Spoot, I enjoyed watching bowling for columbine quite a bit.. even though i am undecided on how to handle the gun law issue myself. I see Michael Moore as being sort of a common fellow's leftist. So I think him pitted against right wing intellectuals wouldn't make any sense. Let Noam Chompsky or whomever go after those guys. The thing that makes me actually really like Moore were the non-gun related issues that he addressed very simply and eloquently in the film. I actually thought the Marilyn Manson interview was amazing. I am happy that that sort of thing was shown in "mainstream" theaters .. i haven't seen that too much, if at all. I don't think it was dumbed down at all.. it was just more of an emotional/spiritual argument than an intellectual one.

spoot wrote:Alex! Is not worshipping Michael Moore an indication of political moderation? Balls to that!

Worshipping a guy who pisses on moderation is itself a radical stance! But yes, I was being hyperbolic.

In Bowling for Columbine, as in all his movies, Moore chooses targets that no one could miss - Charlton Heston, Timothy McVeigh's brother (wasn't that the odd guy on the farm?) [that was McVeigh accomplice Terry Nichols's brother-ed] - and holds them up as representatives of all gun culture. I agree with his politics: I think guns are shitty and gun nuts are whacked, and that gun violence in America is creepy and tragic. But I do know that there are eloquent, intelligent people who support gun ownership, & Michael Moore isn't talking to them.

Did you see the movie? You could make the argument that he himself supports gun ownership. He interviews plenty of politicians and suits who elaborate the issue as one that transcends a mere need for gun control. He holds up the entire nation of Canada as an example of a place where guns suffuse the population, where the gun culture is perhaps stronger than in the US yet the culture itself is nonviolent. And after making this point in a mundane, academic way he punctuates it with that "thanks for not shooting me" scene which is one of the funniest moments in film history. And the effective use of perhaps simplistic satire to illustrate more complicated issues, aside from being the definition of art, serves to communicate beyond the Chomsky - inhabited ivory tower.

Like Rush, he keeps his arguments simple, and carefully picks opponents who will help support his simplistic arguments.

The movie is full of contradictions that he openly presents and tries to contend with. The only simple point he makes is that the bourgeoisie are evil--a point that needs no more nuances. Can you give examples of things he oversimplifies?

Fuck that shit. I'm mighty liberal, and I like alot of what Michael Moore does, but I wish he would stop dumbing it all down.

You're not quibbling with any of his politics just that he's not as gentile as you'd like. Then stick with Chomsky. Personally I had to take an entire pack of No-Doz to get through Manufacturing Consent. What I would appreciate in a politician is someone plainspoken who puts substance over style, who doesn't trifle over the elegance of his delivery. This is the modus operandi of Michael Moore.

I still have no idea who's electable from the pack.

Again with the "who's electable" bit! America is comprised of an indifferent horde that can be swayed and convinced. There's no such thing as electable and unelectable.

Bowling for columbine was an entertaining movie. Michael Moore is a skilled humorist and film maker who can make an entertaining movie out of a tragic situation while employing leftist themes. However, the end result of those movies is to entertain.
Like any politically styled entertainer (politicians included) he is looking for exposure. So maybe he would make a good president...i mean, a former body builder is governer of california why not a documentary film maker in the white house.

spoot wrote:
In Bowling for Columbine, as in all his movies, Moore chooses targets that no one could miss - Charlton Heston, Timothy McVeigh's brother (wasn't that the odd guy on the farm?) - and holds them up as representatives of all gun culture.

I agree with you here; Charlton Heston did not deserve the assault that he received. After all, his name is attached to two of the most poignant films about the potentially disastrous result of a nation's over-dependence on it's government (Planet OTA, Soilant Green). Moore's ideology is fundamentally sound, but the sad truth is that gun ownership is just as important as free speech in the defense of one's inalienable rights. As long as the collective motive of many Americans is greed, the necessity for gun ownership will coexist with it.

The reason I would choose michael Moore is more because I believe that he would use our nation's power and influence to further advance the global economy by actually paying living wages for the manpower and resources that our large corporations currently usurp from other nations. By lessening the fiscal benefits of foreign manufacturing, he would narrow the gap between the rich and poor in our own country and, at the same time, provide us with foreign relationships fortified by co-dependencies and common interests. I'm sure this is the goal of many other liberal democrats, but I believe that Moore's "political virginity" would prevent these steps from being diluted by the aims and influences of large businesses.

eml1122 wrote:Bowling for columbine was an entertaining movie. Michael Moore is a skilled humorist and film maker who can make an entertaining movie out of a tragic situation while employing leftist themes. However, the end result of those movies is to entertain.
Like any politically styled entertainer (politicians included) he is looking for exposure. So maybe he would make a good president...i mean, a former body builder is governer of california why not a documentary film maker in the white house.

You make him out to be much more wily than he is. He's not involved in a vanity project. He grew up amid a system of inequalities that screwed over a lot of undeserving people and he's pissed off about it. THAT'S what motivates him. He doesn't have some reified political agenda, he wants justice for underrepresented people because of his own firsthand experience. If you're not impassioned by what he is doing then you probably had a pretty cushy upbringing.

jupiter wrote:Moore's ideology is fundamentally sound, but the sad truth is that gun ownership is just as important as free speech in the defense of one's inalienable rights. As long as the collective motive of many Americans is greed, the necessity for gun ownership will coexist with it.

To quote Michael Moore, Gandhi "defended his inalienable rights" quite effectively without the use of guns. And in your next paragraph you point out that MM's skill would be to thwart that "collective motive of greed" thereby eliminating what you characterize as a self-defensive need for guns.

jupiter wrote:I agree with you here; Charlton Heston did not deserve the assault that he received. After all, his name is attached to two of the most poignant films about the potentially disastrous result of a nation's over-dependence on it's government (Planet OTA, Soilant Green).

I can't tell if you're joking or not... You're attacking Michael Moore's approach, yet defending heston based on Soylent Green... come on. I mean, don't get me wrong, Soylent Green is awesome, but I wouldn't exactly say it was making any sort of 'poignant' political argument.... it hardly makes up for the shit that heston was pulling with those nra speeches.

jupiter wrote: Moore's ideology is fundamentally sound, but the sad truth is that gun ownership is just as important as free speech in the defense of one's inalienable rights. As long as the collective motive of many Americans is greed, the necessity for gun ownership will coexist with it.

I'd like to hear someone make this argument (why gun ownership is as important as free speech) more in depth. I hear this again and again without further explanation. Ok, so if the government goes out of control, it's good to have a gun around.. makes sense... however, i don't see any of these gun owners storming the white house over the shit that's going on now. What exactly is supposed to happen with all of these guns?

why gun ownership is as important as free speech

The argument I've always heard is that we the people have the freedom to arm ourselves against a government that's out to get us. I think the original idea was that an armed constituency was an additional balance of power, something like that. The best argument I've heard for gun ownership is the libertarian/survivalist one: I don't like or trust the government, I don't like or trust the police. They have guns, and I don't trust them with their guns... and I certainly don't want to be outgunned by those untrustworthy power hungry freaks. There are more intelligent ways of making that argument, I'm sure.

Can you give examples of things he oversimplifies?

My main issue with the film was his choice of interview subjects, which, again, reminded me of Rush Limbaugh interviewing abortion addicts or whatever. But one example: the difference between Canadian & American cultures - saying "look! there are poor people in Canada!" when Canada has socialized health care, better subsidies for the poor & lacks the history of racism that we've got. There are many substantial differences between the two countries, but Moore only pointed out the similarities: "I thought they'd be different, but look! they're just the same!"

Or did he point out the socialized health care shit? I don't remember it.

I do like his non-ivory-tower schtick: he's just a normal midwestern guy who looked around one day and realized that things are really fucked up, & started asking questions. I'm into it, but sometimes I feel like his agenda is coloring his observations, or at least the way he presents his observations.

If you're not impassioned by what he is doing then you probably had a pretty cushy upbringing.

That there's just plain crazy talk.

sixteenrev wrote:I'd like to hear someone make this argument (why gun ownership is as important as free speech) more in depth. I hear this again and again without further explanation. Ok, so if the government goes out of control, it's good to have a gun around.. makes sense... however, i don't see any of these gun owners storming the white house over the shit that's going on now. What exactly is supposed to happen with all of these guns?

For a nation trying to change its own government, civil disobedience has proven itself to be very effective in thwarting a violent conflict. What about defending against an evil individual with a gun? Are you going to try and talk him out of shooting you? More importantly, are you going to speak "freely" to anyone holding a gun to your head? NO. You'll tell him whatever the fuck he wants to hear, right?

Another hypothetical way to illustrate this point is as follows:

If there were no guns left on this earth and we lived in a perfect utopian society (free of evil), then there would be no need for a constitution, a bill of rights, government, laws, and especially free speech. None of these words would even exist in a non-violent world because mankind's natural focus would be sustaining the utopia and nothing more.


I'm not a "pro-gun" kind of guy, however, currently it seems to be an unavoidable paradox. Not to say that our surrent situation cannot change (but it surely won't in our lifetime): To sustain peace, one must be prepared for war.

alex,
i didnt know the question had turned to what impassioned me or my upbrining for that matter. i thought we were discussing the hypothetical situation of Michael Moore running for president or maybe we are discussing your misplaced hero worship.
but let me explain my point to you in a bit more detail. Michael Moore is a film maker who uses humor and a political stance to make a movie that entertains the audience. my response was not anti-Moore, i like his movies. however, i realize that they are movies and i realize that Michael Moore looks like a genius because he can edit the perfect shot of him standing next to the kid in the wheelchair.
and alex, i am truly sorry that you had a troubled childhood.