posted on March 23, 2003 04:37:49 AM new
"Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God, you're insulting me.' That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, 'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."
-Janeane Garofalo
"I don't agree, you see, I don't really view communism as a bad thing."
-Whoopi Goldberg
"Bush is a racist"
-Danny Glover
"I believe he thinks this [war against Iraq] is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore...We can't beat anyone anymore"
-George Clooney
"No more whining about the French. At least they're standing up to the Bush administration, which is more than I can say for the Democrats! And, by the way, it doesn't make me un-American to say I'd rather live in Paris than in places where cheese only comes in individually-wrapped slices."
posted on March 23, 2003 10:56:20 AM new
Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne
The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like"stupid", "morons", and "idiots". Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.
So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid", "ignorant", "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:
President George W. Bush
Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to Urban Legends.Com and see the truth.)
Vice President Dick Cheney
Earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator. Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge
Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.)
She is a Fellow of the AmericanAcademy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution.
Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula.
In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.
So, who are these pompous, outspoken celebrity critics?
What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their education and background:
Barbra Streisand
Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting
Cher
Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen
Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting
Jessica Lange
Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin
Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting
Julia Roberts
Completed high school
Career: Acting
Sean Penn
Completed High school
Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon
Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting
Ed Asner
Completed High school
Career: Acting
George Clooney
Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting
Michael Moore
Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker
Completed High School
Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston
Completed High School
Career: Acting
Mike Farrell
Completed High school
Career: Acting
Janeane Garofalo
Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman
Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting
While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.
These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep-seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost,not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.
Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.
So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he believe that his high school diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him clout?
The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!
It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.
Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.
posted on March 23, 2003 11:02:31 AM newI like this article too
Friday, March 21, 2003
Chicago Tribune Admits Patriotic Rallies Bigger Than Appeasement Protests
From the establishment media's astonishing lack of coverage of the patriotic rallies and obsessive devotion to the appeasement demonstrations, you can't prove whether they're biased or just inexcusably ignorant. Now the Chicago Tribune has inadvertantly admitted they do know what's going on but just don't feel like covering the news.
"Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush's strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of radio stations," the Tribune complained Thursday.
"In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies."
Check out what's going on here. The only reason the Tribune can stomach admitting the popularity of the patriotic gatherings is to criticize Clear Channel. Otherwise there'd be no mention that the pro-U.S. rallies of up to 20,000 people dwarfed the smaller appeasement demonstrations.
And why does the Tribune fail to raise its eyebrows over who's backing the appeasement rallies? After NewsMax helped break the story of the movement's Marxist backers, Fox News Channel confirmed this with its own report. Why won't the Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. admit this reality?
posted on March 23, 2003 08:22:14 PM new
Good for Michael Moore!!!
— LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Politics grabbed center stage at the Academy Awards on Sunday as the winner for best documentary, director Michael Moore, charged President Bush with waging a "fictitious war."
"We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's for the fictition of duct tape or the fictitions of orange alert. We are against this war Mr. Bush. Wagging his finger from the stage as he was both applauded and booed by the assembled celebrities, Moore said, "We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."
posted on March 23, 2003 09:01:39 PM new
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
Documentary or Fiction?
The first misconception to correct about Michael Moore's The Big One is that it is a documentary. It's not Moore doesn't make those. As was proven after the release of Moore's debut, Roger & Me, the director uses real people, places, and circumstances, then stages events (see Harlan Jacobson's piece in the November/ December 1989 Film Comment for more details). Reality a fragile commodity in any "fact-based" motion picture takes a back seat to what will play well on a movie screen. As a result, it's best to consider Moore's films as entries into the ever-growing category of pseudo (or "meta" documentaries. Or, perhaps even more accurately, view it as an exercise in self-publicity.
James Berardinelli
The Michael Moore production Bowling for Columbine just won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary.
Bowling fails the first requirement of a documentary: some foundation in the truth. In his earlier works, Moore shifted dates and sequences for the sake of drama, but at least the events depicted did occur. Most of the time. Bowling breaks that last link with factual reality. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore invites the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Dates are transposed and video carefully edited to create whatever effect is desired. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered.
These occur with such frequency and seriousness as to rule out unintentional error. Any polite description would be inadequate, so let me be blunt. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing, or it may be moving. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 11 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary must be non-fictional, and even re-enactments (much less doctoring of a speech) must stress fact and not fiction. To the Academy voters, some silly rules were not a bar to giving the award. The documentary category, the one refuge for works which educated and informed, is now no more than another sub-category of entertainment.
Serious charges require serious evidence. The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or that its conclusions are incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. But words are cheap. Let's look at the evidence.
1. Lockheed-Martin and Nuclear Missiles. Bowling for Columbine contains a sequence filmed at the Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility, near Columbine. Moore interviews a PR fellow, shows missiles being built, and then asks whether knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters in committing their own mass slaying. After all, if their father worked on the missiles, "What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?" Moore intones that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep."
Soon after Bowling was released someone checked out the claim, and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.
Moore's website has his response:
"Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That's because the Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "
Nice try, Mike.
(1) Yes, some Titans and Atlases (54 of them) were used as ICBM launchers -- they were deactivated 25 years ago, long before the Columbine killers were born;
(2) the fact that some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting in the movie... it's hard to envision a killer making a moral equation between mass murder and a recon satellite, right?
(3) In fact, one of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: the Denver plant was in charge of taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and coverting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units instead.
C'mon Mike, You got caught. As we will see below, the event is all too illustrative of Moore's approach. In producing a supposed "documentary," Moore simply changes facts when they don't suit his theme. The viewer cannot count on what he sees, or is told, having any relation to facts. Whenever Moore desires, facts will be manufactured in the editing booth.
2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. The dominant theme in Bowling (and certainly the theme that has attracted most reviewers) is that NRA is callous toward slayings. The theme begins early in the film, and forms its ending, as Moore confronts Heston, asserting that he keeps going to the scene of tragedies to hold defiant rallies.
In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.
Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:
Weeping children outside Columbine, explaining how near they had come to death and how their friends had just been murdered before their eyes;
Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket over his head and happily proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" to a cheering NRA crowd.
Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore in voiceover 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 West, 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 Heston and NRA arrogantly holding a protest rally 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." [italics added]. Moore successfully causes viewers to reach this conclusion. It is in fact false.
Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting, 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.
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 a response to his being given the musket, a collector's piece, at that annual meeting. Bowling leads off with this speech, and then splices in footage which was taken in Denver and refers to Denver, to create the impression that the entire clip was taken at the Denver event.
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 quite 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.
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, to create a speech that was never given. 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 to a meeting in North Carolina.
Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. The interlude is vital. He can't cut 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. Or why the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments of this supposed speech to keep the viewer from noticing.
Moore then goes to show Heston speaking in Denver. His second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd at the meeting, while Heston's voice continues) 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 has to take that out -- it would blow his entire theme. Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: 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! Heston was actually saying (with reference Heston's 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." It thus becomes an arrogant "I said to the Mayor: as American's we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a still photo of the Mayor as Heston says "I said to the mayor," cutting back to Heston's face at "As Americans."
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. As Heston speaks, the video switches momentarily to a pan of the crowd, then back to Heston; the pan shot covers the doctoring.
What Heston actually is saying in "We're already here" was not the implied defiance, but rather this:
"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."
Don't take my word for it. Click here for CNS's full transcript of the speech, and here for the comparison.
Bowling continues its theme by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, making the claim that right after the shooting, NRA came to the locale to stage a defiant rally. In Moore's words, "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 rally was held when elections rolled around some eight months after the shooting.
Fact: Moore should remember. On the same day, Moore himself was hosting a similar rally in Flint, for the Green Party.
Bowling's thrust here is to convince the viewer that Heston intentionally holds defiant protests in response to a firearms tragedy. Judging from reviews, Bowling creates exactly that impression. Here are some samples of reviewer's writings: "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; italics supplied] Another reviewer even came off with the impression that 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."
Bowling persuaded these reviewers by deceiving them. There was no rally shortly after the tragedy, nor 48 hours after it. When Heston said he did not know of the shooting (which had happened eight months before his appearance, over a thousand miles from his home) he was undoubtedly telling the truth. The lie here is not that of Heston, but of Moore.
The sad part is that the lie has proven so successful. Moore's creative skills, which could be put to a good purpose, are instead used to convince the viewer that a truthful man is a liar and that things which did not occur, did.
That may win an award at Cannes. It may make some serious money. But it is a disgrace to the documentary creator's art.
3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, 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 an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.
Fact: The Klan wasn't founded in 1871, but in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that it technically became an "illegal" terrorist organization 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 suspend habeas corpus and to use troops to suppress the Klan.
Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus in South Carolina, sending troops into that and other states; 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 oppose Klan terror.
Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded in New York by two former Union officers, its first president was an Army of the Potomac commander, 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.
Fact: The tradition continues. Moore does his best to suggest Heston is a racist. Heston picked discriminatory restaurants and from 1963 (i.e., when the civil rights movement was still struggling for support) worked with, and admired, Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (the fact that there was a barrier illustrates how far Heston was in advance of the rest of the celebrity-types.) Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (also attended by NRA's Executive Vice President, and presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes).
4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter as a sympathetic youngster 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 bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife. (Sources for all data are given at the end of this section).
Fact: The uncle's house was the neighborhood crack-house. The uncle (together with the shooter's father, then serving a prison term for theft and cocaine possession, and his aunt and maternal grandmother) earned their living off drug dealing. The gun was stolen by one of the uncle's customers and purchased in exchange for drugs.
Bowling further depicts the shooter's mother as a victim of welfare reform, which forced her to work two jobs at low pay, to be evicted from her house, and to place the shooter in his uncle's house. "In order to get food stamps and health care for her children, Tamarla had to work as part of the State of Michigan's welfare-to-work program." "Although Tamarla worked up to 70 hours per week at the two jobs in the mall, she did not earn enough to pay her rent."
Fact: The shooter's mother had been promoted, and was making $7.85/hour, or about $1250 per month from that job, and an unknown amount from the other, plus food stamps and health benefits.
Fact: The rent for the house from which they were evicted was $300 a month.
Fact: Under the Michigan welfare reform, the family qualified for free child care and rent subsidies.
Links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
5. The Taliban and American Aid. After discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001, and then shows aircraft hitting the twin towers to illustrate the result.
Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan.
6. Canadian Comparisons. Bowling compares the US to Canada, depicting the latter as an Eden of nonviolence and low homicide rates (despite having a plentiful supply of firearms). Only a cynic would suggest this might be linked to the film's Canadian funding.
Fact: Canada is hardly comparable to the far more urbanized United States. Violence rates correlate strongly to population density. Canada has about 3.3 persons per square kilometer; the U.S. about 29.1. Canada has only four cities with population over a million.
Fact: In 2001 (the most recent year for which FBI data are available State by State) the nine American states with land borders contiguous to Canada had an average homicide rate of 2.2 per 100,000 persons, far less than the rest of the US and not much above Canada's 1.8 rate. North Dakota, with a population density almost identical to that of Canada (3.5/sq. km.), had a homicide rate of 1.1, lower than that of Canada. Its Canadian neighbor, Manitoba, had a rate of 2.96. Quebec (1.89 rate) borders on Vermont (1.1) New York (5.0) and New Hampshire (1.4). Canadian data.
Fact: New York is of course a special case; most of its homicides occur in the urbanized southeast part of the State. If we look at the four New York counties which border on Canada (Clinton, Franklin, St. Lawrence and Jefferson), we find that in 2001 three counties had no homicides at all, and Jefferson County had one. Two of the counties also reported not a single theft that year.
Fact: If Bowling wanted to find areas where doors can be left unlocked, it did not need to go to Canada. Two of those four NY counties also reported not a single theft. 85% of U.S. counties reported no (as in zero) youth homicides in 1997; in any given year, about a third of them will report no homicides at all. In large expanses of the US, generally characterized by low population density, homicide is almost unknown.
If we want to be more specific and compare urban areas near the border, rather than states and provinces:
Canadian city homicide rates: Toronto 1; Montreal 3; Winnipeg 3; Windsor 4 (source)
US city homicide rates: Madison WI 1.4; Minneapolis 2.6; Bismarck ND 0 (not a typo, zero); Boise 2; Duluth 2 Portland ME 1.2 (source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2001)
7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is getting into the act. In one scene, 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 enters the store and 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 either staged or illegal: Canadian law requires all ammunition buyers to present proper identification. (The law, in effect since 1998, requires non-Canadians to present picture ID and a gun importation permit).
While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore solemnly pronounces that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972." Strangely, Moore does not show the plaque.
Actually, the plaque 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, granted. But it illustrates that the viewer can't even trust Bowling to honestly read the inscription on a plaque.
8. 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 peace and safety, Moore asks why. He proclaim 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!" (As I note above, he even goes so far as to exaggerate the ease with which you can buy ammunition there).
In the end he concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts, and attributes the different to the fact that the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is.
So Bowling is actually not against guns, gun ownership, or even gun nuts. Outlaw television, not guns! Bowling is against, and as I point out, fraudulently against, Charlton Heston, and against the NRA. This is a bit anomalous, since Moore ultimately concludes that they are telling the truth, but nevermind.
Bowling's thrust here is thus a bit peculiar. Its total contribution on the gun issue is not an argument about guns, but a personal -- indeed a personal, vicious, and falsified -- attack on Heston and the NRA as a group. That's about it. Which may explain why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination... without saying anything specific about his gun-related matters, instead referring repeatedly to NRA and Heston. Press release.
Conclusion
Moore's own assessment of Bowling is to the point: "It's funny, poignant and interesting, your perfect Saturday night out." That might of course be said of good comedic fiction.
For a documentary, though, one expects more. For example, truth.
The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. One might hope that a documentary would be fair and objective, but nothing rules out a rousing polemic now and then.
The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it, whenever necessary, by deception. It even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic phrases into arrogant ones. You can't even trust the narrator to read you a plaque or show you a speech, for Pete's sake.
The bottom line: can a film be called a documentary when the viewer cannot trust an iota of it, not only the narration, but the video? I suppose film critics could debate that one for a long time, and some might prefer entertainment and effect to fact and truth. But the Academy Award rules here are specific. Rule 11 lays out "Special Rules for the Documentary Award." And it begins with the definition: "A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture . . . ." It goes on to say that a documentary doesn't always have to show the "actual occurrence": it can employ re-enactment, etc., "as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on fiction."
So when awards night rolls around, we will see whether the Academy follows its own core rule, or decides to ignore it so long as the film is one attacking one Charlton Heston, and the NRA.
David T. Hardy [who has for the last year been working on his own, honest, second amendment documentary]
posted on March 23, 2003 10:37:45 PM new
I do know one thing. Micheal Moore's movie might be interesting to watch, but they are terribly slanted. If they were any more slanted they would fall over.
Also, reamond's post about the Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan is all correct. I live less than an hour from there and watched complete news coverage on it for about a week. It occoured at Mt. Morris, Michigan. This is just outside of Flint, Michigan, where he created his first masterpiece Roger and Me. A film about General Motors and it closing one of it's major plants in Flint.
posted on March 24, 2003 04:53:23 AM new
Helen's quote regarding the Michael Moore acceptance speech is incomplete...
"We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!," he said to loud boos from an audience of 3,500 including most of Hollywood's top stars.
posted on March 24, 2003 05:52:27 AM new
deuce - LOL!! It's hard for me to believe Helen would only copy 'part' of a statement....especially since she's the one who constantly tells other's they're taking things out of context. ROFLMHO -
I'm glad to hear some there felt Michael Moore's statement wasn't correct.
------------
Reamond - You're just too good.
The 'stars' think because they're 'stars' they don't need to have the information nor the education that those who make these decisions do.
I really enjoyed the article showing Michael Moore for what he really is....A GREAT twister of the facts in his so-called 'documentary'. Only wish more could read what you posted. Hey...on second thought, I'll pass it along to our email list.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:00:39 AM new
:: Deuce - LOL!! It's hard for me to believe Helen would only copy 'part' of a statement....especially since she's the one who constantly tells other's they're taking things out of context::
Considering that the text that Helen quoted mentioned the crowd reaction prior to his quote....
::Wagging his finger from the stage as he was both applauded and booed by the assembled celebrities, Moore said, "We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you." ::
.... don't you think it's possible that she was simply quoting a different article?
and if you watched, one would have definitely heard the loud boos, as I did.
One other thing, I had the occasion to drive from Colorado to Oklahoma this past Friday and Saturday, and saw 3 small pro-war/troops demonstrations on highway overpasses; dozens of flags and signs. And one HUGE one near Oklahoma City, a 4-land bridge completely inundated with RED WHITE and BLUE signs, flags, and clothes...very nice to see!
v/r
Deuce
[ edited by deuce on Mar 24, 2003 06:04 AM ]
posted on March 24, 2003 06:06:11 AM new
Did anyone notice the look and demeanor of Harrison Ford at the awards ? I thought he was going to throw up when he announced that the child raper Polanski won. He offered NO personal congratulations either.
Only Hollywood would give an award to a child raper.
I propose that some of the wealthier and sensible people of Hollywood put together a bounty on Polanski of a few $million, and see if someone doesn't bring that child raper back to the USA for some justice.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:11:29 AM new
neonmania - You'd have to have been there...type of thing. Many times I've quote a democrat saying something that 'verifies/proves' that that same democrat has said the same thing a republican has. Meaning they BOTH see it [the issue] the same way. I post it...Helen follows right behind pointing out I didn't quote the 'whole' statement. She implies and states that posting the rest would have made a difference when it wouldn't have.
Just pointing out how so many times when others do the exact same thing that she does....it's somehow different. It's not.
My quote was complete. I didn't watch the awards. The story that I used indicated that he was booed and applauded and I assumed that everyone who watched the award ceremony or the news knew that. I was most interested in his words and did not intentionally omit anything.
I'm sure that you know about google headlines...There, you will find several stories on the same topic and the complete sentence will depend on which story is used. I usually use a link and will make a point to do so in the future.
This is the google headline page in case anyone doesn't have it.
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. -- Michael Moore, the Oscar-nominated filmmaker and political activist, accused President George W. Bush Thursday night of exploiting the public's fears after the Sept. 11 attacks to launch what Moore called an unnecessary war.
"This is all a cover and what's so outrageous about all of this is that this man, George W. Bush, would use the deaths of Sept. 11 ... as a cover for his right-wing agenda," Moore said as he accepted the Eleanor Roosevelt Freedom of Speech Award from the Southern California chapter of Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal activist group.
The rotund, scruffy-bearded activist from Flint, Mich., is nominated at Sunday's Academy Awards in the documentary category for his anti-violence film "Bowling for Columbine."
He also directed the popular 1989 documentary "Roger & Me, in which he pursued former General Motors boss Roger Smith in an effort to confront him about the collapse of the auto industry in Moore's hometown.
He told the crowd of nearly 400 Thursday night that it was "high immorality" for the Bush administration to attempt to link Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks without providing evidence.
"'Because they died, let me go bomb another country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11,"' Moore said sarcastically. "This is an absolute disgrace. It dishonors those who died."
Moore is also the author of the best-selling book "Stupid White Men ... And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation," which criticizes American politicians for favoring corporate wealth over public well-being.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:22:50 AM new
:: Only Hollywood would give an award to a child raper. ::
It's not as if he received a humanitarian award. He received an award for Best Director based on the merits of his work. Fords reaction was probably more out of disappointment that sentimental favorite Martin Scorsese did not win (he directed Kundun, a film writen by Fords former wife). The predictions I read/heard stated that if voters went on heart, it would be Scorsese, if the went on film merits, it would be Polanski.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:43:59 AM new
Again Neo, you're full of s*it. The award brings in money and prestige to this child raper. An arts award is indeed a humanitarian award. What do you think an award for artistic merit is, a bravery medal ?
But somehow I am not surprised that you would defend giving an award to a child raper.
posted on March 24, 2003 06:57:06 AM new
You're the one that needs to grow up. After all, what type of mature mind would defend giving an award to a child raper ?
posted on March 24, 2003 07:11:10 AM new
Oscar awards are based on merit of work product, not merit of morality. If anything it was widely believed that his history would count against him in the voting.
I admire great talent. I can admire the product of that talent and admire it's possessor for it without admiring them as an individual.
Does admiring the strength of stroke and imagery of a Frida Kahlo painting and admiring her skill make one a supporter of communism?
posted on March 24, 2003 07:33:10 AM new
Sure it does. It is no different than murders selling their stories to Hollywood, or Charles Manson selling his "artworks".
People who patronize these "artists" are sick.
There is nothing to admire about a person that drugs and rapes a minor and then flees the country while out on bail. There is no equitity that "builds" up due to artistic ability that merits any recognition for a child raper.
I do not patronize Michael Jackson's "art" either.
I don't admire Hitler for his astounding oratorical abilities.
Patronizing these creeps empowers them. Who in their right mind would empower these types of people ?
I also will not patronize the list of "artists" that are against the war. Supporting these "artists" is no different than voting for a politician.
'I also will not patronize the list of "artists" that are against the war. Supporting these "artists" is no different than voting for a politician.'
------------------------------------------------------
How true! I feel the same way. I hope the majority of America feels this way too. I am personally "taking names" on this Hollywood crowd (and also the music crowd) and will never again see a movie, rent a video, or buy a CD that contains anyone on that list.
With our young men and women dying in this struggle and being held captive (the Iraqis are probably showing them video of the Oscars right now)it is much worse than being "anti-war" or even "anti-Bush". It is downright seditious and bordering on treason.
These people have way too much power and influence. Hopefully it will come back to haunt them through the pocketbook. I am not for government censorship AT ALL, but there is nothing wrong for the majority of the public if that is our will, to make it known through a very decreased patronage of these so-called artists. I would love to see these "Jane Fondas" become has-been artists within a short period of time. When they can't draw at the box-office, they won't get the roles.
BOYCOTT THE BASTARDS IN EVERY SHAPE AND FORM. But support the few that are patriots. There are some....and perhaps others that are "afraid" to speak up and buck the Hollywood crowd at the moment. Maybe they will come out of the woodwork one by one.
posted on March 24, 2003 11:35:42 AM new
I find it ironic that the same people who insist that Hollywood types have no right to opine on political matters (as if there were some kind of minimum academic requirement for an actor to have an opinion on events that everyone else in the nation has opinions about as well) are then willing to judge an artistic work they clearly haven't seen based on a case they clearly don't know much about.
First off, addressing the idea of artistic merit. You do have to know something about film to appreciate the roles that writing, acting, directing, cinematography and editing play in the final product. A large part of the director's job lies in fine-tuning the emotion and intensity of the performances and watching the actors with a critical eye to determine if they are producing the performance that will best contribute to the whole.
In the hands of, say, Steven Spielberg, The Pianist would have been a solid, somewhat derivative, definitely sentimental work. In the hands of Polanski, it is a masterpiece because he didn't allow any sentimentality - ever. At the same time, he overcame a lifelong tendency toward coldness in his movies and let honest emotion shine through - the good, the bad and the ugly. There's one scene where the title character (whose name I can't begin to be able to spell) is so afraid that he can't even touch a piano - yet his fingers keep twitching helplessly as if he's playing. It was a great performance by Adrien Brody and a great directing job by Polanski. (In contrast, some of the performances in Chicago were allowed to get out of hand, and while the visual editing was inspired, the sound editing was terrible. I thought that award was a mistake.)
There were probably other actors besides Brody who could have played the pianist. But I don't think there were many other directors out there that could have produced this movie.
Furthermore, the movie is deeply personal and the Academy knew it. As a Polish Jew, Polanski barely escaped a concentration camp himself by crawling through a fence in the Krakow ghetto. His mother died in a camp.
But personally, I believe the case for artistic merit lies entirely within the boundaries of the work - and there's ample reason to have given Polanski the best-director Oscar.
By the way, I think Brody (who also deserved his award) was touchingly eloquent in his speech.
[ edited by msincognito on Mar 24, 2003 11:52 AM ]
posted on March 24, 2003 11:53:23 AM new
What a load of rubbish.
So I take it that it is OK to drug and have sex with a minor as long as he/she say the perp shouldn't go to prison after he/she reaches the age of majority ? What sick logic.
The "victim" is not the agent of prosecution in a criminal case, the state is. Someone should grab that creepy child raper by the scruff of the neck and put him in prison.
By the way, Polanski's work is crap. He is the darling of a perverted caste of Hollywood creeps. They mooned and fawned over the movie 'Tess', and it was an unmitigated waste of film and time. Chinatown is a mediocre film at best.
documentaries. Or, perhaps even more accurately, view it as an exercise in self-publicity.