 |
| |
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I don't know why hes got such a bad rep here. The US needs liberal Limbaughs, if only to spice things up a bit. Its completely true, his arguements are as solid as swiss cheese, same goes for his latest book, but hes hilarious.
I was actually startled that he seems to be for gun ownership in this movie and then doubles back and protests K-Mart for selling ammo(a completely sensational part of the movie and pretty pointless IMHO but at least he seems to have made those kids' day). I couldn't believe that he doesn't even mention that Japan and Britain have extremely strict gun laws and almost no gun crimes.
The most unbelievable part is during the Heston interview he gives Heston the answer he needs right before he asks him if he didn't think it was crass to go to Columbine and Flint shortly after those events. The whole movie hes been showing that guns really aren't the problem but fear may be and he tells Heston as much. Heston could have simply answered that after events like these gun ownership and the peoples right to own guns is wrongly singled out as the problem and as the president of the NRA he would have been remiss to cancel these NRA conventions, it would have seemed like he was agreeing with the premiss that gun ownership had to do with these horrible events. Instead of simply saying something like this he gets up and storms out.
As to the supposedly racist comment I've gotta say that I thought it hinted at him being racist too and if Heston is as pro-civil rights as people say then that was a pretty crappy thing for Moore to insinuate. However, when people talk about Heston's history in civil rights they talk about his involvement in the struggle 20 and 30 years ago. Its not unheard of for people who fought for civil rights back then to have changed their mind on the subject in the intervening time. Well, I don't know either way.
Anyway, Moore's arguements are usually pretty inconsistent but I only came to this conclusion after I had watched the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Oh, and I always lock my doors whether I'm inside or leaving, but I'm from NYC(though it is a pretty nice neighbourhood).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Bravo... glad to see someone got the message.
In fact, Moore omitted many facts that could have made the film into a "Pro-Gun control" piece. The vast majority of Canada's weapons are rifles and shotguns. Most of America's weapons are handguns. He left these facts out, which I found interesting because they could easily be used to support a handgun ban stance. |
Exactly my thoughts! Even though quite biased, some examples were still quite freaky, the "gun-for-a-bankaccount" was very 'unusual' and I don't think it was a fake scene.
I don't live in the USA, but at home or anywhere else we lock the door when we leave the place, which is quite natural, as there are many expensive pieces here  , and thieves know, apparently, as we've had several (failed) "visits" already
But when you're at home it's annoying to lock the door and unlock it again every time you want to go out for a short while...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:27
|
|
I followed the link given by Wraith above. I haven't taken the time to check all the sources, but some of the things mentioned there disappoint me if they're true (more on this below). But some of it doesn't make sense either.
First of all, it doesn't require a PhD in mathematics or statistics to find the official figures on gun homicides and population for various countries and compare them without any bias. It does, however, require time  , which is scarce, so I just took the link's figures at face value. Note carefully what this means: the following calculations are done with the critical link's own figures, it may or may not be accurate figures! Also note that I make the worst case for all countries except for the US, where I make the best case.
The site reports the following gun homicides (population) figures:
Australia: 123 (19 000 000), NB! Here I took the highest gun homicide figure for a single year during 1980-1995.
Canada: 165 (31 000 000)
Germany: 1476 (81 000 000), NB! Here I took Germany's figure for all homicides in 1995, not just gun homicides. The figure is thus grossly exaggerated.
US: 8480 (285 000 000), NB! This is the lowest figure for the US and is said to be the gun homicides in 1999.
Gun homicide per million inhabitants (not per capita in order to get rid of a lot of zeroes) becomes:
Australia: 6.47
Canada: 5.32
Germany: 18.22
US: 29.75
Note that the US has about 5.6 times more gun homicides per million inhabitants than Canada and 1.63 times more than Germany (the runner-up), whose figure was calculated using all its homicides. Rates or absolute values, it doesn't matter, the site's own figures are crystal clear. Again, I've calculated the figures above with the "worst" figures for all countries except the US, for which I chose the most favourable ones. Again, I do not say that these figures are the accurate ones. I've just used the same figures that the site uses to criticise Moore for making "wrong/biased" international comparisons.
Dr Strangelove is right on the money about Switzerland. But this only strengthens the original question that Moore asks. In fact, as others have noted above, that's what the comparison with Canada is intended to point out.
As I said in the beginning, I haven't checked all the site's criticism and some of the things brought up would disappoint me if true. I guess that remaining objective is a difficult balance for any journalist, but that's not Moore's intention. Still, just because others are biased and use shady methods does not justify you to do the same thing.
Why couldn't the bank give each customer a bouquet of flowers to bring to the better half instead?  
Carolus
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Where do you live? And, do you not have Blockbusters? |
Lynchburg, VA. None of Mr. Moore's work has ever reached this town, not even our Blockbusters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monolith94
it's a bastardized version of dahgannit |
Heh, heh! That tells me just as much...
Goddammit in some awkward way?
Carolus
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uggabugga
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trajanus
...Even though quite biased, some examples were still quite freaky, the "gun-for-a-bankaccount" was very 'unusual' and I don't think it was a fake scene.... |
sorry, even that part was 'fictitious':
quote:
BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check. |
link
documentary my heinie!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I think Michael Moore defends himself pretty well in this interview, too bad it only mentions two of the criticisms of the film.
http://www.splicedonline.com/02features/mimoore.html
All the people bringing up criticisms of the film, are they sure they aren't falling into the same trap of propaganda? I'm not saying these criticisms are wrong just that ones like the last one aren't verifiable or at least don't have a source. What did they do, call up the bank after the fact? Of course, after the movie their policy might have changed and they wouldn't admit to handing out guns. I don't know either way, I'm just seeing alot of sights where the arguements are as suspect as the movie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uggabugga
|
|
er---from your link:
quote:
1. There’s a wonderful scene where Moore goes into a bank with an “Open an account, get a free gun” deal, opens an account, and is summarily awarded his new firearm. Sound too absurd to be true? Of course, it was staged. Not only would Moore have had to open up a long-term CD account with a considerable minimum deposit to get the supposedly “free” gun, but there would have been a long waiting period where the bank would have performed background checks both on Moore’s financial history and his legal right to own the gun. Moore, only then, could get his gun, but he still would have had to pick it up at a local gun store, not the bank. None of this is portrayed in the film; Moore simply thought it would be more convenient and cinematic for the bank to have a stockpile of firearms in the back that they hand out indiscriminately, so that’s what he invented.
|
it would certainly help to have a verifiable statement from an executive at the bank, but there are other sources claiming that part was staged:
And Moore's anti-gun fervor also trumps the facts. He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can't walk in or out of the bank with one-unless you're a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.
But, there's more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I'm a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he'd ever heard of."
Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.
In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yago
|
|
What just bothers me in general with those proofs, that the Moore movie was actually faked is, why is no one sueing him ?
The film was a big blockbuster, why hasn't anyone sued ? There's plenty of $$$$$ to be made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uggabugga
|
|
i think it would be safe to say that the reputations of charlton heston, ex-pres. bush (#41- due to the doctored 'willie horton' ad- and the bank (and the featured employee) were harmed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
uggabugga
|
|
do you want to talk about potential harm or the potential to file a lawsuit?
two different things.
by 'ludicrous', are you saying it didn't happen, or that it's unfair to bring it up?
Moore's clever techniques of inversion reach an apogee with the Willie Horton ad. Political historians will remember that in the 1988 Democratic primaries, candidate Al Gore criticized Gov. Michael Dukakis for a Massachusetts furlough program under which Willie Horton — who was serving a murder sentence of life without parole — was given a weekend furlough, and raped a woman. During the fall campaign, the pro-Bush National Security Political Action Committee ran a Willie Horton commercial.
The official Bush campaign ran its own advertisement, "Revolving Doors," which attacked the furlough program but did not mention Willie Horton.
But Moore pastes text from the National Security PAC ad over film from the Bush commercial, thus creating the impression that Bush invoked Willie Horton. Moore falsifies the advertisement by pasting onscreen the text: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." This libels Willie Horton, who perpetrated a rape but not a murder during his furlough. The audience already knows that it is supposed to be angry about the Willie Horton ad, because it was unfair and because it politically seduced gullible Americans. So Bowling does a "Willie Horton" of its own on the audience, making the film's version of the ad into a falsehood and so turning the audience into dupes of a Willie Horton ad — just like the 1988 dupes of the original ad. For good measure, the ad makes the audience believe that a black man is guilty of a crime he never committed; Bowling thereby perpetrates the same manipulation of racial fears which it accuses the media of perpetrating
hey, maybe willie horton can sue! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-04-2003 09:02
In the house where I live now, a locked door wouldn't make any difference. A burglar could easily break a window on the backdoor, unlock it through the hole and walk right in.
|