Kinda like Bowling for Columbine?
He just keeps right on backfiring on his own party
Keep up the good work, you create more conservatives than you convert Pot calling the kettle black. I though the purpose of reasearch was to draw conclusions from the analysis of data, not start with the conclusion and try to beat the data into supporting it.
Good read otherwise.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I'd love to see an objective analysis, but based on what I've read, this fable about pervasive lies in Bowling for Columbine is smoke and mirrors. There was one minor factual inaccuracy -- corrected for the video release -- plus some "creative" editing to dramatize the themes of the movie. It was slanted, but its facts were accurate.Originally posted by: alchemize
Kinda like Bowling for Columbine?
He just keeps right on backfiring on his own party
Please let us know if you have any good, reasonably unbiased links. I won't defend the movie if it is truly false.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'd love to see an objective analysis, but based on what I've read, this fable about pervasive lies in Bowling for Columbine is smoke and mirrors. There was one minor factual inaccuracy -- corrected for the video release -- plus some "creative" editing to dramatize the themes of the movie. It was slanted, but its facts were accurate.Originally posted by: alchemize
Kinda like Bowling for Columbine?
He just keeps right on backfiring on his own party
Please let us know if you have any good, reasonably unbiased links. I won't defend the movie if it is truly false.
Tell me your thoughts on this one...
Um, yah. He's only an "independent" because he's too far left wing for the mainstream democratic party.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Interesting stuff, some of it is new. I can't comment on all of it, I don't even have a copy of the DVD, but here are a few specific points based on a information from Moore's web site:
Rude claims the boys skipped bowling class that morning. Moore has on his web site images of police reports from witnesses placing both boys in the bowling alley parking lot that morning, and at least one of them actually bowling. There may be other or later reports that contradict this, I don't know.
Rude claims it took Moore a month to get his gun from the bank, and that he had to go to a gun store to pick it up. Moore claims this bank is a registered dealer and that he was able to complete the process in one visit. He says he walked out of the bank within 15 minutes after they faxed his paperwork to the home office for approval. This is corroborated with links to an ad and a Chicago Sun Times article, plus in the film by the bank employee stating they have over 500 guns in their vault. I don't know. He said, she said -- I would sincerely like to see Rude's documentation for his claim.
Rude claims Moore made up the numbers about gun fatalities. Moore provides a list of sources he claims he used including a Center for Disease Control report for the U.S. Again, Rude doesn't indicate where he gets contrary numbers.
Rude discusses the Willie Horton ad and Moore's addition of an inaccurate caption. Moore acknowledges the caption was inaccurate and corrected it on the DVD.
Rude claims the Littleton Lockheed plant does not make missles but launch vehicles for "TV satellites". Moore claims the plant used to make missles and offers a video clip of the plant spokesman acknowledging they manufactured nukes into the mid=1960's. Today this plant makes launch vehicles for military satellites (also acknowledged by the plant spokesman).
Rude criticizes the editing of Heston's comments at the speech in Denver. Rude complains that Moore used three separate sentences together to make it look like a single comment. Moore offers a full transcript of Heston's speech. Looking only at the words on paper, it doesn't appear Moore's edit materially misrepresented the spirit of Heston's comments. Without having a copy of the DVD, I can't tell for sure if the result was misleading or not.
I can't comment on the rest of Rude's claims. I will try to track down some of the sources he lists at the bottom of his column -- but not tonight, I need my beauty sleep.
For your reference, here is Moore's page re. the criticisms: link
I acknowledge Moore is biased. So far, his detractors seem equally biased. What I'd really like to see is a well-researched examination of Moore's claims with solid citations.
I didnt see the movie making a case for more gun control. Why would they say Canada has far more guns than US and less violence if they were trying for more gun control?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
It's been a long time since I saw the movie, but that's what I remembered too. It wasn't that he was advocating gun control*, Instead, he was asking why the U.S. is so much more violent than other countries. I also remember him specifically pointing out that Canada had way more guns per capita than the U.S., yet their rate of gun violence was dramatically lower than ours.
*Note: I imagine Moore does favor more gun control. That's just not the message I remember from Columbine.
Word.
He is/was a drunk, a theif, and an unconvicted deserter. Stealing money from the middle class and throwing it at the super-rich.
He's going to bring this planet into a world of hurt. Get him out.
Bush has brought toughness back to US diplomacy. I could care less if it makes the french get all pissy or any other european countries. I want the United States to lead and be in charge not be a bitch to the United Nations.
We are the only remaining Super Power and we ought to act like it, these little tyrants that want to give us the finger should get what they deserve.
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,613
- 11,256
- 136
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'd love to see an objective analysis, but based on what I've read, this fable about pervasive lies in Bowling for Columbine is smoke and mirrors. There was one minor factual inaccuracy -- corrected for the video release -- plus some "creative" editing to dramatize the themes of the movie. It was slanted, but its facts were accurate.Originally posted by: alchemize
Kinda like Bowling for Columbine?
He just keeps right on backfiring on his own party
Please let us know if you have any good, reasonably unbiased links. I won't defend the movie if it is truly false.
Tell me your thoughts on this one...
That link you gave was extremely baised. Moore is a lifetime member of NRA and I don't remember any part of that movie recommending more gun control. He even pointed out that Canada had far more guns than the US per capita, with far far less gun murders.
I hate to break to Rude but Linebacker II was a massive bombing campign in North Vietnam that did kill thousands of clivians. Linebacker II is NOT an airplane as Rude seem to think, the plane shot down was a MIG. So just because the plaque itself doesn't specifically say that the B-52 killed thousands it implied it by saying it was involved in Linebacker II operations. Linebacker II info
I would like to see proof that this was really a crack house and see proof they were trading "guns for guns." Amazing how it is assumed anyone living on the poor side of town lives in a crack house. Give me a break. (Not saying it wasn't a crack house, but the guns for guns thing caught my eye.)
Last time a checked Columbine was a high school, not a city, does Rude mean Littleton perhaps? Hmm, at least Moore knew the name of the city. BTW: Moore never said that the NRA planned the rallies in the cities because of the school shoots, he said it was wrong of them to not cancel the meetings afterward.
Don't get me wrong I am not a big Moore Fanboy, but Rude is full of Sh!t. The main point I got out of movie was that we have no idea why Columbine happened, but there has to be some reason things like this happen, and he gave several different ideas about what they may be. The point that really sticks in my mind is how teachers make high school kids feel like if they are losers in high school they will be losers their whole lives, which is BS but it is driven into kids heads so much they honestly believe that high school determines their whole lives.
This is just my 2 cents, when I am tired :beer:
No, the movie was about fear and paranoia present among US Americans instilled (fueled) by the Media who is living of that fear (as well as gun manufacturers and others). The movie was not about gun control.
No European country should ever be allowed to become a superpower ever again. They're too reckless, completely immoral, selfish people.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Kinda like Bowling for Columbine?
He just keeps right on backfiring on his own party
Michael Moore is a liberal who has to vote for the lesser of 2 evils like the rest of us. If there was a labor party, he'd be in it.
lol! Much of the same defenses of Moore destroyed in the following discussion:
"Robin" wrote in message news...
> I watched Bowling for Columbine the other night. I expected it to be an
> advocate for gun control, but it really wasn't. Michael Moore is a lifetime
> member of the NRA and an expert marksman. He pointed to other countries
> with gun laws far more lax than ours with a far smaller homicide rate.
> Instead he looked for other causes to our high homicide rate, and what he
> came up with was fear. The news media and the government both thrive on
> fear. News stories about homicides has gone up 600% over the last twenty
> years, even though the homicide rate has not even incread 6%. Take for
> instance the summer of the shark. Suddenly shark attacks were all over the
> news, but there were fewer attacks that summer than average.
lol! Poor Robin...
Moore confessed that the only reason he joined the NRA was in
some misguided hope of being able to "dismantle" the organization
after running against Charlton Heston for president of the NRA:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,841083,00.html
--- begin Moore quote ---
"MM: I was a junior member when I was in the boy scouts when I was a
kid, but I became a lifetime member after the Columbine massacre
because my first thought after Columbine was to run against Charlton
Heston for the presidency of the NRA. You have to be a lifetime member
to be able to do that, so I had to pay $750 (about £450) to join. My
plan was to get 5 [million] Americans to join for the lowest basic
membership and vote for me so that I'd win and dismantle the
organisation. Unfortunately, I figured that's just too much work for
me so instead I made this movie. But I'm still a lifetime member,
until they excommunicate me... which is not far off, from what I
hear."
--- end Moore quote ---
Sound like a legitimate member of the NRA to you?
Moore has taken a directly opposed stance to the National Rifle
Association on virtually every gun related question. He has publicly
professed his support of banning handguns and gun control in general.
Oops.
It is true that Bowling For Columbine isn't advocating gun control by
attacking guns, per se. After all, guns are inanimate objects,
neither good nor bad. Instead, Moore is attacking gun owners (i.e.
America's 'gun culture'). This is obvious by Moore's deliberate
portrayal of gun owners in the worst possibly light Moore can find.
It is no 'accident' Moore sought-out the Michigan Militia and the
wingnut brother of America's worst mass-murderer before 9/11 as the
'face' Moore would put-forth to represent American gun owners in the
eyes of his audience.
Why James Nichols? Was David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) busy on that day?
Wouldn't hospital officials let Moore interview John Hinckley to
represent the 'pro ownership' side of the things?
Further, no country to which Moore compares the US could reasonably be
said to have "more lax" gun laws. England, Canada, France, Japan, et.
al. unequivocally have more restrictive controls on firearms than the
US. It would indeed be strange if their gun laws were more lax, given
that antigun organizations habitually cite all of these countries as
their gun control model vis-a-vis the United States.
Oops.
Moore's suggestion that Canada has comparable or even higher rates of
gun ownership than the US is also untrue. Canada's gun ownership rate
is about 1/3 of the United States, according to a broad consensus of
published government estimates (BATF, USDOJ, Canadian Firearms Center,
et. al.).
Oops.
As you note, Moore partly implicates 'over-reporting' of homicide by
the media as indirectly fueling America's higher rates of violence.
The logic goes; the media inflates fears of violence, people rush to
gun shops and buy guns for protection, which in turn leads to more gun
violence. Moore's support for this is that news reports of homicide
increased 600% between 1990 ~ 1998 (citing Barry Glassner). Except
national violent crime rates in all categories declined to 30
year-lows during same period. Hmmm, it shouldn't take a Ph.D.
Criminologist to spot the logical fallacy here.
If 'over-reporting' of homicide by the media indirectly fuels gun
violence, it would stand to reason that an incredible 600% increase in
such reporting would correlate with something other than a significant
decline in violent crime during the same period. Based on the facts
as Moore admits them, one would more credibly infer the relationship
to be completely inverse (more reporting = less violent crime).
Oops squared.
Far less removed from the egregiously strained 'cause and effect' of
this logic than the relationship between media 'over-reporting' and
gun violence is gun sales. Surely if there were an ounce of
credibility to this notion of the media fueling gun sales (i.e.
America's 'gun culture), a whopping 600% increase in media
'over-reporting' should correspond with a detectable increase in gun
sales during the same period. Moore doesn't test this part of his
hypothesis, though there is no reason to believe Moore would have told
the truth had he done so.
Firearm sales are known to follow trends in violent crime and this has
been no less the case in recent decades. According to the consensus
of gun industry analysts and gun policy scholars (e.g. Johns Hopkins
Center for Gun Policy and Research), gun sales and household gun
ownership rates have been in steady decline since 1994, the same year
that marked the beginning of a nearly 10-year decline in violent crime
rates, including homicide rates, to 30-year lows. Gun sales have
paralled falling violent crime rates during the very period Moore's
'media fuels gun violence' hypothesis dictates the opposite should
have occurred due to a 600% increase in homicide reports.
Oops cubed.
It is true that gun sales often increase after high profile events
which serve to make people feel insecure. For instance, there was a
sharp increase in gun sales immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
However, not only was the trend short-lived, its contribution was not
even significant enough to counter the overall drop in US gun sales
for 2001 over the previous year.
Do you see the significance of this? I think you do, but let me note
it, anyway. Contrary to Moore's delusional view which casts the Bush
Administration and media as villians who work hard to keep the
American public ever-fearful (and buying guns), gun sales in 2001
actually declined compared with gun sales in 2000. A horrendous
terrorist attack that shocked the world and the insuing media frenzy
couldn't even 'induce' people to buy more guns in 2001 than they did
the year before.
Oops to nth power.
Transient increases in gun sales spurred by public fears do not affect
larger trends that are tied to violent crime rates and changes in
public attitudes towards firearms (which are influenced in no small
part by the kind of fear-mongering and hate-encouraging propaganda
representative in BFC).
I could go on, refuting virtually every minute of Moore's propaganda
flick from start to finish, but with Moore's long history of habitual
deception, gross errors of fact, logic, and reason being so easily
revealed with only the slightest of fact-checking and logical tests,
provided one were minimally inclined to, I often wonder to what end it
would serve. Moore-lovers seem to have taken some pledge of willfull
ignorance and defiance of truth.
This is not a case where all available evidence merely lends no
support to Moore's hypothesis while failing to disprove it. Rather,
all available evidence conclusively deals a FATAL BLOW to Moore's
delusional views, reducing those who believe in them to the level of
Holocaust Deniers. Except, I would submit that Holocaust Deniers have
built a stronger case than Moore, though no less false or detached from
reality. In any case, either Bradley Smith or Walter Duranty would be
fiercely proud to have Moore in their corner.
Though, I can't help wonder, would the Academy give an Oscar to a
Holocaust Denial film, let alone even accept its nomination? It would
surely meet all the criteria, according to the Academy's new de facto
standard for documentary film-making.
Regards!
"Robin" wrote in message news...
> I watched Bowling for Columbine the other night. I expected it to be an
> advocate for gun control, but it really wasn't. Michael Moore is a lifetime
> member of the NRA and an expert marksman. He pointed to other countries
> with gun laws far more lax than ours with a far smaller homicide rate.
> Instead he looked for other causes to our high homicide rate, and what he
> came up with was fear. The news media and the government both thrive on
> fear. News stories about homicides has gone up 600% over the last twenty
> years, even though the homicide rate has not even incread 6%. Take for
> instance the summer of the shark. Suddenly shark attacks were all over the
> news, but there were fewer attacks that summer than average.
lol! Poor Robin...
Moore confessed that the only reason he joined the NRA was in
some misguided hope of being able to "dismantle" the organization
after running against Charlton Heston for president of the NRA:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,841083,00.html
--- begin Moore quote ---
"MM: I was a junior member when I was in the boy scouts when I was a
kid, but I became a lifetime member after the Columbine massacre
because my first thought after Columbine was to run against Charlton
Heston for the presidency of the NRA. You have to be a lifetime member
to be able to do that, so I had to pay $750 (about £450) to join. My
plan was to get 5 [million] Americans to join for the lowest basic
membership and vote for me so that I'd win and dismantle the
organisation. Unfortunately, I figured that's just too much work for
me so instead I made this movie. But I'm still a lifetime member,
until they excommunicate me... which is not far off, from what I
hear."
--- end Moore quote ---
Sound like a legitimate member of the NRA to you?
Moore has taken a directly opposed stance to the National Rifle
Association on virtually every gun related question. He has publicly
professed his support of banning handguns and gun control in general.
Oops.
It is true that Bowling For Columbine isn't advocating gun control by
attacking guns, per se. After all, guns are inanimate objects,
neither good nor bad. Instead, Moore is attacking gun owners (i.e.
America's 'gun culture'). This is obvious by Moore's deliberate
portrayal of gun owners in the worst possibly light Moore can find.
It is no 'accident' Moore sought-out the Michigan Militia and the
wingnut brother of America's worst mass-murderer before 9/11 as the
'face' Moore would put-forth to represent American gun owners in the
eyes of his audience.
Why James Nichols? Was David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) busy on that day?
Wouldn't hospital officials let Moore interview John Hinckley to
represent the 'pro ownership' side of the things?
Further, no country to which Moore compares the US could reasonably be
said to have "more lax" gun laws. England, Canada, France, Japan, et.
al. unequivocally have more restrictive controls on firearms than the
US. It would indeed be strange if their gun laws were more lax, given
that antigun organizations habitually cite all of these countries as
their gun control model vis-a-vis the United States.
Oops.
Moore's suggestion that Canada has comparable or even higher rates of
gun ownership than the US is also untrue. Canada's gun ownership rate
is about 1/3 of the United States, according to a broad consensus of
published government estimates (BATF, USDOJ, Canadian Firearms Center,
et. al.).
Oops.
As you note, Moore partly implicates 'over-reporting' of homicide by
the media as indirectly fueling America's higher rates of violence.
The logic goes; the media inflates fears of violence, people rush to
gun shops and buy guns for protection, which in turn leads to more gun
violence. Moore's support for this is that news reports of homicide
increased 600% between 1990 ~ 1998 (citing Barry Glassner). Except
national violent crime rates in all categories declined to 30
year-lows during same period. Hmmm, it shouldn't take a Ph.D.
Criminologist to spot the logical fallacy here.
If 'over-reporting' of homicide by the media indirectly fuels gun
violence, it would stand to reason that an incredible 600% increase in
such reporting would correlate with something other than a significant
decline in violent crime during the same period. Based on the facts
as Moore admits them, one would more credibly infer the relationship
to be completely inverse (more reporting = less violent crime).
Oops squared.
Far less removed from the egregiously strained 'cause and effect' of
this logic than the relationship between media 'over-reporting' and
gun violence is gun sales. Surely if there were an ounce of
credibility to this notion of the media fueling gun sales (i.e.
America's 'gun culture), a whopping 600% increase in media
'over-reporting' should correspond with a detectable increase in gun
sales during the same period. Moore doesn't test this part of his
hypothesis, though there is no reason to believe Moore would have told
the truth had he done so.
Firearm sales are known to follow trends in violent crime and this has
been no less the case in recent decades. According to the consensus
of gun industry analysts and gun policy scholars (e.g. Johns Hopkins
Center for Gun Policy and Research), gun sales and household gun
ownership rates have been in steady decline since 1994, the same year
that marked the beginning of a nearly 10-year decline in violent crime
rates, including homicide rates, to 30-year lows. Gun sales have
paralled falling violent crime rates during the very period Moore's
'media fuels gun violence' hypothesis dictates the opposite should
have occurred due to a 600% increase in homicide reports.
Oops cubed.
It is true that gun sales often increase after high profile events
which serve to make people feel insecure. For instance, there was a
sharp increase in gun sales immediately following the 9/11 attacks.
However, not only was the trend short-lived, its contribution was not
even significant enough to counter the overall drop in US gun sales
for 2001 over the previous year.
Do you see the significance of this? I think you do, but let me note
it, anyway. Contrary to Moore's delusional view which casts the Bush
Administration and media as villians who work hard to keep the
American public ever-fearful (and buying guns), gun sales in 2001
actually declined compared with gun sales in 2000. A horrendous
terrorist attack that shocked the world and the insuing media frenzy
couldn't even 'induce' people to buy more guns in 2001 than they did
the year before.
Oops to nth power.
Transient increases in gun sales spurred by public fears do not affect
larger trends that are tied to violent crime rates and changes in
public attitudes towards firearms (which are influenced in no small
part by the kind of fear-mongering and hate-encouraging propaganda
representative in BFC).
I could go on, refuting virtually every minute of Moore's propaganda
flick from start to finish, but with Moore's long history of habitual
deception, gross errors of fact, logic, and reason being so easily
revealed with only the slightest of fact-checking and logical tests,
provided one were minimally inclined to, I often wonder to what end it
would serve. Moore-lovers seem to have taken some pledge of willfull
ignorance and defiance of truth.
This is not a case where all available evidence merely lends no
support to Moore's hypothesis while failing to disprove it. Rather,
all available evidence conclusively deals a FATAL BLOW to Moore's
delusional views, reducing those who believe in them to the level of
Holocaust Deniers. Except, I would submit that Holocaust Deniers have
built a stronger case than Moore, though no less false or detached from
reality. In any case, either Bradley Smith or Walter Duranty would be
fiercely proud to have Moore in their corner.
Though, I can't help wonder, would the Academy give an Oscar to a
Holocaust Denial film, let alone even accept its nomination? It would
surely meet all the criteria, according to the Academy's new de facto
standard for documentary film-making.
Regards!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter