. I have friends that have their own houses, and it is much the same. People lock their doors when asleep or not at home, but usually unlocked when awake and at home. However, alot of that depends on the area of town. There are parts of town that I wouldn't think of leaving my doors unlocked...ever.

[Darth Wong]

There are parts of town that I wouldn't think of leaving my doors unlocked...ever.

Why not? One of the most fascinating parts of the film was a segment where Moore interviews a guy who pointed out that in LA when the murder rate dropped by some 20%, the TV coverage of murder shot up 600%. Small wonder people are scared, and I've seen American TV news; they are clearly trying to use fear to get you to watch. Every damned show is "breaking news" and "something you need to know for your own safety".

[Perinquus]

There are parts of town that I wouldn't think of leaving my doors unlocked...ever.

Why not? One of the most fascinating parts of the film was a segment where Moore interviews a guy who pointed out that in LA when the murder rate dropped by some 20%, the TV coverage of murder shot up 600%. Small wonder people are scared, and I've seen American TV news; they are clearly trying to use fear to get you to watch. Every damned show is "breaking news" and "something you need to know for your own safety".

I thought Don Henley pegged TV news reporters pretty well in the song "Dirty Laundry".

[Darth Wong]

I thought Don Henley pegged TV news reporters pretty well in the song "Dirty Laundry".

Ah yes, I remember that song. I think I might even have it on CD somewhere.

[Uraniun235]

Why should Heston apologize when he or the NRA has done nothing wrong at all?

I personally found this site much more useful, as it deals with the issues I have with BFC exactly: honesty.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Darth Wong]

Why should Heston apologize when he or the NRA has done nothing wrong at all?

I personally found this site much more useful, as it deals with the issues I have with BFC exactly: honesty.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Wow, this is only, like the 50th time someone has cited that URL! And the points have all been addressed many times before! Please read before you post.

[Dahak]

Just because a door is unlocked doesn't mean you can simply push it open.
You usually still have to use the handle. Which is something external doors tend to not have on the outside, at least here in Germany.

In fact, I don't know anyone whose door has a handle on the outside...

They don't have a handle on the OUTSIDE? That is...odd... What if police or firefighters need to get in, do they bust the door out?

Well, for me doors on the outside having handles is extremely odd.

And if they have to get in, they either get a specialist to open it, or bust the door.

[Coyote]

Damn, miss a day on the board and look what happens...

I went and rented BfC and today I'll watch it with Lilith. Neither of us have seen it before and we'll see what happens after we watch it.

While I agree that Heston should have made some public statement about the unfortunate timing of the meeting-- it would have been good PR-- the truth is it could have been that an apology for the timing of the meeting could have been interpreted as a tacit admission of responsibility by some. Face it, Mike, as much as there are rabid, screeching harpy gun nuts there are just as many rabid, screeching harpy antigun nuts too, whose mindless and fanatic devotion to their cause can almost make a Fundie seem like a charm school graduate.

An apology by Heston could possibly be turned into something very damaging to NRA interests. Face it, for some people, no matter what Heston or the NRA did under those circumstances, people were going to interpret it in whatever manner best suits them. If the NRA had their meeting in quiet, dark, basements out of respect, others would see it as 'hiding in shame'.

More after I see the flick.

[Darth Wong]

An apology by Heston could possibly be turned into something very damaging to NRA interests.

Not if the NRA was in the least bit interested in reaching out to moderates and worded it properly. Instead of:

Apologize? You want ME to APOLOGIZE?!?!?

a better approach would have been:

Well, I certainly regret the unfortunate timing of that event, and if we could have moved it out of sensitivity towards the parents of Columbine, we would have.

However, I personally suspect that if they could have, they still wouldn't have. They don't have to do something silly like blaming themselves for what happened at Columbine in order to show sensitivity.

Face it, for some people, no matter what Heston or the NRA did under those circumstances, people were going to interpret it in whatever manner best suits them. If the NRA had their meeting in quiet, dark, basements out of respect, others would see it as 'hiding in shame'.

They could have simply said something like what I propose. As others have pointed out, the NRA seems totally apathetic about reaching out to moderates; you're either with us, or you're with the leftwingliberalsoccermomguncontrolcommunistralphnaderharpies.

[Coyote]

Well, now that I have seen it myself....

I can understand the defensiveness of the NRA in this. Lets face it, the knee-jerk shrills of the anti-gun crowd are quick to lay the blame for every rampage shooting at the feet of the NRA. Any school or workpace shooting becomes the NRA's "fault" somehow in the eyes of fanatics.

This makes the NRA members quite defensive, and they they (we, I'm in that crowd myself) become way too defensive in return. Both groups end up as screeching monkeys, neither listening to what the others say. At the end of the video, when Moore wanted Heston to apologize, he'd already hammered home the idea that the 6-year-old girl shot in Flint was somehow the fault of the NRA. The NRA, and Heston, has been the subject of numerous attacks by agenda freaks and the emotionally bereaved time and again.

But the NRA did not shoot the little girl; the NRA did not shoot the kids at Columbine. Telling the NRA to apologize-- even if a carefully worded expression of regret for the timing would have been appropriate-- is seen by some as an admission of guilt. In this I think the NRA leadership has becme too hypersensitive to any perceived attack; but then again there is areason why that hypersensitivity has developed-- the crazed demonizations at the hands of the anti-gun-nuts who equate the NRA with the embodiment of all evil.

Mike, you of all people should know just how flawed Moore's presentation was-- after all, he presented Canada as a haven of racial tolerance where American minorities (especialy Blacks) go to unwind after a hard day. Your own personal experiences show that this is not the case. Watching BfC would have Americans believe that Canada is a place of tranquil ethnic harmony.

I think some of the movie was indeed sensationalism. The return of bullets to KMart; the fact that the Columbine kids lived in a city dominated by Lockheed Martin (where Atlas and Titan rockets were built) was just emotional pot-stirring and irrelevant. Charlton Heston was 'introduced' with his 'cold dead hands' comment but he'd already been 'introduced' by Moore in the beginning of the film-- in which Moore himself is spliced into a sequence where he seems to be shooting at Heston!

Moore also leaves out the background information that mentioned that Dylan Harris was raised in a strict gun-control househld where as a child he'd not been allowed to have toy guns or soldiers, and that the children had a history of threatening classmates and setting pipebombs. They'd even made a tape about shooting kids at school and showed it in class as a film project, which earned them only a verbal reprimand.

However I must say that much of the movie was spot on: the parts dealing with how the US pulic is manipulated by media hype and fear, and the media themselves. The BS programs like the 'welfare to work' program; the racial manipulation by shows like "COPS" and the BS hype stories about African bees and more recently stuff like SARS is a very astute damning of the fear culture that the US is fed on a daily basis.

I think the "nitpicks" in this are valid and need to be addressed. I think that Heston should have been more politic in his answers but I understand his knee-jerk defensiveness. There are some legitimate critiques about the presentation of facts involved, which can be interesting so long as it does not devolve.

[seanrobertson]

Coyote,

That's eloquently stated. I'd like to see you post more. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough for those other posts

I feel the more theatrical aspects and flubbed details, or what's commonly nitpicked, can be very important, but it all depends on how you approach the film.

My own approach is as follows: I don't dismiss the movie's mistakes totally out of hand; rather, I just considered them irrelevant in the context of the film's biggest "message" . Mike's saying something similar.

From that standpoint, some deceptive editing and/or weak fact-checking don't change the fact that I came away with a greater appreciation of how deeply engrained "fear" truly is in U.S. culture--something I was tacitly aware of but never gave much thought.

An analogy: SD.net's purpose is to demonstrate Imperial technical superiority over the UFP. That's very simple and, as we've seen for years, Mike's conclusion is valid, supported by a dump truck full of evidence.

Now, have I ever taken issue with some of the finer points on the site? Rarely, but yes; to cite something specific, years ago, Mike cited a number from the horrible DS9 "Battlelines." IIRC, Mike's own no. was about an order of magnitude lower than the actual 900 MW cited in the episode.

Edam in particular tried to attack small errors like that one, but to no avail: even where Mike didn't remember the exact figure from some obscure Trek episode, his conclusion remained unshakable. Edam, and of course dozens like him, could only nitpick, trying to knock some pebbles off the mountain's peak.

But back to BFC...

I think if you wanted to examine the film strictly as a documentary, as some have, these nitpicks could be quite relevant. (I've heard many suggest that, since other documentaries get facts wrong, it's okay for Moore to screw up, too -- a classic Tu Quoque.)

Also, I still think Moore's a ballcap-wearing prick with ears. I suppose if one approached the film in an attempt to demonstrate that he's an asshole, they'd have a pretty good framework in which to put those "nitpicks" to use.

Again, though, I tried hard to not judge the film's merits based on how well it fit the definition of documentary, nor did I care to seize what've been called nitpicks to show what an ass the guy can be. Both of those require that I expend a lot of energy talking about Moore himself, not the idea that he presented.

...I'm not going down those paths because, quite frankly, I don't think Moore's worth the effort. He won't use me to generate much more controversy/buzz by bad-mouthing his person, something he seems to feed off of (or worse).

I paid to rent the flick and got a little food for thought...my use for the guy begins and ends there.