Log in

View Full Version : Bowling for Columbine - Fraud



Anonymous
19th May 2003, 03:32
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Click the link, it's an easier read.


BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Documentary or Fiction?

-David T. Hardy-

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

1. Lockheed-Martin and Nuclear Missiles. Bowling contains a sequence filmed at a Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility near Columbine. Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters.

After Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.

Moore's website has his response:

"[T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "

Nice try, Mike.

(1) that some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting. Quote:

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

(2) One of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and converting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."



B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the movie: click here to see it frozen.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.



(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

A further question: is the end of the Heston interview faked?

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.



This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan.


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family.


Links:1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

5. The Taliban and American Aid. In discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. [Various numbers are given for the amount of the aid, and some say several million went for clearing landmines.]

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low.

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23).

After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation, and give figures about 2,000 higher than FBI.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying "Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist." Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like.

If Heston fails to explain this in Bowling, we've got to note that Moore (despite his claim that he left the interview almost unedited) cut a lot of the interview out. Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes. About three-quarters of what Heston did say was trimmed out. [Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have to await another investigation!]

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as another?

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there is art in this movie, it is this art -- a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

hazard
19th May 2003, 03:36
what I'd like to know is why only leftist movies based on reality are criticized for their accuracy in a public setting? why wasn't "blackhawk down" similarly criticized? oh thats right, propaganda is never publicly criticized.

Anonymous
19th May 2003, 03:49
Blackhawk down was a movie, NOT a documentary. Even the history channel did a special on what really happened in the battle of magodishu.

Palmares
19th May 2003, 04:48
Blackhawk Down was a crap film though. Bowling for Columbine was quite funny. Albeit, you have to realise Michael Moore is an idiot (despite being funny, and the only leftist media person surviving in the US) and is a capitalist pig.

I remember he refused to perfrom a gig when they wouldn't pay more than ... a bloody lot. Is it me, or does he only care about gun laws and racism?

Urban Rubble
19th May 2003, 05:01
Actually, Black Hawk Down wasn't all that different from in the film. Of course it was dramatized but most of the facts were real.

truthaddict11
19th May 2003, 15:58
He also gets facts wrong in his book Stupid White Men

Pete
19th May 2003, 16:03
Moore is an idiot. Some nice peace of lying liberality (note he is lying and he is liberal, that is how this statement fits). Blackhawk Down IS different then Bowling for Columbine. BHD says 'based upon a true story' which means 'do not believe anything as being true past the setting and that something marginally like this happened' I mean look at Braveheart or the Patriot, they are hardly what really happened and are made for money not information. Moore makes his movies to inform the public and when he lies he puts a bad name not only to himself but to all honest documentary makers out there. His TV show is full of generalizations it makes me sick. I personally do not like him, but others are obsessed with him :|

Tkinter1
20th May 2003, 07:03
I find it amusing that he has theonion.com listed as "the real news" on his site.

The Communist Threat
21st May 2003, 03:37
no, he doesn't only care about gunlaws or racism...he obviously cares about the working class...if you actually watched the movie or read his book...you assholes act like you never put a spin on anything....you must be honest with yourself, before you can see any truth....there is always going to be propaganda for anything...capitalism to communism...there is going to be propaganda....

no one can be fully trusted, therefore, there must always be doubt....without doubt, we are nothing....

YKTMX
21st May 2003, 13:29
I think Michael Moore is great, and made some very pertinent points in Bowling For Columbine. Personally I think Roger and Me is better, as it shows the utter dis-regard in which corporations hold workers.

Ymir
21st May 2003, 23:47
Good post, Dark Capitalist.

Anonymous
24th May 2003, 02:22
More typicall leftist remanufacturing of the truth and guns:

http://www.etherzone.com/2002/antl011102.shtml

Pete
24th May 2003, 02:27
Michael Moore is more of a petty bourgeoisie than anything else. I have read some of his stuff, watched The Big One and one of his TV shows. He is more about changing with in the system, but keeping the mechanics (which are a large part of the problem) the same.

EDIT: I would not call Moore leftist though Kelvin. Call him liberal, or libertarian.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 9:28 pm on May 23, 2003)

Anonymous
24th May 2003, 03:10
Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:27 am on May 24, 2003
Michael Moore is more of a petty bourgeoisie than anything else. I have read some of his stuff, watched The Big One and one of his TV shows. He is more about changing with in the system, but keeping the mechanics (which are a large part of the problem) the same.

EDIT: I would not call Moore leftist though Kelvin. Call him liberal, or libertarian.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 9:28 pm on May 23, 2003)


Leftist? OK, he certainly is not conservative right republican. Michael Bellesiles on the other hand was a poster boy for the academic/university leftist.

lostsoul
24th May 2003, 04:47
Quote: from Cthenthar on 4:48 am on May 19, 2003
Blackhawk Down was a crap film though. Bowling for Columbine was quite funny. Albeit, you have to realise Michael Moore is an idiot (despite being funny, and the only leftist media person surviving in the US) and is a capitalist pig.



Actually Blackhawk Down was pretty funny too. I found it pretty funny, how brave they made americians look in that movie. Little kids(americians) who never saw war somehow managed to kill 100's of somilians who have been in a civil war for year and years.

The ending of the movie was sad though. Its never good when some of the bad guys survive. (maybe their trying to make a part 2??)

nz revolution
24th May 2003, 14:37
I take it the bad guys are the Americans?

lostsoul
24th May 2003, 15:45
Quote: from nz revolution on 2:37 pm on May 24, 2003
I take it the bad guys are the Americans?

yes, what right did they have to invade that city? or any place? If you want freedom and rights then you have to fight for it. America only gives conditional freedom to its people(your free as long as you do this for me..) Everything they do is in their own intrest, (which wouldn't be so bad if they just admited it, but they lie and say its for the people whom they don't care about).

so yes, i think the Americian army are the bad guys.(their the muscle of the bad guys..but definality not the brain)

Anonymous
24th May 2003, 21:09
Quote: from lostsoul on 3:45 pm on May 24, 2003

Quote: from nz revolution on 2:37 pm on May 24, 2003
I take it the bad guys are the Americans?

yes, what right did they have to invade that city? or any placebrain)

It was the artifical famine caused by fighting war lords. Food was used as a weapon. The US Marines were used to guard convoys of food shipments from attack.

Guarding food shipments? Damn those evil evil evil US Marines.

BTW when was the last time you saw Cubans or Red Chinese send food shipments to starving forgeiners?

(Edited by kelvin9 at 9:12 pm on May 24, 2003)

Blibblob
24th May 2003, 22:15
BTW when was the last time you saw Cubans or Red Chinese send food shipments to starving forgeiners?
Does any other country have enought to send?

James
25th May 2003, 00:18
I read the smallest amount of stupid white man, and i hated it.

Saw him on Question time, and he pissed me off. ALOT.

kelvin90701
25th May 2003, 21:38
Quote: from Blibblob on 10:15 pm on May 24, 2003

BTW when was the last time you saw Cubans or Red Chinese send food shipments to starving forgeiners?
Does any other country have enought to send?


Yes other coutnries do have enough to send. India and Pakistan, both very poor in their own right were there in Somalia.

Another thread quotes that the USA spends 200 Billion a year on defense. Red countries also spend large sums on defense. The North Koreas and Chinas in the world do not have ending forgein famine very high on the list of things to do.

El Barbudo
26th May 2003, 01:22
Asian Communism... (Fucking Stalinist View of Communism)

Urban Rubble
26th May 2003, 01:57
About this BlackHawk Down thing, Lost Soul, what the fuck are you talking about ? I'm as anti-american as the next guy but how can you call trying to give food to starving people "evil" ? Ya, they fucked up bad in that operation but I wouldn't classify trying to arrest a warlord that intentionally starves people as evil.

lostsoul
26th May 2003, 02:24
Quote: from Urban Rubble on 1:57 am on May 26, 2003
About this BlackHawk Down thing, Lost Soul, what the fuck are you talking about ? I'm as anti-american as the next guy but how can you call trying to give food to starving people "evil" ? Ya, they fucked up bad in that operation but I wouldn't classify trying to arrest a warlord that intentionally starves people as evil.

well, i guess since i didn't study that topic fully i had no right to talk, but i was basically basing it on the movie, and a few arctiles i read about it.

If you read about Mao, Che, Fidil, Ho chi mihn..anyone who tried to do anything big, you will notice the oppisition will always label them as terrorists or criminials. (in "red star over china" it even says people started rumors that the red army surviced children before every battle, and that mao ate humans). And also it seemed like most of that city in the guns, if this was true and the leader was an asshole, why wouldn't they just over throw him?

i don't know, maybe i'm wrong on these ideas, but from thinking about it, i came to the conclusion either the media lied about the Somlian guy, or the movie was fake. (thats why i found the movie funny, cause i was watching it in a fictional point of view)

Anonymous
29th May 2003, 02:38
Quote: from Urban Rubble on 1:57 am on May 26, 2003
I'm as anti-american as the next guy

Just curious and way off thread, a more personal question. How do you define "anti-american"?

Does to go to mean:

1) You want Americans dead and want them to feel physical pain?
2) You want to burn our places of worship?
3) You want Americans role in the world to be poor and opressed?
4) You want vengance on the people of the USA?

Very extreme, but I suspect I am wrong. How do you define your anti-american goals and beliefs?

(Edited by kelvin9 at 2:39 am on May 29, 2003)

Pete
29th May 2003, 02:40
I would pick option 5) We are opposed to Americas presence in the world, and its bully like army which picks on the weaker nations while drawing from them in a form of neo-colonialism for the benifits of the American Motherland.

Anonymous
29th May 2003, 02:45
Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:40 am on May 29, 2003
I would pick option 5) We are opposed to Americas presence in the world, and its bully like army which picks on the weaker nations while drawing from them in a form of neo-colonialism for the benifits of the American Motherland.

Thanks. What do you think of 1 2 3 and 4?

Urban Rubble
29th May 2003, 03:09
Kelvin, this is what I mean by Anti American, I mean against the way this country is governed.

I, as well as my family are Americans, obviously I don't want myself and my family dead. I love my country and it's people, I hate the government and the shitty non caring attitudes of our people. I don't want us to be poor and oppresed, I want us to stop causing other nations to be poor and oppressed.

Lost Soul, the only thing outright fictional about Black Hawk Down is that they tried to blame the fuck ups of the army on "beareucrats".

This is what happened, Aidid was a warlord in control of most of the country. The way he did this was by seizing U.N (and U.S) food shipments and using starvation as a weapon. We went in to try to get him out and fucked up badly.

The reason the citizens don't overthrow him is because 1. They had no guns until they were handed out to them when the Americans were coming, and 2. They were more concerned with getting food for a day than organizing revolutions.

Of course the U.S media/goverment lied about things and blew them out of proportion, that's what they do. You could argue we should just stay out of it but I think this is one of the few times when we were actually trying to help out and instead of profit.

Urban Rubble
29th May 2003, 03:10
Also, LostSoul, I wasn't trying to be a dick in the post from a few days ago, I didn't realize I sounded like such an ass with the "what the fuck" comment.

Pete
29th May 2003, 03:11
Number 1-4 are American Media distorted images of what they believe the Anti-american is inorder to shine a bad light upon us. We want none of those things to happen -excepting a few cases where your politicians are being a bit too big of global jackasses. I have no hate for your people, but great disrespect and disdain for your establishment.

Anonymous
29th May 2003, 06:46
Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:11 am on May 29, 2003
Number 1-4 are American Media distorted images of what they believe the Anti-american is inorder to shine a bad light upon us. We want none of those things to happen -excepting a few cases where your politicians are being a bit too big of global jackasses. I have no hate for your people, but great disrespect and disdain for your establishment.

Cool. I beg to differ about other anti-americans. Yes there are people who want Americans do die. Not just the soldiers, but good honest folks who go to work trying to feed thier families. Not to get rich, but to just have enough to eat. Generous people who if asked would try to ease the suffering of the people trying to kill them. There are people trying to kill Americans who are peacefull people. Do you think anyone could fit that description who died in 9/11? If people like that above died in 9/11, then thier media distorted image is well deserved.