Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?

[Willmeister]

Thank you for admitting this. Moore completely fabricated the incident. It was infact numerous speaches spliced together inorder to paint heston and the nra in a certain light. This kind of reporting is dishonest.

So Michael got a Heston Look-A-Like? I never admitted that Mike was trying to deceive anyone. The Heston interview didn't go anywhere.

The teller admits, that if you're out of state they can only send the firearm to a registered gun dealer where you can pick it up. But since Mike was in the bank, they didn't need to ship it anywhere now did they? Now, did the bank verify Mike's info as well? Isn't it their responsiblity as well to verify the veracity of the application. Did the teller ask for information? Did she verify? Did the people who perform the gun check verify Mike's information as well?

Two possibilities.

1) Mike didn't break the law and neither did the bank.

2) Mike broke the law, the gun check wasn't done properly and so the bank too broke the law by REPEATEDLY failing to detect. Now which is worse now? An established institution that's supposed to guard against unlawful purchases failed in it's legal duty, or they're offereing 'free' guns?

I also remember knowing people when I lived in the USA who kept their primary residence in other states for tax and fee purposes (George Bush Sr maintained a hotel room in Houston as his primary residence when he was President for taxation purposes), even though they've lived in Washington for 3 to 4 years. Maybe Mike is doing the same. If he kept his Flint, MI address as his primary, then neither the bank or Mike are breaking the law...

 

[Legion]

So Michael got a Heston Look-A-Like? I never admitted that Mike was trying to deceive anyone. The Heston interview didn't go anywhere.

Here is what happened:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestonrally1.htm

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.

Fact: At Denver, the NRA canceled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' meeting; that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. [No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.]

Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.

Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration." As for the rest, well, "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was." Sure. That's why he left out:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings."

"So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

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

Another link:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestoninterview.htm

** This is perhaps the most distorted, dirty and sickening scene in Bowling For Columbine. On this page I will show you - line for line - how Michael Moore tricked his audience into making think Charlton Heston is a fool.

In sharp contrast to Bowling for Columbine's sycophantic and boot-licking interview of Marilyn Manson, the climactic interview finishing off the movie with then National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston is a sham. But what is so sickening about this sham is that it is the smoothest in the film, and possibly the most effective. At the end of the segment, the audience is left thinking that Moore is a genuine concerned crusader, and that Charlton Heston is ignorant and apathetic.

Anyone fooled by this disgraceful display has fallen victim to a deliberate trap, carefully laid out by Michael Moore. The impression of a crushed and foolish Heston is the result of a very intricate set-up that relies on previous preparation and fabrication. It is an illusion that Moore has set up beforehand and like a magician, is all in the presentation. So lets walk through the scene and see if there isn't more than what we see face value. Let us examine why exactly Heston looks so bad in this interview in BFC and reveal how Michael Moore stacked the deck against Charlton Heston.

At the Toronto international film festival, Moore said:

"I was really just too shocked to challenge him on what he said at the time, which I probably should have," said Moore. "But I wasn't even really there to debate the gun control issue with him, but to ask him why Americans are so different than Canadians," added Moore in explanation."

Unsurprisingly, Moore is deceptive from the beginning. He engages in some deceptive small talk with Heston designed to make him believe that Moore is not anti-gun, which he is. Moore shows him his NRA lifetime member card. Chuck couldn't be nicer. Makes time to see Michael through the informal process of his gate intercom and invites him into his home.

The 'because I can' trap

Remember that Heston thinks he's talking to a fellow NRA member doing a favorable piece on firearms. He is not on the defensive. He has different presuppositions than Moore does. Therefore when Moore asks Heston why he has firearms in the house, Heston answers that it is his right to. It is easy for the viewer to forget that Heston does not know he is being challenged, let alone set up, and thus does not take the question as an argument.

'I Agree with Handguns' LIE

Michael Moore has to lie to Heston to solidify the fabrication that he is not there to ambush him and make him look stupid. So when Heston says yes, he does have guns in his house, Moore says he "totally agrees" the Second Amendment gives Heston this right.

But again, this is just Moore lies. Earlier in BFC, we see Moore interviewing and ridiculing a pro-gun supporter of the Second Amendment. Moore makes clear that he supports gun ownership only for hunting and not for self defense like he just agreed to Heston about. Moore also said on his website and even to Phil Donahue that yes, he's for a ban on the sale of handguns because "we don't need handguns." (1)

The comfort factor

Moore asks why Chuck keeps his guns loaded in his house.

- TAPE CUT -



The 'bloody history' trap

Moore tricks Heston into looking foolish over the 'bloody history' trap when asks why America is the only country that has this so called gun epidemic. He says that

(Moore): "Many people say, they don't have guns around, ya know, it's hard to get a gun in Britain or Germany or whatever...But we went to Canada, and they have 7 million guns in 10 million homes."

"Canada is a nation of hunters, they have millions of guns, and yet they just had a few murders last year." Moore gives away his deception and contradiction here as he's talking about hunters, who use rifles.

Heston: I think American history has a lot of blood on its hands

Moore: oh, and German history doesn't, British history!?"

Heston: I don't think as much

Moore: (surprised) Oh, Germans don't have as much?? Of blood on their hands?

Heston: Ah, they do, yes.

Moore: The Brits? They ruled the world for 300 years at the barrel of a gun. They're all violent people. They have bad guys, they have crime, they have lots of guns

The Race Card trap

This is a very important point to notice, observe and understand in the interview. In this part of the scene, Moore sneakily sets the trap of making Heston support his thesis of the ignorant white man being afraid of the scary racial minority.

Moore: But you don't have any opinion as to why we're the unique country, the only country that does this? That kills each other at this level with guns.

Heston: Well, we have, probably a more mixed ethnicity, than other countries, some other countries

Moore: ...So you think it's an ethnic thing?

(Moore effectively projects his own racism onto the viewer, making Heston's response appear as a retraction.)

Heston: Well, I don't think it's - I wouldn't go as far as to say that - We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning

Again, Moore is making it look like Heston is going back on what he just said when he is actually clarifying. By the follow up question, Moore made it look like Heston said "it's an ethnic thing" and then when Moore pressed him on it he said "well, no, it's not an ethnic thing."

But reread what happened. Moore's question was "why are we the ONLY one's that do this?" Heston simply said he doesn't think that we ARE the only ones. Being a vocal civil rights activist - one who marched with Martin Luther King and made public comments and statements on the matter long before it was popular, Charlton Heston is one who is inclined to know that America is the melting pot of the world. The most diverse country there is. Remember that Moore just seconds ago said about these other countries that "They're all violent people. They have bad guys, they have crime, they have lots of guns." So take a percentage of all those groups who in turn have a percentage within them of violent, gun wielding bad guys, and mix them all together. That's America. If you concede that all other countries have a percentage of violent gun deaths, as Moore did,, it is only honest to acknowledge that taking parts of those countries and adding them together, the simple math will result in a number of gun deaths itself.

The racially divisive Michael Moore presses on -

Moore: Well whadda you think - when you say it's a mixed ethnicity - I don't understand

Heston: You said that how is it that--

Moore: --that we're unique--

Heston: --that so many Americans kill each other. I don't know that that's true.

Hit the nail right on the head, and actually debunked the major thesis of Bowling for Columbine in one swift stroke. We just don't see it this way because we don't understand what he's really saying and Moore doesn't let us. This is largely in part that Moore keeps pursuing the point under his own assumptions instead of actually listening and responding to what Mr. Heston really told him, as well as the fact that we've watched 1 hour & 57 minutes of propaganda telling us that gun nuts are racists and blame ethnic minorities. But the trick on the audience works perfectly. Just take this quote from poppolitics.com that assesses the general audience perception-misconception about this part of the interview:

"Moore pushes on, pressing Heston to come up with possible reasons for the States' inordinate rates of gun violence, Heston hems and haws, suggests "historical" proclivities (until Moore points out that Germany and Japan have violent histories and remarkably low gun violence stats), then finally blurts that it must be bound up in American "mixed ethnicity." Moore doesn't wait, but repeats the phrase back to Heston, who blanches when he hears his own words come back at him."

Totally false account of what happened. Yet completely in tune with the general perception of the scene.

Heston: The only answer I can give you is the one I already gave you.

Moore: Which is...?

Heston: Which is that we have a...history, of violence. Perhaps more than, most countries.

The answer is accurate by all accounts.

The 'I Hate Kayla Rolland'/Get out and Vote, Flint Rally

Moore says that "after that happened, you came to flint and had a big rally." Heston says "so did the vice President." Another point that refutes Moore's dishonest claim - but we don't know it because earlier in the movie we were told that Heston's rally in flint was a big 'pro-gun rally' and were made to think it was insensitive to gun attacks. As I detail on another page, the reality was that it was that it was a 'get out to vote rally' that yes, the likes of vice president Al Gore & Michael Moore himself even attended.

Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was a morning event; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

But Moore, who has been preparing information and details on this for months (compared to Hestons off the cuff recollection), continues the false impression he has created, asking Heston questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

The Final Attack

Then as Heston politely thanks Moore for the interview, shakes his hand and steps up to walk away, Moore drops another attack. He asks Heston: Don't you think it was "insensitive" to come to Flint and hold a big rally after this murder? Heston says that he was not aware of this murder when this rally was held. But Moore ignores it. "But, wouldn't you like to apologize to the people of Flint because you did this", Moore asks. Heston, now appearing to realize he's being had in this interview, replies, with contempt: "You want me to apologi- ME, to apologize to the people in Flint?" He doesn't. He has no reason to.

But Moore continues, asking Heston: "And wouldn't you also like to apologize to the people of Columbine for coming to their community after their horrible tragedy? Why do you go to places after they have these horrible tragedies?" Which Moore knows to be a false statement, thus being a baited question equal to me asking Moore "why do you starve yourself all the time?" Obviously making fun of his fattness, it is unlikely Moore would dignify my question with an answer or argument - and Heston takes the same route. The audience unfortunately doesn't understand this however because they've been indoctrinated to think Heston is the devil.

Heston leaves - Moore badgers

Heston says nothing, gets up out of his chair and walks slowly away from the interview as the camera follows him. Realizing Moore deceived him to make a subversive attack, Heston holds his dignity and leaves the trap he walked into. But that's not what we see in Bowling. Since the entire movie is set up to make Heston look like a buffoon, the impression in the film is that of a lost battle. The camera follows Heston walking away as a wounded opponent.

But that's not enough for Moore. He lets Heston leave for dramatic effect, as I said, following him with the camera, and THEN follows Heston outside in the most ridiculous thing I've seen since I saw stock footage of a monkey blowing bubbles on a tricycle. Moore holds up a picture of the murdered Kayla Rolland, says to him as he walks away: "Um, Mr. Heston. Just, one more thing. This is who she is. Or was." Heston turns and

"Mr. Heston please don't go. Please, take a look at her. This is the girl"

This bit closes with Moore leaving the little girl's photo propped up against a pillar in the Heston home.

The secrets behind Moore's trickery

But to some, it is not necessary to interpret or explain what Moore did to Heston. Some people know something is disgusting when they see it, but unfortunately far to many are either too stuck in a hateful ideology, or they are deceived by this crafty trick and come out of the experience with blatantly false notions that they think are obvious observations. This page is here for those interested in the truth.

The teller admits, that if you're out of state they can only send the firearm to a registered gun dealer where you can pick it up. But since Mike was in the bank, they didn't need to ship it anywhere now did they?

It think from the evidence he not only didn't pick it up the first day he invested but also there is a mounting evidence he might also not have gotten the gun from the bank at all.

Now, did the bank verify Mike's info as well? Isn't it their responsiblity as well to verify the veracity of the application. Did the teller ask for information? Did she verify? Did the people who perform the gun check verify Mike's information as well?

Obviously they didn't verify his claims. The procedure is completely different then what Moore reported. As you can see legally he couldn't just drop an investment and pick up a gun. He has to go through legal processesing on top of waiting in the state for about 6 months before he can even purchase a gun.

Two possibilities.

1) Mike didn't break the law and neither did the bank.

This has already been ruled out.

2) Mike broke the law, the gun check wasn't done properly and so the bank too broke the law by REPEATEDLY failing to detect. Now which is worse now? An established institution that's supposed to guard against unlawful purchases failed in it's legal duty, or they're offereing 'free' guns?

No i prefer the 3rd one. He bought the gun in Michigan and staged the scene. This has been proposed as what as substantiated.

I also remember knowing people when I lived in the USA who kept their primary residence in other states for tax and fee purposes (George Bush Sr maintained a hotel room in Houston as his primary residence when he was President for taxation purposes), even though they've lived in Washington for 3 to 4 years. Maybe Mike is doing the same. If he kept his Flint, MI address as his primary, then neither the bank or Mike are breaking the law...

As you can see some processing is required for him to pick up the gun at all. He would have at least have to go through several days of legal processing for any legal arms distributer to provide him with a firearm. He couldn't simply walk into the bank and take a gun out the same day. It isn't at all legally possibly.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm

http://gunowners.org/opmoore08.htm

Gunowners.org summarizes this scene accurately and eloquently saying "After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners."

It's an accurate depiction of the intent of the scene. The scene, dubbed “Michael at the Bank†is a good example of what can be brushed off and casually justified as 'artistic lying.' The scene opens in a branch of the North Country Bank, with Moore supposedly receiving a free gun in exchange for opening an account. North County Bank — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years. The scene has Moore discovering an ad in a local Michigan paper touting that if you open an account at North Country Bank & Trust, the bank (“more bang for your buck!â€) will give you a gun.

Moore goes to the bank, is greeted by a customer service representative and moves on to an unnamed teller who goes through the necessary paperwork (which looks ridiculously simple) for Moore to open an account. Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the only thing we see is Moore filling out a form where he says he is not crazy, or a criminal - and of course, that he's white; although he stumbles on spelling the word 'Caucasian' (which I actually had to just fix on spell checker) to further paint the process as unofficial and unsafe while feeding his 'Stupid White Men' theme in the same punch.

The audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle. Moments later, Moore is handed his new rifle in the North Country Bank & Trust lobby, at which point he asks another unnamed bank employee, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?â€

Before the employee can respond, Moore turns his inquiry into a punchline by immediately cueing Teenage Fanclub’s rendition of the song “Take the Skinheads Bowling,†the tune to which he marches out of the bank, to be followed by the opening credits featuring black and white footage of silly white folks bowling.

It is a dazzling opening, full of energy, irony and Strangelovian absurdity. Only one problem plagues it's cleverness: It was staged.

Staged scene

Indeed, 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." This is the first example of how Moore completely deceives and manipulates his subjects to be made to look stupid in his film. Unfortunately, it is not the last and more unfortunately, an ignorant audience plays patsy to Moore's dishonest depiction.

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. But wait a second... Didn't I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you're not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models.

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.

Jacobson says the bank's so-called "Weatherby Program" has "absolutely" been a smashing success. She says their corporate office was braced for some possible criticism because of BFC. But, they got only two calls -- and these were from people wanting to know the details of the "Weatherby Program" so they, too, could get their long-guns!

A non-issue point in the first place

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's careless craziness. Yet, aside to the falshoods the audience isn't aware of, just a moment's reflection on the given information shows that there is not the slightest danger. Aside from the thorough legal background check and paperwork we didn't see, there are fundamental common sense flaws to the scene. The process of getting a 'free gun' isn't quite as easy as Moore wants you to believe, and it's not dangerous unless the person tries to use the gun as a club and wants to be quickly caught by the police.

To take possession of the gun, the depositor must:

Produce photo identification; making it inescapably certain that the robber would be identified and caught.

Give the bank at least a thousand dollars -- (an unlikely way to start a robbery) (1).

Spend at least a half hour at the bank, thereby allowing many people to see and identify him, and undergo an FBI background check, which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery.
The label of this process being ridiculous is in fact ridiculous itself. A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred bucks on the black market, with no identification required, and would want to zip in and out of the bank as quick as possible.

Also - the bank is a licensed firearms dealer - not shooting range. They don't hand bullets to you. Moore had to buy them later, as seen in the barbershop scene. If Moore brought his own bullets and tried to load them into the long-gun right there in the bank, it would be obvious and he'd be immediately stopped.

The 'artistic lying' illustrates the genius of Bowling for Columbine, in that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists.

This theme is developed throughout the film. Don't be fooled.

YOU MISSED THE POINT! - The point of the scene

Many have e-mailed me saying I've missed the point of the scene, telling me that it's purpose is not the ease of which the bank gives you the gun - but the very fact that they are giving out guns! I ask these people to review the scene and actually watch it again if they can, and see if they don't think differently. I can't read the mind of Michael Moore, so I can't say for sure what his point was, however I can say positively that the way the scene was cut (asking for the account with the free gun, going directly to some cheesy questions going directly to holding the firearm and pointing it around to close with "don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank") certainly conveys an issue of ridiculousness on how easy

However - lets take a look at it under the alternate thesis. You come to basically the same conclusion: Moore is a lying hypocrite.

Moore mentions many times in Bowling For Columbine that gun use and gun culture is not what causes gun death. He illustrates this in his own childhood enthusiasm with guns and his endless praise for Canada, which he calls not only a "nation of hunters" but "one gun loving, gun toting country." So if Moore is making a farcical point out of American gun culture, then he is an exposed hypocrite when he advocates rifle use later in the film.

But like I said - I didn't get the impression that this was an attack on rifle users, nor the one I believe most get. But depending on what you think the exact point of the scene is - either Michael Moore deceived you with fictitious representation, or he lied to you to effectively play both sides of an issue. You pick.

Wrong on Killer toasters...

While on Oprah talking about and promoting Bowling For Columbine - Michael Moore talks about this scene and North Country Banks gun program. (2) Moore says: "What happened to giving out toasters, you know? I'd never heard of anybody killed by a toaster, you know?"

But, thanks to information that Larry Pratt from Gunowners.org delightfully uncovered - surprise! once again, Moore is fighting against himself:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8/30/02) reports a woman who used a rolled-up newspaper and toaster to light a cigarette started a fire that killed her mentally ill adult daughter. The Irish Times (2/28/02) reports that in Cork, in 1997, one homeless man murdered another homeless man by hitting him in the head with a toaster. And the Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/28/01) tells of a young woman who saw her toaster on fire, threw water on it and was electrocuted instantly. A Global News Wire story (8/3/01) says a pop-up toaster is the likely cause of a fire killing a mother and son in Timaru, New Zealand. A Canadian Press report (7/28/2000) says that in Quebec a house fire started by a toaster killed an autistic young man. And the Richmond Times-Dispatch (5/10/99) says a Yorkshire, Virginia, couple filed a $4.7 million lawsuit against a Delaware business alleging that their toaster was faulty and caused a fire killing their mentally disabled son and his grandmother.

Larry says he found several more stories like this from around the world involving killer-toasters - but I think we all get the point. "Perhaps Michael Moore's next movie will deal with the obvious need for tougher toaster-control laws" he says. -Not likely. Michael Moore is a hypocrite through and through...

He may never have heard of anybody killed by a toaster, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And isn't that a main thesis in Bowling For Columbine? That the media isn't an accurate gage of current dangers in America? Furthermore, doesn't the media's lack of sensationalism over toaster deaths go against his argument of media scaremongering? I mean - toasters are a lot more common place than guns. Why not target THEM for demonization to scare the public? Obviously these media (non liberal leaning at all whatsoever of course) reports on guns put firearms in an unfavorable light - which I would think Moore would like.

Michael Moore makes less and less sense under the revelation of key facts to his arguments - and this is only 6 minutes into the movie!

 

[Clashman]

Well, considering Moore leaves out over 45 minutes of his personal interview with Heston i am not surprised.

You must admitt his purpose was to deceive the viewer. Stupid or not Moore was being deliberately dishonest.

Gimme a fuckin' break! You expect them to air an entire 1 hour interview during a two hour documentary? That is an absolutely ridiculous request!

If you think this is out of the ordinary you're dead wrong. I've had numerous instances in which 10 minute and even half hour interviews were trimmed down to 15 to 20 seconds for the sake of television. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that Marylin Manson and Matt Stone's interviews were cut down significantly more than Heston's was. But where are the right-wing lunatics screaming "Manson and Stone were misrepresented!! Moore is a liar".

Sheesh. Get a grip.

 

[Legion]

Gimme a fuckin' break! You expect them to air an entire 1 hour interview during a two hour documentary? That is an absolutely ridiculous request!

So i take it you support Moore's form of accuracy in journalism? Is the missing 45 minutes really the heart of the issue or only one part of the whole argument against Moore's inaccurate portrayal of Heston, the NRA, and the Kayla murder?

If you think this is out of the ordinary you're dead wrong.

Clashman, he deliberately leaves out the segments because they don't jive with the ideas he is trying to convey. In otherwords, he is selectively reporting information inorder to provide an inaccurate representation of both Heston and the NRA.

I've had numerous instances in which 10 minute and even half hour interviews were trimmed down to 15 to 20 seconds for the sake of television.

Can you not see the difference in intent?

In fact, I can almost guarantee you that Marylin Manson and Matt Stone's interviews were cut down significantly more than Heston's was.

Are you some how suggesting that Moore's intent was not that which many of my links have provided evidence for? Clashman, its not a matter of merely cutting down the speach. Its cutting it in such a way that it incorrectly represents Heston.

 

[Willmeister]

According to right-wingers, it's the left that's filled with conspiracies completely with websites...

Michael made one critical argument that really hits home. He said that this movie was vetted by lawyers because no one wanted to open themselves to a lawsuit from the NRA or whomever. He knew that was a possibility and so he took precautions. To me, the only think they can drum up against the movie are biased websites with agendas of their own.

 

[Willmeister]

Can you not see the difference in intent?

So, if a filmaker/television producer decides not to cut out 'dead air', does he have a nefarious intent to deceive the viewer? What about removing the clapboard sequence or the sound checks? The modern world is so obsessed with time and productivity that anything extraneous quickly finds itself on the editting room floor.

 

[Legion]

According to right-wingers, it's the left that's filled with conspiracies completely with websites...

Can we please cut the zeal of you leftists down to a minimum? You aren't making yourself look any better by continuing to attack all opposing argumentation by simply lumping into a category called "right wing."

Will can you please demonstrate to me how and why these individuals webpages and the infor there in are nothing more conspiracies? It seems to me each person provides quite a bit of evidence for their claims which came the same events Moore presented. If anything Moore's fear mantra is nothing more than propaganda (which he never provides evidence for in his film) often enterwoven into tales of conspiracies.

Lets all agree; Moore is dishonest. I don't think there is a sane person here that disagrees with this.

This is not to say anyone is justified in agreeing with what Ann Coultar has to say. If she is guilty of misrepresentation then indeed she is in the same camp as Moore.

 

[Legion]

Can you not see the difference in intent?

So, if a filmaker/television producer decides not to cut out 'dead air', does he have a nefarious intent to deceive the viewer?

Will am i suggesting cutting film is always done with the intent of misrepresenting some one? Will you please read the articles i provided you? They address what i am refering to. Moore doesn't merely cut speaches for run time, he cuts and splices film with the direct intent of misrepresentation.

What about removing the clapboard sequence or the sound checks? The modern world is so obsessed with time and productivity that anything extraneous quickly finds itself on the editting room floor.

drop the strawman. Address what Moore did.

 

[Willmeister]

I don't see Mike as anymore dishonest than your average person. So, no I don't agree with that.

I like how you've just create an arugment that says if you don't admit Mike is dishonest, than you're insane.

 

[Legion]

I don't see Mike as anymore dishonest than your average person. So, no I don't agree with that.

Oh my, was anyone asking you if he is more or less dishonest? THe issue has been that he has misrepresented facts and has lied to his viewers concerning personal interviews along with a myriad of other inappropriate behaviors completely out of line with the field of documentaries.

Simply suggesting he is no more a liar then anyone else doesn't render his spurious claims any more accurate Will. Why are you so willing to give props to Moore and not Ann? You ridicule Ann for many of the reasons I ridicule Moore, you even seem to substantiate some of your claims. I am willing to admitt they are equally dishonest. Why can't you? Why do you support Moore when you are forced to admitt he lied to the public in his documentaries?

I like how you've just create an arugment that says if you don't admit Mike is dishonest, than you're insane.

Will I enjoy your strawman which states "Many people cut film ergo cutting film is not a means to inaccurately represent people or facts in any occassion."

another example of cutting and splicing

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Clashman]

Clashman, he deliberately leaves out the segments because they don't jive with the ideas he is trying to convey. In otherwords, he is selectively reporting information inorder to provide an inaccurate representation of both Heston and the NRA.

Prove it. It is my guess that the rest of the interview is filled with just as much rambling as the time he was on. I haven't heard any statement from Heston or the NRA protesting his portrayal during the interview. If you can find one, post it. I'm sure they would have issued one by now if they thought Moore couldn't back himself up.

 

[Legion]

Prove it.

Would you please read my links?

It is my guess that the rest of the interview is filled with just as much rambling as the time he was on.

Now i am wondering what i would acheive by trying to prove anything to you. You seem to have some prejudice against Heston. If you read my links you can see how Moore misrepresented him. It is up to you to read them.

I haven't heard any statement from Heston or the NRA protesting his portrayal during the interview.

You haven't heard or there are none? If they are none is Moore not a liar? Do the facts suddenly change? You did hear objection from the bank teller and plenty of the people who gave critiques of Mike's work. What do you think of those? Apparently you ignore them. Is Heston in any condiction to really object? I wonder if he even cares. He already has so much bad press from the leftists antigun nuts (of which Moore is not - infact moore is a member of the NRA as well as supports gun ownership) that he more than likely would ignore such from the low brow work of Moore.

If you can find one, post it. I'm sure they would have issued one by now if they thought Moore couldn't back himself up.

If i can find one objection from Heston? I have found plenty of objections from others. What relevancy does this have? How would that alter the affairs of the matters discussed in the critiques? Is heston simply guilty do to an inability or unwillingness to respond?

This level of argumentation is rather ludicrous. Instead of arguing against the accussations you suggest the acusted must protest the claims. If the accusor's statements are not objected to by the accussee then the accusse is automatically guilty. This is baseless and illogical argumentation. Moore himself has dodge the bulk or arguments against him. SHould we, by your logic, assume he lied also?

 

[jvd]

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=0AB37E1B-B04A-4C36-97DD-7C12E5843F4C

Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?

<snip>

Yet another one that don't know the meaning of the word "liberalism".

Liberal != leftist
Liberal != socialist
Liberal != anti-christianity
Liberal != atheist

etc. etc. etc ...

Liberal, from the word liberty, means freedom. The freedom to engage in any religion of your choice, or the freedom to abstain from religion. It's not about forcing or promoting a particular religion, and it's not about hindering people from religious acts either. All things in that article are far from liberal, in fact I think the title should be "Can US schools survive WITHOUT liberalism". Everything in there is anti-liberal, forcing a certain view on the kids. The school should not force christianity on the kids, that's true, but nor should it force atheism or secularism on people either. Just because you're not pro-christianity doesn't mean you have to be anti-christianity. The school is a neutral place. Textbooks and stuff in public schools should not promote a certain religion or atheism, but the school shouldn't stop people from praying or reading the bible or quran. That's the liberal view.

To bad there are no true liberals left. I fear that soon there will be no freedoms left and the law will punish you for even looking towards another person .

 

[Clashman]

Would you please read my links?

Your links prove nothing about the actual interview itself, other than they cut 45 minutes out of it. The fact that 30 years ago Heston marched for civil rights doesn't mean shit about who he is today or what he said in that interview. Arrianna Huffington used to be a right-winged conservative, didn't she? Everything said about the actual interview itself is pure speculation.

If i can find one objection from Heston? I have found plenty of objections from others. What relevancy does this have? How would that alter the affairs of the matters discussed in the critiques? Is heston simply guilty do to an inability or unwillingness to respond?

An objection from Heston or from the NRA itself would put something resembling credibility into the assertion that he was misrepresented during the interview. The fact that he has said nothing, and that all of these allegations are made by right-wing nuts who hate Moore anyway, leads me to believe that in general what was shown in the movie was representative of Heston's conduct throughout the entire interview.

 

[Clashman]

This level of argumentation is rather ludicrous. Instead of arguing against the accussations you suggest the acusted must protest the claims. If the accusor's statements are not objected to by the accussee then the accusse is automatically guilty. This is baseless and illogical argumentation. Moore himself has dodge the bulk or arguments against him. SHould we, by your logic, assume he lied also?

There is a difference between addressing every dumbass with a webpage who spews shit about you and addressing a person who has made a documentary that directly targets your organization and the actions it partakes in. It is even more worth addressing should said documentary win the Academy Award and become BY FAR the most successful documentary of all time.

 

[Legion]

Your links prove nothing about the actual interview itself, other than they cut 45 minutes out of it.

Oh? The text i posted above spoke directly to Moore's alterations of Heston's speaches. Should we assume Moore has not done the same with the interview. It is obvious its cut in such a way that is consistant with the falsifications by Moore concerning the aforementioned speaches. Realizing that Moore fabricated the manner in which the speaches played out suggests he also altered the run time of the interview to hide any discrepancies.

The fact that 30 years ago Heston marched for civil rights doesn't mean shit about who he is today or what he said in that interview.

What exactly are you suggesting? That Moore is justified in his fabrication of the speaches and of inteview? He paints Heston as a racist while all evidence points to the exact opposite yet in light of the fact that heston even marched with civil rights movements and supported them we are to believe heston is a racist? Several of my links have addressed this. Why weren't we allowed to hear more about what Heston was saying? Why was it cut so short and directly to the end of the interview right after Moore tries to make a point?

Arrianna Huffington used to be a right-winged conservative, didn't she? Everything said about the actual interview itself is pure speculation.

Is this your reasoning for believing Heston could be a racist? Unlikely, the evidence is before you. Moore has cut and spliced the speaches and the interview to keep consistancy with the assertions he has made about the NRA, gun owners, and the promottion of the KKK and racism.

An objection from Heston or from the NRA itself would put something resembling credibility into the assertion that he was misrepresented during the interview.

I completely disagree. Do to the absurd nature of the claims i do not think they have an reason to respond. They have been accussed of promotting racism via spurious argumentation from Moore. What difference would it make if they objected? Moore himself is a member of this supposed racist organization. Perhaps he too is a racist? The NRA doesn't need to object for others to. Infact anyone with reading comprehension can do so and they have. Evidence has been provided in endless succession that clearly counters Moore's representations. The NRA doesn't need to respond. Many people already have on their behalf. What would the NRA gain by objecting? The only people who listen to Moore are the people who wouldn't listen to the NRA's objections.

The fact that he has said nothing,

You no this for a fact?

and that all of these allegations are made by right-wing nuts who hate Moore anyway,

Are you suggesting their rebuttles are inaccurate because they happen to be from a different political party then Moore? Do you know the political parties of all the people who are objecting? Have you spoken to all of them? Please list all the objectors, their websites, and their political affiliations. Since when has political alignment been a basis for judging truth?

It sounds to me you are simply rationalizing Moore's conduct by his presence within your political camp.

leads me to believe that in general what was shown in the movie was representative of Heston's conduct throughout the entire interview.

Inspite of all the refutations of his claims? You clearly choose to see Heston as a racist for exterior motives not because of anything based in his history. If he is infact a racist why did not Moore prove this to us? He merely makes it appear that way by cutting and splicing film. This is exactly what i am refering to. Heston dedicated much to the civil rights movement clash. Probably a hell of a lot more time and money then you have. Yet believing he is a racist comes easy for you. Why?

 

[Legion]

There is a difference between addressing every dumbass with a webpage who spews shit about you and addressing a person who has made a documentary that directly targets your organization and the actions it partakes in. It is even more worth addressing should said documentary win the Academy Award and become BY FAR the most successful documentary of all time.

Well you have apparently ignored some of my other points to you in my past posts and have left only a few.

Most successful? how is this judged? By is budget? By units sold? By its affect? More than likely by units sold and not impact. Yes, it indeed won an award. Not for accuracy in documentaries but as a pat on the back from his cohorts in hollywood.

The objections are to much in quantity to be ingnored. It is funny that you suggest that Heston and the NRA and guilty of what Moore accuses them by you preception of a lack of objection. What of Moore? What of his complete lack of addressing the mounting factual evidence against his claims. He ignores intviews, emails, etc acquiring as to the nature of his misrepresentations. Even on his own website he refuses to address the bulk of the evidence against him. WHy? Why is his credibility allowed to go unquestioned when so many have confronted him only to be refused an answer and yet the NRA are accepted to be the racist support groups Moore claims they (though he is a member)? Moore never provides evidence. He simply takes people's speaches etc spilces them in such a way they do not convey the original intent and then leaves the fewer to conclude they are racists based on the information they are being presented. Moore neglects to mention Heston's dedication to the civil rights movement along with support for african american leaders. Why is this? Why doesn't he make a point of this and show for his audience the benefit heston was to the civil rights movment and his feelings surroubding? Why does he suggest Heston is a racist because he makes some assertions about violence in the african american culture? Heston is correct. African american males committ violent crimes in much larger amounts then whites, latinos, or asians do. Infact even though african american males make up less then 10% of the population they committ nearly half of all violent crimes.

btw books on scientology have also been best sellers. The bible is currently the best selling book.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestoninterview.htm

The Race Card trap

This is a very important point to notice, observe and understand in the interview. In this part of the scene, Moore sneakily sets the trap of making Heston support his thesis of the ignorant white man being afraid of the scary racial minority.

Moore: But you don't have any opinion as to why we're the unique country, the only country that does this? That kills each other at this level with guns.

Heston: Well, we have, probably a more mixed ethnicity, than other countries, some other countries

Moore: ...So you think it's an ethnic thing?

(Moore effectively projects his own racism onto the viewer, making Heston's response appear as a retraction.)

Heston: Well, I don't think it's - I wouldn't go as far as to say that - We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning
Again, Moore is making it look like Heston is going back on what he just said when he is actually clarifying. By the follow up question, Moore made it look like Heston said "it's an ethnic thing" and then when Moore pressed him on it he said "well, no, it's not an ethnic thing."

But reread what happened. Moore's question was "why are we the ONLY one's that do this?" Heston simply said he doesn't think that we ARE the only ones. Being a vocal civil rights activist - one who marched with Martin Luther King and made public comments and statements on the matter long before it was popular, Charlton Heston is one who is inclined to know that America is the melting pot of the world. The most diverse country there is. Remember that Moore just seconds ago said about these other countries that "They're all violent people. They have bad guys, they have crime, they have lots of guns." So take a percentage of all those groups who in turn have a percentage within them of violent, gun wielding bad guys, and mix them all together. That's America. If you concede that all other countries have a percentage of violent gun deaths, as Moore did,, it is only honest to acknowledge that taking parts of those countries and adding them together, the simple math will result in a number of gun deaths itself.

The racially divisive Michael Moore presses on -

Moore: Well whadda you think - when you say it's a mixed ethnicity - I don't understand

Heston: You said that how is it that--

Moore: --that we're unique--

Heston: --that so many Americans kill each other. I don't know that that's true.

Hit the nail right on the head, and actually debunked the major thesis of Bowling for Columbine in one swift stroke. We just don't see it this way because we don't understand what he's really saying and Moore doesn't let us. This is largely in part that Moore keeps pursuing the point under his own assumptions instead of actually listening and responding to what Mr. Heston really told him, as well as the fact that we've watched 1 hour & 57 minutes of propaganda telling us that gun nuts are racists and blame ethnic minorities. But the trick on the audience works perfectly. Just take this quote from poppolitics.com that assesses the general audience perception-misconception about this part of the interview:

"Moore pushes on, pressing Heston to come up with possible reasons for the States' inordinate rates of gun violence, Heston hems and haws, suggests "historical" proclivities (until Moore points out that Germany and Japan have violent histories and remarkably low gun violence stats), then finally blurts that it must be bound up in American "mixed ethnicity." Moore doesn't wait, but repeats the phrase back to Heston, who blanches when he hears his own words come back at him."

Totally false account of what happened. Yet completely in tune with the general perception of the scene.

Heston: The only answer I can give you is the one I already gave you.

Moore: Which is...?

Heston: Which is that we have a...history, of violence. Perhaps more than, most countries.

The answer is accurate by all accounts.

 

[Legion]

Here is an article posted by the NRA concerning some of moore's comments.

http://www.nrahq.org/publications/tag/feature6.asp

here is an article discussing Moore's fabrications concerning the heston interview:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestoninterview.htm

 

[kyleb]

well no doubt that Heston is pissed Legion, but that does make Moore a liar. as a matter of fact, the only evedice i have seen to support your allegation is the murder/rape mixup, which is rather trivial and quite likely an honest mistake than a lie intended to further some agenda as you accuse the man of. the links you post and arguments you present do contain plenty of facts, but they are simply tied emotional arguments based on conjecture which only serves to tarnish the creditably of those presenting said arguments an not Moore's.

kyleb,

for some people(like yourself and others. I include myself here) who are highly passionate about a certain viewpoint, no amount of evidance will convince them of the truth. I doubt that any amount of credible independent evidence would convince you of what happened in the film was ficticious. I wont waste my time and yours trying to help you see the light. In certain areas im as stuborn as you. So dont take this the wrong way, its just the way some of us are.

later,
epic

eppicstruggle, i am glad you will no longer bother spending your time debating with me. sense you confirmed my suspicions that you are a person who is "highly passionate about a certain viewpoint" and have even gone so far as to state that "no amount of evidence will convince" otherwise; i can hardly say i see any interest in your so-called "light." on the other hand, if you do ever feel like breaking free of your apprehensions and develop a newfound aprecation for the truth; i assure you that it is a subject i always have time for.

 

[Legion]

well no doubt that Heston is pissed Legion,

Wouldn't you be? Moore set him up by miss leading him about the get together.

but that does make Moore a liar.

You are correct. Heston being upset doesn't make Moore a liar. All of the other information i have posted makes Moore a liar.

as a matter of fact, the only evedice i have seen to support your allegation is the murder/rape mixup, which is rather trivial and quite likely an honest mistake than a lie intended to further some agenda as you accuse the man of.

Then you are surely turning a blind eye to everything. He deliberately misrepresents facts. This is lying Kyleb. You are splitting hairs. If you only see one occassion they you haven't read the whole of what i have posted against Moore. He has lied about a number of things (please read my links this time). Here are some examples:

Moore's agenda is to spew propaganda. Nothing more. Nothing less.

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.

(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston. Incidentally, if you have the DVD version and the right player, you can freeze frame this sequence and see it yourself. Then go back and freeze frame the rally, and you'll make out various Bush election posters and tags.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Mr. Moore makes the preposterous claim that a Michigan program by which welfare recipients were required to work was responsible for an incident in which a six-year-old Flint boy shot a girl to death at school. Mr. Moore doesn't mention that the boy's mother had sent him to live in a crack house where her brother and a friend kept both drugs and guns--a frequently lethal combination.

Some of the fact-bending and omissions of "Bowling for Columbine" could charitably be chalked up to really sloppy research. (I called the chief archivist for Mr. Moore's film, Carl Deal, yesterday, but he hasn't called back.) Others show a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting . In reality, it was made almost a year later. All of these and more inaccuracies can be found at Mr. Hardy's comprehensive Web site.

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument

the links you post and arguments you present do contain plenty of facts, but they are simply tied emotional arguments based on conjecture which only serves to tarnish the creditably of those presenting said arguments an not Moore's.

You clearly did not read the arguments then and your seeking to right them off. Infact it is readily apparent from all the information i have posted alone there are some seriously factual errors throughout Moore's mockumentary.

If you wish to ridicule emotional arguments please do so with Moore's as well. He ties together his entire drama with emotions and not fact. Take for example the incident with Heston, his childish display of the photograph of Kayla, the NRA cartoons, etc.

I'll take note of the fact you aren't bothering to refute their points.

I find it odd that you cite these individuals for "emotional" arguments while neglecting Moore's dependancy on emotion to convey what he is saying.