Bowling for Columbine

(THough his ethics of documentary could do with looking at a touch).

'cause they usually don't need the help

Gun control advocates point out that the vast majority of western nations have stringent gun control laws, and that in those nations there are vastly fewer gun deaths and murders per capita. This puts some burden on gun advocates to explain why, precisely, that same relationship wouldn't work in the U.S. In the film, Charlton Heston offers a variation on the answer a surprising number of people give to that question: "Well, those countries don't have the ethnic diversity that we do."

Gun advocacy in the U.S. is basically a big giving-up: it rests on the belief of very large number of Americans that they simply can't trust someone, whether it's black "superpredator" street thugs or the forthcoming black-helicopter U.N. invasion. Their logic is necessarily cynical and actually very American -- they choose Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction over the obvious answer, Disarmament. But beyond that, the kernel of reality in their argument is this: they seem to think it untenable that their rights or their property should be violated in any sense, and if that means resorting to firearms to avoid the violation of being mugged or trespassed upon, they don't see this as problematic.

!?!?!??!!!??!!?!!?

And gun control advocates are those who most invoke fear of a "black 'superpredator'".

Sterling is saying that the race card is "We need to take the guns away from the blacks"

Which countries is he referring to? The UK? Australia? Canada?
He might want to think a little harder and come up a more logical argument.

On the race card thing, Moore covers both the nabisco and Sterling arguments. The interview with the Cops producer covered the former, while the animated history bit meanwhile mentioned that there were laws passed in some States outlawing the possession of guns by blacks.

Agree with Ptee about the timeline/ordering - that was my one major quibble with the film. Good slice of polemic filmmaking, that said.

The first thing I see flipping to it is a cartoon that mentions the criminalization of the Klan in 1871 and the founding of the NRA the same year. Then an eye-rolling "but of course they had nothing to do with each other..."

Gee, Mike, the NRA is just like the Klan, obviously! Because the best way to prove your point is slander (and from what I can tell, outright lies on the NRA/KKK front).

How can people (spec. liberals/progressives/etc.) just let that pass? Is intellectual dishonesty acceptable on our side?

That article on Moore in the current New Yorker does not exactly paint him as a saint, either.

When you start down that path, then Bush can get away with twisting the truth because he's fighting a 'greater evil' in al-Qaeda and so on.

docs are not meant to be neutral, todd. "objective" maybe sometimes, but they shouldn't try to be "neutral." there's not a "neutral" person in the world, so making a documentary AS IF you are neutral about your subject is not a service to the truth. and it will produce a point of view despite all your best intentions. the most you can hope for is to present each side of the story in its strongest formulation, which is what Moore doesn't do. he's neither objective nor neutral (but he never claimed to be as far as i know.)

"I know but I was totally objective about it"

This doesn't make sense, ryan. I don't even have a point here really ("one of us!!"), I just wanted to clarify the difference between neutrality and objectivity.

I come to this as a leftist and as someone opposed to gun control for various reasons (primarily because it doesn't deal with the origins of violence in America), but not as a supporter of the NRA (or, you know, the Klan).

My problem is with the intellectual dishonesty, as noted. But it's also with the fact that gun control advocates have so many arguments against the NRA and gun manufacturers, you don't need to create non-existent links to racism. It's weak.

It's not the same thing. Moore edits responses from interviewers to change the context of their quotes, postedits his questions to alter the meaning of the responses, and alters events (see Roger and Me's Xmas eviction) to coordinate with his conclusions.

Actually, when he said that, I didn't even register that it was sarcastic, more of a "we could make a joke here, but they really didn't have anything to do w/each other so we should probably point that out." The biases in BfC were way obvious from the get go - but I want to know who here disagrees with the points MM was trying to make? Sure, he was pulling heartstrings, but I still thought it was lame when Charlton Heston just got up and walked out on his interview. I mean, he's Charles fucking Heston and he can't deal with glamorized college nerd Michael Moore? And I say that in the best possible sense.

He's basically a bad crusader for a good cause. He probably should be cut loose, but now that he's such a publishing sensation and media mega-star that ain't happenin' any time soon.

I agree that it's annoying when he makes spurious links or fails to give good reasons for his statements. And it doesn't strengthen his argument when he clearly fiddles about with his evidence. But we have to remember that he isn't making arguments and he's not interested in the restraint of academic decorum. If he hasn't got the evidence, he'll raise his voice, and if he isn't convincing he'll switch to being passionate and angry. Marx was entirely correct, from an academic point of view, to criticize Proudhon's slogan "property is theft" but Marx underestimated the power of the false slogan!

Yebbut the problem with 'pamphleteers' is the whole dissent process has moved on since 1770, and not just because Marketing have seen the value of the Short Snappy Title. In terms of winning people over to his cause I question how well his methods work. Anybody can preach to their own choir.

All documentarians do this, in some form or another. Sometimes it's as blatant as Moore or, say, Ken Burns (re: Branford Marsalis's heavily edited comments on Cecil Taylor made to seem that the former was calling the latter's attitude towards performing "bullshit"). In a form essentially pioneered by "Nanook of the North," it shouldn't be surprising. Asking for "objective" or "neutral" "truth" from a documentary is like asking for "realism" from a Hollywood movie - it's not the point, even if it presents itself in that way. That doesn't make documentaries unworthy or uninteresting or dishonest, somehow.

But yeah, Moore is a wanker. I was happy that the New Yorker piece wasn't total puffery, it sure seemed that way at the get-go.

We do lock our doors, among other things.

just turn on CNN any time of day to see "documentaries" that really DO lay claim to exhaustive truth

p.s. you think you're a G, Nigel? i'll cut your shriveled willy off and hand it to you, padnah! fuck outta my face.

You watch it.

I'm disappointed that Moore's defenders seem to fixate on "corporate news suXor too" - yeah, it does. So how do you respond to them? Sink to their level, and go Goebbels for Goebbels with the corporate propagandists? You'll lose every time. They've got more money and power than us, better graphics and prettier announcers.

You beat them by being better. You beat them by treating people like civilized, rational adults, not by patronizing and lying to them. (And if you think the only way to win is to lie, because "people are sheep" etc. etc. etc. then you should just join the GOP right now.)

Nor did I say anything about objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist, we're all human - but you can set out to make a 'documentary' about guns and violence and American culture without resorting to a lazy, stupid "the NRA = the KKK because I don't like either of them" mentality.

Moore emphatically does not say the NRA "equals the KKK." (You're not a certified documentarian so I won't hold you responsible.) It is pretty myopic, though, not to see the KKK's obsession with guns, and pretty uncharitable not to give Moore any credit for suggesting that formally unspeakable fears (of blacks) found channels (like the NRA) that legitimized responses to those fears (like valorizing gun possession).

"Using the word the way [I] do"? That doesn't mean anything.

On top of meaning nothing, I didn't even refer to anything as a "documentary." At all. Until that last reply to you. So what the hell are you even talking about?

Seriously, man, it's like you're responding to someone else entirely. Or you're just reading into my words what you can respond to, rather than what I said.

[quote]Moore emphatically does not say the NRA "equals the KKK."[/quote]

Bullshit. Moore knows that he can't say the NRA is the KKK. If nothing else, he'd face a huge lawsuit, and the NRA's pockets are deeper than his production company's (regardless of the outcome).

If that wasn't the insinuation, why make a point to point out that one was founded the year the other was criminalized and then state "oh, but we're not saying... winkwink"?

It is pretty myopic, though, not to see the KKK's obsession with guns
From what I've seen, the Klan's "obsession" is with white supremacy, burning crosses and boinking family members.

But let's say they are "obsessed with guns." Lots of groups are. Lots of people are. There's a Jewish pro-gun lobbying group.

Are they the Klan in disguise too?

and pretty uncharitable not to give Moore any credit for suggesting that formally unspeakable fears (of blacks) found channels (like the NRA) that legitimized responses to those fears (like valorizing gun possession).
Thing is, the NRA as "valorizing gun possession" is a purely modern invention, after taking on a greater corporate influence, and responding to gun control. Before that? Gun safety, and hunting and normal stuff.

I don't give Moore any credit - and I give you less credit for simply parroting him - because he doesn't actually make an argument. He doesn't have the guts to say "the NRA is a racist organization" and defend his view. Neither do you.

If you can't prove that the NRA is a racist organization, you sure as hell better not make the accusation (or imply it). I don't care if you're on "my team" or the GOP or whomever, it's not in anyone's best interests to let that kind of intellectual dishonesty and laziness slip by.

First of all, where exactly did Moore lie? Was the NRA really not founded the same year that the KKK was criminalized? If so, and Moore knew it was false, then that would be a lie. All that Moore is really saying is that he thinks that those two events are related somehow. You may ask what purpose this serves. I think Moore's purpose is basically to suggest one answer to the question that he poses in BFC, which is basically, why is there so much gun violence in the USA? His answer seems to be that it has something to do with the history of race in this country. You may say that you think he's wrong about that. But making a mistake in historical analysis is not the same as lying - and I think that Moore really is making a good-faith effort to answer the question that he posed for himself.

(xpost)

Why?

And actually, I think Moore is onto something questioning race relations and gun violence, and media portrayals of same. My problem continues to be with the methods - the laziness, the dishonesty, etc.

i was a fan of michael moore for a long time. he's from my hometown(Flint), and his parents now live within a mile of the house i greww up in.

suffice it to say, what began to turn me off was his changes in tone & tactics over the years. While I loved "TV Nation", the other series, "The Awful Truth", rubbed me the wrong way. I think it was his bit on Ted Turner, where it seemed he was essentially just going to annoy Turner due to how much land the guy owned in Montana. I never watched another ep of the show after.

Moore tries to link the NRA to a racist organization by sleight of hand. If he has evidence of a racist agenda on the early NRA's part, I want to hear it. If he has evidence of a racist connection between the early NRA and the KKK, I want to hear it. If he has evidence of either for the modern NRA, I certainly want to hear it, but the cartoon would have still been distasteful.

If he doesn't have any kind of evidence, or any kind of argument, he shouldn't have said anything.

This is like my mum used to say, if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all!

I would agree with this if someone were writing their PhD, but not if they are writing a provocative campaigning assault. Sometimes you have to stick your neck out and say stuff even when you don't have the proof. When the British militant workers in the 1980s said they were being spied on by the secret service (phones bugged, meeting rooms bugged, etc), this was denied outright by the press, government and the police. Prove it, they said. Of course, there was no proof. It turned out to be true though, as ex-coppers and a bunch of released documents show.

So he's allowed to get away with whatever he wants? Karl Rove isn't writing a thesis on public policy, so he can do whatever it takes to get Bush reelected because it's a "provocative campaigning assault"? Instead of letting Moore distort and lie just because he's on your side, why not champion someone like Paul Krugman who is just as willing to fight as Moore and doesn't play fast and loose with facts?

Colin is absolutely OTM (well, I'm not big on Krugman, but everything else).

Absolutely. It's called the freedom of speech.

How dishonest was linking the NRA to the Klan?

Um, pretty dishonest, since it was founded by union soldiers and headed by generals hated in the south.

RE: reconstruction-era slave codes - the NRA wasn't a 'gun rights' group, since nothing like that existed. It was a marksmanship and hunting group. FWIW, various sites claim links between the NRA and former slaves and Civil Rights-era activists. No telling how much of that is myth pushed by modern NRA.

So it's okay to be lazy and dishonest... because he adopts the style of someone lazy and dishonest?

How is this a defense? What does it even say?

There are much better examples than Krugman, who is someone that has played fast and loose with the facts on multiple occcasions.

Your argument about holding Moore to 'academic argument' standards falls flat to me. Basic respect for the audience's intelligence and their ability to go where you're trying to lead them without pandering and innuendo (ie Moore could make an anti-NRA argument without resorting to cheap racist catcalls) isn't a high standard. I don't expect to be able to play fast and loose with facts and truth when I'm arguing with friends or strangers any more than with a professor. This isn't about Moore needing an outline, citations and talking points about how the NRA sucks.

But if you're going to draw a line between the KKK and the NRA, you need to make sure that line

Moore's methods backfired for 'leftist' causes anyway. Most of America heard about his flubs, 'special' edits and dishonesty (and getting 'booed' at the Oscar), rather than his message. By playing loose with the facts, he made it easy for the corporate media to write him off. Whether or not the news media engages in the same behavior is irrelevant - you've got to beat them, not join them. Be unimpeachable.

Al Franken was mentioned earlier, and he's a good example - the Clinton-worship in his last book got annoying, but he didn't make any boldly outrageous claims that couldn't be verified. He trusted his position and his audience to let the absurdity of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly to stand for themselves.

(Moore's position as radical populist outsider is kinda funny, given his original Presidential endorsement. Yeah, Clinton/DLC-backed former Republican! That'll show them Mike!)

Mad-libbing it, you just defended Bush lying about Iraq. The facts come second to what the 'activist' thinks 'needs' to be done, propagandizing and lying are OK when they're in service of a greater cause.

That's just dangerous.

So Bush is not a politician/conservative first and foremost, he is President. And if his first priority is the increase of American power, then he is a corrupt President (proven by the fact that he NEVER states this explicitly, but always masks his aggression with universal intentions, such as fighting for democracy, freedom and peace.)

That's debatable. The blogosphere (as well as The National Review) has noted so many factual errors in Krugman's columns over the past two years that I have a hard time believing that Krugman does any original thinking anymore. He's only "owned up" to maybe a couple of these errors, and even then it's always backhanded and partisan (he ranks with Anne Coulter as one of the most partisan columnists in the U.S.)

Milo is right that Michael Moore is a loony cartoon. He has no intellectual appeal whatsoever, and his populist bullshit is exactly that. He is a political buffoon, a propagandist that is only acceptable if you agree with his political perspective. Oh, and he's an asshole, too.

Lets take a UK equivalent - Richard Littledickjohn (boom, and indeed, boom) - makes untenable statements, his arguments don't stand up. But he gets his message across. Criticising his rhetorical strategies doesn't get you far. You need to provide as compelling analyses from the left.

Yet every attempt at left-populism has always been embarrassing first and foremost; if Moore pulls it off without embarrassment and committing the other problem of the left-populist (having at least one predominantly right-wing asscoiated trait, such as homophobia, misogyny or interesting views on multiculturalism) then rejoice, as a evil hag once said. I wish we had a Moore in this country; the best I've seen is Brian Reade in the Mirror, and he's very flawed.

Why? Because you decide that? If Moore gets to decide that he's an "activist" first and foremost, why doesn't Bush get to decide that he's a "politician/conservative" or activist first and foremost?

It's all the same.

There is no rule that says "when you're President, suddenly you don't look out for your own agenda."

***

Milo is destroying his own arguments by viewing everything in absolute terms and, as a result, I find it impossible to take on board anything he says.
What has been viewed in absolute terms? Despite Tracer Hand's attempts to pin words and phrases on me that I never typed, I've been referring to Moore, and to a specific act of dishonesty by Moore.

And I've been waiting for someone to defend the NRA-KKK link on something other than "Fox News suXor too" grounds.

***

milo your moral stand (which is what it is) on moore's objectivity is totally undermined by claiming that moore "equates" the NRA w/the KKK. he simply doesn't. he suggests that the timing of the NRA's inception with the criminalization of the KKK is no coincidence.
Um, yeah, which is exactly what I've said all along.

Tracer, really. This is the third time - fourth? - you've come up with something that I never said. I've never mentioned 'objectivity' on Moore's part, and if you could be bothered to read my posts, you'd see where I disagreed with someone about 'objectivity' in my second post here.

Why do you insist on responding to what you wish I had said, rather than what I did?

surely the Bush Administration would be a perfect example of this.

You're right though, I'd forgotten your comment about "there's no such thing as objectivity." It kind of got swamped by your tidal wave of "PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE"-type comments.

A President is a bad President if all they do is look after their own personal interests. They have to consider their citizens' interests, the interests of the nation, the interests of a whole range of pressure groups, lobbyists, etc etc. If you think a President can merely promote his own agenda, then you are very naive. I'm not just talking about what a President ought to do - although, if we're talking about ought, then certainly a President ought to think more broadly than his own personal agenda - I'm talking about the range of people and interests that call on the President on a daily basis. Even the most cynical President will adopt positions that he does not exactly share but he knows he must adopt for political reasons. Etc etc.

On top of this, you have ignored the point I made earlier, which is that even when a President happens to be following his own agenda he must present that in terms of the universal good. Bush does this all the time. Presidents have to. It is the very least a President can do to give the impression that he is not merely following his own agenda.

The difference between an individual citizen saying what he thinks, and a President saying what he thinks is immense. To pretend that there is no difference is, I think, pure ideology.

Your reference to Moore or me deciding how things are is a cog without a function.

That you feel the absolute need to make up things I've never said and alter the context of other things (ie the above), I'm not sure what you're going for here, other than "It's OK for Moore to make fallacious claims about the NRA and the KKK 'cuz he's a liberal."

Your argument is that it's OK for Moore to distort the truth and draw connections that don't exist (and no one, but no one, has been able to defend the NRA-KKK connection he alleges), because he's an "activist." Because his ends (the NRA sucks!) justify the means (the NRA is really tied to an evil racist organization!).

How does that not apply for Bush, too? Why doesn't he get to make the same means/ends justification? "Yes, I lied to the American people, but it was for their own good." "Yes, I lied to the American people, but it was for the greater good."

On top of this, you have ignored the point I made earlier, which is that even when a President happens to be following his own agenda he must present that in terms of the universal good. Bush does this all the time. Presidents have to. It is the very least a President can do to give the impression that he is not merely following his own agenda.
Once again, you're making a highly subjective judgement, and applying different standards to "the President" and Moore. Why?

If a standard is good enough for Moore - you can skirt the truth because you're an activist - why can't that standard be applied to Bush?

Vice versa, if it's wrong for Bush to lie about Saddam's connection to WMDs and al-Qaeda in order to convince people of something, why isn't it wrong for Moore to lie about the NRA's connection to the Klan to convince his audience of something?

(Note, in both cases, they've been careful with phrasing in order to avoid direct lies.)

The difference between an individual citizen saying what he thinks, and a President saying what he thinks is immense. To pretend that there is no difference is, I think, pure ideology.
Of course there's a "difference" - but how does the difference matter?

If Bush wasn't President, if he was just a private citizen, but with the same media outlets and ability to control opinion that he has now, that would make his lies OK?

If Moore was President, that would makes his unacceptable?

How does that work? How does "being President" change the game? Why can you lie in a documentary but not in a press conference?

For all its subjectivity, a documentary still purports to offer some version of the truth, even if it's only the creator's version. Moore hasn't come out and said he made things up, he hasn't backed off claims or edits - so he's still pushing the NRA-KKK connection as truth. Can you defend that? Can you find even a tiny connection between the two?

And when Cops runs footage of a scary black man being chased down by the police, that's not made up. When the 10 o' clock news leads with the rape/murder/robbery story every night, they're not making that story up either.

Moore is critical of what the media chooses to highlight. Seems to follow that we should be critical of what Moore chooses to highlight.

I just watched this movie, and I quite liked it. But I don't really buy Canada as a carbon copy of America. Moore's response to the pretty complex issue of race's relation to crime of "well, I went to Canada and found some black people at a carnival" didn't really satisfy me.

And for all his skewering of American foreign policy, including the bombings in Kosovo, how is it when he shows footage of the Holocaust (to illustrate Germany's violent past) he doesn't make the connection that American intervention can be a positive thing?

"If Bush wasn't President, if he was just a private citizen, but with the same media outlets and ability to control opinion that he has now" = if people lived on the sun and Mr. Pibb was the most popular soft-drink!! I mean wtf? milo your faux-naiveté - and continuing obsession w/the KKK insinuation Moore makes - which you continue to get wrong - baffles me. I didn't "defend it" but I offered an interpretation of what he meant, which others have agreed with. Why isn't that enough for you? Why insist on choosing the most extreme version of what he said in the face of more reasonable alternatives?

Why does being "President" matter? If you've got all the powers and privileges in this sphere that the President has, but without the office, does that make it OK to lie (as Moore did)? Is it something intrinsic to the office of the Presidency that creates new standards? Why and what are they?

You left off the part about Moore - if Moore was President, would that make his fallacious link unacceptable? Why or why not? Why don't the same standards apply to Bush and Moore?

1) Okay, there's the six year old boy who shot and killed a six year old girl at school. His mother is shown as a victim, because she works for a low wage in a shopping mall with a daily 80 minute bus ride commute. She couldn't pay her rent, was evicted, and moved in with her brother. The boy found his uncle's gun and took it to school. Moore says that his mother couldn't have known that he had the gun because she was on a commuter bus, going to work. WTF? Why is that relevant? He's not outraged that the uncle kept an unsecured gun around children? (That point was never mentioned).

2) I hate it when he's all pouty, when he doesn't get his way. Apparently, the forementioned mother worked at a Dick Clark restaurant, so Moore goes to hassle Dick Clark (again, WTF?!) as he's sitting in his car, ready to go. Clark says he's late, shuts the door on him, and a sullen Moore continues to ask questions to the departing car. It stinks of emotional manipulation (of which there are several more, worse examples).

ARGG. Moore has good ideas, and kudos to him for getting people to talk about the issues, but I just want to throttle him sometimes.

How does that work?

Yes, this has plenty of the negative hallmarks of a Moore film - somewhat dishonest edits, manipulative interviews, tenuous connections, etc. but in spite of all this I liked the film much more than I thought I would.

For one thing, I found it much more broad and impressionistic than I think people on this thread were making it out to be -- ultimately I'm not even sure he's making a clear argument for a certain cause of gun violence so much as making a patchwork portrait of certain aspects of American culture.

What he leaves out, and what I'm guessing is one of the main factors in our gun death rate, is the drug trade, which is simply not as much of an issue in Western countries with less stringent drug laws (thereby obviating the impetus for a violent drug business). But I don't know if the main point of the film is to arrive at the correct answer.

Moore is more effective at portraying the undercurrent of fear race relations has produced in this country and the more general culture of fear that underlies suburbanization. One of the most surprising moments of the film for me is when Moore interviews the "home security expert." At first, as he goes on about the "rapist or robber" lurking in suburban Colorado, I'm groaning a little at Moore's predictable use of this mark. But then Columbine comes up and the man, who presumably didn't lose any kids or nephews himself in the massacre, gets extremely choked up. I found this poignant, because it summed up why Columbine horrified people so much -- here was a suburban community built around the elimination of threats, and yet a menace seemingly twice as horrible as anything that could have come from the "bad neighborhoods" of Denver had suddenly materialized out of that ostensibly secure environment.

could someone help me with my homework?

am i wrong or does moore make a whole film about gun crime in the usa, and how the homicide rate is over 3x that of canada, but fails to mention drug trade-related violence?

yeah, that's what I said.

Homework?

well, 'review', but not of this film.

You should grab a megaphone and holler at him outside his house until he answers you.

this is the thing. it's a film about people following around michael moore during the promo tour for 'fahrenheit 9/11'. as a reviewer, i feel kind of redundant here.

Is it that one where there's all the con-tro-ver-sy about him speaking at that Utah junior college?

probably, yeah. guess i'll have to "weigh in".

Moral: Mormons get pissed, ROSEANNE BARR opens (=awesome).