grinninfoole

Well, there's coming to grips with pressing and unacknowledged evils (remember when no one talked about AIDS until ACT UP shamed people into doing it?), and then there's twisting the knife in your own wound. People should see it in their own good time, I just don't want folks to ignore it or let it slip away unnoticed.

From:

fuschia.livejournal.com

Glad to hear this has opened here in town. I think Jim and I felt similar frustrations as Mr. Moore while living in his gun-happy home state...I've never touched a gun, myself, and think our gun "laws" are insanity.

Liberal gal,

Fuschia

From:

millari.livejournal.com

You know, this doesn't have anything to do with the issues you're bringing up, but I was struck by how this film felt to me like a scientific research paper in action. Throughout the film, Moore kept throwing out hypotheses after hypothesis for our nation's problematic fascination with guns and the deaths it causes, many of them the classic kneejerk explanations. And then, one by one, he tests these hypotheses and finds the holes in them like a good scientist. In the end, he offers up his best explanation for why things are the way they are, but I didn't feel that it was by any means a resounding conclusion. It was more like, "Here is my best guess," which is usually how scientific findings are supposed to be represented.

I just thought that was kinda neat.

From:

You know, Moore has a problem with factsch kind of ruined the movie for me. The title, for instance: according to the police, they didn't go bowling that morning. Also, Littleton's Lockheed Martin plant doesn't make weapons, although the movie presents it as doing such.

The people at spinsanity have devoted a fair amount of time to Moore lately. http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328 is the latest.

From the article: "When the most popular documentary of the year is riddled with blatant lies and distortions, it's a cause for concern. When the film is part of a pattern by one of the nation's most prominent political celebrities, it's disturbing. And when the media gives Michael Moore free reign to spread his lies and distortions with very little critical analysis, it's a sad comment on our democracy."

Spinsanity is a great site. They specialize in debunking political lies no matter what their source. (For instance, with regard to claims that Al Gore is being a hypocrite by endorsing a single-payer health care system, see http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712218)

From:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Gun safety instructors who don't do their jobs effectively.
Illegal owners of guns.
Parents who don't keep their guns under lock and key.
Police who panic when they see a wallet.

I can kill someone accidentally with a rock. A car. A wet floor.
The gun is not responsible.
A longer waiting period FOLLOWING a semester-long class on the responsibilities of gun ownership would, I think, improve things. The ballistic fingerprinting should be expanded (before it's even implemented) to contain every gun MANUFACTURED OR DISTRIBUTED in this country. When a gun is purchased, a set of fingerprints of the owner would be entered in the database under that gun's ID. This may seem very Big Brother of me, but I also believe in parental licensing...

From:

Point the First:
Spinsanity, although doing EXACTLY as Michael Moore intends, has missed the entire point. The point is that we need, as a nation, to be discussing these issues. However, they're not contributing anything to that in their articles. There is no discussion about what is going wrong with this country (and that is really point two), just what Moore screwed up. And they're not even consistent about that. One place where they missed the point:
Contradicting himself doesn't seem to be a problem for Moore, though. In the movie and subsequent media appearances, he has derided America's lack of a social safety net, comparing us unfavorably to Canada, even though he states explicitly in the film that the two countries don't differ significantly in terms of poverty.
And:
"Liberals contend [gun violence is a result of] all the poverty we have here. But the unemployment rate in Canada is twice what we have here." By every measure of international comparison, though, Canada's poverty rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., thanks to the generous social insurance programs that he repeatedly praises in the film.
This quote does not illustrate Moore stating that the countries do not differ in terms of poverty. This quote states something very different. A quote in which he states explicitly that the two countries donât differ, followed by a quote in which it is stated that they do, would have been more effective. Thatâs called proof.

Point the Second:
The point of this quote is that if we are liberals (and if we saw the film, then we would probably describe ourselves as such, despite true liberalism being dead in this country) we are probably blaming poverty for crime. But what are we blaming for the poverty? Unemployment? But Canada has twice the unemployment rate! (I will, for the sake of argument, assume this as a given, since Spinsanity does not seem to have a problem with it.) Then we might blame the government for not taking care of its citizens (and don't even get me started on the U.S.'s approach to non-nationals.) Whatever we blame, Moore has no answers, but that is exactly the point: to create a dialog about the reasons behind violent crime here. Whatever issues you personally have with the movie, the one thing that really can't be emphasized enough is that, of industrialized nations, the U.S. has the highest rate of violent crime. We need to answer the question of why that is.

Point the Third:
The discussion we ought to be having is: âThere is too much violent crime in this country! What are we going to do about it?â And, for all that it may be entirely correct (and I do not think that it is, but since Spinsanity does not seem to footnote very well I canât actually do any of the research) the critique of âBowling for Columbineâ does nothing to answer those much more important questions. Unlike âBowling for Columbineâ, which serves to at least start the discussions.

In sum:
âBowling for Columbineâ is not really about bowling or Columbine. Discuss.

From:

It's kind of hard to portray yourself as a fearless crusader for the truth when you either a) lie a lot or b)do not fact check.

Discuss.

I do describe myself as a liberal, but in the classical sense. But I see a lot of movies.

And I thought BFC was supposed to be a documentary? Or is it just a documentary when it's convenient for Michael Moore to proclaim it so?

If you want to figure out why we have such a high rate of violent crime, my quick answer would be the drug war. We had similar levels during Prohibition, IIRC, but they levelled off after the end of Prohibition...and made a comeback right as we declared "war" on drugs.

It's a better answer than Moore gave, since he didn't really give an answer at all. Vague musings, backed by what is either sloppy reporting or deliberate distortion, were all I heard.

From:

1) I never portrayed myself as anyone but a friend of GF's who saw the movie and read your argument and Spinsanity's.
2) You know nothing about me you self-righteous asshole. If I am a liar, at least I'm not a stupid sheep incapable of looking critically at the media (whatever medium it's in).
3) If Spinsanity footnoted EVERYTHING they claim, instead of just the things that prove their points, they would have much more credibility as a watchdog organization.
4) He didn't offer an answer because that was the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF THE MOVIE. It's purpose was to get people like us to ask those questions and propose solutions. You're like the people who criticized "24-Hour Party People". You missed the whole point.

From:

1)Okay. Never doubted that.

2) I never refered to you as a liar..that was Michael Moore I was referring to. My apologies if I was not clear.

Moore is, incidentally, a media figure. So I am looking quite critically at part of it, yes?

I miss Brill's Content, which was by far the best media criticism ever offered. Too bad it tanked. .

3)They referenced things pretty good..much better than Moore does. As they note, he has a habit of footnoting things that prove the opposite of what he claims.

I see one example of a claim they did not directly footnote, but they had (earlier in the article) referred to the Forbes article that noted that the Littleton Lockheed Martin plant did not manufacture weapons.

4)There was a discussion on all of those issues long before Moore made his movie. And I thought he did try to offer answers. Several different ones.

The uncritical acceptance of Moore is one of the reasons I ceased being a liberal in the sense of the word now used. People seem to treat him like he speaks Ex Cathedra.

Similar treatment accorded to Rush Limbaugh (who is very much the right-wing equivalent of Moore..cf the recent Spinsanity article (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_17_archive.html#85703199) on him) is part of the reason I am not a conservative.

We are probably clogging GF's journal more than necessary for this purpose. Perhaps we should start a new lj for talking about Mr. Moore.

From:

I realy owe you a further apology..I was *really* unclear.

I should have said "Its kind of hard for Moore to portray himself as a fearless crusader for the truth when he either a) lies a lot or b)does not fact check."

No implicaitons meant on your truthfulness or fact-checking ability.

From:

I am gratified to return from Thanksgiving to see folks discussing my post and this movie. If FA's two quotes from Spinsanity are truly representative, however, I am not sure I see what the site's point is, exactly. That Mr. Moore is inconsistent? The two quotes above might be quite consistent depending on what is meant by 'poverty'. Unemployment and poverty are not synonymous, as I'm sure Mr. Moore knows, and the experience of poverty is probably quite different in Canada than it is in the USA. Certainly, the things that people in Canada said on camera, and especially peoples' reactions to his simply opening the doors of their homes, strikes me as VERY different from what would happen here in MA. I don't know what got left on the cutting room floor, but that he was able to shoot such footage at all goes some way towards demonstrating how different the US and Canada are.

From:

Guns don't kill people, but they do make it a lot easier for weenies like me to kill tough guys like Claxton the Destroyer, who otherwise would have little trouble dealing with me hand to hand. Why shouldn't we criminalize their possession and repeal the second amendment?

From:

I always understood Mr. Moore to be more of a fearless polemicist with a political axe to grind. This does not automatically invalidate what he has to say, and makes him far more honest than many pundits.

I also, after some time studying the history of science, think that people use the word 'fact' WAY too freely, usually as a way of putting their ideas beyond reproach. This is what the term and the concept it describes were deployed to do, but in my opinion the practice loses a lot of its value when their is no agreed upon means of determining facts--such as in informal conversations like this one.

BFC is a documentary. What should Mr. Moore have done that he did not do in making the film? What is documentary film? What should it be? What can it be? I have never heard Mr. Moore claim to be an 'objective' film maker (which is good, because I wouldn't believe him any more than I would believe any else who made such a claim), and I don't see this as a weakness or as a reason to dismiss his film.

The drug war is, indeed, an excellent place to start for answers to our violence problem, though it does beg the question of whence comes the drug war. (What does IIRC stand for?)

From:

I certainly don't mind this discussion continuing in my LJ, so long as it continues to be courteous. Having read Ben Fritz's article on Spinsanity, I can see his point that Mr. Moore is not entirely consistent in his reasoning throughout the movie. I don't see as necessarily a problem, but it does weaken Mr. Moore's ability frame the debate he wishes to start.

I also note that Spinsanity's coverage itself has flaws. They chide Mr. Moore for claiming that the Lockheed et al. plant made weapons when "In fact, the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites." [ http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html ] I believe that in the film they explained that the plant made Titan II missiles--ICBM's, in other words. To call them weapons is not a distortion--were the plant located in Iraq, it would be taken as proof positive of Hussein's intentions and capabilities. The rockets may be used to launch TV satellites now (and remember, we only have the word of Lockheed and the Dept. of Defense on this, and neither should be trusted), but they could be used as ICBMs, or to launch much more dangerous spacecraft.

On the whole, I don't know what sort of connection can be drawn between our nation's blood-drenched foreign activities and our problems with domestic violence, but it feelsright to me. Feelings are by no means themselves an adequate basis for making momentous decisions, but our unconscious minds often make true connections that elude our conscious thoughts. Of course, Rush Limbaugh could make a similar claim and still be full of shit, so I'm not going to champion Mr. Moore too far along these lines. :)

I think that your comparison between Moore and Limbaugh is sadly more apt that I should like it to be, though they are by no means interchangeable: I have, for example, never gotten the sense that Limbaugh actually cared about anyone other than himself.

From:

In my Immediate ReCollection (IIRC)

Sorry. I try to avoid acronyms unless I am sure people share them. Mea Culpa.

He doesn't claim to be objective, but a documentary is supposed to report facts.

From dictionary.com:

docÂ·uÂ·menÂ·taÂ·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1.Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2.Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Moore could make the argument that he is going for 2. c. With a heavy dose of belief.

Moore could have fact checked. He coudl have avoided making claims that had no supporting evidence (the idea that the Columbine killers were motivated by US actions in Kosovo, for instance. I'd like to see a document they wrote suggesting that. Or quotes from someone who knew them to that weffect. As far as I know (AFAIK) they don't exist.)

From:

I'd be interested to see them use the Titan II as a weapon, considering that it was retired from service in 1987. It would be a rather impressive feat of strategic deception to retire the Titan IIs, replacing them with a new missile, and then keepign them in place.

The Titan II has also, to this date, not been used in combat.

Yes, they can be used to launch more dangeours spacecraft. But we're getting into the kind of logic where we'd describe the local Boeing plant as producing weapons of mass destruction because of September 11.

And Moore didn't present it that way, either.

As for Limbaugh (and I share your low opiinon of him) and Moore, it's worth noting that Moore is a multi-millionaire who lives in a very expensive district of NYC. (Not that he hesitates to wail about his poverty when it is convenient to him.) This does not indicate his motivations (you can do well and do good), but he is also, like Limbaugh, a man who has become rich off political polemics that have a fair amount of distortion built into them.

I think the two of them are anti-particles, though they work in different mediums. (I wonder why radio is so dominated by poltiical conservatives, while film is so dominated by progressives. Someone could make an interesting dissertation out of that.)

From:

I'm interested if you've ever read Captain Kidd and the War Against the Pirates? The author made the argument that the pirates were, to a large degree, social rebels. One of the things discussed at length was how the fact that nearly everyone in pirate colonies was armed, and how this discomfitted many of those who wrote abotu them, since only the better order of people were supposed to be armed.

I thought his portrayal of pirates as social rebels was a little forced, but it was still an interesting argument.

One thinks of the old saying: God made men, and Samuel Colt made them equal.

From:

I didn't want to post a dozen replies, so I'll answer a few at once:

I never refered to you as a liar..that was Michael Moore I was referring to. My apologies if I was not clear.
Ah, a miscommunication over an electronic medium. Who could have guessed. Apology accepted and apology offered for the quick 'asshole' reply.

I wonder why radio is so dominated by poltiical conservatives, while film is so dominated by progressives.
Radio gives more airtime to conservatives. Legally, it SHOULD be giving as much time to progressives, but it does not. So progressives seek out other media: film, tv, print, internet. Also, I think that is a reflection on the audiences: most of the people I have met who listen to talk radio on a regular basis are conservatives, (some in large ways, some in very small ways) and it is mostly young people who are using the internet. Only a partial answer, I know.

the idea that the Columbine killers were motivated by US actions in Kosovo
I don't think that he meant that they were causal, more correlatory. I think he was proposing that we are a violent country and that is reflected in our domestic affairs and in our foreign policies. I can't wait to see what he does to King George II. That man is just itching for a war...

God made men, and Samuel Colt made them equal.
Thank you for that! I had forgotten that quote.

He doesn't claim to be objective, but a documentary is supposed to report facts.
Again, I must disagree. A documentary is supposed to report one person's perspective, complete with all their biases. A documentary can be made about a period in history with references to specific events and the week before it's released, will have tons of criticism about the accuracy of the reporting. And plenty of evidence to support all sides. Perhaps I don't disagree: a documentary is SUPPOSED to report facts, just like history texts are SUPPOSED to report real history. Those are also dominated by the authors' biases, and sometimes teach complete falsehoods as 'history'. Any statistic must be questioned, any claim must be verified. The Roanoke colony did NOT disappear 'mysteriously', Columbus died thinking he had found the Indies, and there was trans-Atlantic travel in ancient Egyptian times. Amherst did PURPOUSELY send smallpox-covered blankets to the native Americans. The US had decrypted the Japanese codes BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor. Whether we had foreknowledge of the attack is a question that will likely never be answered to the satisfaction of all historians (like the JFK shooting: was it one with a 'magic' bullet, two, or three?) Also, I have heard conflicting claims regarding the Japanes surrender: one version has them trying to surrender BEFORE we dropped the second bomb. Yet, one might think that is someone had records of this that it would be considered fact, and history books would be updated accordingly. Sadly, nobody really cares about accuracy. They care about their political message.

From:

Is that, then, the best that can be said of guns and their owners, that they are equal? Equal in what? In their fear, their fleshly vulnerability to rending and tearing metal, their agony, their loss, their mortality? Equal in their power to maim and kill other people? Surely, this is a great power, but for civilized, socialized, self-domesticated primates, great power has to require great responsibility. So who is responsible for the mayhem in our lives? And is it a price worth paying for power?

From:

It wouldn't be terribly tough to use a Titan as a weapon. All you need to do is load on the appropriate warhead (OK, that's a tall order, but if you already have the missile, nukes aren't so absurd), program in the flight path, and launch it. Granted, the USA is unlikely to bother, as we have much better ICBMs today, but only 15 years ago they were part of our nuclear attack force. They were built to carry high yield thermonuclear explosives to Russia and kill millions of people with them, so I don't see that it's far-fetched to call them weapons. They were built for this express purpose, and while it's nice that someone has found another way to use them, it doesn't change that truth about them. It's not as if Mr. Moore was describing a shoe factory as weapons plant, or even a steel works. (Oh, and hydrogen bombs have never been used in combat either. So what?) I don't see this as duplicitous on Mr. Moore's part. It's a simplification. If the plant had made MX missiles, would that change your view of the segment? (recognizing that the cameras would never have been allowed in if that had been true.)

From: