j_b

i have read it as well as listened to the 'nra in littleton' section in bfc (on moore's site). i personally do not find anything unethical about the editing. bfc does not change heston's message: "despite the mayor asking us not to come here, we are here because it's our right". sure, he does not have the entire speech, but then again, bfc is not meant to be an nra platform. editing of this kind (chopping up of interviews) is common practice in docu making as well as news. it is not unethical as long as the message is not changed, and bfc does not change heston's message. you are really making a mountain out of mole hill.

is there a sacred golden rule which says that tragicomedy is not appropriate in documentary film making? isn't tragicomedy part of life as we know it? if it wasn't why would it have evolved to such a popular mode of communication in art as well as everyday exchanges? as for whether no documentary film makers has used tragicomedy before moore, i seriously doubt it. just give me time, i'll think of one.

moore posted the actual speech from heston and here is what he says about it: "Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." 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. Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up. As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it? " http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/ actual links to speech on webpage

i have read a couple of articles this time around as well as last time we had this argument and i have not seen anything really damning: ergo the titan 4 thingy. if you have anything else more specific, shoot (with enough details so that it's not a rehash of the usual unsubstantiated accusations) "land without bread" by bunuel is a documentary that depicts tragedy (starving peasants). there are certainly many other examples. tragicomedy is a very common art form. there are countless examples in film: "life is beautiful" by roberto benini, mike leigh pretty much only makes tragicomedies (secrets and lies, topsy-turvy, life is sweet, etc ... moreover bfc has different tones throughout. it is tragicomic but also plain serious.

you apparently think that repeating the same unsubstantiated bs often enough will eventually be perceived as truth. your short but plentiful posting history provide ample evidence of this. every charge of distortion in bfc i have read has either been credibly answered by moore himself or just did not hold any water or was really minor. if you have a specific instance of moore lying in bfc, tell us what it is along with the evidence necessary to assess its veracity. pointing to websites cointaining the same unsubstantiated assertions is circular. we also all know that you have lots of time to waste on empty one-liners and put downs. we also all know that you think having the last post amounts to evidence of 'winning' the argument. so this time make an effort: no 'switch and bait', no 'dodge and insult'. say something new and substantiated by facts for once.

this is ludicrous. pretty much all film makers have told the stories of people involved in tragedy. it doesn't necessarily mean they have "exploited slaughters". did spielberg exploit the slaughter of jews in schindler's list? did bunuel exploit the starving spanish in los olivados? did mel gibson exploit the murder of jesus? may be they all did at some level, but michael moore certainly does not stand out. he does not place anymore blame on raytheon than on walmart, the gun culture and the nra, the glorification of violence and the goon mentality, etc ... you can say that he distort facts or show flawed logic all day long, until you show specifically that it is the case, it'll remain an unsubstantiated opinion what a wonderful use of nuances ... again, moore does not say that raytheon is specifically responsible so your criticism does not hold any water. second pointing the fingers at the kids (or demonizing them)without describing their environment is totally meaningless. to suggest that these kids (or all modern mass murderers) did what they did just because of genetics or because the parents did not teach them right from wrong is simplistic. bfc is in part a movie about the culture of violence which when conditions are ripe (kids, families, etc ...) leads to disaster. some people are exposed to this culture and don't go about killing people, yet in some cases we see the result. it's also a movie about how violence is a banal part of our environment through media, institutions, businesses, etc ... it's a very good movie.

are you going to pretend you are/were against this war? why won't you answer the question? are you sure you want to spend time with typos? or are you trying to make a point here? walling people in and stealing their land and water isn't moderate let's cut the bs. state your progressive stances in your next post or in a p.m. if you'd rather. i won't reply unless you answer my questions.

are you going to pretend that you are/were against this war? i just did a search of your posts about iraq just to make sure, and indeed i cannot find a single statement expressing disagreement with the present war but i did find many statements justifying current administration policies in the middle east. since when is it a moderate positrion to support the building of a wall around communities to prevent the free movement of persons, a wall that takes away arable land and aquifers? sorry, but 99% of your politics are conservative and you are not showing anymore ability to be swayed than i am. as far as i am concerned, i am progressive and proud of it. in turn, i believe that placing human dignity first, be it that of americans or other, is the moderate position.

considering the conservative bile expressed toward m.moore, it certainly appears that he is saying the right things. and since scott keeps repeating the same lies about bfc and the titan 4, i'll reproduce what moore has to say about it below: "Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles. In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles." As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about." (see him say it here) Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces." (view source here). That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss." http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

since when is it moderate to support policies responsible for the death of 1000's of iraqis? since when is it moderate to justify the formalization of apartheid in israel via the building of a segregationist wall? give us a break, will ya? we are all competent here to decide how your opinions stack in the spectrum of respectability without your attempting to pull the covers of moderacy to your side.

this time twight has really gone off the deep end. i suspect it suits his paranoid personality.

let's not forget we don't really know who butchered this guy http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04213.html http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/000809.php

michael moore has already adressed most of that drivel. here is the link to his response: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/ there are probably a few minor inaccuracies in bfc, but i'd challenge anyone to find no inaccuracy and/or bias in any work of non-fiction. conservatives are just pissed that moore has such a large following, especially with his new film coming out during an election year.

another economist who believes that resources are limitless and technology will save us from depletion of easily recoverable oil. a lot of wishful thinking .... the earth is for all intent and purpose a closed system (until we start drilling mars i guess, which i don't see in the near future), which necessarily implies that the economy has natural limits. "Shell had previously said it had overstated the extent of its oil and gas reserves - a figure used by analysts and investors to value the company - by 20%. "

here is a nice article on oil supplies that isn't pseudo-science: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/Campbell_02-3.pdf "The implications of the decline of the world’s premier energy source are so pervasive that in political terms it is easier “not to know”. This is certainly the position of the International Energy Agency in Paris, on which many governments rely. It in turn has been able to hide behind a new study by the eminently respectable United States Geological Survey, which in a new report of 2000 has claimed near limitless resources. The oil companies come in with bland public relations imagery, knowing too full well that any mention of the dreaded word Depletion would smell like a dwindling asset to the investment community. The critical issue is not so much when oil will eventually run out, but rather when production will reach a peak and begin to decline, which will represent a major watershed for the world’s economy."

You quoted me, but failed to answer my question. Did you just want to rant, or were you actually trying to put forth some insight? it's because your question was another example of the classic 'switch and bait' you are becoming famous for. moreover you didn't provide any substantiating evidence. HA! You're like my brother. When ever he gets backed in a corner, he starts screaming "SWITCH AND BAIT!!!" "NO EVIDENCE" Read the freaking paper once in awhile, moron, and stop making excuses for avoiding the question. Just say "geez, you got me again". It's getting to be a habit with you. then when called on the 'switch and bait', there goes the other classic: 'insult and dodge' you are a pretty pathetic little fellow.

You quoted me, but failed to answer my question. Did you just want to rant, or were you actually trying to put forth some insight? it's because your question was another example of the classic 'switch and bait' you are becoming famous for. moreover you didn't provide any substantiating evidence.

it's not my definiton that is spin. "collateral damage" in itself is spin for "horrible things that resulted from our actions"

yeah sure. as if "collateral damage" wasn't spin ...

no, it was explicitly concerned with the assessment that "collateral damage has been quite minor" which i initially countered with the number of civilian casualties and in later posts included all iraqi casualties for the past year.

no peter, the reason i did not answer is because you offered nothing new in your argument. as for me increasing the number of casualties to ~40,000 to include the military: i consider bombing to paste ~30,000 unmotivated, poor-as-dirt individuals wearing uniform to be as much 'collateral damage' of predatorial policies as the killing of civilians. is there any good reason why you would exclude the death of iraqi military from your grim justifications?

how unfair that i am criticizing the murderous policies conservatives have supported for decades ... i have offered solutions: stop supporting dictators and terrorists because it is advantageous to us. neither the sanctions, nor this war, nor arming saddam (and helping him grab power), nor providing him with the technology to produce wmd, etc ... were necessary. some chose to do so even though the same criticisms were made 20 years ago as they are now, then they turn around and tell us it is justified to kill great number of innocent people because we have facilitated a monstrosity. sorry pal, it doesn't fly to present people with no alternatives when they clearly exist(ed).

there are numerous sources which place the number to >500,000 over the period of sanctions. as far as i am concerned, the exact number is not very important for the purpose of this 'discussion'. what really matters is noting the grim calculus performed by pp and his fellow neocons: "we only killed ~40,000 individuals which is a lot less than *another large number* we'd have killed through sanctions, so we did good"