POLL: Bowling For Columbine

Remove all ads!

Mystra's Chosen - It depends on how you define your terms. The problem with using such labels as "Capitalist" or "Socialist" is that they can mean different things to different people. And that really was the point I was trying to make: that such labels have become marketing terms in the hands of politcal groups that have an ideological agenda. For sure there are text book definitions for these terms, but those definitions mean little in the landcape of American political life. "Spin" has become the buzz-word for this kind of political jargon, as everyone knows, and it is perfectly acceptable for both sides to engage in spin at the expense of the truth.

For instance, "America is engaged in bringing democracy to: fill in the blank with the appropriate republican president -- Vietnamese, Koreans, whichever country in Central America or the Middle East . . . . Of course, we don't have a democracy ourselves. Just ask any self-respecting talking head from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute. They will tell you about the evils of a true democracy. Or even fouler -- the social democrats of Europe. They don't come any fouler than that, Rush or O'Reilly will have you know, especially since they just won't go along with whatever we say.

Our current crop of talking heads, the likes of O'Reilly and Rush, have tossed true journalism aside in favor of spin, and I suppose Moore can be added to the list as well; although I have not seen any of his movies. Nor have I read any of his books. But I did see him once on Oprah.

[ March 27, 2003, 05:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Here's another one:
WSJ Opinion Journal

 

I don't know O'Reily or Rush, so I can't comment on them, but I do know the 'evils' of a true democracy. The fact is, there's no such thing. You look across the world and see countries (particularly in Africa) with 'Republic' or 'Democratic Republic' (which makes no sense) in the title. Those places are less a democratic than any. It's just a nice name covering a horrible place (like a wolf in sheep's clothing).

Anyway, that's the only thing I really understood about your post. Sorry, but you'll have to write it in lamen terms.

 

If anyone had seen Bowling for Colimbine, the reference about Lockheed is in jest. He clearly says that if its ok to blame influences like Marilyn Manson (who has millions of fans that dont go around killing people, why not other influences around them). In Fact, that is where the name of the movie comes from. The last thing they did before killing people was not listen to hate music but to go bowling. Yes bowling. They went to school to bowl, then left to get thier weapons to kill students. Then he takes a tangent (not to say that Lockheed influenced them, He is OBVIOUSLY critisizing the military industrial complex and then goes into all of our wonderful atrocities that we have allowed, encouraged, or did outright ourselves. He never says that is why they did it. In fact, the only reason he gives for our love of guns and violence is our culture of fear (If you dont believe that, just think 2 years back to the summer of the shark in which 1 more person was killed than average and last summers terrifying coverage of kidnappings, except kidnappings have steadily dropped every year for the past 20 years and have dropped almost 20 percent since 1980).

Yes, he exaggerated many things, but then again, so does the Bush administration. And they are running the country. Thats what is scary. Why attack more for blowing things out of porportion but not Bush? I ask you, why not Bush?

 

I like guns. But I have to agree with Moore's general idea that the gun culture in the States makes for a much more violent place to live. I just don't like those who claim to be "exposing lies" to turn out to be lying themselves. We expect the government to spin things, but when someone gives me a "fact" in a "documentary", I expect it to be a frigging fact!

Good comment, BTW, on how there's thousands of Marilyn Manson fans out there who DON'T kill; the same thing has been discussed in the D&D forum about how the game supposedly encourages Satan worship and suicide. Stupid excuse for criminal or self destructive behaviour.

 

Let me break it down for you this way, Mystra's Chosen. You commented in your post to me that Clinton and Gore were more socialist and that Bush was more capitalist. Of course, I am paraphrasing. If you define a capitalist as one who believes in a free market with healthy competition among rivals for market share, then Bush isn't really a capitalist. Here's an example of why: Vice President Dick Cheney ran Hallibuton before becomig VP. He made a fortune as its CEO. Now we have a war with Iraq and there has been damage to its oilfields as a result. Guess who was awarded the multi-billion dollar contract to repair the oilfields. Yes, the name of the company begins with H and ends in N. But here's the kicker -- the contract was awarded before the war even started. Now, is that a free market? If it is then you and I have a different definition of what is a free market.

Both parties are guilty of this. In fact, it goes on all the time here. That is why I believe that American government is in some ways a giant corporate welfare state.

[ March 27, 2003, 06:07: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Yep. The thing about any free market is that it's completely run by greed. The government, in my opinion, is running too much of a free market. Even pop culture has gotten into the whole 'greed' matrix. When you watch movies, it's always the 'evil corporation', because it's been like that since the dawn of time. Merchants cheat you, salesmen lie to you, and corporations make you feel good about being railroaded. Anyway, my definition of a free market economy is this; A market where nothing exists except huge corporations. The little guy went exstinct years ago. Wal-Mart has replaced, well, everything
You have no name, just a number. It might as well be tattoed on your forehead to make things easier (mark of the beast, anyone?). What I'm trying to say, is that of course Hallibuton got the contract. He probably made a deal with the president for gods sake... you should not be suprised. This type of immorality is commonplace today.

Depaara: I like guns too. I live in the country and shoot gophers every day (yee-haw). I also disagree with Moore doing what he does, because he wants you to believe that what he's saying it fact, not some bullcrap he just decided to 'throw' in there. I think we should do a documentary on him... we'll call it 'Mike Moore: Moore or Less a dip****' (pardon my french).

[ March 27, 2003, 07:37: Message edited by: Mystra's Chosen ]

 

Hey, don't bash the free market unless you really know what a free market is. In theory it is a great concept. Unfortunately it is just that, a concept. No state has ever had a free market and so we haven't been able determine whether it really is good or bad. Name me one such state. Remember a free market means NO government intervention.

 

We know that without some government intervention, bad things will happen in the marketplace. That's why even the US has organizations like the FDA and has guidelines on the manufacture of everything from cars to baby cribs. I think it's safe to say that a completely "free" market system would entail some serious -- and life threatening -- consequences for the consumer (I'm thinking here of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at any Speed").

 

But we won't really know until it has been attempted. I have read articles during my MBA classes detailing government intervention in the U.S. that caused efficient systems to bog down. I recall the trucking industry was especially affected by regulation. I should reread those articles. I can give you titles and authors if you're interested. Oh, we took up Ralph Nader too. IIRC he was sorely criticized. I don't even think he was qualified to talk about it. He's a consumer advocate isn't he?

 

I know what a free market is, but it doesn't sound good in theory. The only problem is, things usually go oposite of the thoery. Communism is good, IN THEORY, but in the real world with variables such as human instinct (greed, hate) and money woes (bad economy, lazy workers, underpaid worker and/or greedy owners) make it one (if not the) worst system a country can have, for the people anyway.

The reason it hasn't ever been tried is because then the government couldn't control your lives. China has, by far, the most free market in the world, and look at it...

 

Let's talk about government regulation in the free market. Ronald Reagan -- a president who knew even less about economics than he knew about acting -- ran on the platform that over-regulation was hampering American industry. One of the most pointed to industries that was too over-regulated was the airline industry. The airline deregulation Act of 1978 2 years before had promised huge changes. If only they were deregulated we would have more competition and the consumers would benefit from lower ticket prices as a result. So we were told. It was Ralph Nader, at that time, who claimed that it would have the reverse effect.

During the years that saw the biggest economic expansion in American history, the airline industry tanked. First to go were Pan Am and Eastern, then TWA. Now both American and United are on the brink.

Now guess who is getting huge federal assistance at the expense of the average taxpayer? If you guessed the airline industry then you win a free airplane ride to deregulation nirvana with Ronald Reagan as your flight captain. But that free ride won't be good for long, unless of course, you run an airline.

(note: I had to edit this orignal post because at first I had gotten the year wrong on the Deregulation Act. It was in the 1980's that the airlines were placed under the Department of Transportation. But I don't know the exact date. In fairness, I should credit Jimmy Carter for the Airline Deregulation Act, since he signed it, as much as I blame Reagan for the government deregulation that has had a negative impact on public transportation and safety as well as the American taxpayer.)

[ March 28, 2003, 01:21: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Okay ... now you all got me started on Michael Moore.

Here is a well written article that sums him up:

 

I agree, as I said before, even if the movie is BS, the point he's trying to bring across is still valid. America is a violent place (the most voiolent of 1st world countries). The point that he makes about examining all the scapegoats (violent movies/video games, broken homes, violent pasts/histories and guns in the country) is that other countries have all those things, but they're much less violent in their whole demeanor. Now, in the movie, he said that there were some 1200 killings in Canada each year. I looked it up on the web and there are (at it's highest in fact) 900 killings per year. Now, he also said GUN killings, which I couldn't find the number, but I THINK it'll be lower than the overall killings .
He also said the gun killings in America range about 11,000. I found out there are 10,159 killings using guns. there are also about 15,520 killings using any type of weapon. I found is curious (and somewhat perplexing) that he would choose to exagerate on Canada, but not the states. I find that he wanted to bash the states, so why not lie about them instead of us in canada?
Here are my sources...

US killings: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

Canadian killings:
http://web.mala.bc.ca/crim/stats/homi_2000jfa.htm

@Mathetais

Of course he runs around in limos... he's a millionaire. There's a very good possibility that he just likes wearing that stuff (jeans and a ball cap).

Anyway, check out this FAQ from the Bowling for Columbine website and decide for yourself. He's got links for all his information about past wars.

FAQ
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php

Even though he tends to lie and you should take what you read on his site carfully, his main topic/point/calling is to tell people that America is a violent country and something should be done about it.

 

from atty David Hardy: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

He also had this interesting thing to say:

Finally, here is the point in the mind of many:

For the record, I've seen it, thought it was funny, and think it is deceptive and dishonest.

 

Well, I must have gotten the numbers mixed up for Canada, so, sorry. Anyway, your post had practically nothing new in it. There has been many, many post saying basically the same thing you said, although the pure numbers you cited are inacurate. I got my stats from the U.S. Justice Department, so I don't think they'd be wrong. It's hard to imagine that the FBI would give bad information also, so I don't know. Could you perhaps get the links for that info. I checked the link you provided, but I saw no numbers or links to the numbers.

Anyway, I know that his movie is not completely accurate, but what I'm saying is his POINT is very (yes, very) valid because everyone knows America's a violent country. Next time, please read all the posts, or at least scan them, because this has been talked about and everything you could possibly talk about this subject has been mentioned at some time or another.

 

1) After your condescending suggestion that I read what has been posted because I'm only repeating what others have said I went back and reread the entire thing once again as I always do before posting.

You posted statistics for the first time and implied Canada was a safer nation than the US despite being similarly situated. The first quote I posted rejects these numbers, for the first time, and indicates that the comparison of the US and Canada is flawed and details why -- the numbers are actually similar comparing the areas similarly populated in the US that are adjacent to Canada etc.

The second quote talks about Glassner who was interviewed for the movie and points out that Glassner would hold many views that would undermine Bowling. This is the first time I can see this brought up in this thread.

The final shorter quote is admittedly similar to what others, including myself, have stated but does so in a much more succinct manner. It is a point that I emphasize and will continue to as others, not you(not everything is a direct response to you)that seemed to be focusing on other points.

Is it this third quote you wished to dismiss off hand as repetitive or do you see the other quotes discussed in detail above?

I only respond to the criticism publicly because I found it dismissive as well as incorrect.

2) You ask for a source for the statistics above. It is in the quote above. See where it says (UCR 2001 p. 23)? That means the information is from the Uniform Crime Reports of 2001 page 23. The Uniform Crime Report is essentially the bible of crime statistics. As a matter of fact, your link states that it relies on the UCR and even provides a link to the UCR though I haven't followed it and don't know if it is the most current version:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/addinfo.htm

That is what is confusing, your link has numbers that don't correspond with the UCR. You can find the UCR at any good library or online, do your own search, if you have adobe. Your link (which was done by two people) states they use an algorithm to assume unknown numbers but doesn't explain this algorithm. The UCR on the other hand explains its methodology in detail and uses per capita numbers from similar areas to estimate the non-reporting areas (which is a small number.)

So, I suspect these estimations are where your discrepancies come from. That said, the UCR is updated and the most recent one for 2003 actually reports numbers lower than the attorney used originally as they subsequently gained information suggesting they had overestimated originally (not by much, a few hundred.)

There, I'll try to be good and at least scan the posts in the future. That's probably all I have to say about this particular subject so I'll have to implement your advice in other threads.

 

I'm sorry if I seemed rude, but a lot of people don't read the posts (you can always tell) and I didn't know it was you, Laches (whose been posting since the beginning of this thread). I also want to say that neither of my sources on the murders were done by any two people. What did you mean by that? My quote on canada's murders were from a university and the one on the states is from the Justice Department, and I don't think either of those two is run by 2 people. I still stand by my previous post, but don't take it to heart. I tend to say things over when people aren't getting it and I'll keep doing thaet in hopes that they'll get it, somehow... anyway, I keep saying (and therefore will keep saying) that Moore's point is all I'm trying to get across. He says America is a violent country and something should be done about it. Anyway, try not to get too upset because the Board's are a friendly place where everyone should feel safe . Anyhoo, let's move on. Hopefully you'll understand my (and Moore's) point. I've said it before and I'll say it again... an Uzi does not kill deer!

I just checked out your link. It turns out that it's THE SAME SITE!!! I'm not sure what the hell is going on, but why would the same site have contrasting numbers? My link is to the BJS, so is yours. Me confus-ED??? The link I pointed to was exactly four up from yours. here's the main page...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm

I clicked on WEAPON TRENDS
you clicked on ABOUT THE DATA

Wierd. I guess we're getting the same (but somehow different info).

[ March 29, 2003, 07:23: Message edited by: Mystra's Chosen ]