Fahrenheit 911

[mikeyvegas]

Since this is the other topics area, I figured this would be a nice place to post this. I just got back from watching Fahrenheit 911 and I have had a lot of thoughts running through my head since. First off I should preface this post with saying that I am from Michigan and have many friends from Flint, Mi. I felt that Michael Moore's film "Roger and me" was a slap to the face of the people of Flint and still resent him for making this film. I also should add that I am a life long(all of 27yrs) member of the democratic party.

With that said, as a movie(and not commentary) I really liked this film. It did everything a great film should do, evoked every human emotion in the span of 2 1/2 hours. It had points where I laughed, became angry, and I won't lie, there were some points in the movie where the room got a dusty and my eyes may have moistened a bit.

The reason I post this is to hear what you all thought of this as a movie. Comments on its "message" are also welcome, but I'm more interested in what you thought of it as a movie.

I guess the last thing I would like to say on this would be whenever I watch a movie I always like to be able to describe it to my friends in either a single phase or word. For example I described "Swingers" as so f*cking money (for obvious reasons) and "The Big Lebowski" as funny, but even funnier the second time. After watching Fahrenheit 911 the only word I could think of was Important.

I think I'm getting too serious, I going to pop in the first season of "The Dave Chappelle's Show" crack open a cold beer.

Good times....

Mike E. Vegas

[GWB]

I always liked watching Moore's films. Very entertaining despite the obvious distortions and deliberate emotional manipulation (same with his TV shows). I look forward to seeing this one.

On the other hand, I am sure there were people left in an emotional state after viewing Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. So I can't just dismiss as inconsequential the deliberate lies that will have a negative impact on our society.

What did you think of Moore's "Pets or Meat", his follow up to "Roger and Me"?

[jokerswild]

It's a hard hitting reality of the Bush agenda. Of course, the true press should have asked most of these questions.
The true deer in the headlights look of Bush listening to children read on 9-11-01 after he had been informed of both the attacks in NY does not inspire confidence.

[ThaSaltCracka]

The best line in the film came from the father whose son died in Iraq. "I feel for the loss or my son, but I feel worse for those families whose sons and daughters are still dying over there, and for what?"
I just saw the movie as well, and there were many funny parts, most of them relating to Bush. However, there were many sad and disturbing scenes. I heard many people crying, as well as many people laughing. The most shocking part for me though, was watching the Iraq women cry about the death of her family member. She screams out for revenge against the US and cries to God. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater at that point.... the crowd was speechless to say the least.

This will be the biggest movie for this weekend. There were long lines for this movie, and many showings were sold out. This is a must see for everyone.

[Chris Alger]

I enjoyed it while I was watching it, except for the signature stunts. By the time I got home, however, I realized I was disappointed, although I'd recommend it to everyone.

I think the best parts were the voices of the troops and the theme of exploiting the marginally employable to fight for causes with as relevant to them as the Crusades. Most viewers will also get more substance from this movie than they will from 100 hours of network news. (Judging from the audience reaction, people are starving for better explanations).

Biggest beefs:

1. Any film criticizing a war should an explanation for it coherent enough to be articulated by the average uninformed viewer. Instead, Moore makes a half-hearted attempted to link truly damning facts with vague, barely plausible theories of personal corruption.

2. Although Moore disputes nearly every important message in the mainstream about the "war on terrorism," Afghanistan and Iraq, he devotes about five minutes or to the subject of the media, and most of those are set-ups for laughs. I got the impression that Moore was reluctant to suggest that the Bush's wars are the result of anything but a dumb President with a corrupt administration. Indeed, Moore does more to buttress than knock down the notion that the country can be saved by this year's liberal hero, a persistent, stupid and destructive myth among left-lites.

3. Moore makes his point about White House lying, but the scope of official and semi-official lying isn't emphasized enough. Maybe it's because Moore believes everyone that will pay to see this film already believes it. I suspect that Moore is trying to avoid the larger issue of why it succeeded so well.

4. Moore's eye for footage is excellent, but he never rises above his image of class clown with a splicer. He doesn't try to answer hard questions or even acknowledge that they exist.

5. Overall, Moore's style doesn't mesh well with the gravity of his topic. The film works best as a light comic send-up of The George Bush Show and the exploitation of 9-11 hysteria. Moore doesn't offer the Iraqi victims of U.S. bombing, for example, whom he quotes with heartbreaking effect, many of the answers they're looking for.

6. Moore ignored a lot of good stories in favor of cheap sentiment. There's nothing in the film about Abu Ghraib, John Walker Lindh, Valerie Plame, the Dean campaign, the post-invasion rhetoric shift from WMD to "liberation," the right-wing obsession with seizing on every hoax and half-truth like bones thrown to particularly dumb dogs, war support by Senate democrats (Kerry's pro-war vote is ignored), and, as if it were the third rail of the antiwar movement, Israel-Palestine, where Bush's effect has been as pernicious as anywhere else.

7. Moore doesn't try hard enough to resolve the contradictions he creates by throwing everything he can at Bush: The war in Afghanistan is wrong, but Bush didn't send enough troops; Bush overplays the war on terrorism, Bush doesn't do enough to defend us from terror; the troops are trigger-happy, the troops are victims; Bush is a master of deceit, Bush is a moron. It's not that these issues are hard to resolve, it's just that Moore is too busy on the offensive to seem consistent.

8. Without some explanation of why the Supreme Court was wrong, the entire opening sequence about the "stolen" election was a waste of time. Making it look like Fox News was in on the fix was even sillier, especially since Fox is guilty of worse than saddling us with Bush.

[jokerswild]

Moore only had a couple of hours to expalin in some way to the majority of politically ignorant Americans some aspects of the neocon abyss. In this respect, I think that he purposely gives the public only as much sadness and hard material that it will digest with humor.
The film doesn't portray Bush as corrupt per se, but rather an elist, arrogant, spoiled brat of below average intelligence. This may in fact be true.
Kerry would have major difficulties attempting to correct the damage done to the US budget, and the debacle in Iraq. At this point, however, the prospect of a second Bush steal will lead to a return to the draft, probable invasion of Iran, and destruction of the US social program safety net.
Kerry and the other Deomocrats voted to give Bush authority to act. They didn't necessarily vote for immediate invasion without international support, nor exhaustion of the weapons inspector process.
The press, on the other hand, is as guilty as any. The press knew at least weeks before the invasion that it would transpire, and more or less when. The imbedded reporters had preparation. The networks surely planned weeks in advance of the invasion.

[natedogg]

jw:At this point, however, the prospect of a second Bush steal will lead to a return to the draft, probable invasion of Iran, and destruction of the US social program safety net.

I for one can't wait to see the "US social program safety net destroyed" if I'm correct in assuming that you refer to Social Security. Even if you're only talking about Medicare, Bush has increased the spending on that program so I don't get what you mean.

natedogg

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
the prospect of a second Bush steal

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean my steal defense. The other guys tried to parlay a 1700 vote loss into a win, but I defended the voters and made sure their actual votes counted in the end.

[cardcounter0]

The increase in Medicare spending goes directly to the large campain contributor drug companies.

Free Trade works for everything, except when it comes to buying prescription drugs from Canada.

[trippin bily]

At this point, however, the prospect of a second Bush steal will lead to a return to the draft, probable invasion of Iran, and destruction of the US social program safety net.
Kerry and the other Deomocrats voted to give Bush authority to act. They didn't necessarily vote for immediate invasion without international support, nor exhaustion of the weapons inspector process.
I can't let this go by without a response. There can be no second Bush steal since there was no 1st Bush steal. There were about 47 recounts by all the leftie organizations.Bush won all. If not they would all be screeching at the top of their collective lungs how Bush really lost. Lets not completely rewrite history.
Also there are many reasons to vote against Bush. Don't resort to the tired old mantra of Bush detroying the " safety net " it is a lie and not necessary to win your argument.
One more thing.. complete revisionest history on what the dems voted for. They voted for war and knew it. Hold them as accountable as Bush. They saw the same intel reports and came up with the same conclusion. However wrong it may have been.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
There were about 47 recounts by all the leftie organizations.Bush won all. If not they would all be screeching at the top of their collective lungs how Bush really lost. Lets not completely rewrite history.

[/ QUOTE ]
You really need to fire whoever it is that reads the paper to you.

[jokerswild]

If planned disenfranchisement of Afican-Americans is your idea of counting, and you are truly Bush, then you are a larger moron than Moore's videos of Bush reveals him to be.

Every recount that counted all the counties (excluding the Bush tampered African American vote) had Gore winning the election. I won't go into the fabricated military vote, the stuffing of the ballots in Cuban exile communities with pre-punched Bush ballots, nor the brown shirt tactics used by flown in Republican operatives to intimidate Broward county.

Scalia and Thomas saw immediate financial gain in their families and actually had offspring and a spouse working on the Bush campaign. Moore didn't touch upon an apparent familial mental disorder claimed by Neil in
Colorado courts: the inability to recognize a conflict of interest.

[jokerswild]

You are referring solely to the 4 counties that actually recounted within the Supreme Crook time limit. All recounts done that included every Florida county had Gore winning. This process took a small amount of time longer than the Suprem Crook agenda mandated. Your post is an excellent example of why people should see this film. The majority of Americans don't read or compare sources. They apparently believe FOX news.

[Utah]

Every recount that counted all the counties (excluding the Bush tampered African American vote) had Gore winning the election

You are sure mouthing off a lot. I guess it would be pretty embarrassing for you if you had your facts wrong.

Simple challenge to you - provide a link to the recount resulted conducted by a major newspaper or credible organization that has Gore winning the election.

Bonus challenge - provide a link to a credible source showing specific cases of how the african american vote was tampered.

I won't go into the fabricated military vote, the stuffing of the ballots in Cuban exile communities with pre-punched Bush ballots, nor the brown shirt tactics used by flown in Republican operatives to intimidate Broward county.

Please, feel free to go into it. You have dug the hole and you might as well leap into it head first.

[jokerswild]

The threatening tone of your reply does not deserve a reply.
Suffice it to say that none other than Matt Drudge ran articles about 20k ballots being exchanged in Dade County because they had already been marked for Bush. The NAACP has sued Florida which admits it made a "mistake" in disenfranchising African-Americans. The military fabricated votes with post marks past the cut-of date.


I know brown shirt thugs with IQ's as low as yours have difficulty doing searches on engines such as Yahoo. I'd explain it to you, but I don't think that you could comprehend it. Do several. Read every hit. Maybe you can't read. You might be doomed to listening to Fox news.

[GWB]

It is common for the loser to dredge up a bunch of things that might have changed the result. When someone loses a game in sports, the first thing you hear is about the "bad" call the official made. The losers conveniently forget that there were just as many "bad" calls on the other side.

Don't forget these:
Media calls of Florida for Gore before polls closed in Republican leaning panhandle of Florida.
Gore memo to contest all absentee ballots whether valid or not.
The Palm Beach butterfly ballot red herring to buy time for pro-Gore vote manipulation.
Redefining ballot standards multiple times to increase Gore votes (ie pin prick of light standard)
Broward's decision to assume a vote for Democrat Senate candidate was sufficient proof of intent to vote for Gore (Dem. senate candidate won in landslide, so this was obviously not accurate and produced hundreds of manufactured Gore votes)
and many more

The fact that the disputed counties all had Democratic majority elections boards led to many pro-Gore slants in the vote counting. Bottom line, the election was not even close to being won by 537 votes.




Now clear your mind and be prepared for a major "ah-haa" moment:




The 1700 vote original tally is closer to the truth. This is the result we got before either side had an incentive to manipulate the vote, for the simple reason that they just didn't know that it would be close. In fact when the vote tallying on election night was happening, everyone had heard that a winner of Florida had been called, so there was no need to bias the vote.

Ponder that for a while - we actually had an unbiased count before the spin doctors and lawyers got involved. If nothing else, this should give you comfort that a Bush win probably actually occured, followed by 36 days of spin that has muddled that original simple fact forever.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Number one movie over the weekend too with $21.8 Million..... It beat out White Chicks !!!

BTW, Moore apparently thanked the many conservative groups for giving him so much free publicity, even though they tried just about everything to prevent the movie from being seen. What a great group of Americans!!!!

[elwoodblues]

Talk Radio did for Fahrenheit 911 what Fox News did for Al Franken's book.

I've heard several people this morning talking about how many young people were at the movie. Whether this is a result of the controversy or something else, I don't know. Because of the youth factor, I'm wondering how this will affect the elections. Will youth who see this movie be more likely to a) show up on election day and b) vote for someone other than Bush.

[sfer]

I saw it last night and I was about the 5th oldest person in the theater, which was packed. I'm 29.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the youth factor, I'm wondering how this will affect the elections. Will youth who see this movie be more likely to a) show up on election day and b) vote for someone other than Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both a) and b)... This doesn't neccesarily mean they will vote for Kerry, but most likely not for Bush.

The showing I saw wasn't neccesarily filled with young people, it was probably half and half, but I think everyone enjoyed the film. Rarely do I hear people clap at the end of a movie, but just about everyone did at the end of this one.

[Chris Alger]

Newsday (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm)

[Utah]

The threatening tone of your reply does not deserve a reply
Then why did you reply?

Suffice it to say that none other than Matt Drudge ran articles about 20k ballots being exchanged in Dade County because they had already been marked for Bush. The NAACP has sued Florida which admits it made a "mistake" in disenfranchising African-Americans. The military fabricated votes with post marks past the cut-of date.
Post the link to this. If you are right I will be the first to admit that I am wrong. But, please note, Matt Drudge is not a respected source. Its such a simple challenge - surely you can do it.

I know brown shirt thugs with IQ's as low as yours have difficulty doing searches on engines such as Yahoo.
Okay, another simple challenge. I dont know you but I will wager $500 that I can beat you in a menza monitored IQ test. We will get a neutral party to oversee. If you are going to mouth off you better be able to back it up. The bet is real.

[Utah]

Thanks Chris,

Although Newsday is hardly neutral, there is not reason to doubt the story. However, the article you link to also states that the supreme court did not affect the outcome of the election. This would tend to nullify the argument still made by many on the left that the supreme court stole the election. I can see an argument that they INTENDED to steal the election, but they did not put Bush in the White House.

None the less, the fact that the intent of the voters argument would have placed Gore as president is interesting.

[daryn]

i like this. kudos to you Utah! jokerswild, where are you?


i didn't vote in the last election, and i might vote in this one. if i do vote this time around, i doubt i'll vote for bush. i don't have much against him, but i really like to be for a candidate to vote for him. needless to say, i won't vote for kerry. maybe i should just vote for myself.

[Boris]

Actually I would like to see an IQ challenge between Jokerswild and the real George Bush. Would you be willing to put your $500 on our fearless leader?

[jokerswild]

Unfortunately, you are just another Heil Bush Nazi.
Why don't you make some more serious threats than posturing yourself like the cowboy. Maybe you will "smoke me out." Or maybe you should tell me to "bring it on."

[sameoldsht]

Man, the far left sure bought this one hook line and sinker already (just like Bowling for Columbine). Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me. Suckers. I won't bother wasting $7 or $8 seeing this piece of fiction. If I want to see another fake conspiracy theory, I'll watch re-runs of the X-Files. They're free...and "moore" entertaining (hehe).

I got a good price on the Brooklyn Bridge - interested in that too?

Farfromright re:9/11 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)

Blurringfacts re:Columbine (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

[ACPlayer]

Okay, another simple challenge. I dont know you but I will wager $500 that I can beat you in a menza monitored IQ test. We will get a neutral party to oversee. If you are going to mouth off you better be able to back it up. The bet is real.

Now, now boys. Dont forget that the combined IQ of all the Other Topics poster is about 25 (proof: if it was more, they would all be doing other things with their time - QED).
Perhaps a contest comparing penile lengths would be more appropriate.

[Chris Alger]

He really got under your skin didn't he? It's "fiction" and "fake" but you can't spot any bad facts, can't even bring yourself to watch it, and have to link to an article claiming "lies" in the headline but failing to identify any, settling in the end for "innuendo." INNUENDO! AND USED TO BESMIRCH BUSH'S DEVOTION TO HONESTY! IT'S OUTRAGEOUS -- IT'S SICK, OBSCENE -- IT'S AIEEEEEEEEEEEE!

The best part about this film is watching the right stumble all over itself trying to avoid defend the clown that they've totemized into an object of worship (like Peggy Noonan: Bush is seeming more and more "like a blessing"). Since about 90% of the film is unimpeachable, they literally can't find words and it makes them apoplectic. You can see them on TV trying to cover their incandescent rage with canned mealy-mouthed cliches and half-thoughts, like yours. These are the dwindling faithful, abandoned by erstwhile pro-Bushites who started distancing themselves, oh, around Friday afternoon.

Okay, let's say I concede that everything in Moore's movie is an outright lie, a wholesale fabrication with as much to do with reality as the Wizard of Oz. This joke of a movie will probably send the most powerful Republican in the country to his political grave and permanently tag his faithful followers as morons. HEEE HEEE HEEE HEEE HAW HAW HAW.

I haven't had this much fun since "Christpiss."

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should really watch the film so that you can see Bush's version of this. It is pure gold /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jokerswild]

Honestly, I feel sorrow for Americans like you that are so afraid to view other perceptions held by a large percentage of the population. Any challenge to the cult of the personality disturbs this type. Adorno wrote of this type. None other than Ike preached against it. The problem with your type is that you seek to enforce your warped view of history on others by force. At that point the sorrow ends. The time will come when each American will have to choose to stand for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or stand against them.

That time most likely is election day 2004.

[jokerswild]

Ok, If you can top 180 then you might have me beat.Of course, I doubt that you understand the testing process. I would prefer the standard Stanford-Binet.

[craig r]

i would book it..i think a fair line would be:

Jokers -350
GWB +350

I have so much confidence in my line, that i won't even charge any vig.

[jdl22]

Is this the GWB that posts here or the actual George W. Bush?

[craig r]

the real gwb. no, that line would not be fair against the one who posts on here. i think he is much smarter and intelligent than his posts would make one think. i don't even know if the bush on here is serious.

craig

[nicky g]

My understanding is that the Supreme Court did in effect affect the outcome, because they said that on the one hand that the fairest course to take would be a statewide recount, but that there was no time to do it, so Bush won. They didn't affect it in the sense that if they had have agreed to what Gore was pushing for Bush still would have won, but if they had have ordered what they (rightly) said was the fairest course of action, he wouldn't. Of course, as with much of that fiasco, much of the blame lies with Gore's incompetence here.

On one of the minority voter-related issues, see this article: Palast Article (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/ING2976LG61.DTL)

Another minority-related issue was the felon-barring issue, which had two aspects: firstly, people who had committed felonies on other states were illegally barred from voting in Florida (Florida law states that only people who ahve committed felonies in Flordia can't vote). Given teh make up of the US prison population, this again disproportionately affected black voters. THe second issue was people being barred because of an error-ridden databse that confused numerous non-felons with felons of the same name. You might think that wouldn;t matter because the names would be randomly distributed; however, accoridn to Palsast that partly isn'ty ture bevcause of the legacy of shared slave-ear names (I've no idea if that's a resonable assumption) and more importantly because one of the fields the databse used was race - hence it would only bar you if you had the same name as a convicted felon and you were of the same race (although as with a range of other things they screwed this up quite a lot) - again disporportionately affecting black voters. There's some stuff on this here (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2) and here (Inquiry into new claims of poll abuses in Florida (by Julian Borger and Gregory Palast)) (same author as the previous article).

On the intent issue you refer to, I think that the overvote issue and the fact that totally unreadable votes came disporportionately from black, Democrat-leaning counties shows that the intent of the majority of Floridian voters was to vote for Gore. Whether that translated into a majority of legal votes counting for Gore is more tricky, but with the overvote issue -where intention was clearly discernible - that also looks like a yes. Add in the illegally and mistakenly barred voters, who again were disporportionately likey to be black and Democrat voters, and it's fairly clear that Gore would have won Florida if not for numerous electoral system cock-ups.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that the Supreme Court did in effect affect the outcome, because they said that on the one hand that the fairest course to take would be a statewide recount, but that there was no time to do it, so Bush won. They didn't affect it in the sense that if they had have agreed to what Gore was pushing for Bush still would have won, but if they had have ordered what they (rightly) said was the fairest course of action, he wouldn't. Of course, as with much of that fiasco, much of the blame lies with Gore's incompetence here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo. I would dispute your conclusion of certainty (100 percent) that Gore would have won had a re-count of the entire state been done based on what you stated subsequently in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong but if people screw up their ballot they can ask for a new one. For example if someone sees that they punched the wrong hole, ask for a new one instead of writing in a candidate on the ballot. Discerning one's intent from such a situation is utter chaos.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Discerning one's intent from such a situation is utter chaos.


[/ QUOTE ]

A little bit of trust here. Surely the Democratic elections boards would only count true voter intent. Obviously any unpunched ballot was intended as a Gore vote. Thats as clear as the fact that the sun revolves around the earth.

[nicky g]

"Correct me if I'm wrong but if people screw up their ballot they can ask for a new one. For example if someone sees that they punched the wrong hole, ask for a new one instead of writing in a candidate on the ballot."

Not quite in this case. The issue Palast brings up is with voting machines and the fact that in some counties - according to his resarch and that of the civil rights organisations he mentions disproportionately poor and black ones - they were programmed to simply eat "spoiled" ballots, while in others - again according to his research disporportionately white, wealthy ones - they would return them to the voter to try again. The point is that the voters who had their ballots taken off them by the former machines simply wouldn't have known or been informed there was a problem. I agree that in many cases discerning intention here would be impossible - but the point in this case is that the machines should have rejected their unwittingly spoiled votes so they could have cast a legal one. I think the fact that it some counties there was near zero spoilage and in others extremyl high rates confirms this.

I don;t think that the probability Gore would have carried Florida under reasonable conditions is 100%, but having read a lot of palast's research on this and never seen anything that adequately counters it (admittedly I haven't looked too hard), I am pretty convinced.

[nicky g]

"Obviously any unpunched ballot was intended as a Gore vote. Thats as clear as the fact that the sun revolves around the earth. "

That isn;t the issue at all. There are two differnt issues here: 1. Votes where intention was clearly discernible. THere weren;t very many fo these but still, according to the news consortium recount, enough to ahve changed the result had they been recounted statewide; and 2. Rejected votes where intention was not discernible, which according to Palast occurred disproportionately in Democrat-leaning counties where older machines were used and available technology enabling voters to have spolied votes returned to them either wasn;t deployed or activated, in contrast to in wealthier counties.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Not quite in this case. The issue Palast brings up is with voting machines and the fact that in some counties - according to his resarch and that of the civil rights organisations he mentions disproportionately poor and black ones - they were programmed to simply eat "spoiled" ballots,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused. Where I vote, "voting machines" are provided. I designate the candidates I'm voting for by pressing the indicated spot, a light lights indicating my selection, and when I'm finished I press a big button indicating I'm finished. Once I press that button I can't change anything. Your comment I quoted seems to be indicating something else so I'm not sure what you mean by a machine but I assume it's the machine to count the ballots that had holes punched in them. What I'm talking about is if you discover that your ballot was punched incorrectly. My understanding is that you could have asked the precint person for a new ballot at that point, the ballot that was marked incorrectly would have been destroyed at that point. My whole understanding of the Gore selected re-count was to take ballots that had been rejected by the counting machines for the punched ballots(different from the voting machines I use) and discern the intent of the voters. Thanks in advance for any elaboration on "voting machine eating ballots."

[sameoldsht]

Did you let out a Dean-like scream after writing that one Chris?

[ QUOTE ]
This joke of a movie will probably send the most powerful Republican in the country to his political grave

[/ QUOTE ]

If you rely on Hollywood "movies" (Moore does not make documentaries) to decide how your going to vote, you are sadly misinformed. Fact is many left wing radical imbeciles actually believe what their Hollywood comrades spew... Now THAT'S entertainment!

Ummm, I'm not an extreme radical right wing imbecile, nor am I an extreme left wing radical imbecile (like you seem to be). Since Columbine was proven to be soooo chock full of lies and misleading splices of interviews, commercials, etc., I feel Moore has no credibility at all and therefore he's not worthy of my time or money. Why can't Moore just present the facts without being misleading? I guess he can't. If he could, I'd go see his film.

Go see F 911 again and give this lying fool more of your money so he can even fatter and buy another million dollar apartment in Manhattan. And this guy preaches about limiting consumption? Suckers...not interested in the bridge huh?

[nicky g]

I'm no expert on this and Palast doesn't go into detail, but my understanding is that that what Palast is referring to is a machine that reads a punched or otherwise marked (I think more than one kind was deployed) piece of paper and can either tell teh voter that there is a problem with their ballot and to vote again, or simply thank them and send them on their way regardless of whether their vote had been registered as legal or not. I will try to find out more detail.

"What I'm talking about is if you discover that your ballot was punched incorrectly. My understanding is that you could have asked the precint person for a new ballot at that point, the ballot that was marked incorrectly would have been destroyed at that point. My whole understanding of the Gore selected re-count was to take ballots that had been rejected by the counting machines for the punched ballots(different from the voting machines I use) and discern the intent of the voters."

The recount centred as you say around ones where intention was discernible - but Palast's point is that there were tens of thousands of spoiled ballots where intention wasn't discernible (and hence could not be included in the recount) and that they disproportionately originated from poorer counties where machines that told you you'd made a mistake weren't deployed (or in some cases, they were but the technology wasn't switched on). The point isn't that these should have been included in the recount, but that the technology to let a voter know there was a problem with his ballot and he should re-cast his vote was disproportionately available in wealthier counties.

[nicky g]

Here is an excerpt which goes into a bit more detail. In this case it seems the voting machines weren't available onsite, so that ballots the machines could not read were only discovered after it was too late; while in teh neighbouring white county he compares it to, the machines instantly alerted voters to a problem.

"The biggest wholesale theft occurred inside the voting booths in black rural counties. In Gadsden County, one of the blackest in the state, thousands of votes were simply thrown away. Gadsden used paper ballots which are read by an optical reader. Ballots with a single extra mark were considered “spoiled“ and not counted. The buttons used to fill out the ballots were set up – with approval from Bush and Harris – to make votes appear unclear to the machine. One in eight ballots in Gadsden was voided by the state.



The same ballots were used in Tallahassee County, which is mostly white. There only one in 100 votes was “spoiled.” What made the difference? In Tallahassee, ballots were read on the premises, and if they were marked incorrectly, voters were sent to revote until they got it right. In the black counties, the votes were trucked off immediately. There were no machines on site. Voters weren’t told that their votes were spoiled, and they certainly weren’t permitted to re-vote.



When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t. He didn’t even bother to ask how the machines were set up. This is the kind of reporting we get in America. In Britain, this story ran 3 weeks after the election, when Gore was still in race. It was in the papers and on TV. In the US, it was seven months before the Washington Post ran it, and then it was only a partial version. After the election, Gadsden County replaced its voting commissioner. In 2002 they only lost one in 500 votes. So you can say blacks in Gadsden got smarter in one way – they elected a black elections chief. "

Winning the Election – The Republican Way: Racism, Theft and Fraud in Florida (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't Moore just present the facts without being misleading? I guess he can't. If he could, I'd go see his film.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because nobody pays to see movies like that...you say that you would, but I doubt it. What was the last documentary in the theatre?

[ QUOTE ]
Since Columbine was proven to be soooo chock full of lies and misleading splices of interviews, commercials, etc., I feel Moore has no credibility at all and therefore he's not worthy of my time or money

[/ QUOTE ]

Columbine was good because it provoked thought --- regardless of the factual foibles. Same with Roger and Me. Same with Blood in the Face. I would assume that the same is for 911. People who buy into everything in his films are just as misinformed as those who dismiss them outright. Columbine asks very interesting questions. The film itself struggles with the questions. Instead of saying that Michael Moore is fat or, gasp, owns an expensive home you would probably be better off trying to deal with the substance of his positions because he makes a very effective case.

I've said this before --- Michael Moore is the populist equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Go see F 911 again and give this lying fool more of your money so he can even fatter and buy another million dollar apartment in Manhattan. And this guy preaches about limiting consumption? Suckers...not interested in the bridge huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
He actually said on TV that the profits from the film are going to the 9/11 families... is that okay with you? Bush and his big business cronies should give some of their Iraq profits to the 9/11 families as well, but I doubt they would ever do that.

[adios]

I understand your points now. I'll try and find out more on whether or not they check your ballot for it's integrety or not but that may be the case. I think that there was a major overhaul of the voting technology in Florida, thankfully.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
He actually said on TV that the profits from the film are going to the 9/11 families

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that's the only reason the film is doing well.

[cardcounter0]

"Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."

I think the correct quote from our glorious leader is:

"Fool me once, uhhh.... shame on me, errr... I mean, Fool me, uhh... -- HOPE WE DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!"

[nicky g]

Is that really true? I have to say, although I am sure I am going to get killed for this, I don't think that is a worthwhile charitable gesture - indeed it looks like buying sympathy for the film to me. The families are surely already getting significant compensation. If there are cases where failies are still struggling because of the loss of a breadwinner then fair enough, but otherwise, what is the point of throwing more money at these poor people? It;s not going to make their loss any less horrendous and there are so many causes in the world that could make much bigger differences to people's lives - indeed, save lives - in desperate need of money. Compensation is one thing but I think it's weird to assume that throwing money at grieving people is a good use for charity. Of course in the end it's up to him what he does with his profits and it's a nicer gesture than keeping them, but that really strikes me as being unrelated to a genuine charitable desire to do good. If there is more to it than I have understood please let me know.

[adios]

Moore's going to make a fortune off of this movie. I read where it cost $6 million to make and $15 million to market it. My understanding is that the 9/11 families of victems have been compensated monetarily if they chose to do so. I vaguely remember that some where taking action in the courts. Anyway yeah I agree why doesn't Moore do something for the disenfranchised if he want's to donate the money to charity. It would be interesting to have an accounting of how the profits from the movie are distributed.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Since Columbine was proven to be soooo chock full of lies and misleading splices of interviews, commercials, etc., I feel Moore has no credibility at all and therefore he's not worthy of my time or money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it was the right wing attack on Bowling for Columbine that proved to be more misleading. If you search the news archives, you'll see all sorts of bizarre lies variously asserting that Moore never received a rifle for opening a bank account, Lockheed-Martin has nothing to do with WMD, Charleton Heston never spoke in Denver just after the Columbine shootings, Moore's gun statistics are made-up, and so on. Other criticisms were bizarre, such as the one where the South Park-style fantasy about gun paranoia fails to accurately portray U.S. history.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't Moore just present the facts without being misleading?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gosh, I don't know, maybe it's because its a comic propaganda documentary???? Duh. Besides, you admit that you can't find anything in the movie that's misleading, so the whole point of your original post -- that the movie largely consisted of lies -- turns out, as we would expect, to be a lie.

This is just the usual self-contradictory nonsense. The White House and right-wing media lied and lied and continue to lie about Iraq and Bush's gangster-like supporters could care less as long as they get their tax break/defense spending money. But if an independent filmaker lays out the lies they get all pious about the offense of misleading the public and failing to present "both sides." Among the anti-Moore whackos, it's as if the last three years of continuous White House-GOP--WS Journal--Fox--Weekly Standard--TownHall--NewsMax--National Review propaganda never made it into the public domain.

If Moore lied ten times as much to sell Bush and his wars (like the sources above did), the right would insist the film be shown in public schools.

[ThaSaltCracka]

well thats what he said. I agree with you though on what your saying, but part of me thinks the main reason he is doing this is because he doesn't want people to think he made the movie for his own gain. He may be giving it away to other charities as well, but I have only heard that he was giving money to the 9/11 families.

By the way, did anyone see the daily show last night? They showed a clip of Moore on the CBS morning show that was pretty damn funny. Stewart said " did Moore just ambush Hannah Storm on her own show?", which he did, I am surprised by Moore's confidence.

[andyfox]

"It would be interesting to have an accounting of how the profits from the movie are distributed."

It would indeed. Profits, in Hollywood, are usually "profits." And it would take a prophet to wade one's way through the creative accounting.

Who would have thunk it? The two biggest highest grossing movies of 2004 will very likely be a movie largely in Aramaic and a docu/(mocku?)-mentary about 9/11.

And Thomas Jefferson is on the cover of Time this week.

[adios]

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE Truth or Fiction (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

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 were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses 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. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict, not the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of Bowling--Ben Fritz caught it back in November, 2002.

To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the presidential race took advantage of the veto.

The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).


I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS version of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading footage. But as Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it back in in the DVD version! He did make one minor change, switching his edited-in caption to "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Obviously Moore had been informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He responded by correcting his own typo, not by removing the edited in caption, nor by revealing that the ad being shown was not in fact a Bush-Quayle ad.

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 cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.


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."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."



I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration."

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.

Here's the real setting, as reported in the Detroit Free Press one day after Heston's speech:

What do Al Gore, Charlton Heston, Jesse Jackson, Lee Iacocca, and George W., Laura and Barbara Bush all agree upon?

That Michigan is a really big deal right now. The candidates, their wives, mothers, and pals are here this week, as post-debate spin control ebbs and political ground control overtakes Michigan with 20 days left to Election Day.....Democratic nominee Gore is to campaign in Flint tonight; Texas Gov. Bush is to visit a Macomb County factory Thursday. . . . . For Republicans, other surrogates include former auto executive Lee Iacocca touting Bush at a luncheon today in Troy, and Tuesday's visit by National Rifle Association President and movie-Moses Charlton Heston.

For the Democrats, the Rev. Jesse Jackson is seeking to mobilize black voters for the Gore ticket Thursday at Detroit's King High School, and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson will do the same at an Arab-American Chamber of Commerce dinner Friday in Livonia.

How does Moore trick the viewer into believing that this speech, given in this context, was actually a defiant response to a shooting in a nearby town months 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. Incidentally, if you have the DVD version and the right player, you can freeze frame this sequence and see it yourself. Then go back and freeze frame the rally, and you'll make out various Bush election posters and tags.

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.

By the way, when interviewed by a reporter for the Times of London, Moore had to admit the point: "When I spoke to Moore last week, he confirmed Hardy's point about the date of the speech, but angrily denied the allegation that he had misled viewers." Link to Times webpage (charge for download).

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 an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the day.). 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 misleading 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. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


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,

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 Taliban-ruled 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. ( Jörg Altmeppen has emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in 1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the languages in which I can only curse.).

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). Here's the table:



[You can download the entire report, in .pdf format, by clicking here; look for pt. 2 at p.23.] To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752 homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.

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

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. (And, after posting this, got an email saying that Switzerland doesn't require all adult males to own guns -- not everyone is in the national militia. Here's an encyclopedia reference to their system. 36% of entire population is enrolled in the militia -- which must mean a very great part of the adult male population, " All of Swiss society celebrates shooting, and skill with the rifle. For example, each year Zurich shuts down a whole day for its "Boys' Shooting Festival."" Sounds like a plan to me.)

And, oh, yes, there is an extremely interesting paper by Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser, presented at a colloquium in, appropriately enough, the Tower of London, and addressing international comparisons of firearms laws and firearm crime rates. I highly recommend reading, if you're interested in serious research rather than Moore's flashing numbers. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Actually, international comparisons lead to some interesting points. Here's a webpage which gives worldwide homicide rates. The U.S. comes in at 23rd place. It only made the list by edging out Armenia and Bulgaria. Its former rival as a superpower, the states of the former Soviet Union, absolutely flatten it in this competition. Russia has four times the US rate. Ukraine and Estonia have twice its rate. Even Poland ranks higher. South Africa's showing is ten times the US rate! Hmm-- another point from a different section of that site. In rape rates per 1000 population, the US ranks ninth, at .32, just ahead of Iceland and Papua New Guinea. Canada is fifth, at .75, over double the US rate, and Australia is third with .80.

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, (sorry--link broke--it was a Canadian government info site) 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.

(As Spinsanity notes, Moore goes even farther in his add-on DVD. There, he tells us, "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent civilians.")

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. For an interesting analysis of this, showing how crime news skyrocketed (largely displacing international coverage) even as crime fell, click here.

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."

This is as close as Moore comes to having a thesis, an explanation for homicide rate differences. But here he falls flat on his face. As one of his interviewees notes, over a period when homicide rates were falling, media coverage of murder increased by 600%. Okay, flip it around. When media coverage of homicides increased 600%, homicide rates fell. So much for Moore's explanation. In fact, so much for all of his attempted explanations. During the 1990s, homicide rates in the US went into their steepest decline in decades, with handgun homicides leading the way. That was the same period that saw the welfare reform laws, the bombing in Serbia, several million firearms sold each year -- everything, in short, that Moore condemns. (For one source, just go back up the page to the FBI statistics: between 1997 and 2001, firearm homicides fell from 10,729 to 8,719, and 1997 was after the biggest drop had occured.

I suppose we might go farther, and ask if Moore's film is not illustrative of what it condemns. Moore argues that the media (a) distorts reality, and (b) hypes fear of other Americans, because (c) fear is good for a fast buck. Moore distorts reality, hypes fear of other Americans ("are we nation of gun nuts, or just nuts?") and, well, made several million fast bucks.

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?

Incidentally, Moore has issued a webpage responding to criticism. In so doing, he actually admits that much of the above criticism is accurate. He did splice the Willie Horton ad, and Heston's "cold dead hands" was never spoken at Denver, and his statistics do stem from those of the Center for Disease Control, which include self-defense and police shootings of perps. As far as the rest of the criticisms above -- strange, but Moore doesn't have an answer. Here's my response.

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 a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

A further thought, on a topic far broader (no pun intended) than Moore. Moore's film is unquestionably popular. He's attracted an almost-cult following. And judging from the emails I've received, plenty of his followers don't care a bit about whether they were misled. Can broader lessons be learned from this?

Suppose for a moment that Moore's behavior can be explained as a product of Narcisstic Personality Disorder, that he fits the clinical symptoms to a T, that indeed Bowling is a grand acting out of this character disorder. Does its popularity suggest something of far greater concern than one more narcissist in Hollywood? And does that in turn hold a key to mass slayings?Click here for some thoughts on that score.

David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.

dthardy at mindspring.com ["at" instead of "@" used to confuse those blasted spam robots]

P.S.: I don't have Moore's $4 million budget (and wound up paying over a thousand in bandwidth overruns, before I found a new host), but if you could see the way to contribute ten or twenty dollars to this research, and to preparing a real documentary, please click below.







A few additions:

Links to other Moore & Bowling sites.

Some criticisms not given on this page.

Did Moore appropriate large portions from a webpage?

Equal time: emails critical of this page.

A brief reply to two responses I've received:

Objectivity: (sample email): "Your entire article is retarded. We're talking about making FILM. ALL film is subjective. Have you not even taken an entry level course in film before?"

Response: The point is not that Bowling is non-objective, or biased. The point is that it is intentionally deceptive.

Nothing is real: The camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth or falsity. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)."


Response: This certainly has given me some insight into how some in the media view things! Can we agree upon one core premise: to deliberately deceive a viewer is wrong?

Talk basic ethics. Is that what you teach your kids? Truth and lies are ultimately the same, all that matters is whether you're good at it?

And don't give me the claim that filmmaking is somehow different, all filming departs from reality, so truth and lies exist for written media and not for film. All communication is symbolic; the use of verbal and written symbols to convey ideas. If anything, a documentary film purports to be less symbolic and more real: the viewer is shown things, and assumes he is himself seeing reality, rather than hearing a speaker's description, possibly unfair or deceptive, of it. If anything, this should imply a greater duty to avoid conscious deception than would apply to the written and spoken word.

Equally to the point: Moore himself repudiates these defenses, insisting that every iota of his film is objectively true. "I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact.... [F]aced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film or resorting to character assassination." Source.

Moore makes people think. This at least has some merit to it. But deception is not the way to inspire clear thinking. For that matter ... if the purpose is to inspire thought, how about giving some data? Homicide, firearm homicide, and gun use in self-defense have been extensively studied for forty years now. Kleck, Zimring, Bordua -- there is no shortage of experts here. And there is a lot of data on other matters, such as relationship of media coverage to crime. Yet the viewer hears none of this: in terms of substance, Bowling is thin as an oil slick. The viewer is left with Moore the criminologist looking at a TV screen and proclaiming TV news just has to be the answer -- and not stopping long enough to reflect that if homicide rates fell when news coverage of them went up 600%, this is a most peculiar answer.

[Chris Alger]

As usual, Tom can't edit anything so he just throws up these absurdly long article by others. I'll just take the first four that appear. As expected, the claims that Bowling for Columbine is filled with "lies" and "BS" turns out to be nonsense, as virtually all of Moore's claims are undenied. The real basis for the criticism is that Moore failed to include the usual pro-gun spin in his documentary.

1. Willie Horton. Moore's claims that Bush-Quayle supporters exploited white fear of black criminals by running the Willie Horton ad.

Response: Undenied. It's "BS" because Moore failed to disclose that the Willie Horton as was actually paid by Bush-Quayle supporters instead of the Bush-Quayle campaign, which ran similar but less explicitly racist ads. Although Moore was wrong in claiming that the message was that Horton "killed" again, because Horton merely raped someone, this mistake was fixed in later versions of the film.

2. Denver NRA rally. Moore claims that Heston has the bad taste to attended a large pro-gun rally in Denver immediately after Columbine.

Response: Undenied. It's "BS" because the NRA rally had been planned before Columbine.

Anti-Moore Lie: "The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine...." Heston directly addressed Columbine in his keynote speech in Denver and therefore "directly related" his appearance to Columbine.

3. Heston as a gun nut. Moore shows Heston reciting the "cold dead hands" motto of the gun nuts.

Response: Undenied. It's "BS" because Heston didn't say it in Denver.

4. Heston's Denver speech. Moore quotes Heston using Columbine to promote gun rights.

Response: Undenied. It's "BS" because Moore didn't show the parts of Heston's speech that had nothing to do with Columbine, and thus "changed its theme" (although the quotes were accurate).

And on and on.

[cardcounter0]

IF only we applied the same fine comb to other statements
like:

"knowing where stockpiles of WMDs are" that later becomes "knowing there were active WMD programs" that later becomes "knowing they were planning programs for WMDs"

Even this rebuttal of 9/11 --
9/11 is full of lies because Bowling for Columbine was full of dubious lies.

Has anyone come up with a lie in 9/11?

[Cyrus]

"The most shocking part for me though [in "Fahrenheit 911"], was watching the Iraqi woman cry about the death of her family member. She screams out for revenge against the US and cries to God. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater at that point.... the crowd was speechless to say the least."

I saw a "preview" of that part in tne movie, a few months into the occupation. A nervous roadblock possee of American soldiers waved a car to slow down when it approached their position and then someone "lit up", maybe by accident.

Turned out to be a family of father, mother, some six children of theirs and a couple of cousins, fleeing a city where fighting was still going on -- all killed except for a ten-year old boy that stood by the bloodied car, speechless and tearless, looking numbly at the wreckage. The Marines were sorry and angry with themselves, and the camera that kept filming. They fumbled to tear the boy away and it did like a little zombie, but had nowhere to go. They finally took it away from the scene.

I thought, this boy, what else can it grow up to be except an American-hating lethal weapon? I mean, I would - and so would anyone (just think having your whole family wiped out for no reason in front of your eyes).

Maybe that Marine should have finished off the boy on the spot.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Cyrus,
I truely do wonder what Iraqis will think of America 5-10 years from now. I think it may be mixed between anger over the destruction we wrought, but also thanks and admiration for getting rid of Saddam and his regime. Also, what do you think common Iraqis will think of the foreign terrorists causing so much chaos and destruction in their country. I think they may remember that and realize that many of its neighbors wanted nothing more than for Saddam to stay in power, because very few have done anything to help them. It will be interesting to see. You always here about this Arab unity bs, where is it now? You would think they would be pouring aid and help into Iraq, not to mention denoucing the foreign terrorist, none of which is happening. Iraq may find its best "ally" to be the U.S. and Britain.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you let out a Dean-like scream after writing that one Chris?

[ QUOTE ]
This joke of a movie will probably send the most powerful Republican in the country to his political grave

[/ QUOTE ]

If you rely on Hollywood "movies" (Moore does not make documentaries) to decide how your going to vote, you are sadly misinformed. Fact is many left wing radical imbeciles actually believe what their Hollywood comrades spew... Now THAT'S entertainment!

Ummm, I'm not an extreme radical right wing imbecile, nor am I an extreme left wing radical imbecile (like you seem to be). Since Columbine was proven to be soooo chock full of lies and misleading splices of interviews, commercials, etc., I feel Moore has no credibility at all and therefore he's not worthy of my time or money. Why can't Moore just present the facts without being misleading? I guess he can't. If he could, I'd go see his film.

Go see F 911 again and give this lying fool more of your money so he can even fatter and buy another million dollar apartment in Manhattan. And this guy preaches about limiting consumption? Suckers...not interested in the bridge huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, now Republicans are complaining about liberals being too rich? That's a new one.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, haven't you heard? The right-wing wackos are now crying about the Evil Kerry because -- hold on to your hat -- His wife comes from a wealthy family!

Yep. That's right. You heard it hear. Help vote in that po' boy from Texas, before the ultra-rich democrats take over the country for the corporations that they ... whoops! Nevermind.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, haven't you heard? The right-wing wackos are now crying about the Evil Kerry because -- hold on to your hat -- His wife comes from a wealthy family!

Yep. That's right. You heard it hear. Help vote in that po' boy from Texas, before the ultra-rich democrats take over the country for the corporations that they ... whoops! Nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

For real?

[adios]

Chris writes originally:

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it was the right wing attack on Bowling for Columbine that proved to be more misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I post an article that shows numerous distortions in the movie.

Chris reponds:

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, Tom can't edit anything so he just throws up these absurdly long article by others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This topic has come up several times before and I've weighed in on it. It's easier to post something that shows your assertion is simply another distortion.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Willie Horton. Moore's claims that Bush-Quayle supporters exploited white fear of black criminals by running the Willie Horton ad.

[/ QUOTE ]

No the Bush adds assailed Dukakis's lenient attitudes towards the treatment of criminals.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Denver NRA rally. Moore claims that Heston has the bad taste to attended a large pro-gun rally in Denver immediately after Columbine.

[/ QUOTE ]

He implied that the NRA convention was related to Columbine which it was not.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Heston as a gun nut. Moore shows Heston reciting the "cold dead hands" motto of the gun nuts.

Response: Undenied. It's "BS" because Heston didn't say it in Denver.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly in the movie he implied that he did.


[ QUOTE ]
4. Heston's Denver speech. Moore quotes Heston using Columbine to promote gun rights.

Response: Undenied. It's "BS" because Moore didn't show the parts of Heston's speech that had nothing to do with Columbine, and thus "changed its theme" (although the quotes were accurate).

[/ QUOTE ]

An admission that Moore actually distorted the meaning of what Heston said. Again here's the account from the article:

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.

Michael 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.

Michael 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, Michael 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.

Michael 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.

Michael 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."

Michael 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, Michael 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."

Michael 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.

Michael 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."

If Heston was truly the demon that Moore implies, why is there the need to selectively edit what Heston stated in Denver.

[ QUOTE ]
And on and on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep your bull [censored] and distortions continue ad nauseum.

[elwoodblues]

Original Quote (I think) based on the article:

[ QUOTE ]
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. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land
...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

[/ QUOTE ]

Moore's Editing:
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article you posted, I gathered that this is what Heston actually said. I don't see how that's any better than Moore's editing of what he said (it was just more verbose, which is probably why Moore edited it). My personal opinion is that Heston's unedited comments (assuming I've got them right) make him sound just as bad if not worse.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Moore doesn't try hard enough to resolve the contradictions he creates by throwing everything he can at Bush: The war in Afghanistan is wrong, but Bush didn't send enough troops; Bush overplays the war on terrorism, Bush doesn't do enough to defend us from terror; the troops are trigger-happy, the troops are victims; Bush is a master of deceit, Bush is a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is typical of the knee-jerk thinking of many democrats today--they are of the view that everything Bush and/or the republicans do/call for is "bad," and everything about Kerry/the Democrats is "good." Most can not even give an intelligent response is you ask them about an issue, other than spwewing something like "No blood for oil!"

This is not directed at posters on this forum (who seem to be more informed than most); it is an observation of the masses.

Yesterday, John Kerry refused to give a planned speech to a national convention of mayors in Boston, because there was a picket line in front of the building (the Boston police have been without a contract for some time, and are in a dispute with the mayor over pay increases, etc.). When asked if Kerry would cross the picket line, he said that he had "never" crossed a picket line and never would.

What an open-minded thinker! Instead of looking at the issues (about which I am sure he has no clue), he has a knee-jerk reaction that the union must always be right, and he will never cross a picket-line, regardless of the circumstances. What happens if he is elected president, and a federal employees union pickets in front of the White House, or the Capital (perhaps far-fetched but you get my point). Is he going to refuse to go in?

Michael Moore's work and his words are typical of this knee-jerk type of thinking. This movie is not a documentary, it is progaganda.

[elwoodblues]

This is a typical knee-jerk response of many on the right --- they assume that anybody who criticizes the president criticizes EVERYTHING about the president and criticizes NOTHING about democrats. /images/graemlins/grin.gif You assume that Moore had a knee jerk reaction and not one that was thought out. I assume just the opposite. Based solely on the amount of work that goes into making a feature film suggests a fair amount of work and thinking on the subject. He might have reached the wrong conclusions, but that doesn't mean that he had a knee jerk reaction.

Based on when they were "launched," Moore spent more time thinking about 9/11 (based on the launch of the movie) than was spent by the president planning:
The Patriot Act
The Afghan War
The Iraq War

(I know there were probably a couple of more people involved in planning the Patriot Act and the two wars)

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a typical knee-jerk response of many on the right --- they assume that anybody who criticizes the president criticizes EVERYTHING about the president and criticizes NOTHING about democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this applies to anybody who criticizes the President, but it does apply to Michael Moore.

Please show me where he has criticized John Kerry and/or the democrats.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"No the Bush adds assailed Dukakis's lenient attitudes towards the treatment of criminals."

[/ QUOTE ]
That's only if one defines "Bush ads" as those directly paid for by the Bush-Quayle Reelection Committee, instead of the Bush-Quayle PAC trying to get Bush-Quayle elected and that actually ran the pro-Bush ads about "Willie" Horton. Moore's point is that Bush and his supporters exploited white fear of black criminals, and that point is undeniable. Bush himself used the Horton ad as campaign fodder in speeches (claiming that Dukakis says "have a nice weekend," right after the Horton ads about "weekend passes").

[ QUOTE ]
He implied that the NRA convention was related to Columbine which it was not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Moore implied that the NRA held a meeting in Denver after Columbine because of Columbine? How? He said the NRA decided, over the objections of Denver's mayor and community, to hold a pro-gun convention right after Columbine. This was accurate (the convention was hotly contested in Denver, as the demonstrators outside and counter-rallies showed).

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly in the movie he implied that he did [say "cold dead hands" in Denver]

[/ QUOTE ]
So? The point was that its a gun nut phrase, and Heston uttered it. Moore didn't say Heston was in Denver and the footage showed that Heston (dressed differently from his Denver address) was somewhere else. The idea that where Heston uttered his gun nut slogan is somehow relevant to whether Heston talks like a gun nut must some form of right wing cognative dissonance.

[ QUOTE ]
An admission that Moore actually distorted the meaning of what Heston said.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, your critic can't identify any "distortion" except to say that Moore didn't adopt Heston's "theme" (e.g., guns are great). Moore showed the parts where Heston addressed Columbine but didn't use the pro-gun propaganda or the quote where Heston brags about his war service. That's not distortion, its just editing out the junk to get at the substance.

In sum, your critic can't identify a single fact relevant to the argument Moore makes in Bowling for Columbine that's false.

[jdl22]

His book Stupid White Men is largely a criticism against Democrats.

[cardcounter0]

I have never crossed a picket line, and I never will.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never crossed a picket line, and I never will.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are in good company.

[cardcounter0]

"Please show me where he has criticized John Kerry and/or the democrats."

When speaking about going to War with Iraq, he says that the democrats knew it was all lies, and to prove it -- They all overwhelmingly voted for the invasion. I guess you missed the satire -- but basically he is critical of the democrats for not doing anything to stop power mad nazis.

[ThaSaltCracka]

go watch the film, he certainly implies that the Democrats should have stood up against the war in Iraq, although few did. He also holds them accountable for not reading the Patriot act. His movie is most certainly targeted at Bush, but he doesn't let the dems go unscathed. I love how people make all these assumptions about the film and Moore, but none of them have actually seen it. Go see it, then you can talk about its content, don't base your comments on what you heard on TV/Radio or from someone you know. Go see it and be amazed /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[B-Man]

OK, that is interesting. I am interested in hearing his message, but I refuse to contribute a dime to his cause, so I haven't seen the movie and I probably wont.

I did listen to him for a while on Howard Stern's show on friday morning (which was a big sacrifice because at the same time, the local sports show had the author of "Out of Bounds : Inside the NBA's Culture of Rape, Violence, and Crime", and that interview was fascinating). Moore makes some interesting points, but as far as I can tell, this movie should still rightly be characterized as propoganda, not a documentary. It's clear his true goal is to get Bush out of the White House.

[cardcounter0]

Yeah, I can show you the house a couple a blocks up the street which still has the bullet holes from the Pinkerton men.

My Grandmother marched on a coal mine during a strike in the 1910s? because at the time the National Guard would open fire on striking coal miners, but they figured they wouldn't shoot a bunch of women.

My best Friend's Grandfather opened a grocery store a long time ago. All the people in town where told by the various factories that if they bought there instead of at the Company Store, they would be fired and thrown out of their house. Business is still good at my friend's Grocery Store.

Kerry won't cross a picket line, huh?

[ThaSaltCracka]

dude, if you lived in the Seattle area I would pay for you to go see it. Go to his website and watch the trailer. Or try dowloading it off from Kazaa or something. I am sure there is a bootleg out there by now.

[B-Man]

1. What is your point?

2. Two statements:

A. The police are asking for a __% raise.

B. The mayor is offering a __% raise.

Do you think John Kerry could fill in either of the blanks?

It is close-minded thinking to simply assume the union is right and the city is wrong without looking at the facts (especially in the People's Republic of Massachusetts!).

[cardcounter0]

I'm not assuming the union or the city is right or wrong.
I'm not assuming anything.
I just think both parties need to figure out the solution, and I'm not crossing the picket line until they do.

I believe the price of tea in china is determined by supply/demand.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
In sum, your critic can't identify a single fact relevant to the argument Moore makes in Bowling for Columbine that's false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the idiotic phrases you have written in the past this one is fast approaching the top of the list.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
A. The police are asking for a __% raise.

B. The mayor is offering a __% raise.

Do you think John Kerry could fill in either of the blanks?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I know the price of a gallon of milk.

I been studying. Go ahead, ask me.

W

[adios]

I don't care if Moore makes a point, I don't care if he makes distortions to support his points. I don't care if Bowling for Columbine plays fast and loose with the facts. But to pupport the film as a fact based documentary is ludicrous. Even if and when Moore's points are valid, the movie doesn't make the case for them based on factual information presented in the movie. That's ok but to say that Moore's points are made by accurate, factual presentations in the movie is crazy.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
But to pupport the film as a fact based documentary is ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since the only facts you (and the article you pasted) are silly nits (Moore's gun homicide statistics are slightly "high"), this makes no sense. Your criticism is redolent of the right-wing myth that "Bowling for Columbine" really isn't a documentary because it doesn't make the pro gun argument (the other basis, which is an outright lie, was the Moore made up most of his facts and faked every scene). Under this argument, a propaganda or argumentative film can't be considered a "documentary" unless it runs for eight or so hours to include the full text of every interview and every "other side" argument imaginable.

[ QUOTE ]
the movie doesn't make the case for them based on factual information presented in the movie

[/ QUOTE ]
So it's not the movie but the way it was interpreted by the audience that's the problem? I doubt it. It's not hard to show that Americans are plagued by fear and racism, that unscrupulous politicians exploit these attitudes, and that Americans are armed to the teeth and killing each other with guns in numbers vastly disproportionate to those in most other wealthy countries. The most common response to Moore's film was that he made these points clearly and persuasively.

[Chris Alger]

Maybe I should have said "relevant to sentient people." I'm sure the only part you beleived was relevant was the part you could understand, the cartoon, which also outraged many right-wing bloggers (including one that Tom quoted in an earlier post). This sequence was, in fact, a falsification of reality because it was a effing cartoon, and cartoons are animated carticatures instead of real people.

See? Now you've learned something.

[dsm]

sameoldsht wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the funniest line in the movie, and placed in the perfect spot too. Enjoy.

Fool Me Once, Err Uhh.... (http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/fool_me.htm)

-dsm

[Cyrus]

"I truly do wonder what Iraqis will think of America 5-10 years from now."


I have no idea.

But I find it difficult to accept that a people (and Iraqis are, to boot, very proud people) can celebrate their loss in a war, even if it means "establishment of democracy"! And democracy doesn't carry too much weight in those parts anyway, not nearly enough to warrant a celebration.

Nations are built around abstract concepts: the notion of heroism; a great battle; the glory of our ancients; etc. A nation that celebrates its ...total and humiliating loss to a superpower? Its adoption of that superpower's ideas of proper government? Its abandonment of the most sacred idea of Arabs in the 20th (and 21st) century, the Palestinian cause? Seems a little far off the scale to me.

I submit that the American system of government is nearly perfect. (We accept that no system is perfect). Let's say that another nation has a political system that is nearer perfection than America's. Would Americans accept to lose a war to that nation if that would mean getting nearer perfection?

The polls from "the streets of Iraq" I watch on TV (even Fox) have the Iraqis blaming (wrongly but tellingly) Americans for every car bomb explosion, wishing that the Americans would just leave and hoping that the new government "at least is strong". The latter is one more indication of how a strong-man government has always been of the essence in an artificially created state such as Iraq.

[Cyrus]

but maybe you should change it to

Deep SLEEP

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[adios]

......

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
But I find it difficult to accept that a people (and Iraqis are, to boot, very proud people) can celebrate their loss in a war,

[/ QUOTE ] Um, it seems more like Saddam and his regimes loss, than it does Iraq's loss, but thats just my opinion.
Also, it seems like Germany and Japan sure embraced Democracy even after their total and utter loss at the hands of the allies.

[ QUOTE ]
The polls from "the streets of Iraq" I watch on TV (even Fox) have the Iraqis blaming (wrongly but tellingly) Americans for every car bomb explosion, wishing that the Americans would just leave and hoping that the new government "at least is strong". The latter is one more indication of how a strong-man government has always been of the essence in an artificially created state such as Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they want a strong government so that it looks like they have power, and that they are no longer under American control.

[george w of poker]

i loved the clip of the interview with brittney spears

[ACPlayer]

It may have been more of Saddam's loss than that of the Iraqi, but today in the here and now, the Iraqi is left feeling impotent and powerless being subjucated to the imperialism of an outside force responsible for but unable to maintain security. That feeling of loss is immediate and apparently endless, Saddam is rapidly becoming a memory.

All wise people counselled our govt, you can win the war but will you win the peace. Will we? Will the Iraqi?

As I have said before, Iraq will end up a theocracy or will remain a fascist state supported by the US army/cia. Transfer of power is meaningless so far, and even in countries with elections - military masters rule (see Pakistan). Does that make the Iraqi significantly closer to the Democratic ideal?

[trippin bily]

Chris I know you are not saying that the recounts went in gores favor. I know you know that is not true. Again the left would still be screeching today if gore had won ANY of the recounts. Again lets not completelt rewrite history.
Funny post though.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
If planned disenfranchisement of Afican-Americans is your idea of counting, and you are truly Bush, then you are a larger moron than Moore's videos of Bush reveals him to be.

Every recount that counted all the counties (excluding the Bush tampered African American vote) had Gore winning the election. end quote}
Again you know this is a lie. Not one. Not the New York Times not the LA Times not the Washington Post none of their recounts had Gore winning. Which recounts do you mean?

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
You are referring solely to the 4 counties that actually recounted within the Supreme Crook time limit. All recounts done that included every Florida county had Gore winning. This process took a small amount of time longer than the Suprem Crook agenda mandated. Your post is an excellent example of why people should see this film. The majority of Americans don't read or compare sources. They apparently believe FOX news.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about ALL the recounts that took place AFTER the supreme courts ruling. Not the farse that Gore tried to call arecount.I do believe Fox News. But not all of it.I dont believe everything I hear or read from any source.
You lefties cannot say the same thing . You BELIEVE michael moore for gods sakes.Without checking to see if it is true,
I am not sure of everything but I am very sure of the recounts. Once again the proof is is that the press is not still screeching about Gore " really" winning. That is all the proof you need.

[trippin bily]

Joker why is it all name calling with you? I have to be a nazi to be a bush supporter? C'mon. We can disagree as we often do but enough of the " brownshirt "retoric. Make your argument and back it up.
I don't agree with Chris Alger but I have to admit he posts
articles that disagree with his basic pholosophy.Read the article he posted on Michael Moores movie.Also the one on the recounts. Both made points that both side would agree or disagree with. All with no name calling. Though Chris has questioned my iq as well. Funny thing was that the article he posted backed up MY argument on the recount. It also brought up a whole new point on the overvotes that I had not heard before. read it. You'll be dissappointed.
Enough with the nazi stuff geez...

[jokerswild]

.

[jokerswild]

Dude, you truly are the most stoned poster here.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what if I was? I still make more sense than you, and I am sure most people would agree with me. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Chris Alger]

The most exhaustive survey (NORC) shows Gore winning a state-wide recount of all disputed votes. The reports claiming that "Bush would have won anyway" -- which is how the conservative press trumpeted the study -- refer to the Florida State Supreme Court's order -- reversed and vacated on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court -- to hold a limited recount. If that limited recount had gone forward, Bush would have still won, according to NORC. The NORC study also ignored the issue of voters illegally being thrown of rolls and therefore prevented from voting, another factor that, if reversed, would have weighed heavily in Gore's favor.

Heres the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000) and Salon (http://dir.salon.com/politics/wire/2001/11/12/recount/index.html) articles. (Salon: "Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, however, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.")

[MMMMMM]

do you know what an ankle-biter is?


If I ever get another dog, maybe a scrappy yappy nippy little Schnauzer, I am going to name him Jokerswild in your honor

[dsm]

Bush: "Fool Me Once" Audio & Caricature (priceless) (http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/fool_me.htm)

dsm

[caretaker1]

Damn, I hate taking the big chalk, but I'll take:
$100 (-350) on the joker. Do you have a combined o/u?

[caretaker1]

This is typical of the knee-jerk thinking of many Republicans today--they are of the view that everything Bush and/or the republicans do/call for is "good," and everything about Kerry/the Democrats or Michael Moore is "bad." Most can not even give an intelligent response is you ask them about an issue, other than spwewing something like "Liberate Iraq!". (A slightly modified portion of B-man's post).

I'm not necessarily saying this refers to you B-man, you have an interesting perception as I view certain Republican supporters in the same way and just intended to show how easy it is to flip the coin. I think both sides have truth regarding this issue.

[caretaker1]

The White House and right-wing media lied and lied and continue to lie about Iraq and Bush's gangster-like supporters could care less as long as they get their tax break/defense spending money. But if an independent filmaker lays out the lies they get all pious about the offense of misleading the public and failing to present "both sides."

Interesting point.

[andyfox]

Liked it a lot. Forget about the content. Our leaders need to be poked fun at, and when they're taking us to war, they have no trouble getting their side of the story out; it's good to see opposing viewpoints.

While, of course, the Bush team is the subject of the movie, the Democrats look like idiots too.

No doubt my political view helped me enjoy the movie, and having just seen both Dodgeball and the Stepford Wives, almost anything would have been good. It's definitely not a documentary, it's an attack on the administration, which has given its critics a lot of ammunition.

[andyfox]

Who'd have thunk it?

[Utah]

The problem is that there are enough uneducated people that dont understand that his information is very twisted and downright false of occassion.

While I somewhat liked Bowling and Roger and Me and I think they made some good points, I think Moore is a dishonest scumbag who deserves none of the respectability he gets. Tell me, why was Oliver Stone, a mere film maker, taken to the Woodshed on JFK but Moore, a documentarian, gets a free pass by many?

[andyfox]

Feelings about the Kennedy assassination seem not to be drawn along traditional political lines. So criticism of Stone playing fast and loose with the facts came from all points on the political spectrum. Compare this, for example, with criticism of his Nixon, which came mostly from those whose political views were closest to Nixon's. [Criticism of Natural Born Killers, OTOH, came from anybody who can smell garbage. /images/graemlins/wink.gif]

I don't see Moore getting a free pass. His film has been the most criticized of any in recent memory (with the possible exception of The Passion of the Christ). The movie is a political statement and those that don't agree with his political viewpoint have criticized it harshly in all of the media.

As for me, I am much more concerned about the dishonest scumbags running the country than about a filmmaker. Here was the president today: ""Our immediate task in battle fronts like Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere is to capture or kill the terrorists ... so we do not have to face them here at home." This is dishonest. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until we drove them there. The administration determined, correctly in my judgment, that the 9/11 perpetrators were Al-Qaeda and that Al-Qaeda was being given aid and sanctuary by the Taliban in Afghanistan and that they should be punished there. To say now that we're going after the terrorists in battlefronts "like" Iraq and Afghanistan is a dishonest effort to create an equivalency between the two places.

As for facing terrorists from Iraq here at home, the president himself insisted that there was no imminent threat to us from Iraq. All of the administration's statements about Hussein before 9/11 insisted he was contained and not a threat.