Michael Moore Bowls Gutter Balls in Columbine

Radar · 12-15-2002, 02:02 PM

Moore Bowls Gutter Balls in Columbine Film

by Ari Armstrong

What are we to make of a documentary that claims to discuss violence in America, but fails to even mention a policy responsible for raising U.S. homicide rates at least 25%?

At the end of his film Bowling for Columbine, director Michael Moore bowls a strike. Unfortunately, his film is less successful. He heaves mightily and knocks down a few pins, but he also rolls some gutter balls.

Economist Jeffrey Miron of Boston University found "drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the United States over much of the past 100 years" by an estimated 25-75%. Why? Prohibition creates violent black markets. It's a simple theory supported by the evidence.

So, in his rambling exploration of many other facets of violence in America, why does Moore completely ignore the domestic consequences of prohibition? Such an omission is inexcusable, and it indicates Moore's social agenda trumps any serious effort to come to grips with the problem.

That said, at times Moore's work is chillingly poignant. During one segment, he shows frame after frame of botched U.S. foreign policy moves. The U.S. helps kill or otherwise remove one leader of a struggling nation, only to see the rise of an even worse leader. The U.S. has supported both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, though in retrospect that support seems to have been unwise. Moore's critique of American "foreign entanglements" mirrors libertarian concerns.

On the morning of the Columbine murders, Moore points out, President Clinton was on television announcing the latest American bombing raid in Kosovo. Just an hour later, Clinton was back on TV discussing the suburban terror. Is senseless violence on the personal level linked to the mass violence of the state? It's possible, but Moore doesn't demonstrate a causal connection.

Shock-rocker Marilyn Manson continues this theme by pointing out the president has more influence than Manson does. Manson blames the "campaign of fear and consumption" constantly bombarding Americans. However, Manson's suggestion that his music is a healthy "escape" is as ludicrous as his critics' assertions that Manson's music somehow drives people to mayhem.

Moore notes the Columbine killers also attended a morning bowling class, so why not blame bowling? Moore's comparison is silly, but he does raise the excellent point that people shouldn't look for scapegoats following a tragedy.

Which brings us to another of Moore's gutter balls. Scapegoating is precisely what Moore does, only his victim is the American gun owner rather than Marilyn Manson.

At one point, Moore places a picture of the young victim of the Buell school shooting against a ledge of Charlton Heston's house. Moore seems to think Heston is somehow to blame for the death, and he asks Heston to apologize.

Moore also took a couple of Columbine victims to K-Mart and used media pressure to convince the chain to stop selling ammunition. He describes this as an "overwhelming victory." Yet his self-serving media stunt accomplished the same thing keeping Manson out of Denver accomplished: exactly nothing.

In his incoherent badmouthing of corporations, Moore neglects to remind us that his film was released by a large corporation, his equipment was manufactured by corporations, and his work was advertised by corporate web pages and media outlets. This doesn't prove Moore's case is wrong, but it does prove he's not self-reflective.

Moore offers some needed criticism of American media, especially television news programs. One person Moore interviews notes that, even as the American murder rate plummeted, television coverage of murders dramatically expanded, thus giving viewers a false impression of reality.

Moore rightly rails against racism. Many white Americans have an irrational fear of black males, and this encourages a violent mindset. That's a needed criticism. Unfortunately, Moore seeks to replace bigotry against blacks with bigotry against gun owners.

Many of my gun-owning friends are doctors, lawyers, professors, and professionals. Does Moore interview anybody representative of the American gun owner? Of course not. Does he interview any scholar who is an expert on crime and firearms, such as David Kopel, John Lott, Gary Kleck, or Don Kates? Of course not. To do so would be to treat the matter seriously rather than fan the flames of prejudice.

Moore cites the gun-homicide statistics for a variety of countries with lower numbers than in the U.S., but he conveniently omits countries with more stringent gun laws and higher gun-homicide rates.

He also ignores the fact that England's gun bans have been followed by an increase in violent crime there, including gun-related crime. All the evidence that demonstrates lawfully carrying a handgun or keeping a defensive gun in the home deters criminals is totally suppressed.

Moore does wonder why Canada has a relatively high gun-ownership rate yet fewer murders. He concludes there is something wrong with American culture.

He's right about that: there is something wrong. He rightly points to poverty and America's racist past as part of the problem, even though he looks to failed welfare schemes to solve poverty -- whereas libertarians look to repeal the government interventions (such as prohibition) that have perpetuated it.

But Moore overstates his case. He thinks America is a nation of fear and paranoia. But in some ways he feeds into the same media frenzy he criticizes in his film. Yes, some Americans have problems with violence, bigotry, and paranoia. However, the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of American gun owners, lead basically responsible and healthy lifestyles. This basic fact seems not to assist Moore in his quixotic crusades.

juju · 12-15-2002, 03:53 PM

Who is Ari Armstrong? Did you get permission from Ari to reprint this? It's a very well written piece, and there are plenty of things I could respond to. But unless Ari's actually going to log on here and respond back to me, what's the point and who am I talking to? I want to talk to a real person! Am I to infer that you share the opinions voiced in the piece? Or do you just agree with some of it? Do you disagree with any of it? Have you seen the movie yourself? What do you think?

Anyway, i'm a big fan of Michael Moore, and I'd just like to be able to see this film. Supposedly it's the highest grossing documentary of all time, yet it's still not showing in my little podunk town yet! ARGH! This is just the kind of thing that causes me to want to move to a place where things <i>actually happen</i>. Man this place is dead. Oh, wait! I think we're getting Arlo Guthrie next week. Hip-hip hooray! :)

Cam · 12-15-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

yet it's still not showing in my little podunk town yet! ARGH! This is just the kind of thing that causes me to want to move to a place where things actually happen. Man this place is dead.

It can't be that bad, until a movie comes out on DVD before it comes to the local theatre, things are moving pretty quick.

juju · 12-15-2002, 04:06 PM

Yeah, I'll most likely have to wait until it comes out on DVD. At this point I've given up hope of catching it on the big screen. Although you never know!

Radar · 12-15-2002, 04:24 PM

*About the author: Ari Armstrong is the publisher of the Colorado Freedom Report www.co-freedom.com. This review originally appeared in the November 13, 2002 edition of the Colorado Freedom Report.

He posted it online so I'm sure he doesn't mind people reading it.

You can assume I agree with the author about Michael Moore in general but I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to put money in his pocket. He is a weak author, and not much of a film maker either. Roger & Me was crap, his book "stupid white people" was crap, and I assume this is too.

He's clearly for gun control which automatically makes him an idiot. All gun control laws are unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people have a hard time understanding?

juju · 12-15-2002, 04:37 PM

Have you seen Roger and Me, and have you read any of his books? Aside from his politics, what parts of his filmmaking style didn't you like? Bad editing? Bad camerawork?

How can you have an opinion about a movie you haven't seen?

Also, if the author is from the U.S., then his work is automatically copyrited. The fact that he has chosen this publishing medium doesn't automatically give you the right to reproduce it. That's why we link to things! :)

Radar · 12-15-2002, 04:41 PM

I've seen Roger and Me and read some of his book at the bookstore. I have an opinion about Michael Moore as a person in general. I've already said I can't comment on this particular movie. And his movie making is poor because a documentary is supposed to be truthful and present all information available. He's anything but honest.

Kutz · 12-15-2002, 04:41 PM

I assume that he brings up some good points. Ive read some of his work and have seen some of his stuff on TV, and it's fairly intelligent and informative. But like anybody, he's got an opinion, so of course its going to be biased in some direction. I dont think anybody was really expecting a complete and objective review of the gun situation in America.

Radar · 12-15-2002, 04:42 PM

Quote:

I dont think anybody was really expecting a complete and objective review of the gun situation in America.

That's exactly what I expect from a documentary

Kutz · 12-15-2002, 04:47 PM

Quote:

That's exactly what I expect from a documentary

Heh, well then you probably ought to alter your view of reality. There's no such thing as an objective political documentary. They aren't worthless, however; one can still learn a great deal and be spurred to do further research on the subject, perhaps from sources whose political views differ. I don't believe in gun control either, but I've learned a few things from Moore in the past, and I expect that in watching the documentary and doing some follow-up research, I'd learn a few more things.

But yeah. You cannot expect any political documentary not to be biased.

juju · 12-15-2002, 04:58 PM

He presents facts as facts and his opinion as his opinion. Viewers are left to decide for themselves what they think about the facts that have been presented. I suppose you could make an argument that opinions shouldn't be in a documentary, but I don't think he's concealed his opinions as facts.

Kutz · 12-15-2002, 05:03 PM

Quote:

He presents facts as facts and his opinion as his opinion. Viewers are left to decide for themselves what they think about the facts that have been presented. I suppose you could make an argument that opinions shouldn't be in a documentary, but I don't think he's concealed his opinions as facts.

I have to say, I disagree with you completely. I'm not calling Micheal Moore a dirty liar or shameless indoctrinator - he's no more of those than anybody else, relatively speaking. But opinions and facts are not so easily or clearly separable. Often, only certain facts and certain statistics are provided so that you can 'think about them' - and come to a certain conclusion.

elSicomoro · 12-15-2002, 07:00 PM

I watched him on Donahue a while back, and generally agreed with most of what he was saying. Having said that, I have not yet read Stupid White People nor saw Bowling for Columbine. One of these days.

MaggieL · 12-15-2002, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kutz

You cannot expect any political documentary not to be biased.

Sure you can...if it is in fact "documentary".

"Documentary" is not a synonym for "non-fiction". From what I've heard and read about "Bowling", it is more properly described as "propaganda".

Kutz · 12-15-2002, 09:04 PM

I realize what the definitions are. I'm trying to be realistic.

It is foolish to watch anything, whether it calls itself a documentary or a propoganda piece or a baked potato, and not expect a bias.

12-15-2002, 02:02 PM	#1
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Michael Moore Bowls Gutter Balls in Columbine Moore Bowls Gutter Balls in Columbine Film by Ari Armstrong What are we to make of a documentary that claims to discuss violence in America, but fails to even mention a policy responsible for raising U.S. homicide rates at least 25%? At the end of his film Bowling for Columbine, director Michael Moore bowls a strike. Unfortunately, his film is less successful. He heaves mightily and knocks down a few pins, but he also rolls some gutter balls. Economist Jeffrey Miron of Boston University found "drug and alcohol prohibition have substantially raised the homicide rate in the United States over much of the past 100 years" by an estimated 25-75%. Why? Prohibition creates violent black markets. It's a simple theory supported by the evidence. So, in his rambling exploration of many other facets of violence in America, why does Moore completely ignore the domestic consequences of prohibition? Such an omission is inexcusable, and it indicates Moore's social agenda trumps any serious effort to come to grips with the problem. That said, at times Moore's work is chillingly poignant. During one segment, he shows frame after frame of botched U.S. foreign policy moves. The U.S. helps kill or otherwise remove one leader of a struggling nation, only to see the rise of an even worse leader. The U.S. has supported both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, though in retrospect that support seems to have been unwise. Moore's critique of American "foreign entanglements" mirrors libertarian concerns. On the morning of the Columbine murders, Moore points out, President Clinton was on television announcing the latest American bombing raid in Kosovo. Just an hour later, Clinton was back on TV discussing the suburban terror. Is senseless violence on the personal level linked to the mass violence of the state? It's possible, but Moore doesn't demonstrate a causal connection. Shock-rocker Marilyn Manson continues this theme by pointing out the president has more influence than Manson does. Manson blames the "campaign of fear and consumption" constantly bombarding Americans. However, Manson's suggestion that his music is a healthy "escape" is as ludicrous as his critics' assertions that Manson's music somehow drives people to mayhem. Moore notes the Columbine killers also attended a morning bowling class, so why not blame bowling? Moore's comparison is silly, but he does raise the excellent point that people shouldn't look for scapegoats following a tragedy. Which brings us to another of Moore's gutter balls. Scapegoating is precisely what Moore does, only his victim is the American gun owner rather than Marilyn Manson. At one point, Moore places a picture of the young victim of the Buell school shooting against a ledge of Charlton Heston's house. Moore seems to think Heston is somehow to blame for the death, and he asks Heston to apologize. Moore also took a couple of Columbine victims to K-Mart and used media pressure to convince the chain to stop selling ammunition. He describes this as an "overwhelming victory." Yet his self-serving media stunt accomplished the same thing keeping Manson out of Denver accomplished: exactly nothing. In his incoherent badmouthing of corporations, Moore neglects to remind us that his film was released by a large corporation, his equipment was manufactured by corporations, and his work was advertised by corporate web pages and media outlets. This doesn't prove Moore's case is wrong, but it does prove he's not self-reflective. Moore offers some needed criticism of American media, especially television news programs. One person Moore interviews notes that, even as the American murder rate plummeted, television coverage of murders dramatically expanded, thus giving viewers a false impression of reality. Moore rightly rails against racism. Many white Americans have an irrational fear of black males, and this encourages a violent mindset. That's a needed criticism. Unfortunately, Moore seeks to replace bigotry against blacks with bigotry against gun owners. Many of my gun-owning friends are doctors, lawyers, professors, and professionals. Does Moore interview anybody representative of the American gun owner? Of course not. Does he interview any scholar who is an expert on crime and firearms, such as David Kopel, John Lott, Gary Kleck, or Don Kates? Of course not. To do so would be to treat the matter seriously rather than fan the flames of prejudice. Moore cites the gun-homicide statistics for a variety of countries with lower numbers than in the U.S., but he conveniently omits countries with more stringent gun laws and higher gun-homicide rates. He also ignores the fact that England's gun bans have been followed by an increase in violent crime there, including gun-related crime. All the evidence that demonstrates lawfully carrying a handgun or keeping a defensive gun in the home deters criminals is totally suppressed. Moore does wonder why Canada has a relatively high gun-ownership rate yet fewer murders. He concludes there is something wrong with American culture. He's right about that: there is something wrong. He rightly points to poverty and America's racist past as part of the problem, even though he looks to failed welfare schemes to solve poverty -- whereas libertarians look to repeal the government interventions (such as prohibition) that have perpetuated it. But Moore overstates his case. He thinks America is a nation of fear and paranoia. But in some ways he feeds into the same media frenzy he criticizes in his film. Yes, some Americans have problems with violence, bigotry, and paranoia. However, the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of American gun owners, lead basically responsible and healthy lifestyles. This basic fact seems not to assist Moore in his quixotic crusades.

12-15-2002, 04:37 PM	#6
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Have you seen Roger and Me, and have you read any of his books? Aside from his politics, what parts of his filmmaking style didn't you like? Bad editing? Bad camerawork? How can you have an opinion about a movie you haven't seen? Also, if the author is from the U.S., then his work is automatically copyrited. The fact that he has chosen this publishing medium doesn't automatically give you the right to reproduce it. That's why we link to things! :) Last edited by juju; 12-15-2002 at 04:41 PM.

12-15-2002, 04:41 PM	#8
Kutz Killer of Wabbits Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USA! USA! USA! Posts: 18	I assume that he brings up some good points. Ive read some of his work and have seen some of his stuff on TV, and it's fairly intelligent and informative. But like anybody, he's got an opinion, so of course its going to be biased in some direction. I dont think anybody was really expecting a complete and objective review of the gun situation in America. __________________ http://www.psychicman.net

12-15-2002, 09:04 PM	#15
Kutz Killer of Wabbits Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USA! USA! USA! Posts: 18	I realize what the definitions are. I'm trying to be realistic. It is foolish to watch anything, whether it calls itself a documentary or a propoganda piece or a baked potato, and not expect a bias. __________________ http://www.psychicman.net

12-15-2002, 03:53 PM	#2
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Who is Ari Armstrong? Did you get permission from Ari to reprint this? It's a very well written piece, and there are plenty of things I could respond to. But unless Ari's actually going to log on here and respond back to me, what's the point and who am I talking to? I want to talk to a real person! Am I to infer that you share the opinions voiced in the piece? Or do you just agree with some of it? Do you disagree with any of it? Have you seen the movie yourself? What do you think? Anyway, i'm a big fan of Michael Moore, and I'd just like to be able to see this film. Supposedly it's the highest grossing documentary of all time, yet it's still not showing in my little podunk town yet! ARGH! This is just the kind of thing that causes me to want to move to a place where things <i>actually happen</i>. Man this place is dead. Oh, wait! I think we're getting Arlo Guthrie next week. Hip-hip hooray! :)

12-15-2002, 04:06 PM	#4
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Yeah, I'll most likely have to wait until it comes out on DVD. At this point I've given up hope of catching it on the big screen. Although you never know!

12-15-2002, 04:24 PM	#5
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	*About the author: Ari Armstrong is the publisher of the Colorado Freedom Report www.co-freedom.com. This review originally appeared in the November 13, 2002 edition of the Colorado Freedom Report. He posted it online so I'm sure he doesn't mind people reading it. You can assume I agree with the author about Michael Moore in general but I haven't seen the movie because I refuse to put money in his pocket. He is a weak author, and not much of a film maker either. Roger & Me was crap, his book "stupid white people" was crap, and I assume this is too. He's clearly for gun control which automatically makes him an idiot. All gun control laws are unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do people have a hard time understanding?

12-15-2002, 04:58 PM	#11
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	He presents facts as facts and his opinion as his opinion. Viewers are left to decide for themselves what they think about the facts that have been presented. I suppose you could make an argument that opinions shouldn't be in a documentary, but I don't think he's concealed his opinions as facts.

12-15-2002, 07:00 PM	#13
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I watched him on Donahue a while back, and generally agreed with most of what he was saying. Having said that, I have not yet read Stupid White People nor saw Bowling for Columbine. One of these days.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)