[Greebo]

Forums Gods feel free to delete this if you believe it to be too political for these forums


I can't decide what to classify this as. Anyhoo - I thought I'd offer this to the forum. I've been writing various things recently and figured I'd share them - so here's the first:

June 25th 2004

So Fahrenheit 9/11 was released today - the controversy surrounding it is amazing really. Much as I hate to use labels and generalisations, almost all 'conservatives' have said one of the following: a) it’s a political film that shouldn't be released prior to the elections as it may influence people's votes; b) Michael Moore is blatantly biased, his reporting is faulty, his previous films have dodgy/bad reporting. 'Liberals' on the other hand have tended to say that this film will end Bush's political career, that Moore is a reporting God etc etc.
And you know what the really stupid thing is?
99.9% of people who're commenting (at the time of writing) haven't even seen it - even with its release today, that percentage remains pretty much unchanged (after all, there's only so many people who could have seen it today).

Now I fully admit I'm what others would describe as a diehard liberal (I, on the other hand, consider myself as "me"), and I will see this film soon, but frankly I'm already sick of the damn thing. The bitterness between the two political factions is extremely scary at times - especially the comments you see on online forums etc. If something supports someone's agenda or beliefs then they'll be all for it. If that same thing somehow conflicts with that same agenda then you'd better take cover cos the abuse that can be hurled is horrible.

Shall we take an example?
Well let's go back to Michael Moore. It seems a fair assessment that he might actually be more damaging to his cause than beneficial. The conservative backlash against him is incredible – there are books that attempt to discredit him and I believe there’s a film in the works that also goes that way.
Even among some who do not consider themselves as conservative (including myself) there is a feeling that he may not be as good as some make him out to be. The topic of Fahrenheit 9/11 came up on the PWG forums and the following post was made by one of the posters who’s obviously disillusioned/annoyed with Moore:

"Oh good lord it's a Michael Moore film! That bastard is such a liar it's not even funny. You should investigate how much of Bowling for Columbine was flat out fabricated before you watch anymore of his crap. As long as you watch 9/11 without considering it to be a "real" documentary I guess you won't be misled.

I watched Bowling a while ago and it seemed awfully fishy so I started checking on it. Turns out that it should never have been peddled as a documentary and is closer to fiction than truth. If you don't believe do some checking of your own. "

For those not in the know (and frankly that's probably no-one), Bowling for Columbine was a Michael Moore film (it was called a documentary but I hesitate in using that word because frankly anyone who thinks the film is a bunch of lies is liable to jump on me) concerning the 1999 Columbine shootings; the availability of guns and bullets in America; reasons behind the huge rates of gun related deaths and the NRA.

The following site is one I've known about for ages:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

It points out various flaws in the film and how it portrays the facts and, unfortunately, enough of what it points out appears to be true that it throws into question Moore's credibility. And the really stupid thing is that the things it ultimately points out and the thoughts it provokes could easily have been achieved without distorting anything. The only thing it achieves is giving people who are against such a film the chance to discredit it.


It's been a year since I last saw this film but as far as I recall, the main points were:
a) There needs to be more checks over gun and bullet sales - if I recall correctly, Moore said that during his TV series, 2 non-US citizens were able to purchase guns and/or bullets in the US without too much difficulty.
b) There is a culture of fear in the US (not just the US but for the purposes of this article/discussion, I'll concentrate on the US). This has increased significantly since BfC came out because of the 9/11 attacks & the following events, legislation, wars etc. The film also made a good point that shows like "Cops" (if it's anything like how I remember it from watching it many moons ago on sky 1) use violence, confrontations etc to gain viewers.
c) People need to pay attention to children and their needs, as well as making sure that their kids respect other kids - making sure they do not bully, harass and otherwise drive people to the point where they snap and events such as the Columbine Shootings take place.

One might argue that the Columbine Shootings (and others like it) are exceptional, and most people would not shoot up a school in revenge for bullying. This is true, but the shootings are just a manifestation of the breaking point. Breaking points can be manifested in many different ways, including self-harm and suicide - everyone has a breaking point. If you verbally or physically abuse someone endlessly, especially teenagers who have enough hormonally induced mood swings to cope with, then they will eventually snap in some way or form. Who knows what makes one person choose one course of action over another in reaction to the bullying - the point is that if someone is pushed far enough, there will be some sort of negative reaction - that alone should be enough to make people realise there's a problem.

According to the Samaritans(1), 1 in 10 teenagers self-harm. I suspect the reality is actually a higher percentage, but much will not be reported, due to the stigma attached to it.
The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center(2) reports that 1 in 12 teenagers made suicide attempts in 1999.
There's a problem there.

I recall Marilyn Manson, when interviewed by Michael Moore on BfC came across as one of the most intelligent people in the film:

Michael Moore: If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine or the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?
Marilyn Manson: I wouldn't say a single word to them, I would listen to what they have to say and that's what no one did.

&

Michael Moore: Do you know that on the day of the Columbine massacre, the US dropped more bombs on Kosovo than any other day?
Marilyn Manson: I do know that, and I think that's really ironic, that nobody said 'well maybe the President had an influence on this violent behaviour' Because that's not the way the media wants to take it and spin it, and turn it into fear, because then you're watching television, you're watching the news, you're being pumped full of fear, there's floods, there's AIDS, there's murder, cut to commercial, buy the Acura, buy the Colgate, if you have bad breath they're not going to talk to you, if you have pimples, the girl's not going to love you, and it's just this campaign of fear, and consumption, and that's what I think it's all based on, the whole idea of 'keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume.' [Emphasis Mine]


So…back to Fahrenheit 9/11. I think when I do get round to seeing it I’ll definitely try to step back and think about what’s being said. I’ll try and look for signs of manipulated statistics and such likes. At the same time I’ll also be looking for the underlying messages of the film – the things that Moore is actually aiming for. I’m not a Bush fan – nothing he’s done since coming to power has changed that. At the same time I’m willing to forgive certain things e.g. letting the Saudi’s and Bin Laden family leave the country – if I were any relation to Osama, I wouldn’t want to be in the country either. It’s not like they let anyone escape the country that was guilty of a crime. With reading to the kids for a whole 7 minutes…well I can see why he did it – but I would’ve thought that kids seeing a calm president was less important than the country being attacked…but then that’s just me.
I guess I’ll do a follow-up to this once I’ve seen the film – those 2 points were just ones I’ve heard were in the film, which I wouldn’t really consider…blameworthy enough to mention.



References
(1)http://www.samaritans.org/know/selfharm/aboutselfharm.shtm

(2)http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/teens/suicide.asp
[hr]

So feedback would be welcome, both on the writing and on the opinions within it.
_________________
Most evil admin around.
Offical Ville songwriter.
"Captain Smart Ass"

[ROOFCUTTER]

He sucks
_________________
Only in America......do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.

[JtH]

i just would like to say, thank you very much for that post. it was a great read and i enjoyed it.


i think i agree with roof when i say he sucks.


i was forced to watch bowling for columbine in school last year by my english teacher. we had read something and then she put the movie on. the movie honestly made me laugh because of the stupid relationships between things he tries to bring up. he goes into a bank that allows you to get a free gun if you sign up for an account. Now my thought at that moment is, kids dont get their guns from banks. They dont think, well i wanna shoot up my school, lemme go to the bank. They dont get their guns from kmart as he brought up in the movie. they get their guns illegally through the black market or in the columbine case, from their parents.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. A gun just sitting there will cause no harm whatsoever. its when un trained and careless individuals get a hold of them that harm is caused.

ok thats my rant.
_________________

[Rebel_Rouser]

[Kahlan Amnell]

[Paddyjack]

[Clay Pigeon]

http://slashdot.org/~Twirlip%20of%20the%20Mists/journal/76170

Take a gander if you get the chance.

[[NoClan]Lunt]

He sucks because he brought to the surface the factual evidence that proves not only is bush a liar, he is willing to sacrifice young american lives so that he and his rich Republican friends can pocket dirty money?
lol.......are you safer now that you attacked Iraq?
_________________
DON'T HUNT WHAT YOU CAN'T KILL......

[kubrick]

[Chen Kenichi]

[`RaphX]

People do kill people, although they don't need a gun to do so. It can be done just as easily with your mother's kitchen knife.

The problem with what Michael Moore does is that his sensationalist methods of putting them across to the public seriously detract from the good points he is trying to make.
People who have some amount of intelligence within themselves should be able to judge for themselves what to think without needing such sensationalism, but those without don't know better, do listen to what each of Moore's movies/books say, thus making his material potentially dangerous.

[JtH]

[5th GHG E.G. Mine]

[KopiKat]

Here is what i think, like it or not.

Michael Moore stands to make ALOT of money off this film, not because people like it, but because as Raph says, its sensationalist.

Now, what do we know about people who know they will make a whole lot of money off of something? We know that they dont necessarrily care about what they are doing, as long as it makes money.

I personally doubt his intentions to the extreme, and i personally think he's doing this because he's greedy, and isn't ashamed to lie about it in the process.

Thats what I think about it.

-KK
_________________

[ROOFCUTTER]