[MikeD]

Er, I meant, BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.


OK, just returned from the theater and boy, do I have some things to get off my chest. What an exercise for for smug psuedo-everythings. Allow me to elaborate...

The movie says 2 separate things and never resolves them or even attempts to.

1) Guns are not the problem...it's society. Witness Canada, where guns are plenty yet society is peaceful. (Yet still consumes the same movies, etc. as America)

2) This aside, guns seem pretty darn bad and should be somehow eradicated or heavily controlled.

He just shrugs at the 'why' of the violence. Treat the disease, not the symptoms, man! I could give my Jean-Paul Sartre wannabe dissertation on what I think has gone wrong in our society, but I'll spare you for another post.

Moore recites ad nausem the stat of 11,000+ Americans killed per year with guns. Yet, he never addresses the fact that the freak occurances at Columbine and a few other schools account for a (statistically!) insignificant portion of these deaths. (Yes, every death is significant, and Columbine can't be trivialized...but it's NOT a major cause of death in the country, sorry!)

He never addresses that the Wal-Mart legal guns against which he's lashing out also play a very, very minor role in the 11,000 dead. A lot of people kill one another with guns besides the whitebread suburbanites Moore so derides. And, by the way, a lot of suburbs exist without the freakish firearm subculture that Moore constructs for us. Accidental gun deaths are pretty rare, and a lot of other household products/toys/cars whatever kill people of all ages by the tens/hundreds/thousands.

But GUNS are dramatic! As are the freaks and their massacres at Columbine! They're designed to kill, unlike the other things that kill more people! AND THEY SELL MOVIES...! Much like the one Moore made! [$9 a pop, baby!]

While weepily decrying or bitterly satirizing America's Culture of Fear and its capitalist purveyors, Moore is taking a very, very rare occurance (random mass murder) and making a movie about it, spreading...yes!...FEAR! Fear of something far less likely to harm or affect you than the burglaries, robberies, and the like that Moore trivializes. And looking so sorrowful about American violence the whole time through....at least until he faces towards the ATM and makes his deposit. I bet his fat face grins just a little at that point.

Personally, I'm not even a huge believer in gun ownership as family protection, or the sanctity of an imaginary Second Amendment right to own guns for personal use, but Moore's just a jackass making a buck here.

MD

PS Making fun of Bush and Heston? How easy and cheap is that...come ON. Pick on some 2nd graders, too. It's good for a laugh, but not for a serious commentary. Heston does for gun owners what Queer Nation does for gays.

PPS Oh...and Mr. Moore...come on. The ONLY reason Canada's politics look so great and goody-goody is that American foriegn policy sustains the entire Western/European consumerist way of life and standard of living. So they don't have to do any of the dirty work. Nor do the ever-complaining French.

PPPS I should wait until I've had more time to make my beefs with the movie crystalline. But screw it...I'm just gonna post and let myself get cut to ribbons. I guess I'll use the input for when I make a more public case or something.

PPPPS Really, it might not have been that bad. The movie just doesn't address the complexities of the issue...doesn't delve, as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would have had us do.

 

[LordOpie]

while i didn't see the movie, I applaud your post.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by MikeD

PPS Oh...and Mr. Moore...come on. The ONLY reason Canada's politics look so great and goody-goody is that American foriegn policy sustains the entire Western/European consumerist way of life and standard of living. So they don't have to do any of the dirty work. Nor do the ever-complaining French.

Dunno much about the US gun situation so I'll only comment on the above bit..

Do any of us Western Europeans get a say in the US foreign policy which sustains us? Can we not have an opinion? Or must we simply take what we are given and be grateful for it?

 

[Deyv]

Originally posted by MikeD


PPS Oh...and Mr. Moore...come on. The ONLY reason Canada's politics look so great and goody-goody is that American foriegn policy sustains the entire Western/European consumerist way of life and standard of living. So they don't have to do any of the dirty work. Nor do the ever-complaining French.

Thank you all mighty americans for looking out for us clueless Canadian

 

[Squeak]

Originally posted by Deyv


Thank you all mighty americans for looking out for us clueless Canadian

Your welcome! :devil:

Total joke there. I need to check out this movie so I can get all mad and depressed and stuff! Woo hoo!

 

[MikeD]

Originally posted by Deyv


Thank you all mighty americans for looking out for us clueless Canadian

I apologize for being such an ass and knocking the good people of Canada. I still believe in the essence of my statement, but wish I'd re-stated what I said to make myself a little more clear.

I've got no beef with Canada, and I am very envious of some things Canadian society enjoys over my own. However, I think Moore is wrong when he blames American foriegn policy for the evils of our society.

I heartily agree with Moore's train of thought that faults our society for the violence and evil it harbors, not the tools of the violence. And he cites Canada as a place which proves that it's the people.

However, I think the foriegn policies of both countries are rather a reflection of the respective societies, contra Moore's viewpoint. I think Canada has a major leg up on the US in the 'health' of its society. Its politics reflect that. I still think, however, that as horrible as a lot of US foriegn policy has been, it's been done for the entire Western world...(at work now, no time to write an exposition on this; it'd require a book to substantiate that...plus, I'm ignorant and probably can't back it up anyhow.)

And I think change is on the horizon; major realignments and adjustments of power going on in the near future, accompanied by a lot of chaos and perhaps a reduction of the US's global role. (Only problem I have with that is precedent...US isolationism has been arguably a fomenting factor in 2 world wars...but I think conditions are different now than they were in the early 20th century, and times are about to get very interesting.)

MD

PS I have a unique ability to alienate myself from both sides of any argument...I see merit in too many people's points of view, and can never sit with one party line exclusively. I also have a unique ability to lose debates by conceeding that an opposing point has merit, but is simply not the side I choose to be on.

 

[fluff]

There is a persistent myth that the US acts in interests other than its own, a sort of philanthropy of the state. Now before any US citizens get all riled up at me here, no other state is any different. US foreign policy will, at times, help other nations (a very good example is the Marshall plan and investment in Europe and Japan to help rebuilding after WWII). It is also true however that the US has benefitted hugely from that investment as well as gaining allies and strategic positions in its desire for self-protection (e.g. a great buffer against the Soviet Bloc threat during the Cold War).

The fall of the Soviet Union has highlighted less benevolent sides of US foreign policy however. They now appear to be greedy.

 

[MikeD]

Not gonna argue that the US is not greedy; nothing we have done has been pure philanthropy. There's a selfish motive in everything...including the isolationism and/or lack of foriegn involvement of some other nations. Then again, what exactly are we getting by freely pouring aid dollars into other nations?

Future consumers of Levi jeans, I suppose. Which will be great, because once their standard of living is up and they realize they want consumer goods instead of martyrdom, the mullahs and ayatohllahs and everyone else who is currently holding 3d world countries in ignorance and exhorting the poor to kill themselves in order to keep the rich, powerful, and manipulative on top.

Then they'll all be good little consumers like the rest of us. Choose your poison. I'd rather have my girlfriend in Levis than a Burqua.

I don't think the US public thought that it'd be easy to get rich by killing Nazis back in 1940, however. Some defense contractors probably did...but I wouldn't put their influence as the primary motive behind the US saving all of Europe and Asia from genocidal societies on the rampage.

Anyhow, sorry for offending, once again. I'll do some reading and see if I can support my own thesis. If not, I'll be glad to change my mind. And maybe move to Canada, because it's awful nice there. And my savings will double in value as well! Win-win situation, says I.

MD

 

[ummbikes]

Moore, is a huckster. He is PT Barnum with a camera. His is a world of almost correct ideas, nearly logical arguements, and mostly accurate information. That aside if you go into a Moore film with the knowledge that your watching a psuedo-documentry film, then they are quite funny and intresting entertainment.

Oh, Canadian's are cool, I'm not sure about the French:devil: , and I have a good friend who had the misfortune to be born in London, and she is alright accept for that accent, I mean whats up with the accent, they get American TV there, they need to learn the darn language....

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Oh, Canadian's are cool, I'm not sure about the French:devil: , and I have a good friend who had the misfortune to be born in London, and she is alright accept for that accent, I mean whats up with the accent, they get American TV there, they need to learn the darn language....

You're just jealous dude, the chicks over there love this accent. And the best bit is that they can't tell the difference between a classy English accent and the White Trash end of the equation....

....listen and weep..

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by MikeD

I don't think the US public thought that it'd be easy to get rich by killing Nazis back in 1940, however. Some defense contractors probably did...but I wouldn't put their influence as the primary motive behind the US saving all of Europe and Asia from genocidal societies on the rampage.
MD

I actually agree with almost everything you wrote... just wanted to quickly address the above: we got involved because we knew if Hitler won, he wasn't stopping at the Atlantic. Imagine a Cold War in which we battled both the USSR AND the New Holy Roman Empire...

Anyway, I prefer to think of Moore's films/standup not as a circus, but as extended political cartoons. They stretch the truth and hyperbolize to make their point more apparent. Not much different than any aspect of politics really, he just manages to weave in homur so that people will pay attention. See "the Big One" for what I'm talking about. It didn't paint the whole economic picture, but it drew a lot of attention to the problems of corporate and executive greed...

But great commentary, MikeD. Not many people are willing to criticize after walking out of "Columbine" (which I haven'tseen yet, by the way)

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by fluff
Do any of us Western Europeans get a say in the US foreign policy which sustains us? Can we not have an opinion? Or must we simply take what we are given and be grateful for it?

Fluff... my man... I have told you time and again... YES, YES, YES. It's our policy so shut up or we'll take your sneekers away. Again.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by Deyv


Thank you all mighty americans for looking out for us clueless Canadian

D Day Liberation/Invasion force: Canada 100,000 - US 3,000,000.

 

[MikeD]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Moore, is a huckster. He is PT Barnum with a camera. His is a world of almost correct ideas, nearly logical arguements, and mostly accurate information. That aside if you go into a Moore film with the knowledge that your watching a psuedo-documentry film, then they are quite funny and intresting entertainment.

Damn!

Couldn't have said it better myself! If he just had been out to make fun of a bunch of freakish gun nuts, it'd have been very entertaining.

MD

 

[rbx]

why is it then that the majority of these weird crimes(snipper shooting,columbine)that serve no political function are mostly found in the u.s?

 

[MikeD]

That's one of the things I fault Moore for. He poses that question, then doesn't provide (for me) a satisfactory answer, or even a truly coherent or thorough explaination.

Moore answers that with 2 things...a 'culture of fear' that pervades the US (to the benefit of capitalists), then implies that it's also US foriegn policy that causes it. That really fails to answer it for me. It's just sort of superficial, and I regard the foriegn policy argument as flawed.

Basically, the movie covers these issues, but fails to link them...Gun violence is prevalent in the US. Yet, Columbine-like violence is very rare, comparitively. (Moore addresses Columbine, but forgets to name the forces behind the other 11,000 dead.)

However, this freakish stuff still only happens in the US! He's careful to point that out, but, as I said, I find his arguments incomplete and his omissions damning.

Are the same things causing random, freakish gun violence as are causing more 'normal' violence?

In America's history, there has been a lot of gun-and-weapon related violence. In fact, it's lessened in recent years, compared to, say, 1935. However, in the past, it was more comprehensible...'Joe's sleeping with my wife. I'm gonna go and shoot Joe.' Or, 'Those competing bootleggers wouldn't ruin my profit if I shot one and stabbed the others.' Whereas now, the violence is far more random and less easily explained, at least the most publicized kind...random drive-by shootings for gang initiation, school massacres, serial killer snipers, etc.

As to my stance on the issue, well, that's a long one, and it's generally just a rant about modern society. I can't answer what's so specific to American society that causes these problems.
In general, though, I'd say that the loss of real consequence in modern society and a separation from day-to-day natural violence, disease, horror, and death in Western life is making us feel disaffected...too insulated from reality, too unfamiliar with how tragic death really is, and, in a way, powerless. Some of the disaffected people turn to violence, and have now established a cultural pattern... violence is now the mark, license, and birthright of the disaffected in our society. It's what's expected of them now, so they use it. Hence Columbine. Which America experienced through the deadening lens of a TV camera, and tried to weep for, but was, in the end, more fascinated by than repelled.


Gotta go...ball to attend...must cheer up.

MD

 

[Sideways]

Theres not much I can argue with here.
I pretty much agree with MikeD and Ohio.

I'll say that I left the movie asking my freinds:
"What the heck was the point?"

We talked about the various issues that were glossed over, discussing connections and conclusions that were made.

While he doesn't say "Here is the source of the problem!", I think the point was "Here are some problems that you should concider."

Moore captures your attention, holds it, and leaves lots of room to think for yourself. He gives you the "other side", so your beleifs on the topics can be more balanced.

While I certainly left craving conclusion and found none, I do think he gives us the media as a topic of greater speculation. Without a doubt, the media is not this idealistic, un-biased entity that we are raised to beleive. What I think Moore has done best with this movie is present this truth and offer a potential medium for alternative news source.

Moore is quite a clever guy, and I hope he inspires more folks to engage in alternative media. The stories are currently overly one sided do to the source of their funding. Bowling for Columbine is obviously a lower budget film that both captures attention and presents alot of behind the scenes news. It can be done!

 

[MikeD]

bump, just 'cuz we're still talking about Michael Moore.

Edit after re-reading this for the first time in a year: Fluff, I have re-thought many times over what I said about America being the reason other countries like Canada get to live how they do. I'm still not sure what the truth is on that. It's a big question.

 

[valve bouncer]

bump, just 'cuz we're still talking about Michael Moore.

Ya cunny funt.

 

[MikeD]

Man, I wish the huge arguments we had in the Lounge on this movie were still around. It got a lot more interesting than this initial thread.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Um, I was interested to see both the movies, but unless they are free to me, I cant force myself to give the guy any of my money, cause it just means more of his crap in the future at my expense. I have seen enough clips and read enough to have a general idea that I hate him though.

 

[MikeD]

Um, I was interested to see both the movies, but unless they are free to me, I cant force myself to give the guy any of my money, cause it just means more of his crap in the future at my expense. I have seen enough clips and read enough to have a general idea that I hate him though.

You can always buy a ticket to Shrek or whatever and sneak in to the other theater. That's what I'd planned on doing, and never got around to it. Renting his movies, though, I don't think gives any royalties directly back to him, right?

MD

 

[Damn True]

Wow, I don't recall seeing this thread.

Moore is a putz.

I am so bloody sick of hearing libs deify him.

 

[Jesus]

You can always buy a ticket to Shrek or whatever and sneak in to the other theater. That's what I'd planned on doing, and never got around to it. Renting his movies, though, I don't think gives any royalties directly back to him, right?

MD

I look at it as supporting my neighborhood video store. Cause I won't pay to see it in the theatres.

 

[bpatterson6]

Not gonna argue that the US is not greedy; nothing we have done has been pure philanthropy. There's a selfish motive in everything...including the isolationism and/or lack of foriegn involvement of some other nations. Then again, what exactly are we getting by freely pouring aid dollars into other nations?

Future consumers of Levi jeans, I suppose.
I would rather have my girlfriend in Levis than a Burqua.
MD

For once I agree with you on the above statement!

 

[genpowell71]

I gotta go with Burly on this. I wont spend my money to give that freak a trip to McD's. If it was free, then I'd go.

But I think that the point was made that he's all about the money and thats it

 

[fluff]

bump, just 'cuz we're still talking about Michael Moore.

Edit after re-reading this for the first time in a year: Fluff, I have re-thought many times over what I said about America being the reason other countries like Canada get to live how they do. I'm still not sure what the truth is on that. It's a big question.

It's clearly complex and would vary from nation to nation. For example, the UK has closely aligned itself with the US over the last two or three years and as a result cetain aspects of our interaction with countries other than the US is coloured by US foreign policy. A nation such as Sweden with greater independence of action will be viewed and treated differently. It would be impossible to measure the effect though.

 

[Changleen]

I'd say that the loss of real consequence in modern society and a separation from day-to-day natural violence, disease, horror,[c-n.b. terror?] and death in Western life is making us feel disaffected...too insulated from reality, too unfamiliar with how tragic death really is, and, in a way, powerless.

This is what I've been saying, all along...