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

Please (3.50 / 8) (#33)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:29:27 AM EST

"evidence and balance from the left"

I've witnessed first hand how the left leaning media operate and "evidence and balance" are so far from the truth it's not even funny.

I remember very clearly witnessing a news "show" about the gun control debate...must be 15 years back now...the reporter held up a Colt 1911 pistol and stated very clearly how it was a "fully automatic" weapon and how it had been bought legaly in the state (Mass.) without any sort of background check.... both of which happen to be bald-faced lies.

Read Bernard Goldbergs book, "BIAS", sometime I think it happens to be insitefull about how the left media works .... and since Goldberg was a CBS reporter for something like 25 years... he was in a position to know.

I won't comment on Moores movie, I haven't seen it.... and unlike some people I won't criticize a movie I haven't actualy watched.

[ Parent ]

Evidence (4.00 / 5) (#36)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:44:01 AM EST

I remember very clearly witnessing a news "show" about the gun control debate...must be 15 years back now...the reporter held up a Colt 1911 pistol and stated very clearly how it was a "fully automatic" weapon and how it had been bought legaly in the state (Mass.) without any sort of background check.... both of which happen to be bald-faced lies.

You're just proving my point. Things like the above need to backed up - as it is you could have made it up for all I know.

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

Gee (3.50 / 4) (#53)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:14:33 AM EST

Because I saw it with my own eyes!

You think I'm lying? How do I know every word out of your mouth isn't a lie? You haven't provided any more evidence for the statement that I responded to...

Your problem...and the problem with the left media is this.... People KNOW the truth. They know it because they have lived it and seen it with thier own eyes (just like I have).

You can spin as much as you like...once a person has first hand knowledge of something and see's the spin for what it is.... it no longer has any means to persuade them.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you...or anyone else. I'm telling you that I happen to KNOW what you are saying isn't accurate... from first hand experience. Anyone else that has first hand knowledge will also know the truth for themselves.

For everyone else... don't take my word for it...or anyone elses for that matter. Just keep your mind and your eyes open.... soon enough you'll see for yourself.


[ Parent ]

That's the thing though (3.80 / 5) (#78)
by jayhawk88 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:14:25 PM EST

People KNOW the truth. They know it because they have lived it and seen it with thier own eyes (just like I have).

Thousands of people will swear that they once heard a childrens radio host say "That oughta hold the little bastards" on live radio, but it's simply not true. There are literally hundreds of other examples of this kind of "shared delusion" where people remember things that never really happened, due to confusions with other events or simply unconscious peer pressures.

Whether your particular example happened or not is really moot. The point is that you can go around saying "He said this" or "She did that" all day long, but unless you can produce incontravertable (sp) proof that this thing did indeed occur, it's all just meaningless talk.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Reductionism Ad Infinitem (3.50 / 4) (#90)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:59:58 PM EST

Can you produce incontravertable proof that you are reading these words right now?

Can you produce incontravertable proof that you have a body?

Can you produce incontravertable proof that the earth is round?

The fact of the matter is that evidence is only as reliable as the medium for recording and storing it.

For most people witnessing something clearly with thier own eyes and having no reason to doubt your ability to observe clearly (i.e. you were intoxicated, you were nervous and the action happened quickly, etc) and no reason to believe your memory is defective (i.e. you are suffering from alzhiemers) is about as good as it possibly can get.

Heck it even compares with the reliability of film, photographs or audio files.... since we all know those can be doctored too.

[ Parent ]

Now you're just being silly (3.50 / 4) (#94)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:07:21 PM EST

There is a large body of evidence to support the idea that the earth is round.

Now, if you were to say that it wasn't because you saw something on TV that said so, I'd at least want to know what the programme was before I got into discussing it.

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

Um...yes (3.80 / 5) (#99)
by jayhawk88 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:25:47 PM EST

I can film myself reading this page, with both myself and the screen clearly in view. If this isn't good enough, I could in theory fly or otherwise transport any interested observers to my location, where they could witness my reading first-hand.

Again, if push comes to shove, hop a plane and come "feel me", so to speak.

We can hop a ride on the next Russian deathtrap...err, rocket launch and see it for ourselves.

Look, eyewitness testimony is good enough in a court of law in many cases; I'm not arguing about the validity of it as a whole. What I am saying is that one person with an agenda can "remember" anything he or she likes.

Say I want to convince you that Bush is a big meanie. I can say, "Well, I was at this fund raiser in Texas one time back in 95, and GW was very rude to everyone as he was leaving, and told his body-guard to 'Get these plebes out of my fucking way'" I could even get several other people to back up my story if I was so inclined, through either subtle manipulation of memories (Dude, don't you remember? He totally did that, I swear!) or outright shared conspiracy.

Now, it's on you to prove me wrong. You might think "bullshit" to yourself, but assuming you know nothing about me, by your logic what can you possibly use to reach the "bullshit" conclusion, other than your own personal biases (not using that as a bad term in this case) about President Bush as a person? In other words, you could say "That can't happen, because Bush is to smart and politically savvy to make such a statement", but that's not proof, it's bias. OJ was too nice of a guy to lop off his wifes head with a machete. Dahmer was too quiet a person to have butchered kids and ate them in his basement. You never know what a person can do.

Tangent. The original point here was to say that in debate on political matters in this country, we need to focus more on ideas or statements that can be proven or backed up in some way, instead of the giant name-calling contest it has become. nebbish seemed to imply that the left was more apt to follow this code than the right, something you disagreed with (and something I disagree with as well - both sides pull this kind of shit with equal success). But you disagreed using the exact same tactics that nebbish was decrying: by pulling up some "I once saw..." example that we, not knowing you personally, have no way of knowing if it is true or not.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Couldn't have put it better myself [nt] (3.50 / 4) (#106)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:33:10 PM EST


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

Here is the distinction (3.50 / 4) (#124)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:33:56 PM EST

You are correct, If I am trying to PROVE to you the incident I claimed happen really happened then I would need to provide some sort of evidence (even though we both recognize that evidence can be fabricated).

I would certainly do that IF I were offering my statement as proof to convince you that nebbish's claim was full of dung.

I was offering an OPINION on why I thought nebbish's statement was full of dung... and offering one small frame of reference as to why I held that opinion.

Nebbish also did not offer any supporting evidence in his statement. He merely made the statement...which I assume is an OPINION as well.

No you might be so good as to inform me why he is allowed to venture an OPINION (and a gross mischaracterization at that) without any factual supporting evidence but when I venture an OPINION I am required to provide a higher standard of evidence?

Perhaps I should have just said "Nebbish you are full of horse dung" and left it at that?

Forgive me for trying to provide some insight as to why I fealt that way.

By all means, don't believe my account... but do believe your own eyes when you see it happen yourself.

[ Parent ]

You're mistaken (3.50 / 4) (#128)
by jayhawk88 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:58:33 PM EST

If you think I held nebbish's argument in any higher regard than yours.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Allow me to retort (3.80 / 5) (#92)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:01:59 PM EST

You think I'm lying?

No, but without evidence I can't take your argument seriously.

I don't have to provide evidence for my argument because I haven't made any claims. What I was saying was that the people who said Michael Moore's film was full of untruths didn't back up their claims, whilst Michale Moore has.

The evidence to support this argument is provided by the links in the piece.

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

Here we go (3.80 / 5) (#118)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:13:31 PM EST

"I don't have to provide evidence for my argument because I haven't made any claims"

This is not a claim? - "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."

I did look at one of those websites linked to in the article. Sure looks like it's providing evidence to back up it's claims to me. For example if you goto BowlingForTruth.com and look under the section tiitled "'Pro-gun' Rally After Columbine" you'll see how it claims that the "cold dead hands" clip of Heston that Moore tries to infer is happening in Denver actualy happens in CHARLOTTE, N.C,  As supporting evidence it provides frame of Heston taken from the film and then a link to a copy of an AP article about the Charlotte event which includes quotes of the very words that appear in Moores clip and a picture showing Heston wearing what appears to be the same suit. It also asks the rather poiniant question as to why in one portion of Moores Heston clip, Heston is wearing purple tie and lavender shirt and in the next he is wearing a white shirt and red tie?

Now to be fair to Moore, I haven't seen his movie and I don't know if it really infered that the clips of Heston were both taken at the Denver rally or not....nor do I know  personaly what suit Heston wore on what occasion... but it certainly looks like that site is backing up the claims it makes.

Another example, same website from the "'Wonderful World' Montage" section. It has various frames from Moores film. One of them is about American millitary aid to Iraq...and is dubbed over footage of Iraqi tanks (the implication being they were part of the U.S. Aid). The link on the website is broken...but you've seen the film... you tell me if that footage is in there.  If it is there is just one problem... Iraq has NEVER had U.S. tanks as part of it's arsenal...It has Soviet and French tanks, in the very old days it had some British and German ones... but NEVER U.S.  You can check that fact in any millitary source you like (Janes is good, though not free).

The website then goes on to raise this point "The aid provided by the US to Iraq prior to their illegal invasion of Kuwait is less than 1% as we were #16 on the list of weapons suppliers. (1) " in criticism to what Moore infers in his film. At the bottom of the page it provides a footnote for it's source for those figures....  "1)   Statistics from the Swedish Institute for International Peace."

That is something that can be checked independently for accuracy. If that is not providing material to backup it's claims then I don't know what is.

Again, I haven't seen Moores film... so I am NOT going to make any claims about it myself (that WOULD be terribly unfair of me). However it seems evident that Moores critics are not just relying on spin and rhetoric.... they are providing source documentation, siting and detailed specifics in support of the criticisms they have.

You may not agree with thier conclusions... and in fact, I don't know what the objective truth is about Moores film, but to claim that it's all just "emotive language" is a patent falsehood.

[ Parent ]

Response. (3.00 / 3) (#281)
by Ward57 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:32:23 AM EST

a) It didn't much look like he was speaking in the same place - the background was different, and so was the time of day (the sun was out and the shadows were different).
b) In the book on the same subject (Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them), he says that he was pretty unhappy about the scene with the iraqi tanks, but the editor insisted. The editor claimed that they had to show the iraqi army there, or the audience would lose interest.

[ Parent ]
While I'm at it (4.00 / 4) (#96)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:11:39 PM EST

I suppose Bernard Goldberg is lying too. He was trusted for 25 years to report the news accuaretly.

But now that he's retired and has said some unflattering things about how the media distorts some stories (in a manner favorable to the left) he suddenly has no credability anymore... and has become one of those "lying liars" that you and your buddies like to talk about.

Excuse me if I find that inconsistancy a little too conveniant.

[ Parent ]

I read it in a book, so it must be true (2.75 / 3) (#403)
by Ian A on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 01:37:41 PM EST

Did you ever think that a lot of the media probably disagrees with him?
One person using anecdotal evidence does not make something true.

[ Parent ]
Might be half true (3.80 / 5) (#39)
by squigly on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:58:39 AM EST

..the reporter held up a Colt 1911 pistol and stated very clearly how it was a "fully automatic" weapon and how it had been bought legaly in the state (Mass.) without any sort of background check.... both of which happen to be bald-faced lies.

What were the gun laws ike when that gun was new?  And is it possible to convert a semi-automatic into a fully automatic?  

[ Parent ]

Aswers (4.16 / 6) (#59)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:43:16 AM EST

1) It is possible to convert some semi-automatic weapons to full automatic. They even used to sell kits (mail order) for doing that. It is also illegal to do so (There might be some exemptions for law-enforcement, etc).

   However, I don't think it is possible to do with a Colt 1911. Even if it were theoriticaly possible there would be no point to it. The 1911 only holds 7 rounds. Furthermore it's a .45 caliber pistol. If you've ever fired one you'd know it kicks like a mule... so after the first round everything else would be going straight up in the air.

Go to a range sometime and fire a 1911, tell me if you think it would make a usefull machine-pistol?

2) To own any sort of firearm in Mass. requires a permit called an F.I.D. , getting one requires a criminal background check. Owning a pistol requires an even more stringent permit... to purchase any sort of gun or ammunition in Mass. you must present the F.I.D. to the dealer.... to purchase a pistol you must present a pistol permit. If the dealer sells you a gun or ammo without asking for (and documenting) these permits they have commited a crime which they can and will be prosecuted for. This has been the case ever since I was old enough to own a gun. I spent one summer working in a sporting goods store....so I saw the procedure for buying guns and ammo many times.

Now it is possible that the gun was legaly purchased decades before the news show aired... It's also remotely possible that the news show hired a very skilled gunsmith to perform an illegal conversion of the 1911 (I don't know if that's even theoriticaly possible but it might be) which would make the gun technicaly an automatic even though it would be completely unusable from a practical standpoint.....but doing either of those would be a little disingenious, don't you think?

[ Parent ]

You're probably right. (3.75 / 4) (#79)
by squigly on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:21:58 PM EST

Even if it were theoriticaly possible there would be no point to it. The 1911 only holds 7 rounds.

I've seen a pistol modified to do this.  Emptied in about a second.  No idea what sort of gun it was.  I don't exactly know a lot about the subject.  To be hinest though, I suspect they said it was an automatic because it's referred to as a Colt automatic pistol.

[ Parent ]

Automatic is a colloquialism (4.33 / 6) (#129)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:04:53 PM EST

"Automatic" is a colloquialsim for a semi-automatic pistol, but only when used as a noun. To call it an "automatic pistol" is a lie, and to call it "fully automatic" is a steaming turd of a lie.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Incidentally (3.50 / 4) (#419)
by epepke on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:34:26 PM EST

The title of the REM album Automatic for the People refers to a breakfast.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I've seen it happen. (4.50 / 8) (#131)
by ti dave on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:10:46 PM EST

I was a school-trained Armorer in the Army and repairing M1911s was one of my duties.

The firing sear wears down over time, which isn't odd considering the age of most of their inventory, and when the sear notches are sufficiently worn, the weapon can and will fire in full-auto mode.

I've seen it happen precisely once at a firing range.
The soldier was quite surprised, but he managed to keep all of the rounds safely down-range, not over the berm.

A bastard file is the only tool one needs to make such a modification.

I'm almost drunk enough to go on IRC. ~Herring
[ Parent ]

Goldberg (3.00 / 3) (#416)
by baron samedi on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 05:04:00 PM EST

I think Goldberg's book has a lot more to do with being a whiny little bitch because CBS didn't give him the career he wanted than 'liberal' bias.

Even William Kristol admits that the whole liberal bias thing was a crock of shit.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Evidence and Balance? (4.00 / 9) (#67)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:23:07 AM EST

evidence and balance from the left. Like chopping up Charlton Heston's statements to make him say something that he didn't say? That was Moore's main transgression, in my opinion, and it is blatently deceptive. After I saw the movie, that scene was one of the most outstanding, and it brought up conversation roughly along the lines of "How could he have said that immediately after Columbine?", "What a fucking psycho." But it turns out that the speech that was played was just a copy and paste job, which Moore admits to. The entire thrust of the movie was that America is a violent culture and that guns are too available, and he demonstrates the former by showing the craziest of the gun nuts. He tries to imply that the NRA is as crazy as the crazy militia types by altering what they say. How is chopped up audio balanced, and how does it serve as evidence?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

there was no distortion of heston (3.00 / 4) (#164)
by joschi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:27:32 PM EST

none.  find me where he misrepresents the meaning.  it never happens.  he, GASP, edited down a long speach to fit into the movie, as he did with EVERY OTHER SCENE AND INTEREVIEW.  a shocking practice which is done in, oh, EVERY documentary film.  yes, i've read the edited and unedited text side by side, the meaning is identical in both.

[ Parent ]
You are completely insane. (4.12 / 8) (#86)
by debillitatus on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:56:19 PM EST

Look, I'm actually a pretty liberal guy (as in US liberal), and for the most part I find myself in sympathy with a lot of what MM says. That being said...

evidence and balance from the left.

It has been a long time since a seriously-meant post has actually made me laugh out loud. You actually made me knock over my lunch.

Look, if you really believe what you said, then, fine... I have something else that might interest you. Take a look at "creation science". I think that might be up your alley. And if it's not, look up "holistic medicine". I'm sure one of those two will be just right for you, as one of them will offend your prejudices, and the other won't. Then you're set, as you seem to have no need for critical thinking.

So, the real question is, which one will you pick?

(Aside to those readers without their heads up their asses: It doesn't matter. They're pretty much the same.)

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

Good troll. Caught a lot of lusers. Kudos. [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#194)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:00:22 PM EST


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
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.

Of course! (3.85 / 7) (#5)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:13:40 AM EST

Anyone who talks about politics is flaming!

Why didn't I realise! Everythings OK now - I can see that 9/11 and Gulf War II were just elaborate trolls.

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

you sick bastard!!11!! (2.26 / 15) (#10)
by davedean on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:23:10 AM EST

I can't beleive yuo would compaer the deaths of 16,000 innocent people with a fucking troll. Some people have no idea of what they are saying, and it looks like you're one of them, you insensitive moron.

Why dont you tell all the families of people killed recently "oh, Osama was just trolling, pretty good one, huh?" and see how they like it. I'm suer you'll have a grate time after that.

-DAve
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

Christ (3.28 / 7) (#12)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:26:34 AM EST

Try reading what I wrote, idiot.

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

umm .. (2.22 / 9) (#18)
by davedean on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:46:02 AM EST

I did, and you're a sick bastrad for saying it. I cnat beleiv what thsi country is coming to when you people use "Free Speach" to try and destroy everything that maeks us so grate.

idiot.

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

I cannot believe (3.80 / 10) (#20)
by Big Dogs Cock on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:55:53 AM EST

why some people would think that USians are small-minded, illiterate, paranoid or humourless when posts like this so clearly refute that.
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]
And I can't believe (4.00 / 8) (#30)
by gazbo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:06:36 AM EST

That you and nebbish, of all people, have bitten so hard.

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

Yep (3.66 / 6) (#31)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:08:27 AM EST

I realised, but was too embarressed to say anything *hangs head in shame*

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

oh well .. (3.85 / 7) (#35)
by davedean on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:42:54 AM EST

it was fun while it lasted :)

I havent done that in a while .. it .. almost felt good ... :)

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

It was a good one (3.40 / 5) (#40)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:59:55 AM EST

The blatant stupidity coupled with awful spelling had me totally fooled. It was very believable.

You troll well, my friend.

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

It's a beer thing (2.50 / 3) (#54)
by Big Dogs Cock on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:20:26 AM EST

Plus a rabid hatred of USians.
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]
I should also mention .. (3.40 / 5) (#60)
by davedean on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:56:11 AM EST

I'm not USian, I just thought it was a wonderfully amusing stance to take.

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

drduck, you fiend! (3.40 / 5) (#21)
by davedean on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:56:46 AM EST

pls, right the wrongs!

-DAve
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

I'm more of a... (3.00 / 4) (#191)
by RyoCokey on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:37:33 PM EST

Jerk

farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]

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

Good point (3.88 / 9) (#7)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:16:09 AM EST

About the right keeping the film in the public consciousness.

Even if Moore wasn't 100% correct on his facts or without bias (rarely does a documentary pass this test)

The funny thing as, as the right dig deeper into the film it seems that it is actually a lot more accurate and unbiased than I originally thought.

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

Gun Control? (4.63 / 22) (#27)
by cam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:15:16 AM EST

Bowling For Columbine wasnt about gun control. What made the documentary so interesting was that he discovered it wasnt gun ownership that was the problem, it was the culture of fear and violance that exists in the US.

Canada had higher gun ownership rates but few of the gun problems the US does. One of the funnier parts was when Londonites(? IIRC) were telling him they didnt lock their doors. He did a small sample and sure enough they didnt. Coming from Sydney I always lock my house and car.

He also discovered that the media in the US and Canada operate slightly differently. The 24 hours Cable channels beat up topics until they are major tragedies. Between the Politicians and Mass Media in the US, there is a culture of fear being whipped up.

In the Flint Michigan case, the kids mother was doing the best she could, working two jobs, unfortunately her kid wasnt getting the oversight needed.

Moore was pretty harsh on Heston, but that was because to those watching the documentary had already seen most of the myths of gun control and violence be busted through the film. Heston repeated most of the myths about gun control and was made to look silly because he didnt have the information that Moore had discovered.

I dont know why people get upset about Bowling For Columbine. Moores majore finding were that it wasnt guns that were causing the problem, it was the culture of fear that is being whipped up by politicians and the mass media. He also came to the conclusion that the NRA staging rallies immediately after Combine and Flint in those towns was pretty inconsiderate.

I thought it was a good documentary that challenged a lot of the pre-conceived notions people have on gun control. Luckily uber-reasonable Canada is to the north to provide an alternative point.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

about fucking time (4.30 / 10) (#45)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:27:51 AM EST

someone said the most obvious thing about the film, well done, cam!!

It showed how the left was as wrong to ban guns as the right to give us all atomic warheads to put under our pillow. instead the best answer mike could figure out was we should try and stop this culture of fear!

jesus is the corporate right this fucken stupid that they can't see this: "Gee Mike is left wing so he must be anti-gun, even though the whole documentary isn't"!!

have you guys ever read PJ O'rouke? he's right wing and funny and tells you a bit of truth as well. most of us who like him understand this. so if we can give pj a break i think you can give mike one too. of course, pj thinks there's nothing wrong with the world that money and greed can't solve, maybe mike's problem is that he actually wants to stop something bad happening. you'll think the left would have worked this out by now :)

Ciao

[ Parent ]

You are correct (3.90 / 10) (#47)
by Big Dogs Cock on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:31:29 AM EST

The actualy conclusion of the film is not that gun ownership is bad but rather that USians are too stupid and paranoid to own guns. Civilised nations such as Canada and Switzerland have higher levels of gun ownership but without the problems.

Yes, the NRA is almost right - guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.

People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]
Interesting point.. (3.60 / 5) (#137)
by SleepDirt on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:36:51 PM EST

I had never really thought of it that way.. it does seem that Moore is agreeing with the NRA's famous pet slogan. I think this is why BFC has struck such a nerve with the gun nuts.


"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
[ Parent ]
Well golleee! (3.50 / 4) (#442)
by noise on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 06:25:55 PM EST

Yes, the NRA is almost right - guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
Well, gee mister, I guess that's caus we just ain't suffistikated like them Europeon types. What crap.

[ Parent ]
Culture of Fear (3.80 / 5) (#76)
by Noodle on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:09:41 PM EST

"The 24 hours Cable channels beat up topics until they are major tragedies. Between the Politicians and Mass Media in the US, there is a culture of fear being whipped up. "

I want to agree with this theory, but then I think, is it any less stupid to blame TV news for violence than it is to blame gun ownership, bowling, or Marilyn Manson?

(Oh, how I shudder whenever I think of that name. Not because Marilyn's satanic and evil--I don't think he is--but because his "name" is such a terrible, horrible, godawful pun).

{The Nefarious Noodle}
[ Parent ]

Who to blame (4.14 / 7) (#271)
by pyro9 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 07:52:14 AM EST

Like most things, there is not one single entity to blame for the whole thing.

That said, the news does 'enjoy' a unique position here. Unlike any other form of violence in the media, the news is presented as (and is at least somewhat based on) reality. No matter how much you watch 'Lethal Weapon', or listen to/watch Marilyn Manson, you knpow that it is NOT reality. Lethal Weapon has a script and special effects and nobody's really getting shot. Marilyn Manson is a stage persona.

On the other hand, the news really happened (more or less). When they report on a brutal murder, someone is really dead. The people crying in the background are really crying.

The thing is, though, the news also takes all of the bad things (and few or none of the good) that happen to a population of millions and report it as the 'news'. Thus, we all learn that tragedy rules the day, every day. If they can't find any tragedy locally (some days are like that), they'll import some from wherever they can find it.

Since most people actually believe that the news is a description of what happened today, it acts to distort our impression of the world and our society. At the same time, the news distortion causes us to poorly assess our priorities as a society. A more proper name for the shows would be 'bad news' or 'tragic news'. After all, it spends the first half (or so) of the broadcast on events that have left people scared, injured, or dead, a few minutes on sports and weather, then about 5 minutes on fluff. They never state anything like 'but beyond that, 10 million people in the area had a pretty decent day', much less talk about the good things that have happened.

They don't even talk about the non-sensational problems that are actually far more common and in need of being addressed. As a result, we have people terrified of terrorists and pit bulls when they are FAR more likely to suffer from a lack of healthcare or a car accident.

I find it interesting that we "can't afford" to solve homelessness or the healthcare problem, but we have managed to find BILLIONS to fight terrorism even though that very sensational problem presents a far smaller threat to most people and could be mostly prevented by boring fixes like deadbolts and a few policy changes (Far too boring for the news to report on in depth, and so present zero political opportunity).

That's another part of it, because of the sensationalism, polititians typically do things at (rather than solve) the sensational problems so they can be seen on the news taking positive action (and so get reelected). They spend so much time on this that there is little time or money left to solve the not so sensational but far more common problems.

Several years ago, I got fed up with the highly inaccurate and overwrought presentation of the world and quit watching the news. I find that I am more likely to hear about things I actually need to know now than before since I read the web (with a few pounds of salt) instead. I am not missing a single thing.

That's another aspect of the problem. It's not all the fault of news directors either. They report what they do and in the way they do because that's what drives ratings up. If nobody watched, they'd change it. If schools actually taught critical thinking and the fundamentals of logic, more people would be equipped to conclude that the news in it's current form is useless and largely irrelevant to them. Unfortunatly, critical thinking and logic are not at all sensational, so we will never hear about it on the news. We will hear (well, I won't :-) about the one or two students who took a gun to school (but not that the gun wasn't loaded) even though that, unlike the failure to teach critical thinking, only affected less than 1% of students.

I don't know all the answers (who does?), but I do believe it's fair to lay more blame (but not all) on the TV news than on Marilyn Manson, gun ownership, or bowling.

On a side note, I view Marilyn Manson as a sort of group primal scream therepy.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
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.

Erm, no (4.40 / 10) (#8)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:17:34 AM EST

The story is about the right wing media lying to discredit a film they don't agree with. It's the film itself that was about guns.

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

Try watching the film knobend (4.20 / 5) (#52)
by Big Dogs Cock on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:01:48 AM EST

The film is not anti gun.
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]
+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).

it's called (3.73 / 15) (#41)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:15:18 AM EST

colourful language. He wears his intentions on his sleeve. He hates Bush and good on him. Jesus, if the Right can hate Hillary for pretty much doing nothing but being female and intelligent, then I think we can pick on Bush who quite happily mislead the public and used the "we will bring democracy to <insert middle east country here>" catch cry that his dad used as an excuse to kill people for his oil buddies.

Ciao

[ Parent ]

Intelligent? (3.63 / 11) (#55)
by Kasreyn on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:23:01 AM EST

How intelligent can you be when you can go years and years without twigging on to the idea that Bill Clinton was a total pussyhound?

Either Hillary's a moron for not catching on, or a hypocrite for sacrificing her dignity on the altar of ambition by staying with Clinton as she did. I don't elect morons or hypocrites (well, not intentionally...).


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Spoiled your ballot, hm? (nt) (3.00 / 5) (#63)
by Kwil on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:10:01 AM EST


That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
Heh! No, was just referring to lying candidates. (3.00 / 3) (#234)
by Kasreyn on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:36:13 PM EST

But I suppose it WAS open to that interpretation ^_^;;


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Bullshit on three counts (3.07 / 13) (#64)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:11:19 AM EST

1. Hillary Clinton was not hated for being female and intelligent. She was hated for trying to turn this country into a socialist state with her health care plan. 2. Bush did not mislead the public when justifying the war in Iraq. The war was entirely justified on basis of UN resoloutions, the same basis that was used when Clinton attacked Iraq and when Bush Sr. drove the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. 3. Do you really think Bush would start a war in Iraq just to benefit his "oil buddies"? Who are these mysterious figures? Did Clinton start a war in Iraq to benefit Bush's oil buddies?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

let's just call it a debate (3.80 / 10) (#68)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:32:12 AM EST

1. Sorry to say this but having a universal health care system is not socialist. It's just a way of being more efficent than the wastful HMO's which by the way benefits quite a few rich buddies.
2. Tell me where the WMDs are and I'll be happy. Also there's that little thing with Nigeria. The fact that Iraq did ignore the UN resolutions is a good point but since there is no such thing as international law then breaking them isn't really enforcable...cough..israel...cough
3. I could tell you who his oil buddies are but there's a little thing about Cheney refusing all FOI requests to know who they talked to make this administration's energy policy.

I'll be happy to be the first person to say I oversimplified things and didn't back up claims, but really if you don't see the general trend of the rich concentrating more of their power into their hands and making us pay for it, both via our pockets and with our lives then you need to take your head out.

Thanks for the debate

Ciao

[ Parent ]

Heh. Bullshit again. (3.30 / 10) (#75)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:07:06 PM EST

Sorry to say this but having a universal health care system is not socialist. It's just a way of being more efficent than the wastful HMO's which by the way benefits quite a few rich buddies.

Perhaps you need to look up the word socialism because nationalized health care is a canonical example of socialism, and government run anything is the exact opposite of efficient.

I could tell you who his oil buddies are but there's a little thing about Cheney refusing all FOI requests to know who they talked to make this administration's energy policy

Nice! "I don't have any proof, therefore, he must be guilty!" Excellent debating technique. Kudos.


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
oh you're no fun (3.42 / 7) (#83)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:43:52 PM EST

here I was just doing a stream of conscience left wing rant on an AWERTY keyboard.

but what the hell, i'll have a go since you went to all of that work of using a dictionary

Having the government do what the HMO's do and still having private hospitals etc isn't what i call socialism. it just means that the normal contributions made by your employer is made via the income tax system instead of corpoprate tax (or their equivalents). this makes it means tested. also show me any definition of the word efficient that says "the more middle men you have the more efficient you are". HMO's are middle men of the highest order. The money going on glossy brochures and sales staff should go straight into the health system. Hence, and i use it loosely, it's more efficient. Oh look a link! To think that the reason you don't have national health is because the current way is more efficient, instead of the fact that a lot of people are creaming the system and can influence policy, is a bit batty.

But i'll continue...

for the Cheney stuff you can have a nice scarcastic look or a more serious one.

dictinary definitions might be a OK for debate where you come from but you should really tell me what your definition of what the term is since you're using it. I had to guess that you used the term socialism in the way most americans use it - that is badly.

Ciao

[ Parent ]

Humpty Dumpty again. (3.50 / 4) (#187)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:27:06 PM EST

I posted this in reply to another comment, but it deserves repeating:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' -- Alice in Wonderland

*My* definition? I try as best I can to use the *standard* definition of words - to do anything else is a barrier to communication.

As to your assertion that use of the government eliminates the middle man and is therefore more efficient: have you every worked for the government? I have - for several years. The government invented the concept of middle management - I spent two years working for the feds where, during the entire time, I accomplished less than a month's worth of actual work. At the end of that time I went and got a real job while I still remembered what work was like.

Still, that's only one person's experience, right? There's bound to be counter examples. Except there aren't. People subject to the limits of national health care are famous for traveling to the US to get access to care that's unavailable thru their own government provided system. (Actually, since the US tightened visa rules, Singapore seems to be making a killing doing the same thing.) I have yet to hear about people traveling from LA to Mexico or Canada to get access to health care - but the reverse happens all the time.

So, given that that is the case, why should I believe that federalizing health care will somehow be different in the US than anywhere else?


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
Alice (3.00 / 3) (#258)
by Gully Foyle on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:41:46 AM EST

It's from Through the Looking Glass, not Adventures in Wonderland.

</Carroll Pedant>

If you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong - kableh
[ Parent ]

My bad. [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#269)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 07:25:54 AM EST


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
no what you should say (2.83 / 6) (#260)
by bankind on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:47:00 AM EST

is that the shitty Harvard MBA president failed to live up to fixing the bloated shitty US government. So more efficient socialist states, like Singapore, do a much better job.

You take a condition in the US, believe it to be a universal, and apply it to a global concept. You also seem to associate success based on that universal, where instead reality is far different. The Singapore government is very much involved in health care, health research, and most aspects of the economy.

If you knew anything about the topic, you'd realize just how fucking stupid you come off.

Let's see if drduck gives me my normal good marks for my agitating use of the word `fucking.'

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

What are you talking about? (3.75 / 4) (#267)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 07:03:26 AM EST

First, how is it socialism that Singapore is building and advertising special hospitals where foreigners can pay cash for medical treatment? Second, what condition am I asserting is universal - inefficient government? All I said was that I had no faith that federalizing US medical care would be more efficient than the current plan. And you think *I* sound stupid?

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
no you said (3.00 / 6) (#346)
by bankind on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:53:39 PM EST

Perhaps you need to look up the word socialism because nationalized health care is a canonical example of socialism, and government run anything is the exact opposite of efficient.

Which is what started me on this thread and it is an application of a universal: ( Government run anything)

As far as Singapore, the government funded those hospitals, paid for the doctors educations abroad, has favorable research laws, and subsidizes health care so that the price and quality will attract foreigners...This whole program is...government run.

And you said government run anything is the exact opposite of efficient.

But I think now you mean to revise this statement to US government run anything is the opposite of efficient (see Iraq, State Department, tax cut allocation, Congress, SEC, etc.)

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

The smell of shit is your own (3.75 / 8) (#84)
by bankind on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:51:57 PM EST

...and government run anything is the exact opposite of efficient.

You should maybe check out the small little economic revolution in East Asia that happened the past 30 years ('Miracle' as the World Bank said). I mean it is only MOST of the world's population and it WAS primarily driven by State actors (guided investment).

Do you have any examples to back your claim or is it just a hunch?

Kinda like <redneck> Hee-ahll, we ain't have none of them computers in school and we all done good. </redneck>

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

You mean the guys who've been in recession (3.25 / 4) (#184)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:14:44 PM EST

for the past decade?


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
More Sing-sing, less Japan (2.83 / 6) (#206)
by bankind on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:35:42 PM EST

Sure you have Japan, where the issue isn't a matter of state intervention but labor.

The Asian financial crisis is all but over, especially since Indonesia's foreign debt has decreased with the dollar's fall.

So instead you have Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and China, all hardly capitalistically determined, and doing well economically--Singapore, in particular, being a case of incredible state efficiency.

The thing that pains market enthusiasts the most is that the most incredible advancement of living standards in the history of man wasn't a result of supply and demand, but a result of subsidies and government intervention--read up on the `Developmental State' for general theory of how this event has occurred.

Then you also have the Philipines, where market intersts have plundered the state's resources. But what else can you expect of America's "little brown brther."

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Japan has a labor problem? (3.75 / 4) (#268)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 07:07:42 AM EST

And here I thought the problem was that neither the banks nor the government have been willing to write off billions in worthless debt. As for the others - I'm sorry, but while the US feared the "Asian Tigers" back in the 1980's, not one of them but China has maintained or improved their economy since then. Singapore is efficient? Singapore has been mocked for the past several years for blowing wads of cash on worthless endeavours like "the world's tallest empty building".

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
and here you thought wrong (3.33 / 6) (#378)
by bankind on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:33:34 AM EST

The problem with the Japanese economy is purely structural based on inflexible labor do to life long employment contracts (and also the limited involvement of women in business). The banking sector in Japan is in bad shape from over extending its loans, but that is from the inability to find sound investments under conditions of a low interest rate (most investment is going abroad and has been for over 20 years--why else do you think all that money came to the US in the late 80's). The Japanese governments strategy for the last 5 years has been to increase M2 money, but increases in the monetary base are negated from a declining money multiplier. The money multiplier is declining, as people are unwilling to spend because of a basic understanding that life long employment is coming to a fast end.

If it was just bad debt, then the government wouldn't be on their current strategy of directly injecting money supply increases into the stock market (in order to boost investment). But ultimately even this policy will fail, as no one knows how much money is needed.

I'm sorry, but while the US feared the "Asian Tigers" back in the 1980's, not one of them but China has maintained or improved their economy since then.

MY god sir, you are sorry. The Asian Tigers all had above 5% growth in their economies in the 1990's until mid 1997 (and are all going back above 5% now). So please take a sledgehammer, bash your computer in half and count the parts made in either Malaysia or Taiwan, then come back to me with something more interesting to say.

Singapore is efficient? Singapore has been mocked for the past several years for blowing wads of cash on worthless endeavours like "the world's tallest empty building".

The world's tallest building is in Malaysia (Petronas Towers), not Singapore (Singapore was kicked out the Federation a good many years ago). But if you're making a general statement on the commercial real estate market in Southeast Asia, then your information is 5 years old an generally most applicable to Thailand.

The PAP is an extremely efficient governing body that is also one of the least corrupt governing parties in the world. But sure, I agree, really nothing has happened in that little pirates den called Sing-sing in the past 50 years.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

What? (3.40 / 5) (#372)
by partykidd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 05:51:00 AM EST

So instead you have Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and China, all hardly capitalistically determined, and doing well economically...
All of these places realize that top down state run economies don't work. They have melded their previously government controlled economies with a little capitalism. And now they reap the benefits.
The thing that pains market enthusiasts the most is that the most incredible advancement of living standards in the history of man wasn't a result of supply and demand, but a result of subsidies and government intervention--read up on the `Developmental State' for general theory of how this event has occurred.
What pains communists and socialists the most is that their system of top down control and state run economies has never worked. They wretch at the truth that America, generally regarded as the most capitalist nation, is the wealthiest and enjoys the highest standard of living anywhere in the world. --forget your theories, read up on the history of the world and compare the nations of the world to America.
Then you also have the Philipines, where market intersts have plundered the state's resources.
The Philippines are going to fix their market troubles by "privatization, reforming the tax system, and promoting additional trade integration within its region".
But what else can you expect of America's "little brown brther."
That's just stupid.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

Sometimes, partykidd, (2.66 / 6) (#397)
by bankind on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 11:26:37 AM EST

your right wing fanaticism reminds me how the hippies turned into yuppies and you Gen-Xers will do the same.

All of these places realize that top down state run economies don't work. They have melded their previously government controlled economies with a little capitalism. And now they reap the benefits.

If it were that simple then I would be out of a job. What seems to be a more applicable description is that these governments have been able to develop institutions that are capable of harnessing both internal markets and foreign investment. In the late 90's some of these institutions reached a inability to harness innovation and efficiency( ie the Chaebols). But during the development stage, the game was(is currently) to create institutional capacity for monitoring market development and to provide government services to expand domestic and international markets to remote regions. The game isn't just let the market do their thing, as there are many, many services that the government must provide for a market economy to function (roads, utilities, police).

And this is all rather general, case by case you see different effects. But what can be said about East Asia is that 50 years ago they were all weak states that then developed institutions (or in some cases imploded--Cambodia and Burma) from the guidance of individual leaders. Lee Kuan Yew and Mahatir cannot be excluded from a discussion about the development of Singapore or Malaysia (your homework assignment is to find a East Asian economy that was not severely affected by a strong man).

So you think China wasn't top-down? After you die from a overdose of Special K, ask Deng Xiaoping what he thinks.

... the highest standard of living anywhere in the world. --forget your theories, read up on the history of the world and compare the nations of the world to America.

Not quite, try Luxembourg. What is more relevant in the case of comparison is the degree of arable land to person ratio of the US. With such a geography, economic development is rather hard NOT to achieve. You should look at the data yourself before you digest what a historian feeds you.

The Philippines are going to fix their market troubles by "privatization, reforming the tax system, and promoting additional trade integration within its region".

and on the subject of history, maybe you should check out the political history of the Philippines. Those promises sounds like those of Marcos, Cory Aquino, `Steady Eddie' Ramos, and Erap `Buddy' Estrada, and 30 years later, there is still a 40% poverty rate (see your own damn source).

BTW: the number one economic reform issue in the Philippines has always been land reform but no one is politically strong enough to actually face down the Oligarchs (read: the Cojuanco family and socialist wealth distribution). I doubt the CIA would mention that, as the Philippines are the US's "little brown brothers" in Asia, which is why W. took Arroyo's call first after 9/11.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Now why did you need to say that? (3.50 / 4) (#431)
by partykidd on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 12:20:07 AM EST

your right wing fanaticism reminds me how the hippies turned into yuppies and you Gen-Xers will do the same
Right wing fanaticism? Grow up and see the light. And I'm not part of Generation X. I believe I missed it by one or two years.
After you die from a overdose of Special K, ask Deng Xiaoping what he thinks.
What the fuck? Have you been drinking too much alcohol again? Hypocrisy never leaves you, does it?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

come, come now (2.50 / 6) (#455)
by bankind on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 01:24:52 AM EST

claiming you're not generation X is exactly what makes you generation X.

That and your green hair to match your Mountain Dew.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Non-socialist nationalised healthcare (3.40 / 5) (#320)
by TomV on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:10:53 PM EST

While Britain's National Health Service was implemented by Attlee's postwar Labour government, it was devised in the Beveridge Report, which, while it's now considered a towering monument to the possibilities of the left, was commissioned by Winston Churchill with a view to making the nation better able to fight and win a sustained war, after discovering that a significant number of conscripts were simply too unfit to fight effectively.  I believe a lot of other nationalised health services were created for the same military reason.

A sufficiently rabid Trot could presumably argue that a system designed to provide the resource-owning class with better soldiers for its campaigns of rape and pillage wasn't really a top socialist ideal.  And a card-carrying wooly Liberal Democrat like me could certainly argue that the current entirely state *operated* NHS is very far from efficient, while still passionately believing in, and being tremendously proud of, a state *provided* NHS.  And believe me, us Liberals (as we still were whem I joined), we probably hate the Socialists even more than we hate the Tories.  Turf war thing basically ;-)

'Nationalised anything' may be a canonical example of Socialism, but that has relevance only if Franco or Salazar are canonical socialists, and 'government run anything' is so conceptually distant from 'efficient' that 'opposite' seems a strange choice of relationship to ascribe.  Government-run currencies still seem reasonably workable after all.

tomV

[ Parent ]

Some counterpoints (3.33 / 6) (#116)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:12:06 PM EST

1. Sorry to say this but having a universal health care system is not socialist. It's just a way of being more efficent than the wastful HMO's which by the way benefits quite a few rich buddies.

The universal health care plan was nothing more than a bribe to voters in exchange for votes. The plan was what differentiated Clinton from other Democratic candidates in 1992 and got him the nomination.

Is our current system wasteful? Yes. Must it be replaced by another government entitlement? No. The Democrat's strategy has been to persecute and villify a specific minority (the rich) while at the same time using a large chunk of the rich's income to fund their social programs. Someone brilliant in the party long ago realized that you can provide a large proportion of the population with a slight sum of value taken from a small proportion of the population and ingratiate itself to the larger proportion in exchange for votes. In every election, the Democrats do much to remind the class of people that it has made dependant on its entitlements which side their bread is buttered, and then bus them en masse to the polls. Nationalized health care was nothing more than another bribe that the Democrats we planning on making the hated rich pay for.

One can take the situation in California as a microcosm of the situation in the entire country. The state, even before the recall begun, was in deep financial trouble due to the fact that their philosophy was to tax the rich into the ground and use those funds to pay for various services that the state has no business in. The rich people have been taking the sensible soloution of fleeing for states that do not tax so heavily, so the tax base has been consistently eroding while the services offered and costs associated with them have been growing. In a similar manner, companies in the US have been doing what makes sense under a heavy tax burden: moving their operations to other countries. So our tax base gets eroded while government programs and entitlements either stay constant or increase. It is a recipe for disaster and our spending must be reigned in. This doesn't just apply to social services, but also to military spending.

2. Tell me where the WMDs are and I'll be happy. Also there's that little thing with Nigeria. The fact that Iraq did ignore the UN resolutions is a good point but since there is no such thing as international law then breaking them isn't really enforcable...cough..israel...cough

The burden of proof was on Iraq. According to the cease-fire it signed after the Gulf War, and several binding UN resoloutions that had been passed in the years since, it was supposed to prove the destruction of known stocks of chemical and biological weapons to the UN weapons inspectors. Iraq had 12 years to comply with this and they refused to. Clinton cited this when he attacked Iraq (justifiably, IMO) in '98.

On the topic of Israel, none of the resoloutions on them have been binding, they are more like statements by the UN of what they say should be done, just without the threat of enforcement. If any nation wants to unilaterally go to war with Israel, it is presumably as free to do so as we were in Iraq, but since the US is a major ally of Israel (another stance I don't agree with), I don't think that that is likely to happen.

3. I could tell you who his oil buddies are but there's a little thing about Cheney refusing all FOI requests to know who they talked to make this administration's energy policy.

Cheney is one shady fucker, I will agree. But he divested himself of Halliburton upon taking office, and I believe that the allegation that this entire war was put on so that some of Bush's or Cheney's rich friends can get richer is a bit far fetched. Would you think that they would spend however many hundreds of billion dollars this will end up costing us, cause all this controversy, and risk indictment just so a few millionaire friends can have a few more million?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Not to get far into this debate. (3.00 / 3) (#303)
by Sanction on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:47:50 PM EST

Just an idea as to why Cheney would do some of this.  First is the usual, he may have divested now, but he will probably be rewarded the same way many congresscritters are now, with a cushy half-a-million dollar "consulting" contract once he is out.  As to spending all that money, it is simple, wealth transfer, just like you cited above, in the other direction.  They money they spend is our tax dollars, which then gets spent on weapons and reconstruction with companies they are tied to.  Voila, instant transfer of wealth.  You see, they don't need to do it visibly.  The Democrats transfer to gain votes, the Republicans transfer to gain money.  Unfortunately, they all play the game of funneling general tax dollars to feed their respective sides.

I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
[ Parent ]
"Socialist" health care (2.66 / 6) (#147)
by nictamer on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:31:53 PM EST

Name ONE developed country besides the US without a state-sponsored universal health care program.

You can't.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

that's what I love about america... (3.50 / 6) (#166)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:36:09 PM EST

even something as ridiculously logical as health care as a right of citizenship is ridiculed...


It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Health care is not a right. (3.50 / 4) (#176)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:19:52 PM EST

In America, we have a very well defined sense of rights. In a hospital, someone suffering from life-threatening illness or injury cannot be turned away. In that sense, everyone is entitled to health care.

However, every right we have is an actual right, not an entitlement. The right to free speech doesn't need a huge beaurocracy and massive tax hikes, nor do freedom of religion or freedom to assemble. None of the rights we have defined require someone else to fund them, so they fall under the catagory of entitlements. What's next, a right to a car? To a TV?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Health care is not a right. (4.00 / 5) (#177)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:20:10 PM EST

In America, we have a very well defined sense of rights. In a hospital, someone suffering from life-threatening illness or injury cannot be turned away. In that sense, everyone is entitled to health care.

However, every right we have is an actual right, not an entitlement. The right to free speech doesn't need a huge beaurocracy and massive tax hikes, nor do freedom of religion or freedom to assemble. None of the rights we have defined require someone else to fund them, so they fall under the catagory of entitlements. What's next, a right to a car? To a TV?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

idiocy. (3.50 / 4) (#399)
by Run4YourLives on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:14:37 PM EST

The right to free speech doesn't need a huge beaurocracy...

Have you checked out the last annual budget for your government? Aren't the instituions that you've paid trillions apon trillions for all designed to ensure those "actual rights" remain?

None of the rights we have defined require someone else to fund them

Really? So who pays for the supreme court? Congress? The Senate? Your armed forces? Your entire sturcture of government is designed to ensure those "rights" are protected. Without all of that, my friend, your little peice of paper (defining those "rights") is just a very old rambling.

What's next, a right to a car? To a TV?

What kind of stupid illogical argument is that? I could say the same thing if someone proposed taking away my health care system. What's next, my religion? My life? See, very stupid and it serves absolutley no purpose.

Of course, what your argument highlights is that some Americans by nature, lack the sense of community of other nations, exactly what Moore highlights. With the "every man for himself" attitude your culture supports fear in distrust in your fellow citizen.

Of course, everyone can't get over the gun control idea that isn't even really a premise of the movie.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

I have a question (4.16 / 6) (#174)
by jjayson on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:11:26 PM EST

Name me one country with a state-sponsored universal health care program that will still have equal or greater benefits 30 years from now.

You can't.

(Well, there are probably some small very rich countries, but for most of Europe and Canada, the systems are failing.)
--
Socialism is for sheep.

[ Parent ]

What other countries do is irrelevant (3.33 / 6) (#178)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:23:50 PM EST

The fact is that it is not the place of the federal government of the US to take on this responsibility. Just because other countries do something doesn't mean the US must do it.

Name the country that the residents of those countries with state-sponsored heath care plans come to when they need to get work competently done? That's right, the US.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Don't look (2.57 / 7) (#181)
by nictamer on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:41:11 PM EST

Don't look outside, you might find that things are better and it might ruin your illusions.

Don't look at life expectancy statistics. Just don't.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

Again, what other countries do is irrelevant (3.80 / 5) (#192)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:54:18 PM EST

Don't look at the waiting list for heart surgury in Canada or Britian. Don't look at the massive tax burden that the system imposes on the people. Don't look at the fact that the vast majority of the drug and medical research that is being done in the world gets done in our country. The question is whether it is the place of the government to impose such a humongous tax burden on the people, who are overtaxed as it is, just in order for one party to buy a few more votes with money that isn't theirs.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

massive tax burden? (3.16 / 6) (#270)
by the sixth replicant on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 07:31:29 AM EST

look someone has to pay for it

either you just have a lot of bodies and unhealthy people dragging the economy down because they can't afford to go for medical treatment or you do what the other "socialist" countries do and they *see* how expensive medical cost is and try and do something about it

the american system is far more expensive than any other system, it's just the costs are hidden and subtle (lost days off work, burden of looking after sick people who shouldn't have been sick in the first place, reliance on surgery instead of preventative medicine since sick people make money for the hospitals)

all of these bad things that the "socialist" countries have is due to the fact they are *efficiently* trying to do as much with as little as they can get from the governments

ciao

[ Parent ]

one point (3.80 / 5) (#370)
by partykidd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 04:56:34 AM EST

the american system is far more expensive than any other system
Often thrown around but never backed up. Okay,..we'll run with it: The American system delivers more and is thus more expensive. We have better treatment, more preventive treatment, and newer equipement.
all of these bad things that the "socialist" countries have is due to the fact they are *efficiently* trying to do as much with as little as they can get from the governments
The percieved efficiency results in out-dated equipement and treatments that people never get.

No thanks. I'll keep my capitalist system. It delivers far more than socialism ever does.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

While you're not looking. (3.50 / 6) (#300)
by Sanction on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:35:29 PM EST

Don't look at the fact that our very own "crushing tax burden" pays for most of that research, not the private side of the system.  Also avoid looking at the problem that health care is more expensive for being privatized, the costs are just shifted around.  There is some room for criticizm of the research, but not enough to make the costs look very different in the end.

I've looked at the taxes I pay here, and the taxes paid in those countries, and they aren't very different.  Wait, there is one difference, in the US I pay a pretty good chunk of taxes, yet I have almost nothing to show for it in the end.

Also, have you ever considered that they're not buying votes, but maybe believe that all people should be able to receive health care?  Different countries different choices, but sometimes people do act out of sincere personal beliefs.  The problem is that everyone seems so ready to champion their system, without having even seen the other.

I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
[ Parent ]

huh (3.33 / 6) (#371)
by partykidd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 05:01:57 AM EST

Wait, there is one difference, in the US I pay a pretty good chunk of taxes, yet I have almost nothing to show for it in the end.
America spends a hell of a lot on foreign aid. Part of the equation that you were most likely not considering.
Also, have you ever considered that they're not buying votes, but maybe believe that all people should be able to receive health care?
Yes. Considered and debunked. This issue is about buying votes. Looking at Medicare and Medicade (taxed whether you recieve it or not American government health care) and thinking that it would be a good idea to invite more government into an area it has already repeatedly failed is foolish.
The problem is that everyone seems so ready to champion their system, without having even seen the other.
Seen it? We're living it. Every American worker pays a Medicare tax whether he receives it or not.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

linca? (3.16 / 6) (#383)
by partykidd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:59:30 AM EST

Why the one? Looking through your comment rating history it's pretty obvious that you don't rate on strength of arguement or facts. You rate on your personal prejudices.

Let me expand upon a couple of points...

America spends a hell of a lot on foreign aid. Part of the equation that you were most likely not considering.
America also spends a lot on it's military. This can partly explain our higher taxes. Our military benefits a lot of countries besides our own.
Every American worker pays a Medicare tax whether he receives it or not.
We already have a system of socialized medical care. And guess what: it doesn't work. Now some people want to replace a system that doesn't work with a bigger system that doesn't work.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

It's typical (3.80 / 5) (#430)
by QuantumFoam on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 11:52:35 PM EST

Why the one? Looking through your comment rating history it's pretty obvious that you don't rate on strength of arguement or facts. You rate on your personal prejudices.

Common practice here on K5. Leftists can't form a rational arguement to reply with but are more than happy to log into an fake account and rate you down for daring to not think correctly. Their point is that they are entitled to other people's money and that going about stealing it through taxes is justified. The ones that don't want a free ride want to gain power by bribing the lazy masses, and they don't even have the fucking spine to do it with their own money. If you should not agree with that, they they will try to censor you with 1s.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

lol (3.22 / 9) (#438)
by infinitera on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 02:50:38 PM EST

Censor, right. That's why everything is visible.

[ Parent ]
It's the closest thing they can do on K5 (3.80 / 5) (#440)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 05:20:55 PM EST

If your comment is unreasonably given a bunch of 1s, it just takes a little nudge of someone who can give 0s to hide it. Also, it prevents the person getting 1ed from being able to review hidden submissions and from being able to hand out 0s, so it does limit you power on K5 simply for having "incorrect" views.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

yes, yes (2.87 / 8) (#441)
by infinitera on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 06:06:23 PM EST

Unreasonably. Of course. Please define, in one lifetime or less, pure reason. Thanks.

[ Parent ]
Here ya go (3.40 / 5) (#443)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 06:34:25 PM EST

I speak of DrDuck, who modbombs all of K5 and posts no comments. Others use the rubric of "Does the Politburo agree with this statement? If so, 5, if not 1." Moderation is intended to weed out spam posts not to state your disagreement with the author. Unless something is outright spam, it should not be moderated at all.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

sir, you're ignorant (3.12 / 8) (#446)
by infinitera on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 07:24:58 PM EST

Ratings are, and always have been, intended to judge quality/content. Get a clue.

[ Parent ]
On what do you base that? (3.60 / 5) (#450)
by QuantumFoam on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 08:07:20 PM EST

Rating purely on the basis of emotional agreement without actual knowledge on the subject or rational/logical disagreement is considered bad style by many users.

Yes they are meant to judge quality of content, not to serve as a mark of whether the rater agrees with the statements in the comment. You get a clue, and stop defending assholes.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

i wasn't aware the i defended anyone (3.33 / 9) (#451)
by infinitera on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 08:40:01 PM EST

Or mentioned any parties in specific. I merely wanted to address your persecution complex. HTH, HAND.

[ Parent ]
Oh, really. (3.50 / 6) (#432)
by Sanction on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 12:26:09 AM EST

America spends a hell of a lot on foreign aid. Part of the equation that you were most likely not considering.

The US spends a pathetic amount on foreign aid, and most of what is spent is given to countries to buy weapons from companies that are very large campaign contributors.

Yes. Considered and debunked. This issue is about buying votes. Looking at Medicare and Medicade (taxed whether you recieve it or not American government health care) and thinking that it would be a good idea to invite more government into an area it has already repeatedly failed is foolish.

This is as silly as saying deregulation cannot work because California deregulated half of the system and it failed. The debacle in California just shows what happens when you try to straddle the fence, as does Medicaire. What do you expect to happen when you have one system that primarily serves those too high a risk for other insurance companies to touch? Medicaire is a dismal failure for many reasons, just as "deregulation" in Cali was, but they don't prove the failure of either deregulation or socialized medicine.

I am also curious how this is "debunked?" How does an analysis of a systems success or failure show the mindset of those that implemented it?

Seen it? We're living it. Every American worker pays a Medicare tax whether he receives it or not.

No, you've seen a pathetic little parody of a system you'd like to pretend is similar to socialized medicine.

I still want to know what I get for my money by the way. I just want the country to make up its mind. Either have low taxes and few services, or high taxes and government provides the services. It seems that in the US I pay high taxes, but get few services. Philosophies of the systems aside, at least in Europe for my high taxes I would get state funded retirement (much better than social (in)security too), fully funded higher education, free health care, etc.

Either let me keep and spend my money, or provide me with concrete benefits if you take it. Simple.

I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (2.83 / 6) (#433)
by partykidd on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 01:09:01 AM EST

The US spends a pathetic amount on foreign aid...
Are you kidding me? We pimp our military out to so many different parts of the world it's not even funny. We make up the overwhelmingly majority of dollars in the UN. And we give out boatloads of money and goods to all corners of the Earth. Please don't get into a percentage of the GDP as it's not applicable.
No, you've seen a pathetic little parody of a system you'd like to pretend is similar to socialized medicine.[talking about Medicare and Medicade]
I'll go with that. But it doesn't negate the fact that it's failing. It doesn't account for the fact that every American worker pays for a system that most don't get. Why the hell shouldn't it be working? Can you think of any other service in the free market that you pay for and don't receive? Why would I want a bigger government system if the current small one can't even run while taxing people who aren't even recipients?
It seems that in the US I pay high taxes, but get few services.
Right on. It's because government is not efficient on social services. In the private sector, if the money isn't moved around efficiently and the product doesn't deliver, the business goes out of business. Government never goes out of business! They will just raise taxes. Partly attributed by the fact that every time money moves in the private sector it spreads the profit whereas in the government sector, it costs money to move money!
Philosophies of the systems aside, at least in Europe for my high taxes I would get state funded retirement (much better than social (in)security too), fully funded higher education, free health care, etc...
Well,..America's government doesn't need to manage or give out these services as it's not the job of the government to give health care, education, and retirement funds. It costs somewhere around 73 cents to move 27 cents of Social Security money. You think I would trust these same bureaucrats with health care dollars?
Either let me keep and spend my money, or provide me with concrete benefits if you take it. Simple.
Well said. I absolutely agree.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

None (4.00 / 6) (#186)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:26:30 PM EST

England has socialist health care. Which is why my father had to undergo three exploratory surgeries before they could even get time for him on a CAT-scan machine. Whereas in Evil Bad Non-Socialist America, even indigents can get CAT-scans if medically indicated when they are admitted into an ER.

Not to mention that I saw him finally get an ultrasound examination which looked like a monster movie from the 1950's, so outdated the equipment was.

Not to mention the bedsore the size of a grapefruit which he got in the Intensive Therapy Unit at University College Hospital that was down to his intestines.

Not to mention that the ITU didn't even have negative pressure, let alone air-conditioning, and when it got hot, they just opened the windows to the London air. Without even any screens on the windows.

Not to mention that it was the very same ITU that was made ready for George Bush Sr. when he visited in case he had heart problems because it was, like, I guess, their very best.

Not to mention the airborne skin infection that he got after a while in there that the nurses just shrugged off on account of "everyone gets it."

Not to mention that after he died, I paid for an autopsy (yes, I know, Bad Capitalist Me Not Trusting the Nu-Perfect Government) that strongly suggested that he died from the sequallae of the treatment he got in England.

Hooray for fucking socialized medicine, fucking wonderful invention of the fucking Europeans who have always gotten everything fucking right and are so fucking superior and condescending.

And my family still had to pay the National Health Service $70,000.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Dumbfuck (1.71 / 7) (#203)
by felixrayman on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:28:05 PM EST

even indigents can get CAT-scans if medically indicated when they are admitted into an ER.

There's a word for someone who has to wait for a CAT scan until it is medically indicated by a visit to the ER - the word is "corpse". The American health care system sucks ass.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
An illiterate called me a dumbfuck! Wow! [n/t] (3.14 / 7) (#221)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:21:08 PM EST


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
And he rated me 0! What a huge penis! [n/t] (2.71 / 7) (#226)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:09:05 PM EST


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Christ. (3.60 / 5) (#361)
by fenix down on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:26:48 AM EST

1) Have you ever actually read any of this? I mean, seriously. I don't know what the hell your definition of socialist is, but it's certaintly not anywhere near mine. 2)That would be true if they'd stopped there, but they kept going with this multiple-choice piece of shit to convince everybody. Oh, it's WMD, and it's 9/11, and it's the resolutions, and it's the Kurds. 3) Bush probably would start a war to benefit his buddies, just like Clinton would bomb a nuclear plant to get everybody to stop talking about his penis. I don't think Bush started the war to benefit his buddies. I don't think anybody seriously does. He started it because neocons have a pathology about listening to psychopaths who are convinced that Saddam Hussein is the brilliant criminal mastermind behind each and every economic crisis, terrorist attack, diplomatic spat, and case of post-taco gas in the world. The mysterious figures that hang around enough to know that and buy out oil-fire extinguishing companies in advance are Bechtel and Halliburton, though.

[ Parent ]
Why I hate Hillary (3.80 / 5) (#161)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:13:04 PM EST

I hate Hillary because she:

  A) Attempted to ruin the lives of innocent people in the Whitehouse Travel Office so she could get some of her sycophants jobs there.

  B) Calls the Secret Service Agents who risk thier lives to protect hers "trained pigs" (According to the FBI agent assigned to the WhiteHouse during the Clinton Administration)

  C) Pretends to give a crap about NY (the State I live in) when all it is to her is a venue for political power. She had absolutely ZERO ties to this state before she ran for Senate. It was an open Democratic Senate Seat that she thought she had a good chance of wining...and it had a powerfull lobby... that's the SOLE reason why she ran.

  D) Lies every time she opens her mouth.

There are intelligent females I respect. There are intelligent females I'd vote for president. There are even intelligent female liberals that I respect. Hillary isn't one of them.

[ Parent ]

Ok. (3.50 / 4) (#363)
by fenix down on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:53:17 AM EST

I'll just concede all those.  A and B I know nothing about, and I suspect A has been exagerated, but I'll take them.  B sounds right, though.

C though, I have problems with.  I don't know if you're upstate or not, that would explain a lot.  Anyway, I realize she's only here because it's NY, and just getting on the ballot here is an accomplishment to your average politician.  I also probably would've prefered Guliani, even though I don't agree with him on much.  The reason for that is that NY doesn't get shit from anybody.  Regardless of the city's relationship with upstate, we all send way more money out to the rest of the country than we get back.  We've been getting ignored since fucking Ford, and at the time of the election, it was pretty clear that unless we had somebody like either Clinton or Guliani out there, a big name, 9/11 wasn't going to be enough to change that.  And honestly, even with Clinton, it hasn't been.  We still have only a 3000 ft ceiling over Manhattan for jet liners, for fuck's sake.  If it'd been anybody else, though, I think we'd have been drained to death by now.

Honestly, I liked her better back when she wasn't quite so pandering to everybody, but I'm still going to vote for her whenever she runs.  She's smarter than Bill, and if she's got any of her actual self left under all the political bullshit, I'm sure she'll do something worthwhile.

[ Parent ]

"rest of the country has moved on" (3.66 / 6) (#69)
by Canthros on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:33:40 AM EST

I don't think that's entirely true.

At least, items like this seem to suggest otherwise.

I think the issue is pretty stupid, immature, and ignorant. But it doesn't seem like everyone has "moved on".

--
It's now obvious you are either A) Gay or B) Female, or possibly both.
RyoCokey
[ Parent ]

Don't forget (3.33 / 6) (#88)
by karb on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:58:51 PM EST

During the clinton years, the bumper sticker "My president is Charlton Heston" was pretty popular.

I think it's fair to say that not accepting a popularly elected official here in the states puts you on the fringes of political thought.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

no it wasn't. (3.20 / 5) (#113)
by rmg on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:58:31 PM EST

i don't recall having ever seen one of those. now there was the "don't blame me, i voted for bush" idiots, but those stickers were pretty damn dumb considering that the US was much better off under clinton then the current bunch.

people from other countries might read your comment and think it's true. why do you have to post things  like that? i lived in ohio, which is a pretty conservative state, at that time and i don't remember seeing any "charleton heston is my president" stickers. in fact, there were very few pro-gun bumper stickers at all.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

fairly popular as bumper sticker!=omnipresent (nt) (3.00 / 3) (#209)
by karb on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:41:55 PM EST


--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]
Haha! (2.75 / 4) (#248)
by AndrewW on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:05:43 AM EST

That's really funny. I never saw many of those stickers years ago, but just today I was driving to work and saw one on an old pickup truck. It kept me in a pretty good mood until I was, well, at work.

[ Parent ]
are you always an idiot? (3.50 / 4) (#375)
by partykidd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:14:18 AM EST

"don't blame me, i voted for bush" idiots, but those stickers were pretty damn dumb considering that the US was much better off under clinton then the current bunch
Clinton left Bush one hell of a mess. And you can't attribute the economy to Clinton because 1.) he pretty much left it alone 2.) he raised taxes in 1993 causing a small recession 3.) Republican controlled Congress.
i lived in ohio, which is a pretty conservative state
Ohio is generally considered to be a Democrat state. Dennis Kucinich anybody?

Now of course you'll see this and go, "oh,..i was looking for bites. you got trolled ha ha ha"

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

"rest of the world has moved on..." (3.36 / 11) (#72)
by TurboThy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:44:42 AM EST

The UN (and I) are still suffering from the election of President Doofus.
__
'Someone will sig this comment. They will. I know it.' [Egil Skallagrimson]
[ Parent ]
True, true... (3.60 / 5) (#81)
by debillitatus on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:39:21 PM EST

If there's anything in partisanism which I hate, it's these little snide remarks.

Don't get me wrong... there are dudes on the right which do the same thing to either Clinton, and Carter, and will soon be doing it to Kerry. So it's not just a lefty thing.

In either case, it's just trolling. As you said, MM is just a damn troll, but instead of posts on k5 or /., he's got movies.

On the difference between left and right: one thing I can say about the conservative trolls is that when they do it, they're actually sounding like real people. I mean, come on, what kind of faggotty remark is "Thief-in-Chief"? I mean, if he wants to talk some smack, "lying bastard" or "brainless hypocrite" is so much less gay. Wouldn't you agree?

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

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.

Indeed (4.37 / 8) (#43)
by karb on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:25:44 AM EST

If the boys had been a little bit better bombmakers, the guns might have been an afterthought.

I think it's funny that these kids went through so much trauma at the hands of their peers. So much anguish, so much abuse, so much torment that they finally decide to take matters into their own hands. So what's the reason bullied kids acted out against their aggressors?

Half the people say 'guns', the other half say 'violent video games'. I say your kids are going to keep killing each other.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

What? (3.75 / 4) (#62)
by duffbeer703 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:05:15 AM EST

How about self-preservation?

What do you do when you are constantly and systematically tormeted and the authorities will do nothing about it?

And then you go home to corporate weenie parents who probaly paid more attention to their dog than their children. Hell -- the police found machetes, katanas, guns and other weaponry in open view in the Columbine killer's rooms ... and their parents KNEW NOTHING OF IT!

These people were more than bullied kids... they were lost souls who were neglected or betrayed by every person or entity that was supposed to be looking out for their welfare.

[ Parent ]

Hey ... wait a minute! (3.83 / 6) (#91)
by Queenie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:00:17 PM EST

I grew up under similar circumstances ... and I did not kill anyone ... they are not poor souls ... give me a break!
________________________________________________ ... :) ...
[ Parent ]
they certainly (4.00 / 4) (#97)
by karb on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:21:04 PM EST

Did not react to their problems constructively.

But it is naive to claim that somehow their rampage was a product of guns or violent video games instead of the social persecution. I know I had access to all three as a teenager. Only one of those could have possibly spawned violent retribution. Although, in all fairness, I did graduate from high school before daikatana was released.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (3.20 / 5) (#98)
by Queenie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:23:14 PM EST

:)
________________________________________________ ... :) ...
[ Parent ]
seems to me you didn't see the movie (4.50 / 10) (#50)
by boxed on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:10 AM EST

Moore is saying that the culture of inciting fear COMBINED with easy access to guns is a problem. Basically though guns are always accessible, so that's a moot point. I have been a rabit anti-gun person for years, moores film actually turned me around quite a bit. Maybe you should see it?

[ Parent ]
You are correct (3.11 / 9) (#65)
by duffbeer703 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:12:35 AM EST

I didn't see the movie. To be frank, Moore's style just turns me off... I saw Roger and me and found him too annoying.

Addressing the symptoms (ie. gun violence, gang violence, etc) of larger problems doesn't fix the problem... just shifts the blame.

[ Parent ]

and yet (4.28 / 7) (#74)
by speek on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:58:13 AM EST

You have no problem proclaiming "Moore the antithesis of balance"? And do tell, what does this statement:

Addressing the symptoms (ie. gun violence, gang violence, etc) of larger problems doesn't fix the problem... just shifts the blame.

... have to do with BFC? Oh, that's right, you have no idea, you never saw it. Stick to your duff beer asshole.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

No, I don't (2.37 / 8) (#82)
by duffbeer703 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:39:38 PM EST

You don't need to watch every Michael Moore movie to notice his agenda. Just like you don't need to be glued to your radio every day to pick up what Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney or Jesse Jackson are going to say.

Take a quick look at what St. Moore has to say about those who dare criticize him at his website.

He claims to be on a quest for truth, justice and the american way, while all of his critics are crazy right-wing extremists bent on doing evil. He is a demagogue, nothing more.

My statement in my previous post has everything to do with BFC. It's easy to stand up and say "Guns are out of control!" or "Corporate america sucks!"... because they are easily visible symptoms of deep social problems. A demagogue like Moore or Buchannan or Huey Long uses symptoms as strawmen.

That fact that idiots like you rally around men like Moore and cheer for gun control or stiff narcotics laws show how effective he is and how unwilling we are as a society to deal with the injustice and corruption that is poisoning society.


[ Parent ]

You sound like an idiot (4.22 / 9) (#85)
by curien on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:54:34 PM EST

Look, you've got a point that Moore's a demagogue, and you should have stopped there. Instead, you keep going and shove your foot in your mouth. You already admitted you hadn't seen the movie, so why do you go on spouting "facts" about it?

Here's a hint, dumbass: BFC concludes that guns are not to blame for the violence in America. Seriously, if you haven't seen the movie, just STFU about it.

--
John Ashcroft hates me for my freedom.
[ Parent ]

Demagogues recognize their own kind ... (3.83 / 6) (#87)
by Queenie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:57:09 PM EST

:)
________________________________________________ ... :) ...
[ Parent ]
nice shot (4.25 / 8) (#111)
by speek on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:49:01 PM EST

That fact that idiots like you rally around men like Moore and cheer for gun control or stiff narcotics laws

Too bad you missed by a mile. But, that's what happens when all your facts come from assuming you already know everything.

In light of which, I take back my earlier comment about sticking to duff beer - clearly you're underage. How about some Mountain Dew?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

You make me (3.00 / 5) (#114)
by Queenie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:08:55 PM EST

tingle .... I like the way you write ... yummm!
________________________________________________ ... :) ...
[ Parent ]
surprisingly that's what Moore says! [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#255)
by boxed on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:05:49 AM EST



[ Parent ]
perfect (3.60 / 10) (#71)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:43:44 AM EST

me too, i really thought gun control was the answer but then i realised there was a more fundamental problem than needed to be addressed first without these knee-jerk anti-gun reactions.

so i guess i can have my views changed by facts, but then as all the rabid corporate rights here are saying it's full of lies I shouldn't be influenced it and go back to banning guns like god intended me to....don't want to disappoint all those Ann Coulter's around here now

Ciao

[ Parent ]

You are SO missing the point (4.12 / 8) (#104)
by Sleepy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:31:26 PM EST

The movie isn't about Columbine or high school shootings per se. What Moore is trying to say is that with a culture such as the USA as it is today, maybe having easy access to guns isn't such a good idea after all. Regardless of what made the Columbine kids what they were, it's pretty likely that things would have turned out differently if they hadn't been able to purchase all those guns legally, and if they hadn't been able to stop by at K-mart to buy a shitload of ammunition. What you are asking for is another movie on another topic. I'd like to see that movie, but that does not have an impact on the quality of "Bowling".

[ Parent ]
truth versus death (3.16 / 6) (#109)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:46:58 PM EST

Care to explain the rating?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Message (4.20 / 5) (#202)
by felixrayman on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:21:31 PM EST

he took the easy path -- "Guns are out of control!"

That certainly wasn't the message I got from the movie. The movie said hey, other countries have the same level of gun ownership as the US without near the level of violence, it can't be guns causing it so what is it? And then went on to explore some other possibilities such as the mixed ethnic makeup of the US and the trouble with civil rights...

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Your first 2 paras make good points (3.25 / 4) (#261)
by Gully Foyle on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:54:26 AM EST

Your second two are factually wrong. You get a 3.

If you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong - kableh
[ Parent ]

Did you see the movie? (3.00 / 5) (#277)
by rantweasel on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:19:31 AM EST

He never said that guns are out of control, and in fact the whole point of his trip to Canada, buying ammunition at a Canadian gunstore, and trying doors to see if they were locked was to prove the point that places with lots of guns can be absurdly safe and crime free.  If anything, the movie is pro gun, but anti media, anti idiot, and anti asshole.

mathias

[ Parent ]

dude, read my comment! (3.50 / 4) (#382)
by boxed on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:57:13 AM EST

duffbeer already admitted to not having seen the movie, because I already asked him.

[ Parent ]
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.

which is fun because that's what's happening [nt] (4.00 / 6) (#49)
by boxed on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:48:27 AM EST



[ Parent ]
proof by example? (3.50 / 6) (#56)
by khallow on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:25:24 AM EST

So Moore produces a documentary with the very flaws you claim he spies in the media in general? How droll.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

That occurred to me (4.14 / 7) (#80)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 12:28:25 PM EST

I think that to some part he does use the same scare tactics. I don't see how his speech about missiles gliding through the night while children sleep is any different from the news.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
that's exactly the point (3.50 / 10) (#101)
by thefirelane on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:26:07 PM EST

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.


I think that's the point people resent... If you are going to take some sort of higher moral position over the "fear mongering media" don't use the same techniques they do, while claiming to be "better".

I think that's what the left does so much more often that pisses people off... Telling other people they are morally superior, then doing the exact same thing as them. Of course, when they do it, it is excusable because they are doing "the right thing". Basically an "ends justify the means" thing, but while calling your opponents identical means immoral.

Witness:
  • The French berating the US for its cotton subsidies (while simultaneously giving its farmers more subsidies and leading to 3rd world starvation)
  • The Lefts insistence that "school choice" is bad, then praising the Harvey Milk school, that gays can choose to go to.


This is not to say the Right is without fault. But more often than not, the right simply says something to the effect of "Being Gay is a Sin, I'm a bigot so what, God says it's ok". Which doesn't bother me, I simply say "fine, sure, whatever, do whatever you want." When someone says "I'm a better person than you because I have a higher moral sense" then doesn't back it up, that is annoying.


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 6) (#130)
by Politburo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:05:09 PM EST

But more often than not, the right simply says something to the effect of "Being Gay is a Sin, I'm a bigot so what, God says it's ok". Which doesn't bother me, I simply say "fine, sure, whatever, do whatever you want." When someone says "I'm a better person than you because I have a higher moral sense" then doesn't back it up, that is annoying.

I can't see how these are actually different. Both people are rationalizing their behavior or position through morals. The difference is that the "right's" morals are from a god, and the "left's" morals are made up (in your example). The use of religion as an excuse for poor behavior (in your example) sits ok with you, though?

[ Parent ]
Yes (3.50 / 4) (#156)
by thefirelane on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:00:18 PM EST

The use of religion as an excuse for poor behavior (in your example) sits ok with you, though?

Yes, because in this case, religion is a specific set of rules. The morality of these rules is faith-based (based on those rules themselves) So it really isn't open for debate (as much). Therefore it does not bother me, because it is not a matter of debate, but faith.

Contrast this with a leftist appeal to intelligence/moral sense. These positions are open for debate, as they are an attempt to justify a position on the inherent morality of the position itself (instead of the morality stemming from the arbitrary word of God).

Therefore, when someone makes the claim "you should believe X, because such a position is morally better" but then only does so when it is convenient for them, it is much more irritating (see France example above).


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Rules? (3.80 / 5) (#217)
by Politburo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:02:30 PM EST

Yes, because in this case, religion is a specific set of rules.

It is? Every religion has many different subsets who disagree on some aspect of the religion. Some of these differences can be quite large, so I can't see how religion is any more a specific set of rules than an arbitrary non religious moral code.

What is your opinion of Islamic Fundamentalism vs. Unabomer-style anarchic-terrorism?

[ Parent ]
Energizer bunny (2.75 / 4) (#249)
by thefirelane on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:13:39 AM EST

Every religion has many different subsets who disagree on some aspect of the religion.

Yes, but the members of that religion belong to a specific subset. Very few people are "generic christians". And even if they are (call them deists) they just believe there are fewer "God made" rules than say someone who believes in what they believe in (Thou shalt not kill) and additionally believe "God hates gays" as well.

What is your opinion of Islamic Fundamentalism vs. Unabomer-style anarchic-terrorism?

Not that I am in any way familiar with either belief system to accurately comment, but you asked for an opinion, so here it goes:

With the Islamic Fundamentalists, it is as I said. They simply have to say "Hey, God said kill the infidels, I'm just doing what I'm told".

Whereas the unibomber takes a position (technology is evil, or whatever) Then arbitrarily decides it is ok to use a type writer (or a modern printing press system to print his message in Playboy).

What I'm getting at, is with religion people are applying a moral code that they were given and believe in based on faith. With the other, individuals are applying a moral code that they created and believe in based on reason. Since it was created by "man" it is open to debate, as humans can understand it (whereas the mind of God is "unknowable", so don't try to debate against it)


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
View (3.00 / 3) (#322)
by Politburo on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:29:46 PM EST

We just have different views of religion. I just don't see religion as such a hard set of rules as you do. Simple example: "Thou shalt not kill". Great rule, except it's violated in the Bible itself. Obviously Thou shall kill, but only when necessary. The rule exposes itself to be much more fluid than on its face.

[ Parent ]
the commandments say (3.00 / 4) (#369)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 03:51:39 AM EST

The commandments actually say "Thou shalt not murder". That is completely different, look it up if you want.

[ Parent ]
Tautology, then (3.80 / 5) (#385)
by mozmozmoz on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:23:28 AM EST

Read that way, the rule becomes "don't kill people when the rules don't let you", which is a bit silly.

Most religions are full of rules that many people ignore, but since I'm most familiar with christianity here's a simple example.

"thou shalt not lie with man as with woman, it is abomination". Which is fine. "thou shalt not eat shellfish, it is an abomination". Which many Christians ignore. Why is only one of those bits of Leviticus important today?

Using the splitting-hairs technique, I can say that I've never done the "lie with", as I have never put my penis in another man's vagina. I don't intend to do so either. YMMV.

For more amusement from the Auld Testiment, try this

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

Yes, tautology (3.50 / 4) (#396)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 11:08:04 AM EST

Read that way, the rule becomes "don't kill people when the rules don't let you", which is a bit silly.

Perhaps silly, but that is exactly what it says, I don't think there is an alternative interpretation. There are lots of people who think it says "don't kill, period" but they are simply wrong.

I guess I'm just one of that vanishingly small number of non-christians who actually read the bible very carefully... ah well.

Thanks for the Leviticus links btw, that was good.

[ Parent ]

What's truly hilarious about the debate (4.33 / 6) (#398)
by sllort on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:04:18 PM EST

Is that to many, Bowling for Columbine isn't an anti-gun movie.

For the first time, on millions of movie screens, Americans were forced to confront the fact that their neighbors to the north have far more guns per capita and far fewer gun deaths per capita. Moore sensationalizes this by showing totals instead of per capita (187 gun deaths in Canada, 11,000+ in the USA) but he gets the point across: gun ownership has nothing at all to do with gun violence.

Yes, the rebuttal is incomplete. Yes, Moore's credibility is shot, and Bowling is not a documentary. But that doesn't mean that his film isn't valuable. I felt that it was one of the best movies I'd ever seen, if not for the footage of the journalist in Michigan then for the Nichols interview. Both were pure gold - fanatics and the sitcom-bound fools who ignore them.

The conservatives attacking this film need to get their heads out of their asses and embrace Moore's core message: gun ownership in America has nothing to do with gun violence in America.

He may have done a poor job proving it, but at least he tried. Michael Moore is the positron to Rush Limbaugh's electron: polarized attention whores blindly slinging the same tired half truths. Bowling is a historian's dream: a film which unwittingly highlights the fatal flaw of America's popular culture - sensationalism before fact, emotion before reason, the writer of the film and his ilk.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

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

If you ask me (4.10 / 10) (#117)
by mcc on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:13:14 PM EST

Well.. If you ask me, the whole thing is for no reason other than becuase Michael Moore stood up at the Oscar ceremony and SAID MEAN THINGS ABOUT GEORGE W BUSH!! NO FAIR!!

Seriously. Did anyone else notice any of these sites before Oscar night? There may have been a few, but before that, they got no attention. There was no debunk-bowling-for-columbine movement. There was no "bowling for columbine is not a documentary" meme, or if there was, there weren't people running around whining every time someone called it a documentary. I note that there was nobody running around complaining about the journalistic integrity problems with Bowling for Columbine BEFORE it got the Oscar. You know, during the period where journalistic integrity was one of the factors being taken into account in whether it won the Oscar in the first place. No, we just have people running around afterward. Most importantly: Before the Oscar, the people complaining about the problems with Bowling for Columbine were not getting MEDIA attention. Now theyr'e getting lots of it.

Maybe it was just that with the Oscar, Moore drew attention to himself he wouldn't have recieved otherwise. But I don't think so. I think the entire anti-Moore movement is just a reptillian-core "HOW DARE YOU" response for the imaginary war, imaginary wmd, imaginary president comment.

[Disclaimer: Personally, I WAS lead to believe by the editing that the two NRA rallies mentioned in the movie were held directly after the shootings as a response to the shootings, not nine months later, and it did bother me a lot to find I'd been misled. However, I've read the debunking sites. I don't think anything they have to say has any bearing on Moore's actual point. Every single shady thing that Moore did to prove his thesis could have been simply dropped from the movie without it imparing his thesis one bit. I think Charlton Heston is a jackass, but I don't see what  character attacks on Charlton Heston technically have to do with gun control. I wish he'd just go through and re-edit it without these flaws for the next dvd release. Nevertheless, if I ever read any of his books from this point forward, I'm DEFINITELY going to check up on the references before I take him seriously..]

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

agreed (3.57 / 7) (#138)
by the sixth replicant on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:39:49 PM EST

he was just over the top at the oscars but then again i really liked what he said - even though it wasn't that long ago it did feel like you couldn't say a word against Bush - and just having the balls and saying Bush is a liar, kinda rocks. bill hicks would have been proud.

Similarly, i did cringe at some of the stuff in BFC but really I mostly remember having a fucken good howling laugh and the audience with me. So a good entertaining film that made you think! I wonder how many errors are in Spellbound doco? Jesus, the National Geographic docos are disgusting too.

Ciao

[ Parent ]

+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

Why guns? (4.00 / 5) (#102)
by yamla on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:28:45 PM EST

I'm curious. I'm British by nationality and Canadian by residency. You state that you are surprised that after 9/11, the left isn't advocating firearms ownership. I don't understand why you think this would happen. Firearms would not have helped avert the 9/11 disaster at all with the possible exception of allowing all passengers on board a plane to carry guns. I'm not aware of anyone advocating that, though. I suppose allowing pilots to carry guns may have helped though there are significant issues with that. So with the understanding that firearms would have been useless during 9/11, why do you think the left should be advocating them strongly now?

[ Parent ]
POST-9/11 (3.00 / 3) (#155)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:56:47 PM EST

Thomas Jefferson wrote, paraphrased on my part cause I'm too lazy to look it up, that one of the main purposes of gun rights was for an armed citizenry, as a last resort, to overthrow a tyrannical government. Many liberals (and a few conservatives) think Ashcroft is leading us into an age of tyranny through things like the Patriot Act parts I and II. The logic here is that if the left is so concerned about this, they should be arming themselves instead of writing whiny letters to the editor.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
I think (3.00 / 4) (#242)
by andamac on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:52:43 AM EST

that I'll let YOU fight of the army with your semi-automatic pistol, ok?

[ Parent ]
Would you rather (4.20 / 5) (#391)
by Cro Magnon on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 10:16:01 AM EST

fight off the army WITHOUT a semi-automatic pistol?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Yep. (3.50 / 4) (#393)
by squigly on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 10:35:05 AM EST

An autoimatic pistol would be next to wqorthless.  It might kill one guy if you're lucky.  Meanwhile, you get riddled with bullet holes.  You'd be better off using home made explosives and booby traps.  A sniper rifle with a telescopic sight might be fairly useful though.

[ Parent ]
Worked for Gandhi (N/T) (3.00 / 3) (#402)
by LPetr on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 01:00:01 PM EST

This is not a comment.;)
~~~ The only good religion is a dead religion.
[ Parent ]
The pen is mightier than the sword (3.50 / 6) (#110)
by nebbish on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 01:47:48 PM EST

And other cliches.

Seriously though, armed left wing groups in the west - the Weathermen, the Baader-Meinhoff gang, the Red Brigades - have generally just succeeded in blowing up innocent people and making complete arses of themselves and the causes they fight for. I hope we've seen the back of them myself.

And there'd be no more certain a way for Michael Moore to get himself sent to Guantamano Bay than if he picked up a gun and started using that instead of a film camera.

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

PENIS MIGHTIER (3.00 / 3) (#139)
by evilpenguin on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:42:57 PM EST

I've wasted a pretty penny in search of a good penis mightier.
--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
[ Parent ]
RE: Penis Mightier (3.00 / 3) (#151)
by cht on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:38:14 PM EST

evolpenguin sez:

"I've wasted a pretty penny in search of a good penis mightier."

Let me help you! I've got some email offers here in my IN box that might be of some interest to you...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
[ Parent ]

God, someone sig this already -NT (3.00 / 3) (#183)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:57:38 PM EST



--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
You, Sir... (3.00 / 3) (#272)
by evilpenguin on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 08:22:13 AM EST

Look like someone who hasn't watched enough SNL.
--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
[ Parent ]
Oh like that will help (3.50 / 4) (#121)
by spammacus on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:29:50 PM EST

... So you can instead use a gun to commit a crime that they _can_ charge you with? Don't be stupid.
-- "Asshole, deconstruct thyself." - Mr. Surly
[ Parent ]
What Moore is (2.80 / 5) (#200)
by felixrayman on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:17:00 PM EST

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.

Moore is a gun-owner and a card carrying member of the NRA. He certainly didn't whine about guns in his movie, the whole point of his movie was that guns aren't the root cause of the level of violence in the US. Which you may not see as a "real issue" but others do.

As a side note, I zeroed your comment for using the phrase "post-9/11 world".

Cheers!

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Kind of juvenile (3.00 / 3) (#328)
by curien on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:41:10 PM EST

I gather that you object to the phrase "post-9/11 world" because it implies that 9/11 changed the world rather than just America. I think that's kind of juvenile, as many people use it to mean something more like, "my view of the world, post-9/11". After all, the world didn't really change (except being minus a building or two); only people's perceptions of it did.

--
John Ashcroft hates me for my freedom.
[ Parent ]
cliche police (3.40 / 5) (#356)
by fenix down on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:24:47 PM EST

I would assume he 0ed because the phrase has been used just about enough times to start tearing the fabric of space time by the sheer volume of it's meaninglessness. It's been around for 3 years, I think it's time to move it into the "off limits except for satire" category.

[ Parent ]
9mm vs. the GPS-guided nuclear cruise missile (3.40 / 5) (#358)
by fenix down on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:09:40 AM EST

Doesn't work. I mean, shit, we could sit here and go through every concievable set of events that could ever happen, and you having bought a gun doesn't help any of them. Unless your ultimate goal is to fly out a window and get dramatically riddled with bullets, the violence angle isn't going to get you there.

[ Parent ]
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.

Huh? (3.00 / 4) (#122)
by molo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:29:59 PM EST

I havn't seen the film.. but what is this about?  (if it is a serious comment, and not sarcasm)

-molo

--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
[ Parent ]

It's about the Zapruder film (nt) (3.40 / 5) (#126)
by Politburo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:45:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yeah, sure, the 'Zapruder' film. (3.00 / 4) (#185)
by RobotSlave on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:16:41 PM EST

That's exactly what they'd like you to believe, of course, but using someone else's name to refer to Moore's film is just another part of the ongoing campaign of disinformation.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people willing to look into the simple facts of the matter, and let me tell you, Michael Moore won't be sleeping easy as long as we keep asking the hard-hitting questions and exposing the vast, vile tangle of lies for what it is.

[ Parent ]

Exactly (2.50 / 3) (#236)
by Maserati on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:37:38 PM EST

That's was right about the time he directed "Blue Hawaii" wasn't it ?

--

For the wise a hint, for the fool a stick.
[ Parent ]

That and the guy with the umbrella. (nt) (2.50 / 3) (#136)
by Pac on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:33:38 PM EST


Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
Something's wrong. (3.00 / 4) (#422)
by it certainly is on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:52:42 PM EST

I Agree With This Post.

Well done, Sir.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

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

true (4.00 / 7) (#119)
by speek on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:14:08 PM EST

And it's a shame too, because the real point of the movie - how fear-mongering has increased the danger we face in our lives - is an excellent point well made in the movie. The whole Charlton Heston angle was completely off-topic to this larger point and could only have been included to increase the controversial nature of the film and thus help put it in the limelight.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

I don't even think that was made well. (3.50 / 6) (#125)
by jjayson on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 02:42:10 PM EST

Moore makes on glancing contact with culture of fear argument. After the Heston interview, the bullet ordeal, his cartoon, and the rest, when he gets to his Canada part about them having more guns per capita, I felt cheated. He just wasted 90 minutes of the movie talking about something he will only cursorily dismiss as irrelevant.

I'm not the movie geek, so I don't know about Moore's skills in that area (I do think that too many confuse Moore's supposed ability with just their agreement), but I know that Moore's ability to make a coherent argument is incredibly lacking. In his book it was the same thing. Moore's basic strategy seems to be more along the lines of some of the lastest commedian writers: make is entertaining (even if that means stretching the truth), partisan, and try to shame the populace first, then with whatever energy is left, making a real argument seems to low on the list.

I guess I believe that if your position is what you believe to be so blatanly true, then you don't need to stretch the facts or contort something to make your case. There should be plenty that you can shoot straight with and achieve all other goals at the same time. If you have to resort to trickery, then maybe you need to rethink your plan of attack or maybe even your view.

His common man routine isn't working anymore either.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

hrrm.. (3.16 / 6) (#132)
by Wah on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:12:25 PM EST

you said: I left the threater thinking that Littleton really did build weapons,

Moore said: "In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles.

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss."

There's one.  

you said: that the NRA really did intentionally sneeringly throw their meeting with Heston's speech and all right after the school shooting

Moore said: "Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he?"

There's the Denver one.  The Michigan one is explained by the editing, and Eloquence mentioned it in the article, with Moore concurring.  

"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. "

I don't quite get it.  A person asking questions about why there is a climate of fear is the same thing as another person generating that climate of fear?  Is this your position?  

"Even if he didn't try to mislead anybody, he clearly tried to make us scared."

Scared of our own culture of fear, perhaps. What else did the movie make (or attempt to make) you afraid of?  You do see how that particular fear cancels itself out, right?

"Moore has no integrity."

Go read Moore's post (since you obviously skipped it, see the first paragraph of this reply).   See who is lacking integrity in this debate.  

"...and many other things."

[waits patiently to hear them so I can correct them]
--
kewpie
[ Parent ]

You do realize (4.00 / 5) (#212)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:48:59 PM EST

You do realize that the NRA cancled the vast majority of the events they had planned for the Denver rally don't you?

It seems the only event they held was the annual members meeting which they are required BY LAW to hold once a year since they are a corporation.

I think it's not too much to cut the NRA some slack for not moving a meeting on 10 days notice that probably gets scheduled 2 years in advance.

I particularly like the comparison done on this site.
      (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/bowling.htm)

[ Parent ]

yes, it's kinda fun (none / 2) (#481)
by Wah on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 04:30:07 PM EST

It seems the only event they held was the annual members meeting which they are required BY LAW to hold once a year since they are a corporation.

Sorry, but a corporation having A LAW that says they have to be an asshole, doesn't really carry a whole lot of weight on my bygones-o-meter.

I think it's not too much to cut the NRA some slack for not moving a meeting on 10 days notice that probably gets scheduled 2 years in advance.

Yea, it's not like 20 people got slaughtered with weapons they've been working to keep legal and untraceable only a couple of weeks before.  

I'm glad that the people in the NRA are proud of their organization, but they made a mistake doing things in Colorado the way they did.  It blew over, and in this case, the memory of the storm might be stronger than the storm itself.  

Which is why Bowling for Columbine is a good (powerful) documentary.

On that critique:

  1. Bullshit.  Lockheed Martin is a defense contractor.  Half of the shit they really do can't be discussed for 20 years.
  2. Only real point (with the Heston one).  They didn't 'call' a rally, they declined to cancel one.  Yes, Moore edits the scene.  "Cold, dead, hands" is a cultural icon.  Sucks when they are used against their creators, but it happens.
  3. 8 months, huh.  How old was the kid that died again?  Yes, "get out the vote" ... and vote for more guns and more forced labor programs.
  4. You've never been to the South.  All the roots there are racist, it was nearly a defining characteristic of the region.  It is not as true today (I'm from Texas), but the two organizations have a common history.  Also, people learn and grow, but that doesn't change the past.
  5. Bullshit.  We handed the Taliban a quarter of a billion dollars to fight the 'War on Drugs' and it came straight from the U.S.  Who it went through to get there is immaterial.
  6. Lying with statistics.  Err, misleading with statistics.  In comparisons to countries of similar social and economic status, the U.S. stands out like a sort thumb in regards to gun violence.  
  7. Valid.  I don't believe Heston to be a racist.  Moore sells him short here, in a gratuitous ad-hominem attack.
  8. Again displaying why people think of gun nuts, as gun nuts.  

--
kewpie
[ Parent ]
Erm, but? (4.14 / 7) (#133)
by Rayban on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:12:25 PM EST

What are you talking about?  Charlton Heston did speak immediately (well, 10 days) after the tragedy in Denver.   You can clearly see the Expo sign at the beginning on the clip.  

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/movie.php?mov=heston

He also provides the transcript:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/heston.php

I can't see how this isn't clear to you.  Am I being fooled by this?

As for Littleton, there's more information here.  They did make weapons.  He doesn't have the edited clip on his site, so I can't say what his message was.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/movie.php?mov=lockheed-03

I can see Moore's reasoning, but I can't understand yours.  Please explain further.

[ Parent ]

Exactly why I don't like this submission (3.50 / 6) (#143)
by jjayson on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:14:31 PM EST

A little over one month ago Eloquence submitted a large story on Bowling for Columbine, trying to defend it against the claims of "The Truth About Bowling." This is the exact same argument that happened last month. There is nothing new.

The whole thing resolves about the fact that everything Moore said can be twisted into some form fo truth, the documentary as a whole fails to pass the truthfullness test and is intentionally misleading. It is the context that matters.

In the documentar, Moore makes it sound like the NRA went to Littleton antagonistically, when in reality the NRA canceled all non required parts of the gathers and only had the essential meetings that were required by their laws. They canceled plans that they had started making a year ago. It actually sounds like the NRA went to quite a bit of trouble to be very cautious about it and do what was within their power (chaning a yealy national meeting to another city on 10 days notice was just not logistically possible).

Moore's quick edits to make it should like the "cold dead hands" remark was directed at the Littleton folks was terrible (intentioanlly) misleading. Moor knows this, and he used the juxaposition for effect, but that effect he was aiming for was to mislead viewers.

There is nothing I am not repeating that wasn't said last month. Why bother to have this story again so soon? That's dumb.

Moore's arguments are representatively summed up well by Eloquence's argument: "Moore himself did phrase it as a question in the movie."  He sets up the situation that even if Moore is factually wrong about the shooters going bowling that morning, he didn't really say they did; he just asked if they did. Anybody with a have a brain realizes that is a rhetorical question intended to give an answer and not really question anything. It's the way everything in this movie in defended. A sentence may be literally true, but the sentence combined with the pictures going on in the background and the implications of Moore are misleading statements (i.e., lies).

_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

i disagree (3.37 / 8) (#159)
by joschi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:08:31 PM EST

" Moore's quick edits to make it should like the "cold dead hands" remark was directed at the Littleton folks was terrible (intentioanlly) misleading. Moor knows this, and he used the juxaposition for effect, but that effect he was aiming for was to mislead viewers."

no, moore was using that quote, the most famous quote from heston as representing the NRA to establish why exactly this would be controversial to have the NRA meeting there.  The NRA likes to pretend its just some middle of the road group, when in fact it is a very extreme right wing group.   that quote demonstrates it rather sucinctly.  I, nor anyone I've asked was confused by that.  You're trying to make something out of nothing.

[ Parent ]

i agree (3.00 / 5) (#188)
by The Central Committee on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:30:41 PM EST

where is the balance in moore's depiction of Heston

surely Moore knew that they had to hold the agm

did he make the audience aware of this?

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
[ Parent ]

You have to do better than that (3.80 / 5) (#259)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:43:35 AM EST

This is the exact same argument that happened last month. There is nothing new.

That's a flat out lie. Was there an official denial and explanation by Michael Moore in the last submission? No. I can't help but notice that you give us nothing but vague generalizations about his defence when you bother to refer to it at all.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I really shouldn't respond... (3.40 / 5) (#149)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:36:12 PM EST

...without having seen the film. However, I have read some of the criticisms of the film.

What the critics are saying is not that Heston didn't speak in Denver (he did) but that Moore has 2 clips of Heston speaking... 1 of Heston at the Denver occasion and 1 of Heston at a different event in North Carolina on a different occasion. Moore (according to the critics) cobbles these 2 clips together without attempting to give any indication that they are 2 SEPERATE occasions. This, according to the critics, makes it appear like BOTH clips occur during the Denver event.... which, of course, gives a false impression of what Heston actualy said and did at the Denver occasion.

IF this is true (again I didn't see the film) then it's a pretty cheap tactic on Moore's part.

It's pretty low to cobble together pieces of different speechs taken out of context without any explanation to the audience of whats happening. You could pretty much make ANYONE say ANYTHING you want if you take that to an extreme.

What Moore should have done (again If what the critics say is true) is, at the very least have put a big overlay on each clip giving the date and location when each occured.

As for Littleton (again according to the critics), the operative word is DID (past tense).
According to them, Moore's film makes it seem like they were manufacturing ICBM's at that plant at the time of the shooting...apparently however they stopped manufacturing them there sometime during the 80's and switched to manufacturing payload delivery systems for satelite (using much the same rocket chasis). The big rocket you see in back of the guy being interviewed apparently isn't a missle, it's a rocket stage for a satilite launcher.

Locheed does (I've heard) still make weapon systems elsewhere but (again if the critics are correct) it would be a cheap shot of Moore to try to imply they were still being made at THAT plant when they were... and would have legitamately weakened the association he was trying to push between the operations at that plant and the boys attitude toward violence.

Again, I did NOT see the film. I am NOT venturing an opinion or conclusion on it myself. I'm just stating what I have read of the criticisms..... which your post doesn't actualy seem to address.

[ Parent ]

right, you really shouldnt respond (3.50 / 4) (#160)
by joschi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:11:00 PM EST

it was plenty clear they were from different speaches.  he uses a cut to a sign to show differentiate the two.  

[ Parent ]
You Mean (3.40 / 5) (#165)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:33:03 PM EST

You mean that the sign that has the big "NRA Annual Meeting - Columbine Colorado" poster on it?

That is supposed to indicate that the other clip of Heston actualy occured in North Carolina how?

Since you've seen the film, please indicate to me how the viewer is supposed to tell which clip occured where.

Also, does Moore in his film use a technique where he cuts away from a scene to show something and then cuts back to origional scene?

A good documentary (to my mind) should be pretty clear about exactly when and where things are occuring.

Also I don't know too many other good documentaries that use pieces of different speeches by the same person and then cobble them together in a montage.

But you are right, I shouldn't continue to comment on it without seeing it. I just refuse to give Michael Moore any money.

[ Parent ]

watch it, its totally clear. (4.00 / 7) (#167)
by joschi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:38:59 PM EST

he's wearing different clothes, on a different stage.  its *utterly* clear that the first quote is just establishing how extreme heston and the nra are.  the long shot on the sign is a standard technique to introduce the listener to a new scene.  there is no confusion.

[ Parent ]
mike says it better (3.66 / 6) (#168)
by joschi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:42:18 PM EST

"As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image - hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?"

where's the confusion?

[ Parent ]

saw movie, read transcript (3.75 / 4) (#216)
by speek on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:04 PM EST

The transcript of the speech sounds pretty reasonable to me. The movie made it seem less so, mostly by picking and choosing the soundbites and changing the order. From the movie, you get the impression Heston is saying "you can't keep us out". From the transcript you get the impression Heston is saying "we are Littleton, so you can't keep us out". Big difference in my mind. Attacking the NRA is a cheap shot for this movie and it would have been better without it.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

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

Heston (3.60 / 5) (#134)
by Politburo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 03:17:30 PM EST

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Heston was the President of the NRA. While his duties may have been that of a spokesman, he was still the highest official of the organization, and as such, would be the correct person to go to if you wanted some answers from the NRA. (Note: I do not condone Moore's behavior as you describe it; I have not seen the film).

[ Parent ]
Well, (4.00 / 4) (#324)
by trhurler on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:37:23 PM EST

Really, Heston is a figurehead. He's a famous man. Sort of like the way the US Green party picked a celebrity candidate to run for president even though they knew he had the political credentials of an earthworm(and yes, I mean that. Experience as an extortionist trial lawyer and the head of a "consumer action group" or whatever has absolutely no bearing on running for public office, and nearly every president in recent times has had prior experience doing just that.) Granted, it is a dopey way to do things, but lots of people do it, and that's that. The NRA has lots of spokesmen who are both temperamentally suited and properly equipped to deal with interviews such as the one Moore did, and Moore knows that. He also knows that Heston isn't one of them. That's WHY he chose to go after Heston.

And really, you should see the film. He abuses Heston to the point where the guy can hardly finish a sentence, and then jumps on him for saying some stupid things. Big deal.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
What? (3.63 / 11) (#173)
by Wah on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:04:21 PM EST

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.

Yea, then they should have sued that kid's ass for trying to shoplift that K-Mart bullet still in his body.  Remember, the one that shattered his spine?

In short, the movie has precisely zero arguments...,

Personally, I found the movie destroyed many arguments and tried to answer a single question.  Why do we keep killing each other so damn much here?  With guns.

I thought his 'answer', which I consider to be a  move towards introspection about the nature of U.S. mass media and resulting culture, was rather strong.

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?!

Hold on a sec there, Tonto.  There weren't any arguments in the movie, don't you remember? 'Precisely zero' in your own words.

If Heston is unfit to defend his organization, then maybe it's time to step down as its President.

Speaking of arguments...what is yours against the movie...

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.

Ah yes, the terribly consistent ad-hominem. The thing created sucks, because you don't like the person who created it.

Yes, Moore falls into the same hole for a couple of sentences.  You do notice how the stuff in between those sentences is a point by point refutation of the amorphous attacks on his work.  The part where people call him a liar for saying he walked into a bank and walked out with a gun.  Where he lied about Lockheed Martin buiding nukes.  And lied about the NRA holding a rally in Denver soon after Columbine in the face of various calls to stay away for a while.

And David Hardy, the guy with the original long critique everyone else cites, doesn't really come out and mention that he has been religiously attacking everyone who winks at his guns for a long time (scroll down).  Kinda hurts Mr. Hardy's credibility as a disinterested, objective observer, don't ya think?
--
kewpie
[ Parent ]

Heh (4.50 / 6) (#325)
by trhurler on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:09:28 PM EST

Yeah, because you know, since one kid got shot, obviously K-Mart should stop selling bullets of the type that hit him. No further analysis is necessary. We don't need to look into stats on how often guns are used to prevent crime, or how many law abiding citizens use guns for legitimate reasons, or how many justifiable homicides(aka crimes prevented by shooting the perpetrator,) there are each year, or whether K-Mart halting sales will make any difference. No sir. Why bother, when we have an emotionally volatile display - a kid in a wheelchair!

What argument did the movie destroy? Name ONE. And make sure it is an argument gun people actually use, rather than some bullshit you wish they'd use.

David Hardy is no more or less a "disinterested observer" than is Michael Moore. What's wrong with that? Why do liberal dipshits feel that it is ok for them to be activists, but that activists who oppose them are all conspirators with an agenda? I mean, really? Why?

Lockheed Martin doesn't and didn't "build nukes." An ICBM is also known as a satellite launch vehicle, or a "rocket." Yes, they were used as ICBMs. Yes, they were used to CARRY nukes. BUT, Lockheed Martin was never in the business of building nukes, and rockets are not in and of themselves WMD.

Finally, the core point: the movie didn't even begin to look at why so many people die of gun violence. 11,000+ deaths, sure. But, how many of them were kids shooting up schools? A couple dozen. Does Moore admit that? Of course not. Does he admit that almost all of those deaths were gang related, and that the victims were not innocents? Nope. Does he admit that the gun problem is miniscule compared to other problems that are much easier to work on, and that people such as himself could make a contribution to? Of course not. Does he admit that a law abiding citizen's chance of being shot, even in a bad neighborhood, is so slim that he's more likely to be killed going to or from work? Oh, hey, that got left out, didn't it? Does he mention the justifiable homicide list? Nah. The police position on handgun ownership by citizens(not the politically appointed chiefs, but the police themselves?) Of course not. Does he mention ANYTHING that might be relevant in forming public policy? No.

He just puts a disabled kid on the screen and blackmails a corporation, uses a nearly senile old figurehead of an organization as a verbal punching bag, and intersperses footage of a rally with footage of a crying father. Because you know, those things are all that matters. Damn the facts.

Oh, by the way, if a speaker for a cause you agreed with was told to "stay out of town," what would you say? Do you think that NAACP and similar "leaders" should have stayed out of towns where there had previously been race riots that killed people? I bet you don't. I bet you would be appalled at the suggestion that if a mentally ill man killed someone, the town he lives in should kick out all its mentally ill people and the facilities that house them. What would you think if I said that since some trailer trash skinhead killed a gay guy last year on July 4th, we shouldn't celebrate that holiday anymore, and we should burn down all the trailer parks?

Moore is, as I said, merely a demagogue too ugly to be elected.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Why do I get the feeling (3.75 / 4) (#390)
by Ward57 on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 09:26:31 AM EST

that you still think this film was an anti-gun campain. Sure he has no arguments against gun control, since he believes in it himself.

[ Parent ]
Heh (2.75 / 3) (#412)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 04:43:49 PM EST

You obviously have problems with the English language. The movie was an emotional onslaught designed to appeal to people who fear guns - period. Exactly what Moore believes or wants, whether it be a list of banned weapons, bans on types of weapons, refusal to sell ammunition to anyone who doesn't have forms in triplicate, a total gun ban, or whatever, it doesn't matter. The point is, the movie was an emotional anti-gun broadside the likes of which Goebbels would be proud.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Funny. (3.00 / 3) (#413)
by Ward57 on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 04:55:39 PM EST

I found myself becoming more trusting of gun ownership after watching it.

[ Parent ]
bleh (none / 2) (#480)
by Wah on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 04:10:48 PM EST

We don't need to look into stats on how often guns are used to prevent crime, or how many law abiding citizens use guns for legitimate reasons, or how many justifiable homicides(aka crimes prevented by shooting the perpetrator,) there are each year, or whether K-Mart halting sales will make any difference.

Somehow I doubt that the 'oftenness' of guns being used to prevent crime outweighs the oftenness of guns being used to commit crimes.  As a country we have the prisoners to show that one is slightly more prevalent than the other.

I am curious to see something of a breakdown of those 11,000 or so people a year.  The kids shooting themselves with their parents gun are a small minority, of course, but they weigh kinda heavy, IMHO, just because of the horror associated with such events.

Moore's digging into one of those events in an anecdotal, emotional argument.  Not a statistical one.  It is difficult to make as powerful an emotional argument for the other case (lots of guns is good because it brings down crime), but maybe you have some ideas.  

What argument did the movie destroy? Name ONE. And make sure it is an argument gun people actually use, rather than some bullshit you wish they'd use.

We have to establish the question before arguments can be named.  In regards to what I think the relevant question being asked ('Why do so many people, in gross and proportionately, get killed by guns in the U.S. every year?'), the argument that the problem is 'gun ownership' was rather strongly debunked.  The idea that 'poverty' was the main culprit was also address, although I think with less ferver.  The idea that 'racial diversity' was the main cause was also addressed.  If you have more example for the question I explicitly raised, offer them.  If you are asking a different question, raise it.

David Hardy is no more or less a "disinterested observer" than is Michael Moore. What's wrong with that? Why do liberal dipshits feel that it is ok for them to be activists, but that activists who oppose them are all conspirators with an agenda? I mean, really? Why?

Ask yourself this for a good answer.  Sure, you'd have to leave out the 'liberal dipshits' part when looking in the mirror, but since you've displayed the hatred of activists yourself.  Now you defend them.  Who is the hypocrite?

When I read Hardy's work, it would not have been nearly as powerful if, up front, he mentioned that he's been writing rants about the 2nd amendment for years.  Moore, on the other hand, had no such anonymity to offer something of an objective argument.  So he (Moore) had to work harder at it.   He didn't work hard enough at it for Hardy, but now we can see why, to some degree.

Also, I don't see any mention of conspiracy on my part, although I did mention an agenda.

Lockheed Martin doesn't and didn't "build nukes." An ICBM is also known as a satellite launch vehicle, or a "rocket." Yes, they were used as ICBMs. Yes, they were used to CARRY nukes. BUT, Lockheed Martin was never in the business of building nukes, and rockets are not in and of themselves WMD.

This is semantic hair-splitting.  A picture of a 'nuke' is not a close-up of a compression chamber, it is a big freakin' rocket that can take that particular reaction to anyplace on the planet.  ICBM.  You could put a daisy on the top, and they still build the major component of an international ballistic weapon system that can deliver a nuclear payload.

Finally, the core point:

Good, this is part where I wondered if you have ever seen the movie.

But, how many of them were kids shooting up schools? A couple dozen. Does Moore admit that? Of course not.

Yes, he does.  Watch the movie.  This is part of the culture of fear.  These are the sympton, not the disease.  I thought he made that fairly clear.

Does he admit that almost all of those deaths were gang related, and that the victims were not innocents? Nope.

'Almost all'?  Huh, I guess those 'innocent bystanders' aren't really all that innocent after all?  So you want a movie about the causes of gang violence (that is mostly gun-based), great.  Go make one.

Does he admit that the gun problem is miniscule compared to other problems that are much easier to work on, and that people such as himself could make a contribution to? Of course not.

I'm waiting to see your list of the 'most important problems', and then a defense of why you think it's your job to assign tasks.

Does he admit that a law abiding citizen's chance of being shot, even in a bad neighborhood, is so slim that he's more likely to be killed going to or from work? Oh, hey, that got left out, didn't it?

No, not at frickin' all.  Remember, standing on that street corner in Compton?  Where the trucker got all beat to shit?

Hullo?  Did you watch this movie sober?

Moore is, as I said, merely a demagogue too ugly to be elected.

Which is probably why he has chosen film and writing as his chosen method for making progess on what he believes to be the problems in our modern society.
--
kewpie
[ Parent ]

He actually does mention the claims (3.75 / 8) (#199)
by felixrayman on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:55:05 PM EST

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"

Actually, he also answers the charges against him with detailed factual evidence. Perhaps you should read it.

He deliberately makes Charlton Heston(a spokesman, and not a policymaker,) look like a cruel idiot.

No, he allows Heston to make himself look like an idiot. Notice the difference? Perhaps the NRA should choose someone as a spokesperson who isn't a senile bigot. What would Heston's "preparation" have been? Someone reminding him over and over "Don't say something racist...Don't say something racist..."?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Heston a bigot? (3.77 / 9) (#201)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:19:20 PM EST

Yeah, I guess that's why he organized and led the Hollywood contingent for Martin Luther King's march on Washington......

I guess that's why Heston was standing just 20ft away from King when he gave his "I Have a Dream Speech" by the Reflecting Pool......

Yeah, Heston is such a "bigot"..... Moron!

Next why don't you tell us about the "hate monger", Mother Theresa or that "slacker" who invented the cure for Polio

[ Parent ]

Yup (2.60 / 10) (#208)
by felixrayman on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:41:40 PM EST

Yeah, Heston is such a "bigot"..... Moron!

So I guess you agree with Heston that the reason for gun violence in America is our mixed ethnicity?.......Horse fucking cockmaster!

Next why don't you tell us about the "hate monger", Mother Theresa

Nah, Christopher Hitchens already did it for me.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Almost Correct (3.90 / 11) (#220)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:19:13 PM EST

Diverse CULTURE not enthicity. Yes, I happen to believe that is one of the major reasons the U.S. has more violence (not just of the gun variety) then many other developed nations.

You see, if you can EMPATHIZE with some-one you are far less likely to be willing to do violence to them. Empathy requires being able to IDENTIFY with the other individual on some level and that requires at least some degree of UNDERSTANDING them.

You can call me all the names in the book you like....but I'll tell you straight up that EMPATHY, IDENTIFICATION and UNDERSTANDING are far harder to achieve across cultural lines then within them. There are far more barriers to break through..... not the least of which can be as simple as language and basic communication.

America is a melting pot... not only does it have many cultures but many of it's cultures are RADICALY divergent from one another. And it gets vast influxes of new ones constantly.

Not only this but the people least aclimated to the society (i.e. those who have just arrived) are usualy the most economicaly disadvantaged and tend to congregate with other peoples who are economicaly disadvantaged (i.e. where there is likely to be the greatest conflict over limited resources). It's no great surprise to see where the highest rates of violent crime are.

Now, I don't believe this is the SOLE cause of violence. It may not even be the most prevelant... but it certainly plays a major role.
It's one of the reasons why I think America will ALWAYS have a much higher rate of violence then somewhere with a more homogenous CULTURE, like say... Norway.

[ Parent ]

I see (4.00 / 5) (#278)
by starsky on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:21:56 AM EST

So one guy argues Heston is not a bigot on the basis of his behaviour over the last 40 years, whilst you argue he is a bigot on a clip of him talking on a documentary biased against him..... 1-0 to you I feel.

[ Parent ]
Um... (4.00 / 5) (#326)
by trhurler on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:12:03 PM EST

No. He answers SOME of the charges with detailed evidence, all of which he presumes to be completely correct. Nevermind that he's using third and fourth generation processed numbers that have been heavily twisted to fit an ideology in some cases, and raw government(which, sadly, is the only source of unprocessed gun stats,) data only when he can't find something he likes better.

Incidentally, Heston has a civil rights record dating back to before most people were aware of the meaning of the term "civil rights." Calling him a racist on the basis of an interview where he clearly was flustered beyond all hope of rational discussion is just absurd. Of course, he didn't say anything that was actually racist anyway, as someone else pointed out...

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
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

There really aren't any (3.00 / 10) (#144)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:23:56 PM EST

There aren't any good documentaries. The documentary is a propaganda tool of the liberal media, I don't know of one conservative documentary off the top of my head. The Hollywood liberals use the documentary to further their agenda, therefore pretty much all documentaries you see are going to be flawed. Michael Moore is just the tip of the iceberg, really. You can't trust anything that comes out of the liberal media.

If you must watch a documentary however, I recommend Exhausted: John C. Holmes, the Real Story.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

There's plenty of conservative documentaries. (3.71 / 7) (#146)
by waxmop on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:26:04 PM EST

Go to any Christian bookstore and you'll see shelves of VHS tapes about how the UN is going to bring on the antichrist, how evolution is a lie, how the National Education Association is made up entirely of lesbian satanists, etc, etc, etc.

Am I right here people?
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

All tools (2.77 / 9) (#150)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:37:27 PM EST

All those documentaries are tools of the Hollywood left, that are used to marginalize the conservatives of this country as extremists. Tell me again, which side thinks destroying a Starbucks is a form of protected speech?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Superlative (3.77 / 9) (#154)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:46:59 PM EST

Your style, your bait, everything is nicely balanced with just enough to attract anger, but not too much to make it obvious. C'est magnifique!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Excellent! (2.75 / 4) (#233)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:32:26 PM EST

Apparently, Jack Chick is also a robot made by Disney or something to discredit the Pure Christians.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
The Gay Agenda (3.25 / 4) (#152)
by rodgerd on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:41:17 PM EST

Of course, that it's now seen as a humour piece is probably not what was intended by the authors.

[ Parent ]
Here's one (3.60 / 5) (#197)
by felixrayman on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:44:47 PM EST

There is a conservative documentary about John Ashcroft's run for Congress advertised here

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
hmm. (3.75 / 4) (#145)
by waxmop on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:24:01 PM EST

Well, there's no one universally acepted definition, but I like documentaries where there's enough material to support multiple points of view.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

Reefer Madness [nt] (3.00 / 4) (#153)
by avdi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:42:11 PM EST



--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
[ Parent ]
greeeaaaat book (3.25 / 4) (#169)
by supahmowza on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:46:40 PM EST

I loved that book. And "Fast Food Nation".  Eric Schlosser(sp?) is a great expose writer.  I especially loved when he pointed out that in the US, some types of pot "..are worth more per ounce than gold", which is deffinetly true, I'd never looked at it that way though (and yes, even if you're getting a good deal you'll probably be paying 250-300 for some decent indoor bud, and I've seen 500-600 ounces for the really pro Cannabis Cup winning shit)


Drugs are the solution to all life's problems
Well, drugs and handguns
[ Parent ]
It depends on your meaning (3.28 / 7) (#180)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:40:23 PM EST

If you define "political" as something with a unilateral political message, then almost by definition, documentaries aren't political. If you define it as about a political topic, there have been many.

The TBS documentary on the American Civil War was quite good. (And if you don't think that's political coming out of an Atlanta-based broadcasting company, you either haven't lived in Atlanta or have lived there too long.) From the Earth to the Moon was very good and had lots of politics. There were some excellent television documentaries a few months ago on the Cuban missile crisis. Plenty of good documentaries on Kennedy. There are even works of fiction, such as All the President's Men, which work better qua documentaries than Bowling for Columbine.

Besides, Cosmos was quite strongly political. It wasn't really a documentary, though.

As for being pro-BFC, let's for a moment ignore all of the critics and look at just what Moore has said in his defence on the web site referred to by this article: Even though it's mostly rant, there are a few actual statements in it.

In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account.

I don't doubt this at all. I don't know if it happened exactly as Moore portrayed it. I wouldn't be surprised, though. Many states permit people to buy rifles and shotguns without a waiting period. I'm sure that Moore could have gone into any of hundreds or thousands of gun shops and purchased a long gun off the rack.

But instead, he goes to this bank who is having what he even says is a promotion. Promotions are supposed to be attention-getting novelties. So, one bank in Northern Michigan gives long guns as a promotion. It would not have come to anyone's attention, least of all Moore's, if this were not an extremely unusual thing to do. And so, this is typical or representative, exactly, how?

In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union;

As far as I know, no nuclear warheads have been unleashed to date on the Soviet Union. The main use of the Titan "intercontinental ballistic missile" has been as a workhorse for putting up satellites. The main high-profile use has been as the booster for the fucking Gemini manned space program. I can't wait for Moore's remake of The Right Stuff.

n the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM,

OK, this is related to weapons. It isn't related to firearms, though, and I doubt that anyone at Columbine had an ICBM.

a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

Both of which were boondoggles, and neither of which were ever intended to kill anybody but rather to prevent people from being killed. Which I guess is a Bad Thing.

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about."

OK, so what? National security satellites are generally communications satellites or good telescopes pointed down. If you don't like that sort of thing, find. But what the fuck does it have to do with Columbine or firearms or the price of tea in China?

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

"Nuclear" is such a wonderful, all-purpose word, isn't it? Maybe he's referring to "Gus" Grissom as having been born into a nuclear family? Probably not. Well, maybe the missiles are themselves nuclear. No; there's a research program for nuclear rockets, but the Titan uses conventional chemical propulsion. Ah, but they can deliver a payload, which could be a Nuke! That's it! That's what makes it a Nuclear Missile.

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces."

I remember back in the 1980's having a friend who boycotted Progresso food products, not for the ordinary reason that they're overpriced and not all that great, but because they sold food to the Army and thus indirectly lead to Mass Slaughter on the part of the U.S. (which, at the time, must have meant Grenada). That's good and fine. But I don't think that even he would have been so boneheaded as to suggest that this was even tantamount to, let alone the same thing, as manufacturing weapons.

Even Moore probably realizes how weak this is, which is why "weapons" magically becomes, in his very words, "instruments that help kill people."

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss.

Nobody wants to discuss it? So, I guess that all that rant about people discussing Moores film was just made-up? Or maybe it means what it usually means: "not enough people want to shut up and nod sagely while I pontificate."

But don't take my word - read the transcript of his whole speech.

Good advice.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he?

Come on! Does this really need comment? Could it possibly be any more blatant? Hee hee hee, I've discovered the dramatic power of intercutting.

I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

"As one article put it" is right up there with "Four out of five dentists recommend." At least the manufacturers of Trident have a good enough sense of humor to do a self-parody in some of their commercials.

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control.

I'll give Moore credit for that; it's accurate. No statistics on ICBM deaths, though, which gives me pause.

Most Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center) - and the gun lobbies know it.

Yeah, I'm sure. But America isn't a democracy; it's a constitutional republic.

Nothing much left in the article but rants, I'm afraid. However, if you discover a real gem, you're welcome to point it out.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Some points: (3.50 / 4) (#459)
by DavidTC on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 03:53:41 AM EST

As far as I know, no nuclear warheads have been unleashed to date on the Soviet Union.

And as far as he knows, apparently, as he didn't say anything like that he, said they were designed to do that. And anyone who claims that we didn't build nuclear weapons designed at hitting the USSR during the cold war is...well, there isn't a word for being that far out of step with reality. That was half the plot of the cold war.

"Nuclear" is such a wonderful, all-purpose word, isn't it? Maybe he's referring to "Gus" Grissom as having been born into a nuclear family? Probably not. Well, maybe the missiles are themselves nuclear. No; there's a research program for nuclear rockets, but the Titan uses conventional chemical propulsion. Ah, but they can deliver a payload, which could be a Nuke! That's it! That's what makes it a Nuclear Missile.

Well, normally, they're just called 'nuclear weapons', but pretending that the term 'nuclear missiles' means anything other than 'missile launched nuclear weapons' is just absurd. And him trying to trick peole into thinking he meant 'nuclear powered' missiles would be conterproductive and idiotic...he's trying to show the plant manufactures weapons, not friggin missiles with novel propellents. It's not a standard choice of words, but it's a) not the slightest bit misleading, and b) not his own words anyway, but Lockheed's president.

WRT to what Lockheed makes, the point was that that base, right there, has made weapons, will make weapons, and it's a fucking military manufacturing site. The fact that, at the moment, it makes mostly things that are not offensive weapons is not that important, as I'd wager quite a few people who live in that town really had no idea what was made there, and the point was how the culture was influenced. It's Lockheed, the mere name conjures up giant flying weapons. Running around and claiming his entire point is invalid because that specific plant of Lockheed isn't making nukes right now is nitpicking at best, because Lockheed doesn't regularely invite very troubled high school kids on unrestricted tours of said plant to correct any misconceptions they may have.

And your major complaint of the bank giving out guns seems to be that it was doing exactly what Moore said it was doing. I mean, you can't have it both ways. The bank was running a crazy promotion, and Moore said, hey, look at this crazy promotion, I can walk out with a gun. (And, BTW, he claims that no, it was not faked, and it was not specially prearranged, although he did tell them he would be doing it, that's exactly how they do it for everyone, hand them the gun then and there.)

I don't really care any more about this film, but I will say that many of the critisms of it seem to be just crazy rants about how it gives wrong impressions, along with claiming some of the film is factually incorrect, and pretty much all the 'factually incorrect' claims have been rebutted convincingly by Moore. (And some of the critisms of it are quite valid complaints it attacks the NRA rather stupidly, and, yes, I am aware of that.) Oh, and his statistics are incorrect, because everyone counts gun deaths different. Well, I guess he's supposed to run around looking up every single death that happened in the last ten years in every country to fix his statistics, then.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Gaza Strip n/t (2.60 / 5) (#214)
by AIDENWA on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:54:49 PM EST



[ Parent ]
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.

nobody? (4.00 / 7) (#141)
by aodl on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 04:04:29 PM EST

Michael Moore is not a nobody.  He's a bit of a wingnut, sure, but he tries to focus on the half-truths, white lies, double talk, and outright deception spouted by not only our elected representatives, but big business (which pays for the lies) and big media (which propagates the lies).

I think people should be concerned about politics.  And maybe Michael Moore's films and books will cause people to get a bit more involved.

Effectively, his message is not dissimilar to yours.  But he reaches a lot more people with it than I expect you do, because he is a successful film maker and author.  So, I don't think that makes him a nobody.  Especially since he does pick social topics for his movies, instead of making films about driving with the roof down or dancing at lufthansa or aliens.

[ Parent ]

That's the sad thing (3.71 / 7) (#157)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:03:39 PM EST

I'd love to see an effective challenge to the Republican Party, but since Dukakis at least, and probably before, liberals seem to have had what can only be described as a clown fetish.

You've got Moore, someone who thinks that "Thief-in-chief" is terribly clever, who is a decent enough satirist (c.f. Canadian Bacon) when he puts his mind to it. He's taking cues from Al Franken, a stand-up comedian who got a few gigs on SNL, but who suddenly became a darling political commentator of the left after writing a bood with the oh-so-clever title of Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. That, plus a has-been linguist, a guy who didn't like Corvairs, and a bunting-festooned platform full of bickering goofballs who don't seem to stand for anything but "Gee, I wish I were a Republican," and this is the legacy that claims to preserve "progressive thought?"

I mean, come on. Al Gore, stone-face internet pioneer, whose politically active wife practically shares internal organs with the RIAA, running with Lieberman, whose views on the separation of church and state are just this side of Jerry Falwell? I mean, even the Anti-Defamation League sent him a letter objecting to his constant Abrahamic religious/political bongo-beating.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Furthermore, when you bring this up, the answer is always, "Well, lots of Republicans are clowns, too. Look at George W. Bush!" But there's no acknowledgement that the degeneration of leftist thought has helped provide such an environment.

Maybe liberals decided that the election of Ronald Reagan meant they should go for the movies, too. Maybe they decided not to do anything after Clinton was elected. Maybe they've been smoking too much dope. But in any event, traditional connotations notwithstanding, the American left, which used to stand for something, seems to have become almost entirely reactionary.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
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

The Problem Vs. The Solution (2.75 / 3) (#162)
by DLWormwood on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:20:09 PM EST

if you see the world as us-vs-them, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution

You're engaging in either some logical recursion at best or hypocricy at worst... Careful there.
--
Those who complain about affect & effect on k5 should be disemvoweled
[ Parent ]

Hehe... I wondered if someone would catch that... (3.00 / 6) (#172)
by avdi on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 06:04:13 PM EST

Yes, there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in what I said.  If I were to draw a thin line, I'd say the difference is that I don't ascribe any particular motivations to Moore and his ilk.  I don't see them as "The Enemy" so much as I see them as unhelpful. I don't think he's deliberately trying to undermine western civilization;  I can even believe that he has good intentions.  Nor do I think his opinions or methods identify him as mentally deficient, inhuman, or insane.  I don't think he speaks for all leftists as some kind of Borg drone.  What makes him "part of the problem" is that he chooses to voice his concerns (and respond to his critics) in unconstructive, divisive, childish ways.  

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
[ Parent ]
Another possiblity: (3.50 / 4) (#458)
by DavidTC on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 03:24:20 AM EST

He just considers himself part of the problem. I, personally, consider myself part of quite a few 'problems'.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Moore is dividing U.S.??? (3.60 / 5) (#295)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:27:18 AM EST

The Bush administration does a much more effective job. Remember, if you were opposed to U.S. unilaterally rolling into Iraq to depose Saddam you obviously were an unAmerican, Saddam-loving Frenchman. And if you question the circumstances under which our current energy policy was forged, then you are just a nitpicking treehugger. If you bitch about the "tax cuts" Bush put in place you are propogating "class war". And so on, and so on.

When the right is so polarized it is hard to strike back and make a mark without being equally polarized. Regardless, Moore made a brilliant film that asked some important questions. For being so skeptical about a fucking filmmaker, his critics could do well to be skeptical about their president!

[ Parent ]
What the...? (4.20 / 5) (#297)
by avdi on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:08:08 PM EST

What gives you the idea I'm not skeptical of the President; or, if that's not what you're saying, that his dritics aren't skeptical of the president?  If you bothered to follow the links I provided, you'd notice that on the same front page that has their latest piece on Moore, SpinSanity also has posts dissecting recent statements by Bush and Cheney.

Your question is akin to asking "If you're so skeptical about President Bush, why aren't you skeptical of Al Franken?". It's a non-sequitor.  Criticism of one man does not require criticism of all men in order to be valid.  Nor does criticism of Michael Moore imply support of George W. Bush.  However, the latter line of thinking is exactly what Moore promotes - the idea that anyone who disagrees with him must, ipso-facto, be a right-wing Bush-boosting republican.  

Personally, I have no trouble at all avoiding becoming "equally polarized", because I keep two things in mind: 1) It's not about "striking back" at some imagined "enemy" - it's about finding truth.  2) Saying "Well, $FAVORITE_SCAPEGOAT is even worse!!!" is not an argument, it's a copout, an attempt to change the subject.  Bush's honesty is no more relevant to this conversation than Tony Blair's, the Dalai Lama's, or my aunt's.  

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

Well... (3.00 / 3) (#304)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:02:26 PM EST

I don't mean to imply that you aren't skeptical of the president, which is why I phrased it the way I did. Rather, I don't agree with the idea that Michael Moore's work can be dismissed outright because it shows his bias. Every bit of media we are exposed to shows bias, and perhaps because of my belief system I give Moore more slack than others.

Furthermore, Moore isn't attacking anyone who disagrees with him. Rather, he is attacking those who have attacked the facts in his film as being untrue. SpinSanity goes on to quote the same sources Moore purports to debunk on his site. Much of what Fritz criticizes is simply the opinions of Moore and other leftists, and I could n't care less what he thinks of their opinions. And again, I put more stock in Moore's words than some right-wing columnist with an ax to grind.

Moore is a brilliant filmmaker, and on the whole does a service to our country if only by balancing out the right wing nutjobs on the other side. And when those nutjobs are in the White House, then yea, I think Bush's honesty has something to do with it too.

Perhaps it is just my American upbringing, as some have suggested, that makes me want to strike back at those that have attacked me. I was brought up to believe that our Constitutional rights and our freedom was what made us a great country and seperated the US from other nations. And having the current administration doing everything in their power to usurp those rights while merrily handing them off to the corporate powers that be, well... Any wonder I feel the way I do?

[ Parent ]
A few questions (2.75 / 3) (#319)
by avdi on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:06:39 PM EST

"Much of what Fritz criticizes is simply the opinions of Moore and other leftists"

Where do you see this?  Show me one instance in Fritz's article of ideological rather than factual criticism.

"some right-wing columnist with an ax to grind"

Do you have anything to back up this characterization other than Moore's say-so?  Or do you believe, as Moore appears to, that simply pointing out an error in his work qualifies you as "right-wing"?

"And when those nutjobs are in the White House, then yea, I think Bush's honesty has something to do with it too."

With what?  How does Bush being President affect the truth or fiction in the movie "Bowling for Columbine"?

"that makes me want to strike back at those that have attacked me"

Now you've lost me.  Who has attacked you?  Weren't we talking about a documentery?  What attack are you talking about, and what has it got to do with the subject at hand?

"And having the current administration doing everything in their power to usurp those rights while merrily handing them off to the corporate powers that be"

Again, I fail to see what this has to do with filmmaker and author Michael Moore.  Could you please draw the connection?

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

No (n/t) (3.00 / 3) (#335)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:27:47 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No, it's that the criticisms are so lame. (3.50 / 4) (#429)
by GooseKirk on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 09:49:09 PM EST

I'm glad these guys are watching Moore, but geez, their identified issues are pathetic, too.

The Horton commercial thing is just stupid nitpicking, and he fixed it for the DVD. And I think it's obvious that the caption wasn't actually in the commercial, but regardless, as a filmmaker trying to make a minor point quickly, I think it's effective and historically accurate enough (the ad was paid for by Ailes? what possible difference is that supposed to make? Ailes was part of the Bush team... this is just pedantry).

The fact that the Littleton plant wasn't making nuclear missiles at the time of the shooting in no way disregards the overall point. First, I believe he said that factory builds Atlas missiles, which from my understanding can be used for either weapons or satellites. I doubt they're exactly identical, but I assume the rockets are essentially the same for either purpose. It's too bad the criticism of this issue doesn't explore this aspect. But just because from one year to the next they may or may not be producing the nuke version does not invalidate the basic premise, which is to question any link between the weapons of mass destruction that are (or have been over the years) produced in Littleton to the mass destruction at Columbine.

The third issue was the Heston speech that they say is out of context. I disagree with that - I think the clips taken from the speech are appropriate and hardly out of context at all. Even after reading their scandalous comparison, I don't agree with this criticism.

[ Parent ]

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 -

Moore + ironic (3.40 / 5) (#207)
by NaCh0 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:36:49 PM EST

= moronic

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
*RIMSHOT* (nt) (2.50 / 4) (#211)
by LilDebbie on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:45:24 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
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.
In a word, yes. (4.00 / 4) (#195)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:07:03 PM EST

Do you peope actually expect a documentary to be absolutely unbiased and perfect?

I expect it to make at least a modicum of an attempt.

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.

If you want an actual answer about the number of deaths per annum from guns, mine is that the vast majority of them are due to gang warfare resulting from the War on Drugs.

It's entirely too easy to conflate anecdotes, of which you can have only a few in a film, with statistics, of which there are tens of thousands.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Actually that would be incorrect answer (3.60 / 5) (#205)
by FisheBulb on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:30:47 PM EST

your answer would be incorrect. 1/4 of the 34K gun deaths in the United states are related to drugs.

[ Parent ]
Well, maybe... (3.40 / 5) (#215)
by Wateshay on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:55:02 PM EST

You don't provide a source for your figure, so I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's the number of gun deaths that are directly related to drugs. I would be an even higher percentage could be indirectly attributed to drugs, be it people who were unable to pull themselves up to the poverty level because they couldn't hold a job due to their addiction, or people who who've received a poor upbringing with little to no parental guidance because their parents were drug addicts. Things like that are hard to quantify, but I think you'd find that they play a big factor.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."


[ Parent ]
Good point, but... (3.75 / 4) (#222)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:36:41 PM EST

The 34,000 figure, presumably, is from the 1995 statistics. 18,000 of those were suicides. It was probably stupid of me to assume that people could figure out that Moore's agenda was about homicide. For that, I apologize. Of the remaining 16,000 homicides, accidents, etc. the majority were drug-related.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I like documentaries (2.60 / 5) (#245)
by Quila on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:37:02 AM EST

They tend to just show you want happened -- the numbers, pictures, video, etc. Sometimes they get a bit biased, but facts are usually correct and speeches are usually not chopped up so bad they say something completely different from the original.

I watched a documentary on Hitler a while ago, and the narrator was clearly biased against Hitler -- the tone of voice and derogatory terms were obvious. But at least the facts were right and the speeches were not distorted.

[ Parent ]

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

Can I get an Amen? (3.60 / 5) (#190)
by Blah Blah on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:35:38 PM EST

Finally, someone who can see past the gun debate and figure out what Bowling For Columbine is really about! Thank you, scross!

[ Parent ]
Canadian stats are misleading (3.87 / 8) (#227)
by brunes69 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:10:24 PM EST

As a Canadian who knows a lot of gun owners, I can say that those stats everyone keeps pointing out are most likely misleading. I don't displute the fact that theres probably 7 million guns with 10 million households ( it sure ain't 7 out of 10 people, but I know some people with lots of guns and that probably evens it out ).

What is misleading is what kinds of guns these are. There are significant laws in Canada restricting certain types of handguns and automatics, and frankly out of everyone I know with guns, not one of them  would own a gun small enough to carry concealed in a bomber jacket. They're mostly rifles and shotguns.

From what I know of the US this is much different from there, where people routinely keep handguns in their home for "protection". I don't know of a single person or fmaily who does this here.

---There is no Spoon---
[ Parent ]

As a Canadian gun owner, (3.80 / 5) (#311)
by Dr Caleb on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:21:02 PM EST

I concurr. I own exclusively 'long guns', no handguns. I know 2 people with handguns - one has a WWII Luger, the other shoots competitively. The guns are kept with a trigger lock, in a locked case, in a gun safe. The guy with the Luger has 30 shells for it, none are loaded or primed. There is no point. Guns are for hunting. I do carry a 9mm or .45 if I am moose hunting in Grizzly country in the fall, that I borrow from my friend.

Shooting a Griz when he's hungry with a .303 just pisses him off more, and long guns are useless against a charging Griz in the bush. That's the only 'protection' I need.


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

What you're referring to is Gun Culture (4.00 / 5) (#400)
by sllort on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:20:10 PM EST

I know 2 people with handguns - one has a WWII Luger, the other shoots competitively. The guns are kept with a trigger lock, in a locked case, in a gun safe. The guy with the Luger has 30 shells for it, none are loaded or primed.

This is what happens when handguns are owned by sane people trained to use them. "Accidents" like the one in Michigan - where a 6-year-old boy finds a loaded handgun lying around the house - are cultural failures. They are what happens when people who have no respect, training, or knowledge about gun safety (the kind of things the NRA used to teach before it became a hotbed for reactionary political lobbying) feel that they need to own a gun.

It's not "long guns" vs. "short guns". Canada simply does not have a wealth of people raised to believe that mass murder is an acceptable emotional outlet, does not have an entire social segment stigmatized by the mythology of race living in a culture so devoid of opportunity that every day is a day "at the end of a rope". It's about social programs, it's about concentration of wealth, it's about selective enforcement.

Banning guns in America is like banning batteries in Bangladesh. The real problem is the dumb motherfuckers who want to burn their wives faces off.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

I don't agree (none / 1) (#496)
by brunes69 on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 08:00:17 PM EST

Contrary to popular American belief us Canadians are not all polite pretty boys. We are bombarded with just as much shit as Americans. We all watch the same TV shows, go to the same movies. We have pretty much the same type of rejects in our politics. We have gangbangers in our urban centers and racist hicks in our rural areas. The main difference, however, is the regulation over the types of guns available for purchase and how they can be purchased, the type of regulation the NRA has held back in the US. Think about it... how hard is it for a kid to sneak his dad's SHOTGUN into a scool??? Pretty damn hard. Now think how hard it is to sneak in the .45 he knows he has in the nightstand.... In Canada the kid finally snaps and goes and beats the fuck out of the kids who hates him, because he has no easy access to handguns. Sure, he ends up getting emntal treatment, and some others ar ein the hospital, but usually, no one dies. In the US, you get Columbine. The same logic can be applied to urban violence as well. "THe criminals will always have their guns, so why whouldn't I to protect myself" they say. True, the well connected / financed criminals will alway shave their handguns. But what about the people whoo ar eNOT criminals, who are just waiting to snap? What about the wife who walks in on her husband cheating, what about the guy who got layed off after a 15 year job. If they live in Canada, chances are they don't have a handgun. In the US, chances are they do. And in their weakened emotional state theyre apt to use it. Which makes other people want handguns for protection. Which ups the # of shootings by people who were not the registered owners. Etc etc... its a viscious cycle.

---There is no Spoon---
[ Parent ]
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<
Yes, that's right! (2.60 / 5) (#189)
by Blah Blah on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 07:33:47 PM EST

Everyone on K5 is an incompetent moron except you, godix. You're the only smart one here. We bow to you, oh all-knowing one!

[ Parent ]
Good (2.00 / 6) (#223)
by godix on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:45:50 PM EST

Glad you can see that. Instead of bowing to me I'd be happy if you all would quit putting a trolling filmaker and the idiots who bite on FP.

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<
[ Parent ]
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?

discussion worth having (4.20 / 10) (#210)
by speek on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:44:06 PM EST

A number of things come to mind (though I take a looser time period of the entire 60-70's):

  1. Inflation and unemployment take off in soul-crushing unison
  2. War on drugs begins
  3. civil rights, black pride celebrated
  4. Government runs on deficit for first time in long time and continues to do so till the 90's
  5. Rock music
  6. I was born
So, these are what came to my mind. BTW, In BFC, I don't see that Moore gives an answer to the question of why America has so much violent crime. He spends a lot of time on guns because it is the most obvious answer, but he also does it, I think, to drop anti-gun people off a bigger cliff.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Reiterating a point (3.40 / 5) (#292)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:06:22 AM EST

I've made to many others: He isn't saying anything. He's asking questions that, in my opinion, any truely patriotic person would about themselves, their culture, and their country. They are hard questions to ask, and I believe that is why so many have trouble swallowing it.

[ Parent ]
thanks, I guess (3.25 / 4) (#312)
by speek on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:21:36 PM EST

I'm not sure why you're reiterating your point in reply to me?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

because (2.80 / 5) (#333)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:11:59 PM EST

You state that he spends all his time talking about guns, when he is only indirectly doing so. He is, rather, talking about the "culture of fear" that our media breeds, and how that and easy access to firearms leads to violence. And again, I don't think he outright says any of it, but asks the right questions to get us thinking.

Perhaps it wasn't necessary to point any of this out to you, but so many people on this site miss that point.

[ Parent ]
An experimental control (2.75 / 3) (#321)
by Fizyx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:22:54 PM EST

Don't forget that TV, inflation, rock music, yadda yadda ALSO happened in Canada, and we don't have the same gun problems.

[ Parent ]
so, what you're saying (2.75 / 3) (#327)
by speek on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:32:06 PM EST

It was my birth that did it, huh?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Sure, I'll hazard a guess (3.60 / 10) (#213)
by saltmine on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:54:22 PM EST

Let's see, we saw for the first time that our government was not on our side.  Dirty Dick was in office, we had a war no one here wanted and kids where being shot on campus for protesting.  Blacks and other minorities finally woke up to the fact that they deserve equal rights but where, and still are, being denied them.  Riots ensued.  BTW, perhaps you used the phrase "people of color" in a retrospective manner,...I hope you did anyways.

You mention more guns in houses in the 50's.  Not many people had semi and even fully automatic handguns in the house.  Guns, in numbers, are many times more plentiful now days as well.  I'm all for responsible ownership and use of guns, but it's hard to deny the fact that a society of our type doesn't really need guns anymore.

Our military is far larger today than after WW2 and during in terms of firepower, weaponry and deployment.  We didn't have units in over 100 countries then.

A 50's western is a fantasy where a very small minority of people can actually pursue such a concept.  Glorified street violence in media is much more accessible to people, and you can probably blame the liberals for that one to be honest.  The republicans get their guns, the democrats get their movies with guns. <- over simplification

We simply live in a society where violence is glorified and we have the means to act upon these ideas.  Plus, OJ proved you can do it and get away with it. :P

[ Parent ]

Some Points (4.00 / 8) (#225)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:59:25 PM EST

1) "Not many people had semi and even fully automatic handguns in the house."

Please tell me which model of "fully automatic" handgun is it that people commonly keep in thier homes these days? The only "fully automatic" handgun that I can even think of off the top of my head is the the former Soviet millitary issue Skorpian, which I believe was only issued to special Soviet millitary units. I can't believe there are too many of those floating around in peoples homes.

I think that you'll find it's actualy illegal to own a "fully automatic" weapon in most states.

Care to hazard a guess as to what was the most common handgun found in the home in the 50's? It was the Colt M1911 which most vets brought home from thier WWII service....  a semi-automatic.

2) As far as the "absolute" number of guns floating around you are probably correct there are more (though I would STRONGLY dispute "many times more") but "absolute" numbers aren't relavent here.... we are talking the RATIO of guns to people... just like we are talking about the RATIO of homicides.

If you live on an island with a population 50 and 49 people just got killed.... it's a little bit more relevant then 51 people getting killed in L.A.   Get what I'm saying?

3) "Our military is far larger today than after WW2 and during in terms of firepower, weaponry and deployment.  We didn't have units in over 100 countries then."

Firepower and weaponry I will definately give you.... but I think you are wrong about deployment. Check U.S. troop deployments during the 50's again. However, "absolute" firepower and weaponry again isn't relevant to the discussion. The 50's millitary was FAR larger in terms not only of raw manpower, but in terms of % of population, % of GDP and just about every other RELATIVE metric you can measure.

Now it's true that a single U.S. Brigade could wipe out the entire Mongol or Hun hordes. Is that supposed to mean that we are somehow a more millitarized society then the Mongols or Huns?

4) I'll grant you the point of glorified (and sensationalized) street violence ..... I think you are correct on that..... and it is, perhaps, an important point.

[ Parent ]

Tangent (3.60 / 5) (#228)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:12:31 PM EST

"BTW, perhaps you used the phrase "people of color" in a retrospective manner,...I hope you did anyways."

No I actualy didn't. I'll call people whatever they WANT to be called but it's a little tough to follow when it seems to keep changing every 5 minutes. I HONESTLY thought the "people of color" was the prefered term right now.

As a side tangent please enlighten me as to what is the current, correct applelation for my fellow human beings who happen to be of darker skin tones?


[ Parent ]

I hear ya (2.75 / 4) (#253)
by saltmine on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:16:52 AM EST

Yeah, it has pretty much become a joke what to call people.  I just call people "people" (is that a good enough cliche?) but I think we should ID people's race by numbers myself.  The problem with that is deciding who is race: 1.

I'm all for black, white, asian, indian, arab, latino etc.  Being white I just don't care what people call me, but I do think it bothers others.  Actually, I prefer "Honkey".

[ Parent ]

I've always been partial to 'cracker devil' (3.00 / 3) (#411)
by baron samedi on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 04:23:55 PM EST


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
Behold, Cracker Devil (3.50 / 4) (#421)
by saltmine on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:44:42 PM EST

I think I have a new favorite!

[ Parent ]
Spoken with a total lack of historical knowledge (3.66 / 6) (#235)
by godix on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:36:52 PM EST

we saw for the first time that our government was not on our side.

I believe the southern states that fought a war against the US federal government probably realized it wasn't on their side. Similarly the blacks who had to run to Canada once the north would start returning slaves most likely realized the government wasn't on their side. The early union strikers picked up the hint that the government wasn't on their side when police started beating their heads in. Japanesse Americans may not have felt the government was on their side while they were sitting in detention camps. If you want to actually go back to the first time citizens realized the US government wasn't on their side you'd probably have to look at the Whiskey rebellion which was put down by our very first president, although there may be an even earlier example I'm forgetting.

Just because it's recent history doesn't mean it's a first. Nixon probably shouldn't even come up in a top 10 list of 'government against the people'.

I'm all for responsible ownership and use of guns, but it's hard to deny the fact that a society of our type doesn't really need guns anymore.

Yes, US society has done an excellent job of making sure that every woman walking alone at night, every person living in gang territory, and every person with valuables in their home feels safe. There's certainly no need for self defense anymore, the police have proven they can protect us from every harm others want to inflict.
Our military is far larger today than after WW2 and during in terms of firepower, weaponry and deployment.

Ignore all the people talking about Iraq taxing our military, it's really much larger now than when we were fighting wars in Europe and Asia simultaneously and rebuilding countries after those wars.
We simply live in a society where violence is glorified and we have the means to act upon these ideas.

True, our media does glorify violence. And look how horrible it's made Canada, a country which recieves pretty much all US programing easily. For another example look at Japan, all that tentacle rape has turned their population into a bunch of violent rapist. The links between media and violence are clear and easily proven, so easily proven I notice you didn't see the need to actually provide any proof.


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<
[ Parent ]
Well.. (2.62 / 8) (#251)
by saltmine on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:13:27 AM EST

A women carrying a gun at night for protection will probably shoot herself or have the gun taken form and used on her.  It's a bad idea to put a weapon into play.  When people are trying to steal/rob from you, it is not a crime of personal hate, they are simply after your money.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to see those people shot when trying to steal/rape etc people, but bringing a gun into play is not wise as it is most likely going to be used against or stolen from you.

Places such as Canada and Japan don't have the same social situation we do.  Entirely different ballpark.  We have a huge range of wealth here.  We simply have groups of people that are treated as second and third class and being treated like that leads people to involve themselves in high risk behavior which includes crime.  It will be that way until we decide that we cannot have aa society where large groups of people are poor and in a state which they cannot advance.  Maybe in time, who knows.  But probably not as it's one reason a larger group of us live realatively very nice lives here I think.

As for our military, our influence politically, thus militarily, is as great as it's ever been.  We control the world economically like no other and that economy is backed by our military might now based on science and technology more than raw numbers.

Damn, I forgot the original topic which means I am rambling.  Good night.

[ Parent ]

Most likely used against you? (3.66 / 9) (#310)
by randyk on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:11:22 PM EST

So if that's true, then the obvious solution is to give the criminals guns and disarm the populace and the police. So that when the criminals strike, they'll most likely shoot themselves or have the gun taken from them and used against them.

Oh, I forgot. Criminals are mysterious people with superhuman powers far in excess of our own. Especially the poor helpless useless little woman who shouldn't worry her pretty little head over such manly topics as self-defense and firearms training.

Puh-leeze.



[ Parent ]
Well.. (3.25 / 8) (#252)
by saltmine on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:14:08 AM EST

A women carrying a gun at night for protection will probably shoot herself or have the gun taken form and used on her.  It's a bad idea to put a weapon into play.  When people are trying to steal/rob from you, it is not a crime of personal hate, they are simply after your money.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to see those people shot when trying to steal/rape etc people, but bringing a gun into play is not wise as it is most likely going to be used against or stolen from you.

Places such as Canada and Japan don't have the same social situation we do.  Entirely different ballpark.  We have a huge range of wealth here.  We simply have groups of people that are treated as second and third class and being treated like that leads people to involve themselves in high risk behavior which includes crime.  It will be that way until we decide that we cannot have a society where large groups of people are poor and in a state which they cannot advance.  Maybe in time, who knows.  But probably not as it's one reason a larger group of us live relatively very nice lives here I think.

As for our military, our influence politically, thus militarily, is as great as it's ever been.  We control the world economically like no other and that economy is backed by our military might now based on science and technology more than raw numbers.

Damn, I forgot the original topic which means I am rambling.  Good night.

[ Parent ]

No offense... (3.88 / 9) (#224)
by Haelo on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 10:58:17 PM EST

but did you watch the documentary? He pretty much dismisses a lot of the things you bring up as being irrelevant by pointing out plenty of examples where these symptoms exist in other nations with lower murder rates. In fact he bring up the last point you mentioned at least once, stating that murder rates have gone down, while media coverage of them has sky-rocketed.

Anyway, the documentary was not really about answering questions. There are no answers to the primary questions yet. What the documentary does, quite well in my opinion, is raise awareness to other issues, and help to debunk a lot of myths that many people take for granted because they get most of their facts from the news media.
A.
[ Parent ]

Lower murders yes, lower murder rates? (4.00 / 5) (#229)
by gainax on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:15:50 PM EST

Yes, there are less murders per year in many other countries, but what about the actual murder rate?  Keep in mind that almost all the countries quoted in the documentary have smaller populations than the U.S. (Japan being the notable exception)  What is the murder rate per 1000 people in each of these countries?

[ Parent ]
In all fairness (3.80 / 5) (#232)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:30:52 PM EST

In all fairness we have a relatively high homicide RATE. It's not insane, like South Africa, but it's relatively high.

A chart with some representative nations can be found here (http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm#murd)

Bare in mind that discrepencies on how different nations collect and report homicide data (like the U.K.) can have the effect of artificialy deflating thier figures in comparison to other nations.

[ Parent ]

For good or ill the US has always had (3.66 / 6) (#293)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:17:20 AM EST

a higher per-capita rate of violence than similar countries (the UK, for example). Part of that is probably the tradition of do-it-yourself: the nearest law officer was a day's ride away, so you had to defend yourself.

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
Per capita (3.20 / 5) (#381)
by LeftOfCentre on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:48:08 AM EST

A lot of people have indicated that they think it was unfair that Moore did not use per capita numbers. My guess is that he did so because much of the audience is not familiar with the concept. The numbers are still relevant -- the viewer can easily and quickly come up with approximate recalculations based on the population of the various countries (with which most people are probably roughly aware) and the difference between the US and the other nations brought up still turns up quite huge (of course, certainly not in all forms of crimes though).

[ Parent ]
I think you got it (2.16 / 6) (#244)
by Quila on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:30:50 AM EST

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

You're right! We let them damn niggers get too full of themselves and they overran the country. Time to put them back in their place. And we need to fry a few more commie sympathizers too.

At least that's what I always think someone might be thinking when they are pining for the good old classic age of "family values" and all the baggage that comes with it.

[ Parent ]

American Dream (3.00 / 5) (#256)
by Jebediah on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:53:48 AM EST

It was realized by many people that the American Dream was not all it was cracked up to be.

[ Parent ]
I'll try to answer (4.00 / 8) (#263)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 06:14:06 AM EST

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?

I think you've glossed over the argument that TV had something to do with it. People who became adults in the 50s didn't spend their childhood in front of the boob tube and the people who turned 18 in the 60s and 70s did. Also, I don't think it's so much a matter of violence being shown - I think it's got more with the glorification of people who act outside of the law to take revenge on those who have wronged them. It's a constant theme - the guy who has a problem, can't get the government to help him and decides to take matters into his own hands, generally with some fairly impressive firepower. It's presented as a justifiable response by our entertainment media.

People who commit atrocities like Columbine felt justified in doing so. The question isn't so much "where did they get the guns" or "how much violence did they watch" or "how fearful were they", but "how in hell did they ever think that such a thing could be right?" My theory is that it's because vigilante score-evening is being presented as a desirable thing in much of our entertainment. If people feel they've been wronged, that entitles them, they think, to do anything to right the wrong.

Add to this a general increase in nihilism, which was contributed to by the idea that we were all going to be blown up in WW3 anyway, and you have the kind of environment where some twisted people are going to think that they might as well solve their problems by blowing a few people away.

Although I haven't seen the movie, it doesn't seem as though Michael Moore really touched upon this - he did mention in passing the nihilism of the nuclear war industry, but he failed to notice the meme that "if I feel wronged, I'm entitled to do ANYTHING to right it". And I do believe that's something that became a widespread idea in the 60s and 70s ...

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
ANYTHING to right it (4.12 / 8) (#279)
by des mots on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:26:47 AM EST

Although I haven't seen the movie, it doesn't seem as though Michael Moore really touched upon this - he did mention in passing the nihilism of the nuclear war industry, but he failed to notice the meme that "if I feel wronged, I'm entitled to do ANYTHING to right it".

Intertingly, I believe it is the main reason behind the massive american support for the Iraq invasion, and also behind the massive european rejection.



[ Parent ]
What has changed (3.50 / 6) (#274)
by pyro9 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 08:35:35 AM EST

Naturally, I have seen a 50's western. Unlike the violence we see today, I have zero chance of ever finding myself in the position of any 50's western hero. Let's face it, the nearest cow is miles away, much less a rustler. Time travel is thus far impossible. Nobody gets involved in the 'Old West shootout' these days, and it probably didn't happen like that in the old west either.

A big difference was the sense of security and optimism for the future. The social contract was simple, be a productive member of society and you would get your nice house and family with 2 cars in the garage. Science and technology were steaming ahead, on the brink of solving every problem. People fealt (right or wrong) that the man from the government really was there to help.

I'm not proclaiming the 50's as paradise. I know very well that we tend to forget the bad things when we look at the past, but at the same time, I really do see much more optimism in the 50's than today. I also see a much stronger sense of belonging to a society and a social contract that offered real security for most in exchange for being a productive member of society.

That social contract is nearly non-existant today. The basic need of shelter used to cost 1/3 of a single income, now it costs 1/2 of two. Many people really did have a decent assurance that as long as they worked hard for a reputable company, they had a job for life, and a pension when they retired.

While it is true that there were some fairly sinister goings on in the background, it was much less a part of the awareness of most people. Sure, many knew it was there in the back of their mind, but it wasn't in their faces and none of it was of immediate concern to them personally (for the most part).

To see the effect of that, look at one group of people who reliably DIDN'T enjoy that social contract in the 50's, minorities.

Please pardon my rambling on, but this has me thinking.

In any society, where does most of the violence happen? In the 'lower class'. What is the one constant throughout history that distinguishes the 'lower class' from the 'upper class'? Though a conspicuous part of it, matertial wealth really doesn't seem to be the defining factor. The lower class now has more than most of the upper class did centuries ago.

Perhaps the real defining factor is security within society and life. One strong constant is that the upper class could rest assured that they would never lack comfortable amounts of food clothing and shelter, and would never lose the esteam of society and the government would be responsive to their needs. The lower classes had no such security. Hunger and homelessness for the lower classes was always just days away. A possible second factor is opportunity to improve one's lot in life.

Looking at society today, it seems that a person's percieved security in life and percieved opportunity to improve their station in life is a better predictor of their level of serious violence than anything else.

Returning more directly to the topic at hand, this seems to also be the message that Michael Moore is consistantly delivering through his various movie, book, and television projects.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
lower class my ass (3.00 / 2) (#401)
by scatbubba on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:28:10 PM EST

Violence doesn't grow out of the lower class. When i was poor, i knew plenty of non-violent people. However, that guy down the block who felt that he could solve his problems with violence is unemployable due to his attitude. He's not violent cause he is poor, he's poor because he fights with his boss, solves his problems with agression, and is generaly unfit to work in civilized society. If you gave that man a million dollars, he'd still solve his problems with violence, and start moving his way down towards the bottom of the social ladder.

[ Parent ]
So? (3.00 / 3) (#406)
by pyro9 on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 02:23:17 PM EST

What does that show for anything? The man apparently has a few screws loose.

I never claimed that all lower class are violent, or that all upper class are not (upper class tend not to be physically violent, but instead choose to be politically or economically violent).

Do take a hard retrospective look at that guy. Was he always violent? Had he grown up secure that the house and next meal were always going to be there, would he be different now? (I readily conceed that he may just have a psychological disorder, but do consider the alternative explaination).

What I do claim is that perminant insecurity has a TENDANCY towards violence.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Perhaps it's the Way of Harry (4.00 / 4) (#434)
by epepke on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 03:23:27 AM EST

As described in The Boomer Bible by R.F. Laird, a book not nearly enough people have read.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Pop culture... (none / 2) (#485)
by Variant on Wed Oct 01, 2003 at 12:31:16 AM EST

Movies, television, even music you could say... it's all gotten more "realistic", and most certainly is the largest single factor responsible for desensitizing people to not only things like violence, but immorality as well.

Guns themsleves are not the problem, it's the loss of respect we have for what they can do... the normalizing done by Hollywood and television, and even the news media (so much graphic footage of war). Nothing shocks us anymore.

Unfortunately there's no turning back. There's a great outcry for gun control, but the same group will scream its head off if the suggestion is made that Hollywood should adjust some of its content...

[ Parent ]
Population density? (none / 0) (#507)
by tgibbs on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:09:13 PM EST

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? One might reasonably expect that violence would have a highly nonlinear positive correlation with population density--the more people you encounter, the more likely that an interaction will turn violent. Add to that a lower risk of apprehension (especially for violence against strangers). This was certainly a period where population was growing, and a larger percentate of the population was living in urban environments. And that's quite aside from any potential pathological psychological effects of crowding.

[ Parent ]
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.

No... (3.33 / 6) (#198)
by Lord Snott on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 08:53:14 PM EST

He's not trying to say guns are bad, or inherrently negative.

I think he was trying to show that gun ownership shouldn't be a right, anymore than having a drivers licence is a right.

You have to prove you're competant to drive, driving is a priveledge, a priveledge that can be taken away if it is mis-used.

It would be silly to say "driving is bad" because there are people who drive drunk, or use their car for ram-raids. Moore wasn't saying "guns are bad, m'kay", he was saying the gun culture, supported by a fear culture, was bad.

M'kay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This sig in violation of U.S. trademark
registration number 2,347,676.
Bummer :-(

[ Parent ]

Like Moores opinion matters... (3.40 / 5) (#204)
by Bartab on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:29:26 PM EST

I think he was trying to show that gun ownership shouldn't be a right, anymore than having a drivers licence is a right.

Can't let that pesky constitution get in the way now can we? There is no useful opinion on if we should have gun ownership rights. We do. Change the constitution if you don't like it. Don't make up bullshit lies (under the false title of documentary) like the fatman.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Dumbass (3.00 / 5) (#291)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:00:58 AM EST

Way to miss the fucking point.

Where in the Consitution does it say that owning a handgun, a tool designed only to be easily concealed and to kill another human being, is a right? It doesn't say explicitly one way or another. I'm sure you have your opinions on this, and I do myself. I'd say either is equally "useful".

More to the point, Moore wasn't making an arguement against gun ownership. He was asking why, when we shared all these similarities with other culture, we were so violent, to others and our fellow countrymen. It is a salient point, and to dismiss it outright because you misconstrue the movie is ignorent.

[ Parent ]
Are you literate? (4.00 / 5) (#299)
by Bartab on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:16:09 PM EST

2nd Amendment. "Shall not be infringed", etc.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

Are you? (2.00 / 4) (#302)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:42:22 PM EST

"right to bear arms" Does that fucking say handguns?

It is truly a testament to the brilliance of our forefathers that the Constitution is still the basis for our government (in theory). However, there is a whole subset of law based around interpreting the intent of said document. Saying that the 2nd Amendment isn't open to interpretation is silly. It has to be taken in the context in which it was written to have any relevance.

So sorry to call you a dumbass, I just think you are missing the point. I don't debate the text of the 2nd Amendment, but as much as I believe in the Constitution as the supreme law of our land, I don't know that I would agree that it gives us the RIGHT to own handguns.

[ Parent ]
yes (2.75 / 3) (#341)
by Bartab on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:01:59 PM EST

What the fuck do you think "arms" is? The dismembered limbs of corpses?

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

not about literacy but interpretation (3.00 / 3) (#460)
by JussiK on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 09:17:32 AM EST

What the fuck do you think "arms" is?
Well, that is exactly what is being interpreted, isn't it? At the moment it seems that handguns are "arms", but I believe currenlty bazookas and nuclear devices are not. What's your definition?

[ Parent ]
More to the point (3.00 / 3) (#331)
by CAIMLAS on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:08:30 PM EST

While I won't disagree with you on the issue of whether or not he was lying (he most certainly was), there's a matter of contention to resolve.

He didn't specifically lie. It comes across that way, though, due to his bias. Every item in that film was factually true, sure. However, the whole approach he is like saying "sex causes all these problems, so we should outlaw it" - it's rediculous, and it overlooks the basic nature of humans, the needs of society for that element, and all the positive things that that element provides for the society).

Moore's 'arguement' (which aligns pretty well with the guidelines outlined earlier on K5 on how to argue/be a politician) is nothing more than a bunch of slanted facts and outright insults tailored to piss people off (or to make the people that support his ideals to feel self-rightious). A great debater once told me that a debater is only as good as his opponent: it's impossible to argue/debate against an arguement that has no foundation on reality; Moore proves this quite well.

The reason I don't take the fool as serious is because he doesn't present - in the least - a scientific arguement. You'd think that the people of K5 (and slashdot, to a degree, by proxy) would be able to smell a shit arguement when they see one, but apparently not.
--

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

yeah well (2.75 / 3) (#230)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:19:03 PM EST

to bad for Moore, the Constitution gives citizens the RIGHT to bear arms.

I am sure a constitutional amendment to take away a right would be welcomed.

BTW, the right to bear arms has been interpreted to mean you have the right to bear a firearm, but that firearm can be dictated by the states. so, if Michigan wanted to make it so citizens could only own black powder muskets, then there would be no case against such a regulation (well, they would probably sue based on the fact that black powder muskets are very out moded in abilities and are hard to find as compared to bolt action rifles which would probably be a more logical choice)

[ Parent ]

Hmm... (3.00 / 3) (#231)
by epepke on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:28:54 PM EST

I am sure a constitutional amendment to take away a right would be welcomed.

It probably would be welcomed, but it would have to wait for the America is Totally Christian Or at Least Abrahamic Amendment.

so, if Michigan wanted to make it so citizens could only own black powder muskets, then there would be no case against such a regulation

Moore would just go somewhere else to film.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I was making the point that (3.00 / 3) (#316)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:44:40 PM EST

the right to bear arms is not abridged by regulation of type of arm, as long as it makes sence.

Like I said, a black powder only regulation would probably not be up to snuff, but a bolt action rifle  olny regulation would be.

[ Parent ]

Arms, sure (3.75 / 4) (#289)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:57:17 AM EST

Handguns? Well, I won't get into that.

But in your haste to critique Moore are you going to discount everything he has to say completely?

Regardless of how much a raging liberal I am, I still believe in gun ownership, because I believe the Constitution trumps all.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I agree with you, but the OP was an idiot and missed the point completely. He wasn't saying "guns are bad, mmmkay", and I think the case could be made that he wasn't SAYING anything at all. Rather, he was ASKING what was different about U.S. that lead to so much violence.

[ Parent ]
uhhhhh (2.75 / 3) (#314)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:41:39 PM EST

did you even read what I said or did you stop after my first sentence?

[ Parent ]
I did read it (3.00 / 3) (#334)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:21:28 PM EST

I must have misunderstood you. Reading over my comment again I don't understand either. Oops. I guess we agree, but your first sentence threw me off. I don't think Moore argues against gun ownership at all.

[ Parent ]
Don't be stupid. (3.00 / 3) (#415)
by Estanislao Martínez on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 05:00:47 PM EST

I'd like to see how quickly and efficiently you can slaughter people with bowling balls, compared to guns. Or, for that matter, with Marilyn Manson CDs.

--em
[ Parent ]

Either that or you just didn't get it (3.50 / 4) (#427)
by GooseKirk on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 09:18:52 PM EST

In your drooling fervor to show that Michael Moore is some way inherently anti-gun, you ended up missing a very important point - you should watch a movie before you criticize it.

[ Parent ]
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.

I did not like the ambushing of Dick Clark. (3.50 / 4) (#392)
by SacredSalt on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 10:19:56 AM EST

I enjoyed the movie, I saw it at the Hi-Pointe when it first came out. I recognized a few falsehoods, and some others have been pointed out to me over time. I can, to a point, forgive them. What I can not forgive is the ambushing of Dick Clark, that scene, and the disinformation that was used all throughout it simply makes me angry. Though Moore alludes to media hysteria being the cause of a lot of our problems (and it does play a part),he does also mention the racial divisions in our society which are not going to go away until we do away with things like Affirmative Action. Rewarding a victim mentality is a poor precedent for our society to set, and yet it does. It does have an effect on white anger, and it certainly has one on black anger. Moore does some other falsehoods in his statistics about Canada which do a great injustice to getting out the truth about racial divisions and crime. Though minority populations are doing a disporportionate amount of crime (for instance, 12% of the population 51% of the murders) we do not as a society look at one of the chief contributors in those communities to crime. (Moore grossly misrepresents the minority population of Canada and the US.) What do the communities which overwhelming produce criminality have in common with them? The answer is single mother homes. One of the best predictors of a child ending up in a prison, not graduating high school, not going on to college, having emotional problems, getting pregnant as a teenager -- is the single mother home. What are the demographics of those communities where crime is rampant? 60-80% single mother homes. This is also true in *white* families & white communities with crime problems. 81% of the people who end up in prison are raised in a single mother home. That children raised in single mother homes do worse than children raised by an in tact family (which is the best for children), or those with 50/50 arrangements for time, or even those raised only by their fathers is true across all income levels. We've created a system which pushes fathers out of their childrens life. It says to them "You are nothing but a paycheck". Whether the child is born out of wedlock (and the father is automatically denied custody and even visitation and must spend thousands in court to get it), no fault divorce, or abuse of restraining orders -- the government is playing the role of "father" in the life of these children. The results are disasterous. With the divorce rate as high as it is today, we can expect increases in antisocial behavior in the future and a futher breakdown of society in the black, latino, and in white communties. When I look at what the impact of government as father has done in the black community I do not want it in my community. Even female crime is increasing. Again, the same demographics apply. The girls who end up in trouble with the law, pregnant as teenagers, doing antisocial things by and large are raised only by their mothers. Until we as a society are willing to address this, give children equal access to both parents, start giving custody to the fathers (who are more likely not to run the mother out of the childs life and thus give the child the benefits of both), and work to keep families together by making marriage a contract that is meaningful -- these problems are not going to improve. Men play a critical role in their childrens life. They teach empathy, respect, accountability, responsibility, and do a much better job of enforcing discipline. One of my friends from one of the worst neighborhoods in St Louis had this to say about growing up: "Yeah, I did a lot of the same things that other kids were doing, but they were only worried about being caught by the cops, I was worried about being caught by my father. Most of them are in prison or dead." He runs a video editing company now.

[ Parent ]
Learn HTML, dude (3.75 / 4) (#425)
by epepke on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:23:50 PM EST

However, you make some good points.

Take two statments that both seem to be well supported by research:

  1. Education, emancipation, and freeing of women is the clearest indicator of child health and controlled population growth.
  2. The absence of a strong male parent is the clearest indicator of gang behavior, violence, and drug use amongst boys.

Both, as far as I can tell, are true. But you put this into a leftist mindset, and what you get is that 1 is true, and 2 is bad and racist and has to be opposed or at least attention has to be directed from it.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
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.


not anti-gun (4.00 / 9) (#237)
by mr100percent on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:40:32 PM EST

Moore isn't anti-gun, he just believes that the NRA is taking a very poor "all-or-nothing" approach that makes sure that no gun contol bills get passed. He does want to start a discussion about gun control and american culture though, which was the purpose of his movie.

 Although he never says what he believes, I think he's for gun control of some form, but I'm not sure how much he wants. He didn't really go into the debate over automatic weapons or gun locks, like many others do.
--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

Moore isn't anti Gun at all (4.18 / 11) (#238)
by xutopia on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 11:54:46 PM EST

I think he explains that (having won a junior award from the NRA and beind a lifetime NRA member). To be honest I'm not quite sure what Moore wants with guns other than less people killing one another.

He made the movie to start a dialogue. To get people like us talking and showing Americans that they are more violent people than many other countries out there. Some even said he was anti-American for bringing up that point. I think he isn't. He's just an American that isn't scared of seeing his ugly self in the mirror. To me that shows widsom many people around the world don't have.

[ Parent ]

wow, you got it (3.25 / 8) (#284)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:46:53 AM EST

hell of a lot more than I can say about a lot of the people around here, based on their comments...

[ Parent ]
Moore is rabidly anti-gun, in his own words... (4.20 / 5) (#368)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 03:40:38 AM EST

He writes in an open letter to Heston "[you're] gloating about some misbegotten right you think you have to own a device that is designed to eliminate human life." By this and other statements it appears he is a rabid anti-gunner, he just tries to appear somewhat less obviously biassed in BFC, and I guess a lot of people fall for that.

The material he excludes from BFC speaks volumes more about his views and agenda than what he includes. For example, how about some footage with Heston and Martin Luter King side by side speaking at the same rally? (yes, it's real, the NRA has always been very close to the civil rights movement) How about telling us what happened at the next two (attempted) high-school shootings after Columbine? (they were stopped by civilians with guns)



[ Parent ]

Association with civil-rights mov. is self-serving (3.50 / 4) (#444)
by the shoez on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 06:39:44 PM EST

Without addressing any of the other issues, of course they want to align themselves to the civil rights movement. That is what gives them this perceived moral authority. For King, the NRA were a powerful body which represented a constitutional high-ground, so furthering their own civil rights struggle.

Maybe if no one had guns, there would be no need for civilians to jump in and murder others. The situation is now endemic in the US. Guns simply can never be eliminated from the culture or mindset of Joe American. I think a gun just don't elicit the same reaction in the US, as it might in Europe. These are fearsome and deadly instruments, and should command the utmost of respect. People should rightly quiver when they see a gun. The population as a whole doesn't need the damn things. Protection? Come on, it is time for serious reflection, and the Moore documentary rightly tries to initiate this. There are those that prefer to attack his delivery, rather than the message, and while the issues are not addressed head on, the cycle will continue. The government needs to take a firm stance and start to outlaw certain weapons. Moving then to stricter licensing and, as I would like, complete elimination.

We all recognise that there will inevitably be some guns in a society, but if they are met with the same reaction as say, drink driving; absolutely, categorically and socially unacceptable, a sea-change of opinion might just be possible.

It's a shame your president is a charlatan.

tom

[ Parent ]

assumptions again (4.00 / 4) (#453)
by izx on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 09:32:17 PM EST

This is a good summary of the extreme antigun position. However, I think you are making a lot of wrong assumptions without even realizing it. I will try to tackle your points one by one.

The population as a whole doesn't need the damn things. Protection?

Yes, protection. Guns are used for protection all the time, don't think it doesn't happen just because it is never reported in the news.

Here are a few sources for real-life self-defense stories: KC3, Operation Self-Defense, and NRA's Armed Citizen. Why do these stories never make front-page news, but high-school shootings always do?

If you want statistics, read Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995). There is somewhere between 500,000 and 2,000,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US. In the typical case, after an initial attack, the attacker is threatened with a gun, no shot is fired, the attacker leaves, and the incident is not reported to the police.

If the population doesn't need them, then why does the police? Either they are effective defense tools for both police and the rest of the population, or they are not.

Come on, it is time for serious reflection, and the Moore documentary rightly tries to initiate this.

Reflect on these questions: Do you have a right to live? Do you have a right to defend your life when somebody tries to take it? Is it morally right or at least permissible to take their life if there is no other way to save your own life? and, What would you do if your wife and children are about to be killed by a gang of five attackers armed with knives? (assume the attackers are not aware that you are around; you can have a gun or not, as you choose)

Maybe if no one had guns, there would be no need for civilians to jump in and murder others.

Murder is unlawful killing. Killing in self-defense when your life is threatened is not murder, it is lawful in just about any country I can think of. Nor does anyone "jump in", there are plenty of cases where people who are threatened with a gun do not reach for theirs until the attacker actually shoots first. Cops kill by mistake about ten times more often than "civilians".

"If no one had guns" is not a realistic assumption. We have spent bilions of dollars on trying to make sure no one has access to drugs, and yet they are very readily available.

Moving then to stricter licensing and, as I would like, complete elimination.

Complete elimination from the hands of law-abiding citizens, at least.

Without addressing any of the other issues, of course they want to align themselves to the civil rights movement.

No, much simpler actually, the reason was defense against KKK and the like. Yes, black people have used guns to prevent lynchings plenty of times.

The situation is now endemic in the US.

Well, the situation that is endemic is that I apparently don't have the legal right to self-defense anywhere outside of my own home. Otherwise, why can't I carry instruments of self-defense with me like people have done for centuries? We should stop worrying about what people "might" do and look at what they actulally do, good or bad.

Guns simply can never be eliminated from the culture or mindset of Joe American.

Or anywhere else. The gun ownership rate is about 30% in Europe (much higher in e.g. Finland or Switzerland, much lower in e.g. Germany, but that is the average).

These are fearsome and deadly instruments, and should command the utmost of respect.

I somewhat agree, they are deadly and should be treated with great respect, but not fear - fear comes from unfamiliarity.

People should rightly quiver when they see a gun.

No, they shouldn't, they should have one on their belt. It would be kind of silly to be afraid of your own kitchen knife, no? I think you need to visit a range a few times.

We all recognise that there will inevitably be some guns in a society, but if they are met with the same reaction as say, drink driving; absolutely, categorically and socially unacceptable, a sea-change of opinion might just be possible.

No, violent attacks upon peaceful citizens should be absolutely and categorically unacceptable, and should be met with deadly force if that is the only way to stop them.

This has all been hashed out centuries ago, for example:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."-- Thomas Payne, 1775

[ Parent ]

There's a fundemental difference... (3.00 / 4) (#465)
by the shoez on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 04:59:18 AM EST

I think the fundamental difference between the two camps is thus: Whereas I consider it repugnant to be hanging a lethal instrument of violence, repression, death, and massacre from my belt, you wish it to be proudly displayed. Now, the argument that a car or a bike, or... say, a plane, can be a killing instrument may be tortuously correct, but it's thoroughly disingenuous - it's not their primary designated purpose. The single purpose of a gun is to kill. You may wrap it up benign language such as "protection", but that's just to seem more socially acceptable.

One of the points from that documentary was the culture of fear, well we have no better example of that. "Fear me, I have a gun". It's like America has its very own Civilian Militia.

[ Parent ]

Can be used for both good and evil... (none / 2) (#475)
by izx on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 05:18:56 PM EST

Not to mince words, yes, a gun is designed to kill, and yes, it is different in that regard from a car, plane or kitchen knife, although it is not necessarily more dangerous or more lethal.

That is not quite the whole story, though. My gun has as its primary purpose keeping my family alive and unscathed. I am absolutely not ashamed of that. I do not fear anyone, nor does anyone have reason to fear me. If my gun is ever used to kill, it would only be in order to keep alive those that are dear to me. Strange, isn't it, how an instrument of killing can be an instrument of life?

A weapon is perfectly neutral: you can pick it up filled with hate and the desire to destroy, or you can pick it up out of love and the desire to protect. The two are utterly different. As Tolkien writes:

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness. I love only that which they defend."
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked. What would you do if you were witnessing a deadly attack against someone you cared about? Would you run away, would you try to plead with the attackers, or would you fight?

Another question: why are people in uniform different from those you dismiss as mere "civilians"? Please explain to me why a policeman should have a gun, but a "civilian" should not. Does a uniform mean I can now shoot to stop a murderer? Does a different moral code apply to me as soon as I put on a uniform? Or should we disarm absolutely everyone?



[ Parent ]

"NO need for a gun where he lives..." (2.37 / 8) (#265)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 06:27:11 AM EST

i bet i don't need one either.
what happens when they kick in the door, man?
swat teams are serious, and they don't exactly limit themselves...the LEAST you could have to protect yourself is a handgun...
firearms are not about protecting from crime, that's what police and to a lesser extent military are fore. fire-arms are to protect you when the police & Lesser extent military begin to round up the undesirables...
how many times a day in new york city is a random black man a victim of institutionalized violence thanks to city police?
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
this is right (3.00 / 5) (#273)
by speek on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 08:34:14 AM EST

The primary point of owning guns is not to keep criminals in check, but to keep the government in check.

Of course, your implication that black people should therefore get guns to protect themselves from the police will raise a lot of opposition because the result of that is lots of shooting between police and their prey and then escalation, which is bad for everyone. However, if people never defend themselves, then there would be nothing to stop injustice, so it's a thorny problem.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Standing Up To Injustice (3.50 / 6) (#276)
by kcidx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 08:51:50 AM EST

At least at this day in age, does not require a gun. In fact, if you "stand up to injustice" and shoot a cop, no one will EVER know that you were doing the right thing. THey will just know you shot a cop and throw you in jail.

But hey, who am I to say. It will certainly make politics more interesting if guns were always used to stand up to injustice.

[ Parent ]

depends on the injustice (4.00 / 5) (#282)
by speek on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:33:45 AM EST

If the injustice about to happen is you getting raped/murdered/mugged in a dark alley, a gun would make a good choice of tool. Voting the bastards out would probably be less effective.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

If I was writing the short post I responded to.. (3.00 / 3) (#345)
by kcidx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:25:38 PM EST

...and I wanted it to sound like I mean "injustice" in a really broad way...I probably wouldn't have started it with something like...

The primary point of owning guns is not to keep criminals in check, but to keep the government in check.

[ Parent ]

mabye (3.00 / 3) (#332)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:09:17 PM EST

i tend to think this escalation is going to happen, or be dealt with. and the cops allready _are armed._ ...so while 'being dealt with' is happening or not...
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Brilliant. (3.57 / 7) (#275)
by kcidx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 08:49:41 AM EST

fire-arms are to protect you when the police & Lesser extent military begin to round up the undesirables...

Been listening to too much gansta' rap?

While it might look cool, and get your dead ass on the evening TV, you will lose any shootout with the police, if they came to round you up. So why even front?

how many times a day in new york city is a random black man a victim of institutionalized violence thanks to city police?

SO what do you plan he does? Get a gun and start shooting cops? Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

[ Parent ]

Just to play devil's advocate (3.50 / 8) (#286)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:51:49 AM EST

By the time they are rounding "undesirables", I'd rather die fighting then get thrown in Camp Xray.

[ Parent ]
Uh... (4.00 / 7) (#343)
by kcidx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:23:25 PM EST

They are rounding up "undesirables" right now.

How else can you possibly put it?

I mean seriously, if the thing I am missing is the fact that all these gun nuts actually want their guns for armed revolution against the american government, I say go for it, knock yourselves out. But something tells me that that isn't what its really about. Its probably more like what Bowling For Columbine was about; the rampant paranoid culture and how it breeds a self-confirming prophecy about the dangerous gun-toting criminals around ever corner.

[ Parent ]

The valid weapon of the young NY black man... (3.20 / 5) (#323)
by gte910h on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 03:30:38 PM EST

...is the ACLU, popular press, and advocacy groups, when confronted with police mistreatment.

You AREN'T going to get away from being arrested when you have a gun. You're going to turn into a Justifiable Homocide and another television news story about a "Hooororororoble Black Man With a Gun". That doesn't help you, black america, or anything else.

   --Michael

[ Parent ]

uuhh (2.60 / 5) (#330)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:06:12 PM EST

you have 5 big badass white boys who just got out of their car and are going to beat the shit out of you and possibly kill you. you would chose
a) to throw random aclu members at your persuers
b) the handgun in your jacket to defend yourself
c) advocacy groups? perhaps if you *live* through it...

at least the handgun offers a moment's security :/ and hey...the news may be calling you a horable black guy but theres still air going in & out of your lungs :P
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Get back to the argument.... (3.60 / 5) (#388)
by squigly on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:37:16 AM EST

Is that likely to happen to Charlton Heston in his home?

[ Parent ]
ah! (3.50 / 4) (#447)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 07:30:29 PM EST

which logical fallacy did you commit? not sure, but it has something to do with "where he lives" and "him". mabye he himself has no perceivable need for it (except for swat teams which he's fucked either way, ie guns become irrelevant), and i may be stretching arguments further than they should be...
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
There is a VERY small chance they will kill you... (3.50 / 4) (#407)
by gte910h on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 02:33:40 PM EST

...if you attempt to be cooperative, don't make sudden moves, own up to what you've done, don't attempt to flee and in general don't be an idiot.

When I'm stopped when walking, pulled over, or otherwise interact with the police, my first goal is to put the officer at the greatest ease possible. I tell him EXACTLY what I'm doing before I do it, and keep my hands where he can seem them or where he's told me to put them. I respond to him using the title "Officer" and his name if he's given it.

Many youths who are in danger of "5 big badass white boys" beating the shit out of them are NOT being cooperative, not behaving in a manner to put the officer at ease, and are in short not REALLY trying to come away from the incident unscathed. If you make the officer afraid however, be prepared to be dropped on the pavement and forcefully subdued. Even if that happens, you still have to calm the hell down and act like a man if you find yourself in that situation.

The handgun in that situation is just going to label you a threat to the officers, and if they intend to beat you up and you pull it, it will probably get you killed. It will get bullets and blood in your lungs, not keep air there.  I would place a good bet any cops you decide to get into a gunfight with are a MUCH better shot than you are, and being outnumberd in a gunfight when pinned down or without cover (most situations this scenario would take place) being outnumbered is much more than proportionally disadvantageous, i.e. 3 people with guns have MANY more ways to kill a lone person than the 2 more people they have.


[ Parent ]

To some extent (4.20 / 5) (#424)
by epepke on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:06:25 PM EST

To another extent, it doesn't matter, because every cop carries a drop gun. They call it a "backup weapon," but they're all miraculously bought from pawn shops and the like without a paper as a result of at least implicit cop intimidation. The "no questions asked" gun return programs where you can drop off a pistol and get a free pizza or some shoes also provide plenty of these. I've never understood how black people can be so stupid as to donate weapons to these things. White people, sure.

Nobody remembers that the Sullivan law was passed precisely so that his cops could drop pistols into the pockets of his political opponents and have them arrested. This got so bad that his political opponents took to sewing the pockets of their overcoats shut.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Surely this is a crackpot theory.... (3.50 / 4) (#452)
by gte910h on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 09:14:39 PM EST

Sure, it MUST happen sometimes, but you can't think it systemic and widespread anymore.

[ Parent ]
Which practice? (4.00 / 4) (#454)
by epepke on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 10:23:22 PM EST

The practice of carrying them is still almost universal. As for how often they're used, it's hard to tell. But why do you assume that it's any less common today?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
The K-Mart part... (4.00 / 4) (#395)
by skyknight on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 10:51:42 AM EST

was in my opinion, the stupidest part of the movie. I very much enjoyed the film, even though I thought parts of it were logically flawed, but the K-Mart part just ruined it for me. It was infantile in its purpose. Now people will just go to Walmart instead. Shut down Walmart and people will go to small, private dealers. It accomplishes nothing. It is just insipid sensationalism.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
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.

Really? (3.85 / 7) (#266)
by squigly on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 06:39:44 AM EST

Does the constitution say this is the reason?  The amendment does after all have a preamble.  Perhaps it was incorporated because at the time, the US didn't have a standing army, and therefore a "well regulated militia" would have been their best means of defence against invaders.

[ Parent ]
Standing Army (3.00 / 3) (#338)
by Gregoyle on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 06:09:05 PM EST

The founders were *strongly* against a standing Army.

From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, giving the powers of Congress:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

This was later worked around. Look at the debates they had in the Consitutional Convention; no one wanted a standing army.
-------

He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil.
[ Parent ]

So the founders didn't want a standing army? (3.00 / 3) (#340)
by squigly on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 06:45:46 PM EST

This suggests that the second amendment was for national defence, and not to protect the citizens from their government.  

That said, I'd suspect that if it came to having to get an amendment passed to remove that clause, there wouldn;t be a lot of trouble geting it ratified.  

[ Parent ]

Jeffersonian View of a Republic (4.00 / 4) (#380)
by cam on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:05:23 AM EST

This suggests that the second amendment was for national defence, and not to protect the citizens from their government.

Jefferson and Madison believed the power for a free republic lay with its yeomanry. Agrarian land holders that could organize into a militia and overthrow a government if the government turned to tyranny. Remember that at the time the US Forces in the revolutionary war were militia and had dealt the British regular forces a mighty blow.

In the modern British system the final temper against parliamentary executive tyranny is the non-partisan monarch. The US system has the President as the executive and in which most power is aggregated. Subsequently the final non-partisan check and balance against executive tyranny in the US system is the people themselves.

For the people to be able to challenge the government they need to have a right reserved for them in the constitution to be able to organize and arm themselves to the same level as the government backed forces. This is the 2nd Amendment.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

If that's what they believed.... (3.75 / 4) (#384)
by squigly on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:18:40 AM EST

Why didn't they say so?

Surely they could have added some wording to the constitution, or the bill of rights, that permitted violent revolution.  These were clever men with skill with words.  Had they worded the preamble to include protection from domestic threat as well as external, I would have agreed with you.

Or was it perhaps that the people didn't believe what the founders believed? If that is the case, then it doesn't matter what the founders believed.  The people had spoken.  

[ Parent ]

Grab a book on Jefferson (4.00 / 4) (#417)
by cam on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 05:41:45 PM EST

Sorry I dont have my library with me, but grab a book on Jefferson, that themes is all through his letters. One of his letters is about the Shay Rebellion. He believed that a government needed a rebellion like that periodically to keep them honest and on their toes.

Seriously grab a book on Jefferson and Madison. They are two remarkable thinkers. The US was fortunate to have them when they came to independence.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (3.75 / 4) (#306)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:47:43 PM EST

I think you recognize one of the reasons but I'm not sure it is the only reason.

Partialy, I think it is a statement about who it's citizens are.... remember the cultural background that the framers are coming from. In European society during that age, the main indicater of a "free man" as opposed to the "unfree" was that a free man had the right (indeed the responsibility) to bare arms, while the unfree didn't.

Also, remember that Jefferson was very big on the idea that when the government fails to live up to it's responsibilties (i.e. protecting it's citizens) those responsibiltes revert to the citizen itself.

Finaly, realize that in America of the late 1700's there were very practical reasons for allowing citizens to be armed. There are no telephones to call the police, there are no automobiles for police to rush to your aid at a moments notice. Except for a thin strip along the coast, the country is an untamed wilderness. A good portion of the population is pushing into this wilderness in pursuit of free land. In this situation a gun is not just a luxuary... it's a neccesity for protection not just against 2 legged beasts but 4 legged ones as well.... and as a means to supplement ones food supply.

Believe it or not there ARE areas of this country where many of those considerations are still important.

[ Parent ]

Weak Reasoning (4.00 / 4) (#435)
by noise on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 10:55:46 AM EST

"There are no telephones to call the police, there are no automobiles for police to rush to your aid at a moments notice."

Have you ever called 911 or a Police number during an emergency? Rushing to your aid is exactly what they do when your defense against being attacked is the telephone. By the time they arrive serious aid is exactly what you will need. Also, the police, do not have a legal obligation to put their lives in danger in order to protect yours. Until the police can teleport instantly to the scene of a crime AND be in a position to instantly stop it gunowners are not going to buy into the there were very practical reasons for allowing citizens to be armed line of reasoning. Another point, it is the citizens that allow themselves to be armed. I assume that in your comment Believe it or not there are areas of this country where many of those considerations are still important that you are talking about rural areas. If so your reasoning again, does not hold water. It is where people are found in the highest concentration that you need personal protection the most. When the guns are gone the criminals will go back to using knives. Guns allow the average woman to defend themselves effectively against larger, faster, and stronger male opponents. Something unknown before the creation of the personal firearm.

It is not the Police who are known as the Great Equalizer.

I will stick with my guns as other answers to the personal defense question (stunners, alarms, pepper spray, kung fu, hope) pale in comparison.

[ Parent ]
Preaching to the choir (none / 2) (#479)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 01:20:42 PM EST

I think your trying to pick an arguement with some-one who does not disagree with you my freind.

I'm a gun owner and have been one all my life. I also used to be a card carrying NRA member (I stopped because I didn't like the amount of solicitations I was getting from them).

I agree with everything you said above.

I WAS trying to point out the historical context in which the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights.

While it is true that many of those issues still exist to some extent today, the matter of degree is not the same.

Imagine living in a world where the nearest help was not 15-20 minutes away (which still may be too late in many situations) but 15-20 hours with no ability to even indicate that you are in need of help.

Look, I'm a staunch advocate of gun rights but even I am not going to pretend that access to help isn't much more immediate and available today then it was 200 years ago.

As for the need for protection in rural vs urban areas. I am not going to argue that criminal activity isn't a major hazard in many urban areas... but if you are trying to argue that you are safe as a babe in rural areas, you obviously haven't spent much time in bear country.

[ Parent ]

A followup (none / 0) (#515)
by noise on Mon Nov 10, 2003 at 03:21:27 AM EST

My friend, I was not trying to pick an argument at all. I understood from your post that you are a supporter of the right to bear arms as a general idea. I responded to the general line of your post that one should realize that in America of the late 1700's there were very practical reasons for allowing citizens to be armed.

Look, I'm a staunch advocate of gun rights but even I am not going to pretend that access to help isn't much more immediate and available today then it was 200 years ago.
I am not going to pretend that the situation has changed at all, when it has not. The idea that help may quicker to attain in most cases today for those still alive after an incident is a weak one.

if you are trying to argue that you are safe as a babe in rural areas, you obviously haven't spent much time in bear country.
I have lived in rural areas both inside and outside of the United States. I am not even suggesting that argument for the reason that it is not relevant in addition to not being true.

I agree with everything you said above.I WAS trying to point out the historical context in which the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights.
I originally had a few lines attached as a disclaimer that I thought you would agree. I apologize for having removed them. However, what we do not agree on is the historical context you suggest and it's importance.



[ Parent ]
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.

Speech (3.25 / 4) (#280)
by bblaze on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:30:08 AM EST

[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.

Since Moore links to the speech on his website, it seems that he thinks the editing was intended to make Heston look better, whether or not you believe him.

Tollis lintea neglegentiorum. Hoc salsum esse putas? Fugit te inepte: quamvis sordida res et invenusta est est. - Catullus
[ Parent ]
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

Just what is... (3.66 / 6) (#257)
by emwi on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:00:58 AM EST

"liberal emotion"?

[ Parent ]
Sharing someone else's feelings, apparently (n/t) (3.50 / 4) (#283)
by kableh on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:42:44 AM EST



[ Parent ]
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

I don't get it (3.50 / 4) (#262)
by lugumbashi on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:56:40 AM EST

How did you manage to work Zionism and anti-semitism into this at all? Oh I see - by association with Mel Gibson.
-"Guinness thaw tool in jew me dinner ouzel?"
[ Parent ]
Like this. . . (3.50 / 4) (#298)
by Fantastic Lad on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 12:10:06 PM EST

How did you manage to work Zionism and anti-semitism into this at all? Oh I see - by association with Mel Gibson.

Work it in?

That's like asking with awe how one manages to 'work in' oil with automobile use. I don't need Mel Gibson to do that.

The Jewish/Arab problem is about one third of what everything currently going on in the world is all about. --And I don't even have to reference conspiracy theory to say that. Just look at the news.

One of the biggest plays currently going down is a herding of the world population into a scenario where it will be 'alright' to wipe 95% of all the Semites off the world map. --That is both Jews and Arabs; the whole nine yards. I've been talking about this for a few years, and now we're right in the middle of crunch time.

Jews kill Palestinians. Iran kills Israel. US kills Iran. (Or some order to that effect.) The net result, though, is that everybody is killed who happens to be carrying the genetic data which the bible warned us to preserve. (Though, the bible, being as warped and broken as it is, got the message all wrong. The blood was supposed to be SHARED around the whole globe so that everybody would be protected, but thanks to deliberate corruption of the message, Semitic blood has been isolated into a thin segment of the population which is now being targetted for easy elimination. Anyway, the goal is to kill all these people so that the bad guys gain total dominion over the New World Order after the big paradigm shift hits us all like a nuclear powered ton of bricks.

The trick, you see, is to make it so that as all those millions of people are put through the meat grinder, nobody will be astonished in the least. --It will seem like the most logical, if tragic, final destination of unstoppable natural circumstance. And when people like me, (if we're feeling particularly vindictive and annoyed), point at our rantings from years past, everybody will say, "Oh, shut up. You're still nuts. *This* is real. There's no way you could have known."

And they'll be wrong. As usual.

-FL

[ Parent ]

dude, avoid the crack (3.25 / 4) (#309)
by Battle Troll on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:08:15 PM EST

Iran kills Israel. US kills Iran.

Iranians aren't Semites, which is a severe blow to your putative credibility.

'Iran' means the land of the 'Aryans.' Say both words a few times slowly.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

now research meaning of aryan (3.00 / 5) (#351)
by GfreshMofo on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:09:29 PM EST

thats almost as stupid as saying that palestinians arent a semitic people

He also took from American books ... Shakespeare ... Classic
[ Parent ]

uh (3.60 / 5) (#386)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:26:31 AM EST

The echt Iranians are an Indo-European people.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Palestinians are (3.00 / 3) (#414)
by baron samedi on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 04:55:51 PM EST

Palestinians, being Arabs, speaking Arabic are semitic. Iranians, not being Arabs, speaking Farsi are not semitic, but as Battle Troll says, Indo-Europeans.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
Are you for real? (3.25 / 4) (#337)
by Sacrifice on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:59:57 PM EST

The net result, though, is that everybody is killed who happens to be carrying the genetic data which the bible warned us to preserve. (Though, the bible, being as warped and broken as it is, got the message all wrong. The blood was supposed to be SHARED around the whole globe so that everybody would be protected, ...

I think this is a fair question: you believe the Bible contains divinely inspired instructions to mankind (modulo corruption)?

That is so nuts =)

[ Parent ]

In response. . . (3.00 / 3) (#342)
by Fantastic Lad on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:16:39 PM EST

I think this is a fair question: you believe the Bible contains divinely inspired instructions to mankind (modulo corruption)?

Yeah, that is a fair question. Let's see now. . , where to begin. . .

First off, No. Nothing about the bible is 'divine' per se. I am not a follower of the bearded-man-in-the-sky religion.

I do, however, think that Christ and Moses were real guys; teachers and leaders, and that they were probably in contact with their higher selves; higher incarnations of themselves who have access to all information. --Anybody can be in similar contact, through meditation and, with more complexity and dangers, channeling. (One's higher self being the end product of living through many incarnations and having collected all of the experiences a soul will as it traverses this level of existence.)

As in any age, (including today), some people back then were particularly good at this kind of communication, becoming conduits for knowledge which they then shared among the populace. That knowledge was distributed, broken-telephoned, deliberately corrupted by certain negative elements of the spectrum, and presented as we see it today, as highly negative, manipulative biblical jargon.

There are many forces acting in the world today, and the basic things you can see and hear in the 'normal' realm represent only a small sliver. There's a lot going on, and much of it is working to hinder you. To feed on you.

Anybody who has the smarts and the strength to explore will, without any question, find answers. Before I started looking, I was comfortable in my illusory bubble reality. I called people nuts as well. But don't sweat it. If you don't figure it out this time around, you'll have another chance later on. And another, and another. . . When you die, you only get recycled.

Bewarned, though. There are two paths. Only half the souls on the planet are upwardly mobile, so to speak, seeking their higher selves. The other half are seeking oblivion. Ying, Yang, and balance and all. . .

Does the prospect of eternal existence through many difficult lives make you fear? If so, it might tell you something about your chosen path.

-FL

[ Parent ]

Uh-Oh (none / 1) (#504)
by inadeepsleep on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:32:48 PM EST

If the quota for being upwardly mobile (i.e. half of all souls) is already taken up then I'll be forced to seek my lower self.

I'm doomed!

Seriously though, it never ceases to amaze me that people try to reconcile various religious traditions that are completely contradictory.  Certainly the Judeo-Christian tradition has its problems and historical coverups, but the whole reincarnation/kharma/caste system was developed just to keep whole classes of people enslaved and happy about it.

Doesn't sound very enlightened to me.  But I agree: keep seeking. That's a good course for anybody.


[ Parent ]

You're behind the times (3.66 / 6) (#373)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:01:26 AM EST

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

You presume wrong. Miramax is now sponsoring it - Mel Gibson pulled out.

And I strongly suspect that the Jews will be popularly implicated through this film.

I strongly suspect that reviewing films before they're even made is impossible, especially when you haven't kept up with who's making them.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
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

As far as I know, the NRA doesn't use the courts (4.20 / 5) (#290)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:57:37 AM EST

they have an impressive lobby in congress, but generally they only end up in court to help defend gunmakers or similar.

Take that with a grain of salt, I haven't been in the NRA for 5-10 years.


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
i think your right (4.28 / 7) (#296)
by The Central Committee on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:49:46 AM EST

a friendly chap pointed me to this

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
[ Parent ]

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.)

Well ... (3.66 / 6) (#264)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 06:21:49 AM EST

... the only comment I have time to make about that is that during the 70s, life in Midwestern factory towns changed drastically for the worse. No one who lived in one will forget what happened, even though things are generally looking up now. We still have a real lack of confidence in the future and in the companies that employ us. It's going to be a long time before that changes.

It wasn't an ideal world, but it was a different one. I know, I remember it.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I also liked Roger and Me (3.80 / 5) (#362)
by Lode Runner on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:31:03 AM EST

but I thought it was very rude of him to interrupt my aunt's afternoon at the club by pestering her with questions about the economic situation.

[ Parent ]
Well... I have to say that I've noticed (4.00 / 6) (#287)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:55:52 AM EST

that comics are becoming the popular spokespeople for the left. Al Franken is another example.

This is annoying because they have an easy out - whenever anyone catches them in a falsehood they can just say "Whoa - it was only a joke!"


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
and Bill Maher [no text] (3.80 / 5) (#360)
by Lode Runner on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:16:10 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I forgot about him. (3.80 / 5) (#377)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:31:02 AM EST

But he, at least, always struck me as being at least a bit intelligent and willing to debate, as well.

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
Beautifully-constructed character assassination (3.42 / 7) (#288)
by Artful Codger on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:56:53 AM EST

The cited article is a masterpiece. Its foundation is a handful of substantial allegations (the gun at the bank, the Titan missile, etc). Atop this small foundation is a souffle of shadings, attacks based on anecdotes of Moore's character flaws, quirks, arguably tasteless quips, moments of human weakness, whipped up and bound up by the article author's eloquent jibes. Upon this now sizable portion, the author builds to a beautiful finish of satiric attacks and garnishes it all with broad righteous condemnation.

If the relatively few substantive FACTS in this article are true, then I would be on-side and agree without reservation that Moore is a charlatan, and I would praise the article.

However, Moore seems to have provided unequivocal proof of the truth of his assertions in "Bowling for Columbine", and that the claims to the contrary presented in articles such as the cited one are patently untrue. If you accept Moore's version of these assertions about facts in the film, and the pretty convincing proof, then this article and ones like it are just tasty right-wing confections built on lies... precisely the kind of public persecution Moore claims they are.

I'm willing to judge on the facts. If there is real proof out there that Moore really did fabricate the supposedly "factual" parts of his books and movies, then I will join in condemning him.

So, where is this proof?

[ Parent ]

... clarification (3.20 / 5) (#294)
by Artful Codger on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:21:40 AM EST

My above comments are about this article, not Moore's own article. Sorry for the confoozion.

[ Parent ]
proof by vigorous assertion (3.83 / 6) (#359)
by Lode Runner on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 12:14:51 AM EST

does not constitute unequivocal proof. I'm sorry, but I just don't accept your position that Michael Moore has proved many of the claims he made in BfC. And don't worry, I shan't be holding my breath waiting for Moore or his believers to furnish such proof.

For your future reference: if you're looking to avoid accusations of disingenuousness, you should consider a new rhetorical strategy. Next time, you'll want to try something a bit less transparent than attempting to weave pretences of a desire for objective truth into broader partisan arguments in support of demagogues' claims.

[ Parent ]

Amusing troll. (2.83 / 6) (#354)
by abulafia on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:50:45 PM EST

I even took the article seriously for a minute; silly me.

This was the point I could take back to discuss (K5 people being all rational, and all):

It seems to make sense when he interviews the punk singer Marilyn Manson, whose violent lyrics the Columbine killers favored. Yet Moore's point is not what you'd expect. [...] the larger point is that Marilyn Manson chose to name himself after Charles Manson, one of America's most infamous mass murderers. Moore says no word about any of this.

There you have it, folks. Moore fails to call in to question a rock star for playing with names. "oops".

I'm sure Moore failed to do many other things that make him a horrible person to pay attention to, but I'd rather read about them on Metafilter. The things, that is.



[ Parent ]

I wonder (3.80 / 5) (#357)
by Lode Runner on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:55:51 PM EST

if that means I could call myself Rummy--just a name game--and not have Michael Moore so much as raise an eyebrow when he asks me my opinion on the concept of "Old Europe".

[ Parent ]
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?"


I look at it this way (3.60 / 5) (#308)
by Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:03:11 PM EST

I admit, when talking to my pro-gun control friends, that I am a hypocrite. I truly believe that killing a human being, regardless of the circumstances, is wrong. Period. However, I am (at least theoretically) willing to murder another human being in self defense. It is still murder, whatever the rationalizations we deem "socially acceptable", but if there are insane people out there who want to murder all the time and lack the basic domestication your average civilized human being has, I at least want the option of being able to revert to a mindless animal and deal with things the old fashioned way.

(What makes this argument especially infuriating to my gun-nut friends is being reminded we are all just domesticated animals.)



--
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, mhm21x16, and the Patron Saint of All Things Plastic fnord
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian heritage!
[ Parent ]
Who said something else? (2.50 / 4) (#313)
by borbjo on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:25:19 PM EST

You have failed to understand the many points Moore is trying to make.

[ Parent ]
Cowardice is the problem? (3.62 / 8) (#317)
by lazyll on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:45:57 PM EST

All violence is NOT morally equivalent

That is not a fact. That is your opinion. Many people disagree. It is a complicated philosophical issue.

Is violence in self-defense justified? ... Yes, absolutely, if it is the only way ... To refuse to defend others, and stand by and do nothing so that you don't dirty your hands, is cowardly and despicable.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Nearly everybody, including most proponents of anti-gun laws, would agree.

We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves and others by any means necessary ... Violence is not the problem, cowardice is the problem

Criminal violence is the problem and the cause is extremely complicated. Your vigilante justice is not the solution. We have a right and a duty to try and build a society where people are not driven to criminal violence. A society without guns is, in Mr. Moore's opinion, a step in the right direction. I can't say I disagree.

[ Parent ]
not opinions, facts (4.33 / 6) (#329)
by partykidd on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 04:46:48 PM EST

All violence is not morally equivalent. To say that this is opinion is just ignorant. Unprovoked violence against an individual is not morally equivalent to self defense.
Criminal violence is the problem and the cause is extremely complicated. Your vigilante justice is not the solution. We have a right and a duty to try and build a society where people are not driven to criminal violence.
Most schools in the US have laws that prevent a gun from being within a 1,000 feet from the school. Can you guess what are the safest areas for a criminal to commit crime? What is vigilante justice? It seems to me that you think it is merely defending and protecting oneself. If a principal of a school has a gun to protect his school is that vigilante justice?
A society without guns is, in Mr. Moore's opinion, a step in the right direction. I can't say I disagree.
Pipe dream. Not reality. A society without guns is a society that can't adequately protect itself.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

No, it's opinion. (3.75 / 4) (#347)
by nonhuman on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:54:51 PM EST

There is no fact when it comes to morality. It is all subjective. You are approaching this with a fairly typical morality throughout the world. It is not the only morality however. Many of the stories of the Buddha's previous lives recount him sacrificing himself for others. He even once fed himself to a tigress so that she would be strong enough to raise her kittens. To a Buddhist, killing in self-defense is immoral. How can you say that we are wrong?

[ Parent ]
How can I say that you're wrong? (4.20 / 5) (#365)
by partykidd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 02:14:12 AM EST

The question was whether there is a moral equivalence to protecting oneself and going out to intentionally hurt innocent people. If you can't see the difference in that then there's no helping you.
There is no fact when it comes to morality. It is all subjective.
Yes there is! There is a huge moral difference when you compare protection versus hurting innocent people.
To a Buddhist, killing in self-defense is immoral. How can you say that we are wrong?
You're wrong. Go tell a mother who lost her innocent son to violence that there would have been no difference between the killer and the defender. In your arguement, cops are morally equivalent to bank robbers. I can't see the logic in that.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle


[ Parent ]

correct action for Buddhists (3.66 / 6) (#366)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 03:11:46 AM EST

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate (as cited in The Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)

[ Parent ]
Why is that the correct action? (3.20 / 5) (#389)
by squigly on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:49:44 AM EST

While I hate to disagree with someone 100 times my age, about a religion that he is the accepted expert on, surely the correct response would be to stand in the way of the gun, and try to disarm him without hurting him.

[ Parent ]
if you have no *desire* to do harm (4.00 / 5) (#394)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 10:45:23 AM EST

If you could disarm someone without hurting them, then that is clearly what you must do. In a situation where you would almost certainly fail, trying to do that as a suicidal act would be prohibited. Also, you have to consider those around you, and what will happen to them if you fail.

Here is a beautiful explanation of self-defense in Zen Buddhism:

"The sword is generally associated with killing, and most of us wonder how it came into connection with Zen, which is a school of Buddhism that teaches the gospel of love and mercy. The fact that the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing, for he never appeals to the sword unless he intends to kill. This case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For this is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He has no desire to do harm to anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is as though the sword performs automatically its function of justice, which is the function of mercy."
-- D. T. Suzuki, 1973, Zen and Japanese Culture
Tibetan Buddhism (which I really don't know well) has the following story:
"The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the man's murderous intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his motivation was utterly selfless."
-- Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche
Some common elements here: "compelled to lift the sword"; "no desire to do harm to anybody"; acting out of compassion and mercy, not fear or anger; and taking a burden upon oneself so that it does not rest on another.

Of course, I have no idea what the Dalai Lama's explanation would be. Tibetan Buddhism has sometimes gone so far as to advocate absolute pacifism, but there are certainly canonical texts that contradict that.

[ Parent ]

You stoped a bit short: (3.00 / 3) (#483)
by stfrn on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 07:50:29 PM EST

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."

As seen here.

"Man, I'm going to bed. I can't even insult people properly tonight." - Imperfect
What would you recomend to someone who doesn't like SPAM?
[ Parent ]

Good research, thank you (3.00 / 3) (#484)
by izx on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 10:35:35 PM EST

I wasn't aware of the full quote. Still, somewhat surprising for the most nonviolent branch of an already nonviolent religion. His reply does rather assume that you *have* a gun, doesn't it?

[ Parent ]
Unprovoked violence, (3.00 / 5) (#349)
by fn0rd on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:59:12 PM EST

whether against an individual or group, is an oxymoron. To suggest that causality does not apply is ignorant.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
Causality does not imply responsibility (3.80 / 5) (#364)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 02:09:41 AM EST

Everyone is responsible for their own actions.  Unprovoked violence is not an oxymoron.  Or would you say the students at Columbine had it coming for being "mean" to the two shooters?  If I walk around late at night, am I responsible for being robbed?  If I leave my car unlocked, am I responsible for it being stolen?  If a woman wears a miniskirt, is she responsible for being assaulted?  I think not.  Yes, there is causality, but there is no blame.  Let's put the responsibility exactly where it belongs - with the attackers, not with the victims.

I will grant you that a lot of crime is economically motivated.  However, I am not responsible for anyone being poor.  I have tried to help people in need.  I would even be sympathetic to someone who steals out of dire poverty.  However, being poor does not give you a licence to threaten or attack me, and I am perfectly justified in fighting back when attacked.


[ Parent ]

Holy shit are you dumb. (2.16 / 6) (#405)
by fn0rd on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 02:02:48 PM EST

Nowhere in my comment did I mention the word 'responsibility'.

Whether or not a provocation is seen to be justifiable is left to the judgment of the observer, but to deny that a provocation exists in the mind of the perpetrator of a violent act is asinine.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]

No, sorry, it's you who are dumb. (3.50 / 4) (#457)
by DavidTC on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 02:51:45 AM EST

To provoke someone, you have to do something, and there are plenty of crimes that are utterly and completely, in no way, due to any provokation of the victim.

For example, a late-night convinience store robbery that results in the death of a customer. The customer died simply because they were in the store and the robber wanted no witnesses, nothing in their actions in any way, shape, or form, were a provokation to the robber. To remain free he required their death, and so killed them.

'Provokation' is NOT a simile for 'causality'. It is when an action of someone's causes an emotional response in someone else, and they react.

In reality, maybe half of violent crimes are provoked by the victim, like almost all second degree murder, most assualts, some other murders, some date rape, etc.

But there are plenty of people who get provoked by one person and harm another person, or who aren't provoked at all, and commit murder to inherit the money. Or rape some woman because she was the next person that happened to walk by and he felt like giving someone a good old-fashioned raping that day. Or plan from the start to date rape someone by dousing her coffee with whatchamacallit. Or just feel like beating up the local [insert racial slur here].

Now, it's probably true that crimes stemming from emotion are more violent than crimes stemming from other reasons, and crimes stemming from emotion are, indeed, likely to be provoked by the victim in some way. (With, of course, no judgement attached to the term. You can provoke someone by, in their opinion, walking too slowly. Or, as is common in date rape, 'leading the guy on'. People who resort to violence in response to anything but violence are usually pretty unbalanced anyway, and thus their judgement is a little suspect to start with.)

But 'violent crime' doesn't mean 'crimes that are done violently', it's simply something an umbrella term for 'criminal acts that deliberately cause grievious bodily harm to someone'.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

YES (none / 0) (#514)
by Lenny on Tue Nov 04, 2003 at 06:09:18 PM EST

"would you say the students at Columbine had it coming for being "mean" to the two shooters?"

YES


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
nuh uh (none / 2) (#482)
by Lenny on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 04:53:10 PM EST

I am standing on a overpass covering a highway. Traffic is heavy and I decide to throw a brick over the rail. It happens to strike your car and you are injured. I have committed a violent act against you. What have you done to "provoke"?

You decide to carjack me as I sit at an intersection. Assuming that I don't have a sign on my car reading: Please Carjack Me, what have I done to "provoke" your crime?

Unprovoked violence happens every day, all over the world.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
uh huh (none / 2) (#490)
by fn0rd on Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 10:56:58 AM EST

I am standing on a overpass covering a highway. Traffic is heavy and I decide to throw a brick over the rail. It happens to strike your car and you are injured. I have committed a violent act against you. What have you done to "provoke"?

The provacateur is not always the victim. In this example, I would assume that the general society had provoked you to this action, encouraging in you a despair that led to the dehumanization of other people in your mind. In order to rectify some perceived injustice that society has infilicted on you, you respond in the only way you can think of, which is to violently lash out in a random way. Happy, well adjusted people don't do this sort of thing.

You decide to carjack me as I sit at an intersection. Assuming that I don't have a sign on my car reading: Please Carjack Me, what have I done to "provoke" your crime?

Probably an economic provocation has occured in this case. You have something I want, but haven't the economic status to own. Your part in the provaction is merely possessing that which I desire. This is not a justifiable provocation in the minds of most of us, but the only mind that matters in this case is mine, since it is my mind controlling the finger that rests on the trigger.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]

Vigilante? (3.66 / 6) (#336)
by izx on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 05:53:38 PM EST

Your vigilante justice is not the solution.

A vigilante is somebody who seeks out and punishes criminals after the crime. That is completely different from stopping criminals in the act of comitting a crime. Self-defense is not vigilantism, that is well-recognized in law. Are you deliberately trying to confuse?



[ Parent ]

vigilante=spanish for watchman (3.75 / 4) (#379)
by muyuubyou on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:46:28 AM EST

http://yourdictionary.com/ahd/v/v0097600.html

You are wrong. Vigilantism includes crime prevention too (when not kept reasonable).

[ Parent ]

ah, definitions (3.80 / 5) (#387)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:27:03 AM EST

Yes, that is exactly the definition I was referring to. However, I think you are misinterpreting it. Law enforcement absolutely does not include crime prevention, it is 100% punishment after the fact. There are plenty of legal precedents for this from cases where cops observed a crime that was being committed and did not act to prevent it. The cops have no obligation whatsoever to prevent crimes, it is simply not a part of their job (although most people expect them to, and they usually do).

[ Parent ]
Interesting (3.00 / 6) (#350)
by ComradeFork on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 10:04:36 PM EST

However, your point is ridiculous. If you want to reduce gun deaths, I can think of several better solutions.

If a cheaper and more effective killing device was developed (than guns), and properly distributed, I would predict gun-related deaths to decline.

Another solution is to utilise the WMD which the US has sitting there, not serving any useful purpose. If utilised effectively, gun-related deaths would be less common.

[ Parent ]

What's up with this thread? (3.71 / 7) (#355)
by amarodeeps on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 11:00:55 PM EST

Does anybody remember the fact that Moore was pointing out a bunch of things, and didn't necessarily come to the specific conclusion that no one should have guns, and violence is bad?

Look, I thought there were a lot of problems with Bowling for Columbine. I thought it was exploitative, I thought it made unfair associations between 'wacko-ness' and rural people. There were other problems. But I think what M. Moore was saying a lot of the time was, hey, there are guns, and there is violence, and why is America so violent? Why is our murder rate so high? Could it be because we are an aggressive country, and the media portrays life as something to be feared? Maybe. I don't think he was saying, there is never a time for violence. He was not saying "guns are evil." Let's keep in mind that this is a man who is a member of the NRA. Let's keep in mind that he pointed out that many citizens of Canada own guns, I believe in a higher proportion compared to Americans, but they don't have the kinds of issues with violence that we do.

So, while there was a lot of rhetoric and dogmatism in the movie, there was also a glimmer of a certain rational perspective, which maybe was nothing more than self-interest--"I've always owned guns, they can't be that bad" (I don't think it was all that though). I think he was really trying to figure out what the deal is with the U.S. and violence, and he didn't succeed (that would be really tough) and he injected a lot of needless flash into his argument (that he could have done without) but he was not at any point I think saying that violence is absolutely always wrong and guns are just bad.

That was a pretty decent troll though, sucked me in.



[ Parent ]
this is the fundamental question (4.00 / 5) (#367)
by izx on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 03:27:33 AM EST

That was a pretty decent troll though, sucked me in.

I wasn't even specifically responding to Moore. This is a serious question that everyone needs to figure out for themselves at some point, in their gut - whether self-defense is ok, and how far you're willing to go in defending yourself and your family. It is a prerequisite to the gun debate, but it is really a much more fundamental question. Everything else follows from that one.

By the way, what does Moore really think? He writes in an open letter to Heston "[you're] gloating about some misbegotten right you think you have to own a device that is designed to eliminate human life." By this and other statements it appears he is a rabid anti-gunner, he just tries to appear somewhat less obviously biassed in BFC, and I guess a lot of people fall for that.

The material he excludes from BFC speaks volumes more about his views and agenda than what he includes. For example, how about some footage with Heston and Martin Luter King side by side speaking at the same rally? (yes, it's real, the NRA has always been very close to the civil rights movement) How about telling us what happened at the next two (attempted) high-school shootings after Columbine? (they were stopped by civilians with guns)

[ Parent ]

uh (3.50 / 4) (#428)
by reklaw on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 09:35:30 PM EST

/How about telling us what happened at the next two (attempted) high-school shootings after Columbine? (they were stopped by civilians with guns)/ That's a silly argument. If guns were banned then the situation would never have arisen, and so there would have been no need to stop it.
-
[ Parent ]
duh (4.00 / 4) (#437)
by izx on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 12:21:20 PM EST

if guns were banned, of course they wouldn't be available? you mean, like drugs now? ah, i see.

incidentally, in the one country that i've been in that had an outright ban on guns, you could buy a kalashnikov for fifty bucks on any street corner (illegally, of course). reality is just not the same as your wishful thinking, sorry.

the best we can hope for is that everyone be armed and able to protect themselves.

[ Parent ]

yeah... (3.50 / 4) (#461)
by reklaw on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 12:00:15 PM EST

...because obviously a kid is going to go and illegally buy a weapon to shoot up his school.

Face it: if weapons hadn't been readily available, it wouldn't have happened.
-
[ Parent ]

I have nothing to add to your comment. (3.00 / 4) (#456)
by Akshay on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 01:59:23 AM EST

Just this:- your comment rating at the moment is 3.14/7. I don't know if others appreciate this, but this to me looks beautiful in a transcendental way; the decimal approximation of Pi, coupled with the denominator of its closest fraction form.

[ Parent ]
Assumptions (none / 1) (#501)
by pkej on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 08:43:14 AM EST

You assume that the society is not interested in protecting you. You assume that there are lot of people out there to kill you. Well, as pointed out in Mr. Moore's movie: Crime rates in for example NY is going down Blacks are more likely to get killed than whites Gun owners are more likely to kill someone by mistake than be killed themself on and on Gun vs. no-gun is just the top. As Mr. Moore pointed out, there are more guns pr. capita in Canada (and probably in Norway as well) but there are fewer murders pr. capita in these countries. That said, both the NRA and its opponents are wrong. Gun ownership isn't inherently good or bad; but the premise that for example data collected from buying a gun shouldn't be used for background checks etc, might be a bad thing. That everyone should be able to buy a gun (the premise of the NRA seems to be no limits at all, everyone should own a gun, go to a course and learn proper handling of them and everything will be ok because people are inherently responsible....) is also faulty. There really is no good reason for this, amendments or not (and how one wish to read the meaning of each, which isn't really clear). The opponents are wrong in many things, the issue isn't the guns, but people. People like the NRA-gusy. Those who seek to let everyone have a gun available, give them the right to fire it at any trespasser. As I said, there are a lot of people killed unintentionally by legal guns owned by more or less responsible people. (There is a funny segment in the middle of BFC where you see live action of stupid gun use, an official of some kind who blows his head off (more or less) in what appears to be a press-briefing.) Society as we know it is pretty safe for the average American, Norwegian and other citizens of industrialised nations. Whether violence is morally equivalent or not isn't the question (nor the right to self defence). The point is that in the US people don't seem to be able to treat weapons with respect and care, people there die more often from gun accidents, and people get shot with their own weapons more often than by perps bringing their weapons. Ah, I'm not very lucid, I know. Paul

[ Parent ]
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!

Wow - you're right. The truth is (3.40 / 5) (#305)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:43:22 PM EST

325,779 hits.

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
Exactly! (2.50 / 3) (#307)
by borbjo on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 01:59:29 PM EST

.. and that makes how many visitors? any clue?

[ Parent ]
What, you want reality from web stats? (2.50 / 3) (#318)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 02:53:36 PM EST

asking for an awful lot, aren't we?

:-P


--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
heh (3.00 / 4) (#374)
by borbjo on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:05:29 AM EST

:) .. not really. my site for instance has had 641,149 hits this month, but the actual number of visitors is just above 45k. My point was that hits does not equal visitors, something the people bowling for truth obviously missed.

[ Parent ]
Well, in their defense (3.20 / 5) (#376)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:29:50 AM EST

They wouldn't be the first to confuse hits with distinct visitors, but you're right.

--
Heinz was quoted as saying: "But the sheep are so soft and wooley," immediately before he was put into custody.


[ Parent ]
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

political theater (3.50 / 4) (#344)
by Battle Troll on Thu Sep 25, 2003 at 09:24:44 PM EST

I'm just now reading a biography of Charlotte Corday, and it reminded me that all kinds of sloppy political thinking were behind the French Revolution. God, have you ever read Rousseau? His novels make you bleed from the eyes, and his ideas about the 'natural goodness of natural nature' made lots of people bleed from the neck.

My point is that these guys are basically at the level of pamphleteers, except today we have TV pamphlets.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I dont think so (none / 2) (#473)
by Frequanaut on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 01:52:13 PM EST

If you've ever considered gun violence (or violence in general) I think you probably owe it to yourself to watch Bowling for Columbine.

It's not foaming at the mouth, it's not righteous, it's a persons attempt at understanding why there is so much gun violence in the US.

Failing at providing an easy answer to that it's still well worth it to observe the facts uncovered by the film, and consider the theories offered by Moore.

If you saw the film, you might realize the irony in your own judgement of the man based on the images projected by the media.


[ Parent ]

my judgement (2.50 / 3) (#476)
by osm on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 05:46:09 PM EST

is based on his own behavior in interviews.

--------
4thelulz.org
[ Parent ]

your missing my point (none / 2) (#478)
by Frequanaut on Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 11:34:09 AM EST

That despite what you think of his personality, BFC was interesting and raised serious questions.

I just dont understand why people let others personalities cloud the work those people do.
I may think Einstein was a goofball, or odd, but it doesn't really diminish his work.

(And no I don't think Einstein and Moore have made equal contributions to society)

[ Parent ]

Michael Moore a raving lunatic (none / 1) (#500)
by pkej on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 07:58:25 AM EST

If you feel that a person which most people in Europe finds to be coherent, making valid points and actually putting the finger to the pulse of America is highly irrational; then you could probably count a lot of Europeans as irrational. It has been said before and it is worth saying it again; what you call "middle-of-the-road" is far, far to the right when viewed from most of the Free World (TM). Best regards,

[ Parent ]
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.


although I liked the movie (none / 2) (#471)
by gr00vey on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 12:57:43 PM EST

I agree with quite a bit of what you said. Very good points...

[ Parent ]
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
Which Americans? (4.20 / 5) (#408)
by SwingGeek on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 03:54:11 PM EST

This really depends on which American's you're talking about.

I just did a quick search on CNN, but I bet that these people and these people might have something different to say about Bush and his wars.

I attended a protest in San Francisco and I saw a lot of virulent opposition to American policies.. Just because most American politicians seem to hold similar views doesn't mean the citizenry does.

I have lived most of my life in a very liberal area (San Francisco bay), so I'm sure that colors my views to some extent. However, I'm now living in a much more conservative part of California, and while there are certainly some closed-minded knee-jerker types here, they do not define us. I have seen anti-war protesters marching, and today Peter Camejo--the Green Party's candidate for governor--is speaking at our university.

The USA certainlly isn't the worst place in the world, but we do have problems; and believe it or not, some of us know that.



[ Parent ]
Of course.. (3.60 / 5) (#410)
by Magnetic North on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 04:03:43 PM EST

even if it sounded like it, I weren't trying to imply that all Americans react this way, but (in my experience) a disproportionate amount of you do. Compared to what I've experienced while talking to people of other nationalities that is.

For me, an outsider, it almost seems like there is some taboo in the US when it comes to criticizing "the country". And if any of you really believe that there is such a thing as a "country" that is seperate from the opinions of the people living there, the actions of the people governing it and the track record of said country in general, then too bad for you.



--
<33333
[ Parent ]
The difference (4.00 / 5) (#418)
by epepke on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:23:19 PM EST

There's a difference between stating that American react strongly to criticism (which may be true and would make an interesting assumption) and automatically assuming that any criticism of BFC is purely a result of this.

The former may be fair comment; the latter serves as a distraction against what may be fair comment.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Fair enough (3.75 / 4) (#420)
by Magnetic North on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 06:47:46 PM EST

I recognise that BFC may have flaws that possibly deserve criticism. I don't think it's a particularly good documentary. His conclusion doesn't exactly match the rest of the movie.

However, saying that Michael Moore hates America, doesn't sound like rational criticism of BFC to me.

My argument is that, if after watching BFC you conclude that Michael Moore hates America, then you have a pretty warped view of the world. In discussing with Americans, I've often encountered the very same sentiment. If you even dare to question, just the slightest, then surely you must hate us all.



--
<33333
[ Parent ]
I don't think that Michael Moore hates America (4.00 / 4) (#423)
by epepke on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 07:58:35 PM EST

For what it's worth, which is probably nothing. For one thing, he lives here. For another, he made Canadian Bacon, which I thought was very funny, the kind of funny that you can't do if you really have hatred. I think that Moore is just a bit of a troll, which in modicum, can be a good thing.

However, saying that Michael Moore hates America, doesn't sound like rational criticism of BFC to me.

Similarly, if I (or someone) make criticisms of BFC and the automatic rejoinder is "You're only saying that because you're an American and can't accept criticism," it doesn't sound like rational criticism of me to me.

IMO, BFC is a lot like the Jerry Springer show. But then again, I think that Noam Chomski is like Rush Limbaugh, so what do I know?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Unlikely. (4.00 / 4) (#436)
by it certainly is on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 11:57:55 AM EST

Mike doesn't hate the USA, aka "America". He doesn't like the policies and actions of the current rulers. He doesn't like some of the behaviour of the media. And there are other things he doesn't like. But to say he hates the entire country, which includes hating the Grand Canyon, hating the ACLU, hating NASA and hating Twinkies, that's just ridiculous.

Yanks seem to have this whole "in the name of the flag" thing. Why? It's just a fucking flag. You do not need to pledge allegiance to it. It's a flag. You don't have to support your leaders. Damn them! They're there to serve you, not the other way around. If they fuck with you, vote them out of office! Don't let them wrap themselves up in a fucking flag and become untouchable. Don't let them go nation-building and throwing wars in your name unless you actually agree. Patriotism is not thought-policing yourself, patriotism is supporting your country by ensuring tyrant leaders don't fuck the country over.

You Yanks seriously need some unelected but powerless figureheads to worship, not unelected presidents with their finger on the Big Red Button.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Michael Moore Hates America (4.00 / 6) (#445)
by epepke on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 07:12:38 PM EST

Following the link, it seems that this is the name of a proposed film some people think they're going to make. I don't see any reason to take it more literally than, say, one would be inclined to take the movie title Bowling for Columbine literally.

Yanks seem to have this whole "in the name of the flag" thing.

I'm scratching my head at this one. I was born in New York, so I guess I'm a Yank in both senses of the term. This is the first time that I think I've ever seen the words "in the name of the flag."

"Wrapping oneself in the flag" seems to me to be universally a term of disparagement in the US.

You Yanks seriously need some unelected but powerless figureheads to worship, not unelected presidents with their finger on the Big Red Button.

Not a bad point, really. There is some considerable value in separating the head of state from the head of government. Royalty serves a valuable purpose, not in the power they wield, but in the power that they prevent others from wielding.

I do think that the Presidency is much more powerful than the framers of the Constitution intended it to be.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
heh (3.50 / 4) (#448)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 07:35:55 PM EST

This is what makes it so exhaustive to argue with Americans.

This is funny, because in a way it's what you intended to say.

Or what about just having two political parties, where the only discernible difference is the hairdos of the representatives.

Hey, "Magnetic North," do you prefer the Chrétien dictatorship?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

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.



Hypocritical (3.83 / 6) (#449)
by bugmaster on Sat Sep 27, 2003 at 07:57:18 PM EST

I found the movie a bit hypocritical. Michael Moore makes a big deal of going to Canada and establishing the idea that a) everyone there feels safe, and b) everyone there owns a gun. He makes the conclusion that it must be the media-driven mass paranoia that makes us, Americans, feel scared... And then he turns around 180 degrees, and presents a tear-jerking story about two Columbine victims who (with his humble guidance) got K-mart to phase out their ammo.

So, which is it ? Is gun control relevant or not ? If it's relevant, then why the Canada segment ? If it's not, then why get K-mart to phase out the bullets ?
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]

You have a point, but I think you missed the point (none / 2) (#470)
by gr00vey on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 12:54:22 PM EST

when you say "He makes the conclusion that it must be the media-driven mass paranoia that makes us, Americans, feel scared..." Although he does touch on that topic, I don't think he makes quite such a broad statement. I also think he makes it clear in the movie that he DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. You ask which is it, this is because you are used to sound bytes with simple solutions perhaps? (I don't know, just speculating)ANyway, with this issue, there are no easy answers.. Lyrics: Robert Hunter, Bob Weir Music: Weir, Bralove, Wasserman, Welnick Played by Bob Weir with the Dead from 1993 and with Ratdog and Weir/Wasserman. Promises made in the dark dissolve by light of day Easy answers Ain't no saying what will be, it's always been that way Only thing I know for sure, someone got to pay Easy answers Ain't no easy answers, is what I got to say Easy answers I don't wanna hear Ain't nobody cares C'mon let's go I don't wanna know I don't wanna know I don't wanna know I don't wanna know I don't wanna know Love is an easy word to say, roll's right off the tongue Easy answers Seems to crop up like a weed, in every song that's sung It always sounds so easy, the way it falls upon the ear Easy answers Plenty easy answers now, listen to me here Easy answers Find 'em anywhere Easy answers Easy answers Easy answers Easy answers I don't wanna know I don't wanna know Shut your eyes and listen to the colours of your mind Easy answers Give yourself a breath of air, let your soul unwind Easy answers You don't have to say a word, you got dick to say 'Cause no-one ever said there's gonna be an easy way Easy answers Find them anywhere Easy answers Ain't nobody care Easy answers I don't wanna know Easy answers I don't wanna know Easy answers I don't wanna know I don't wanna know Promises made in the dark dissolve by light of day Easy answers Ain't no saying what we'll be, it's always been that way Only thing I know for sure, someone got to pay Easy answers Ain't no easy answers, that's all I got to say Easy answers Easy answers I don't wanna hear Easy answers Easy answers Ain't nobody there Easy answers Easy answers C'mon now, let's go I don't wanna know I don't wanna know I don't wanna know Easy answers Easy answers Feel alright Easy answers Easy answers Feel alright Easy answers Easy answers

[ Parent ]
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.

Mongoloid? (none / 2) (#487)
by p3d0 on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 09:05:10 AM EST

Do you know what a mongoloid is?
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]
No, I don't. (none / 1) (#495)
by GooseKirk on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 05:45:39 PM EST

Why don't you spend 20 minutes writing a piece to enlighten me. That would mildly amuse me for a good 2 to 3 seconds, at least. If you could somehow work it in that you're a person of Mongolian descent who has Down's Syndrome and you find the use of the slang term "mongoloid" hideously offensive, that would make it even more amusing.

Do you know what a fucktard is?

[ Parent ]

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.

Regulations on cars etc (3.00 / 6) (#462)
by wallatu on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 06:36:24 PM EST

Even if a thing cannot kill you outright there are still regulations. There are regulations on features a car should have and that they have to be in use (for instance seat belts). Cars should have breaks, headlights, etc. There are limits to what kind of cars that are allowed to use public roads. Having an air-gun and firing it into the air to scare hawks is a little bit different to having an M-16 to shoot at tresspassers (or deer for that matter). Apples and oranges.

[ Parent ]
Oppose car control now! (2.60 / 5) (#467)
by Big Dogs Cock on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 09:03:06 AM EST

Every US citizen should have the right to keep and drive cars. No matter how young, how old, how blind, how drunk or how fucking stupid.

People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]
heheh (none / 2) (#469)
by gr00vey on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 12:48:21 PM EST

Your post cracked me up! ;)

[ Parent ]
I do (none / 0) (#519)
by noise on Sun Nov 16, 2003 at 02:39:14 PM EST

But it shouldn't absolve the driver of personal responsibility if they cause an accident. Neither should your beloved regulations, but that is what they do in many cases.

[ Parent ]
How is this the real issue? (3.28 / 7) (#463)
by KrispyKringle on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 06:54:14 PM EST

How is this the real issue? The real issue here is not self defense or gun control. It's that a well-meaning, albiet highly controversial filmmaker has been smeared by even respectable news sources--though, in those cases, presumably unintentionally.

The fact of the matter seems to be--and time and again, we are shown this--that we often have very little accurate knowledge of fact, that we cannot trust even those news agencies I trust implicity, and defend tireless, like the New York Times or CNN or the Wall Street Journal to not make mistakes of a fairly significant magnitude.

This isn't just an issue with respect to Moore's reputation. It's an issue with respect to our democracy of far more importance than your right to bear all sorts of heavy weapons. Whether or not you can shoot someone is irrelevent if you aren't informed enough to know who to shoot.

[ Parent ]

It's obvious... (none / 0) (#518)
by noise on Sun Nov 16, 2003 at 02:21:26 PM EST

You see what you want to see.

[ Parent ]
re: Self Defense is the real issue (3.83 / 6) (#464)
by fullpunk on Sun Sep 28, 2003 at 09:39:25 PM EST

The entertainment industry as a whole irresponsibly promotes a culture of violence among the young.

That avenue was explored in the film, and the conclusion was that many others countries have that kind of entertainment and their violence ratio is not as high as in the US.

Critics of violence should concentrate on what leads people to commit violence and not on a tool for self defense.

That was done again in the film, Moore concluded that fear is probably the cause of violence ( and maybe the cause that make you think that you need so much a gun ).

Furthermore, I don't see why self-defense is a point in a movie that tries to find the cause of a high rate of violence.

[ Parent ]

You are a twat. (3.25 / 8) (#466)
by Big Dogs Cock on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 08:57:39 AM EST

Guns can not. Cars can not.

The correct way to deal with firearm misuse is through proper training. The NRA is the largest supporter of such training.

You criticize "gun control" as though it is necessarily a bad thing. You say that training is a good thing. You equate cars with guns - both being equally deadly.

Tell me, are you in favour of allowing people to use guns when they haven't taken training or passed a test? Can you drive on a public road without a driving license? Can you drive when you're drunk? Is it your right to do so?

The NRA "recommends training". Well if they're so in favour of it, why not mandate it for gun ownership? Why not have a license just like a car license? A license that can be taken away if you fuck up too many times.

People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]

Mistake (2.50 / 4) (#472)
by Hector Plasmic on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 01:37:17 PM EST

"Can you drive on a public road without a driving license?"

Can you engage in free speech without a speech license?  Think it through, and you will be enlightened.

[ Parent ]

You are also a twat (2.00 / 6) (#474)
by Big Dogs Cock on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 02:30:30 PM EST

Somebody who does not know how to speak is unlikely to kill anybody else whilst attempting such.

Oh god IHBT.
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
[ Parent ]

Silly boy (none / 2) (#489)
by Hector Plasmic on Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 10:54:05 AM EST

I see that you did not think it through, but rather decided to go off half-cocked. :-)  Someone who carries a gun in public legally has to get training everywhere I know of -- hunter's training for hunting, defense training for concealed carry, police academy for cops, etc.  You have no point to make, it seems.

My point is quite obvious:  Owning a gun is a constitutionally protected right, as is free speech, while driving a car is not.  Apples to oranges, please.

[ Parent ]

Constitutionally protected? (none / 2) (#491)
by shash on Sat Oct 04, 2003 at 04:04:55 AM EST

I honestly don't know why you feel that the US Constitution should a) be inviolate, or b) not allow gun control. My answers to both: a) Remember, it's called the second ammendment, meaning that it's a part of the constitution that was added later, meaning that the constitution is not some sanctified thing that should never be touched. b) Is it so hard to see that guns are AS DANGEROUS AS CARS - even more so, since they were invented to kill? And as such, a drunk madman shouldn't be allowed one? Gun control is not about the US Constitution - some things transcend constitutions and laws, like the fact that I don't feel comfortable with a lunatic being able to go to a store and buying a gun.

[ Parent ]
Sigh... where to begin? (2.50 / 3) (#492)
by epepke on Sat Oct 04, 2003 at 09:44:35 AM EST

First of all, there is gun control everywhere in the United States. Rules vary from state to state, but in general, you can't legally own any firearm if you're a convicted felon or have been declared mentally incompetent, and you can't own an automatic weapon without getting a Federal license. In some states such as Massachussetts its very difficult to own a sidearm legally.

Second, amendments to the constitution carry the full weight of Constitutional law. The only way to change the Constitution is to pass another amendment.

Third, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were passed with the Constitutuion itself as a package deal; many delegates would not have voted for the Constititution without the Bill of Rights.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Ah! You misunderstood in point 3 (none / 2) (#494)
by shash on Sun Oct 05, 2003 at 11:10:03 AM EST

When I talked about the Constitution and amendments and not being inviolate, I was actually responding to his line that gun-ownership is a Constitutionally Protected Right, while car ownership is not. Just because it's in the constitution, I don't see the difference between them. For example, here in India, gun ownership is not one of the fundamental rights of a citizen (arts. 11 to 16, IIRC of the 1950 Constitution), and neither is car ownership. That doesn't mean that the rights don't exist, and neither are they taken away arbitrarily, and nor are my rights to own a computer, or surf the 'Net, or eat what I want, or learn Martial arts, or whatever. And yes, your second point is valid - and it still means that the Constitution is not inviolate. :)

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#511)
by epepke on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 12:13:12 AM EST

Of course the Constitution is mutable. You seem to be very impressed with yourself for discovering this fact. So be it, I guess.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but we had a Constitution when y'all still had an official caste system and thought that barbecuing widows was a really fun time. Yes, we like it, and we've amended it from time to time, but usually with due consideration.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Not well enough (none / 0) (#512)
by dirk strom on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 07:28:40 PM EST

Y'all are still slaughtering offenders, so the civilisation thing is still a work in progress. Good luck with that.

[ Parent ]
Being silly again, I see... (none / 1) (#509)
by Hector Plasmic on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:27:02 PM EST

> I honestly don't know why you feel that
> the US Constitution should a) be inviolate

I have never even suggested such.  There is a means to change the Constitution -- use it if you feel it needs it, or don't blame me for prefering what it says over what you wish.

> or b) not allow gun control.

Something to do with the second amendment, I would imagine.

> Remember, it's called the second ammendment,
> meaning that it's a part of the constitution
> that was added later

Sure.  And your point is...?

> Is it so hard to see that guns are
> AS DANGEROUS AS CARS

Speech can be even more dangerous.  However, I again merely refer you to the Constitution.  If you'd like to change it, feel free to do so.  Until you do, though, I'd suggest that we should be following what it says, not what you wish it said.

> Gun control is not about the US
> Constitution

No, it's against the US Constitution.

> some things transcend constitutions and laws

Like the right to defend yourself?  Yes -- I believe that's exactly what the Constitution and Declaration were trying to tell you. :-)

> I don't feel comfortable with a lunatic being
> able to go to a store and buying a gun

Gee, where I come from, lunatics aren't allowed to have them.

[ Parent ]

I believe you're mistaken (none / 1) (#498)
by GooseKirk on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 02:57:59 AM EST

In Washington State, when I applied for my concealed carry permit, I filled out a short form where I checked the boxes indicating that I wasn't a felon, or a drug user, or a stalker, or under psychiatric care, etc. Then they took my fingerprints and I gave them $65. Then they handed me my permit.

I actually asked, "um, don't you have, like, a brochure or anything?" Nobody told me jack shit, and I sure as hell didn't have to know anything to get the permit. It was a little disconcerting. I could've been legally blind and not even understood which direction to point the thing, and I still would've walked out with a license to carry a gun.

I did take a safety class when I originally purchased the gun, but I honestly can't remember if that was voluntary or not. But that class didn't cover concealed carry, and there was certainly no standard for qualification. You can be the worst shot in the world and it doesn't matter.

For a driver's license, you have to pass a test. You also have to pass a vision test. You also get points on your license for fucking up, and if you're too much of a fuck-up, they'll suspend your license. Overall, at least where I live, it's a whole lot easier to legally walk around with a gun than it is drive a car.

[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0) (#510)
by Hector Plasmic on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:37:37 PM EST

> Nobody told me jack shit, and I sure as hell didn't
> have to know anything to get the permit.

As I said, everywhere I know of -- I don't live anywhere near Washington State.

> Overall, at least where I live, it's a whole lot
> easier to legally walk around with a gun than it is
> drive a car.

Using a firearm is indeed easier than driving a car -- a lot easier.  Compare the time needed to master each.  My daughter is quite proficient with her .22 rifle, but I certainly wouldn't let her behind the seat of my automobile.

[ Parent ]

Mandates (none / 0) (#517)
by noise on Sun Nov 16, 2003 at 02:18:35 PM EST

As a matter of fact, yes I would allow YOU to drive without taking a test and to own a gun without taking a test.

Hey, those knives in your kitchen are dangerous....are you licensed to use them?

The NRA, probably does not mandate training because it is unconstitutional to do so. And for you information there are many examples that driving has been found to be a right.

[ Parent ]
not in this thread it isn't (1.60 / 5) (#468)
by gr00vey on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 12:46:47 PM EST

I am guessing you never saw the movie, as you are blindly arguing in defense of "the right to bear arms". Moore never said he was against your right to bear arms. In fact, he is a lifelong NRA member.

[ Parent ]
Dalai Lama Quote (2.00 / 4) (#477)
by wumarkus420 on Mon Sep 29, 2003 at 10:15:23 PM EST

This is another misquote that seems to be posted everytime some idiot gun-nut wants to prove their point with false information...

The actual quote from the article (Seattle Times):

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."

Not only was this NOT a direct quote of the Dalai Lama (leaving plenty of room for misinterpretation), he qualified his position, stressing that loss of life is unacceptable.

Find a new quote to rely on, because this one just doesn't cut it.

Seattle Times Article

[ Parent ]

So what? (none / 0) (#516)
by noise on Sun Nov 16, 2003 at 02:13:36 PM EST

In light of what I posted, it doesn't matter. I never stated the Dalai Lama said it was ok to kill.

[ Parent ]
You are not going to stop a burglar. (none / 0) (#513)
by cgenman on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 04:15:14 PM EST

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, pray to your gods. You're dead." - Dalai Lama, Tibet

If someone is within 6 feet of you and is attempting to shoot you with an Israeli Desert Eagle whose effective range is 200 meters... you're dead. You're NOT going to your drawer, you're NOT going to get the child safety lock off, you're NOT going to fire while diving over the bed like El Mariachi. You're going to get shot. Your wife is going to be a widow.

It can't get that far. The reason to have a gun is to point it at someone who may or may not be about to point one at you. A burgler who doesn't know you are awake, for example. But study after study has shown your chances for survival go up tremendously if you don't initiate an armed conflict with the burgler, and simply feign sleep. Much like in a carjacking, your $100 jewels aren't worth your life.


- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

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.

The interesting part (2.25 / 4) (#488)
by jasonditz on Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 03:23:41 AM EST

Actually what I found the most interesting point of the critique of the film was something Moore didn't touch on. His final conclusion.

Basically in the end he reasons that the media is more or less to blame for sensationalizing the whole gun violence thing.

The interesting thing is I more or less agree with him, but I really think the irony of his conclusion was lost on him, since he'd just spent the last hour and a half of the film doing exactly what he was damning the media for doing.

Strikes me as kind of like someone laying the "guns don't kill people, people do" line on you after having just killed a bunch of people with a knife.

[ Parent ]

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.

Free at last, free at last (none / 3) (#497)
by GooseKirk on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 02:43:26 AM EST

Thanks for the mensactivism.org link - that is good stuff. It's about time we organized to end white male oppression. My brother, we have been held down by The Woman and her minority allies for far too long. I'm tired of being turned down for work just because I'm male and white, making less money just because I'm male and white, and not being able to walk into any Harlem barbecue joint I want without drawing stares just because I'm male and white. Say, what are you doing after you get done posting on K5? I know a great little place we can go and be together with just us boys. Just you and me and some hairy shirtless guys dancing in cages, hm, lemme tell ya, you won't have to think about women at all. You can stick up for my sex any time!

[ Parent ]
Thank you for that demonstration... (none / 1) (#499)
by HombreVIII on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 04:54:33 PM EST

...of people's willingness to hear both sides of the story when it comes to each sex's issues. I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your invitation to join you for bare-chested dancing with the boys nor will I be available for self-flagellation to try and win those prized table scraps of attention from elitist women who's approval defines our worth as human doings beings.

PS - Most men's issues affect black men the most, such as the discrepency in sentencing. Is it okay to care about those issues when they affect black men?

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 1) (#502)
by GooseKirk on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 03:13:17 PM EST

Of course it's okay to care about these issues for all men, black or white. Us men have to stick together. And sticking together with black men is definitely A-OK in my book.

[ Parent ]
Good (none / 1) (#506)
by HombreVIII on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:13:04 PM EST

" Of course it's okay to care about these issues for all men, black or white. Us men have to stick together. And sticking together with black men is definitely A-OK in my book."

Agreed, but its more accurate to say "us people have to stick together". A lot of the greatest people working on men's issues are women even though women in general have become very elitist and aristocratic about themselves. Its a socialization thing which has happened to all priveledged groups throughout history and can be overcome, don't think of it as inate. Those women who've overcome it are truly great people indeed.

[ Parent ]
By the way (none / 1) (#503)
by GooseKirk on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 06:34:20 PM EST

There are at least three different ways in which this statement:

nor will I be available for self-flagellation to try and win those prized table scraps of attention from elitist women who's approval defines our worth as human beings.

is hilarious. I understand it's not funny for you, but are you self-aware enough to realize what any of those ways might be to other people?


[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 1) (#505)
by HombreVIII on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:05:57 PM EST

There are at least three different ways in which this statement: "nor will I be available for self-flagellation to try and win those prized table scraps of attention from elitist women who's approval defines our worth as human beings." is hilarious. I understand it's not funny for you, It is intended as semi-humorous exaggeration, (albeit a slight one), of the approach many men have towards gender issues. but are you self-aware enough to realize what any of those ways might be to other people? I am aware that the base assumptions from which I've built my views are vastly different than the norm, and thus the conclusions I've drawn from them seem ridiculous. For example I don't assume that just because a person in congress happens to be male, that there actions represent men's interests. I'd rather weigh the actions themselves on their own merit than subscribe to that circumstantial ad hominem mode of thinking. When that is done, the theory of the patriarchy is very weak indeed. Also I've done research and examined common perceptions about gender issues that "everyone knows". The reason "everyone" has these perceptions is the well-financed feminist organizations who promote them have had no real peer review. Christina Hoff Sommers "Who Stole Feminism" is an excellent read that exposes many of these feminist promoted views as the falsehoods that they are. This was published in 1994 if I recall correctly, and while mainstream feminists have managed to find time to organize protests and call her names whenever Sommers attempts to give a public speech, they've yet to find time in the last decade to provide the statute numbers for the supposed "rule of thumb" wife-beating laws they claim existed that Sommers challenged them on, or show a discrimination in wages when tenure, willingness to travel, and actual hours worked are taken into account, nor have they been able to name these companies that supposedly pay men more for being men. (Odd, if I could get away with paying women less, why would I want to hire men at all? Do these CEOs just want to throw away money?) So, because of evidence like that, I've got a much different view of the way each gender is situated, which makes what I think needs to be done to correct the problem seem much different. Hopefully that helps explain where I'm coming from, and while I don't know specifically which 3 things about my statement you found hilarious, I do understand where you might be coming from to find it absurd. But I do have a few questions for you about self-awareness. Why do you think its okay to refer to white males as stupid? What makes that acceptable and not bigotry in your eyes? Would a legitimate analysis comparing how well countries who's leaders are white men versus any other group have faired throughout time be acceptable to you in determining who's "stupid", or would such a practical scientific approach be wrong because it yeilds results you wouldn't want to acknowledge? Finally, why does even the attempt to discuss men's issues at all inspire a mocking attmept to get them treated as though they couldn't possibly be serious, when I'm guessing you really haven't even looked at them in any real depth?

[ Parent ]
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!