 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Bowling For Columbine? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Limoge
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 9/28/2003 7:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Just some comments on Bowling for Columbine. I just saw it and it disturbed me very much. It caused, as Greg would say, "cognitive dissonance". It just didn't click! So called facts were not backed up and taken out of context. To be presented as a fact filled documentary is ludicrous. There are too many things wrong for me to discuss here, but if any of you are interested go into the bowlingfortruth.com and take a look at some of the deceptions used. He defies logic often. He uses people and then makes it look as if they are in the wrong. Example: his accosting of Dick Clark was rude at best. If he wanted to talk to him about fair wages, he should have made an appointment. Look up some facts on the mother of that little boy before you jump to the conclusion that somehow it is Dick Clark's fault. There are many sides and stories to the "welfare to work" policies. Also, some facts on the 6 year old murderer. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 9/29/2003 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I recently saw the movie, and did enjoy it, and it was thought-provoking. For that, I think the movie is credible, however I find it ironic that Mr. Moore criticizes the media at large for propogating the aura of panic by slanting stories, yet at the same time is guilty of it in his movie.
FYI, the documentary was NOT an objective movie providing a balanced side of the facts letting the viewer come up with their own conclusion. Any admonition of doing so would be laughable.
For example, it may be true that many Canadians DO keep their doors unlocked, but rather than just giving a facade that every door in Canada is unlocked, to state some sort of statistical comparison (75% of the doors we checked were unlocked, 25% were. Etc.)
The main "problem" (I use the term in terms of critical analysis, not in terms of relevance of the topic or enjoyment) with the movie is that it attempts to oversimplify the problem of guns/violence in our country. The most blatent and misleading example was the South Park - like cartoon. Another is assuming that since K-Mart sells ammo, that it bears most of the "blame" (I ask that if K-Mart didn't sell ammo, wouldn't the kids most likely get the ammo from somewhere else in town?).
The truth is, our gun/violence problem is probably a combination of many different things. Part of it would be availibility. Part of it would be news media. Part of it racial diversity. Part of it economics. The list goes on.
Of course this now boils down to figuring out how to best reduce the gun violence in our country. Of course, if no one had guns at all then there wouldn't be a problem with GUN violence. However, this is extremely difficult because a) Right to bear arms IS in our Constitution (interpreting what an "arm" is open for debate of course) and b) Even if the ban were enacted, enforcement would be notoriously difficult (although not impossible. However, it would require very Draconican rules to do so).
The other angle is trying to regulate responsible BEHAVIOR. This can take on many forms: Education, gun control laws, etc. This may be even harder since the social dynamics of America are so diverse. Again, the issues of race, media, economics, etc. I don't have the silver bullet (no pun intended), but I doubt that anyone does. This problem is unique to our society in the world because in fact our society IS unique in the world.
And that's the final point I wanted to bring up that the movie didn't address at all. Different countries for the most part have their share of pros and cons. For every boon one country has that another doesn't, you could probably find a bane that the other doesn't have as well. Germany may not have as much gun violence, but their taxes are substantially higher than ours. Japan has to deal with a 12+ year recession. And Canada,...well, they allow gay marriages, so it's only a matter of time before that problem makes itself evident.
This may sound like I'm a big defender of the right to bear arms. Not really. I for one do not own any firearms nor plan to in the future. I find the risks of accident to be too great compared to the possible security. I would've prefered it if the Constitution didn't mention the issue specifically. Furthermore, I believe if the Founding Fathers could've seen what technology and society would evolve into, would've left it out too or at least leave it up to the States to decide. Unfortunately, we cannot reliably depend on "WWFD" ("What would the Fathers Do?") arguments. Such has been the basis for legalized abortion.
So, at the present time, guns ARE a part of our society whether we like to or not. This should not mean those in a crusade to curb the proliferation of them should stop. I'm just stating for effective change, it needs to take a societal shift resulting in either a Constitutional Amendment, or a stigmatization of gun ownership to where it's no longer desired to have/use guns. I'll let those who have this as their mission decide how to best approach it, in as much as letting Mr. Moore do it how he sees fit. My main concern is that most people will not think about the movie enough.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/2/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | Thank you, daddy, but I think I can police myself. And given that you want the job, I think I will head to other pastures... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 10/3/2003 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra,
I'm not denying the numbers and events themselves. I read over the link in question and have no doubt that indeed there IS a bank that gives you a free gun upon opening an account, or that the number of gun related deaths numbers ARE accurate.
The issue is not in the numbers themselves, but in the PRESENTATION of the numbers.
You don't need to be a professional Statistician to know you can easily skew numbers or selectively show clips to give the appearance of an unwarranted conclusion.
Classic case in point: "post-war" Iraq. In just about EVERY news story you hear about Iraq is NEGATIVE. How many soliders are dying each day. Interviews of "experts" who think we are screwing everything up. You RARELY (if ever) hear from those who are thankful we are there and Sadaam is gone, the number of improvements to Baghdad's infrastructure, etc. Regardless of your personal views towards Iraq or the occupation you must concede that good news doesn't sell, and bad news does.
And that is my main complaint with the movie. It is certainly NOT an objective movie weighing the pros and cons of guns in the United States. The only thing Mr. Moore did show conclusively is that we have a higher rate of gun deaths among the industrialized nations. And as I stated, the reasons are many and complex and it is probably a combination of everything, not just one factor, which makes our society unique.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/10/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Classic case in point: "post-war" Iraq. In just about EVERY news story you hear about Iraq is NEGATIVE. How many soliders are dying each day. Interviews of "experts" who think we are screwing everything up. You RARELY (if ever) hear from those who are thankful we are there and Sadaam is gone, the number of improvements to Baghdad's infrastructure, etc. Regardless of your personal views towards Iraq or the occupation you must concede that good news doesn't sell, and bad news does.
Doesn’t Moore make this exact point in the movie? He is very critical of the media for its sensationalism and fear-mongering. As for the coverage of Iraq, it is very disappointing that the media focuses on the most destructive events and offers very little content about what's actually going on. You get the impression that Iraq is full of ungrateful, fundamentalist Muslim, terrorist-friendly, Saddam-loyal, guerilla warriors.
But here is a different picture of Iraqis resisting US occupation: regular people engaging in nonviolent resistance (they are protesting the decision to bring in Turkish troops as reinforcement).
Maybe if the media covered the nonviolent resistance rather than just the suicidal psychos, we would have a better understanding of what is going on and fewer people would resort to violence in order to make their point.
quote:
And that is my main complaint with the movie. It is certainly NOT an objective movie weighing the pros and cons of guns in the United States. The only thing Mr. Moore did show conclusively is that we have a higher rate of gun deaths among the industrialized nations. And as I stated, the reasons are many and complex and it is probably a combination of everything, not just one factor, which makes our society unique.
I didn't get the impression Moore was trying to blame the higher rate of gun deaths in America on guns.
Besides the gun question, some of the other potential causes he followed up on included:
- Lieberman's (and others) views that shock rockers such as Marylin Manson and irreverant cartoons like South Park were to blame.
- The influence of corporations such as Lockhead-Martin, manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction, with a factory in Littleton, Colorado.
- Economic factors such as Michigan's welfare-to-work programs.
- The role of the media and politicians' fear-mongering.
- The violence in our country's history (which is actually quite clean compared to the histories of other developed nations such as Germany and Russia).
- He even gave voice to Charleton Heston's theory that it was due to our "mixed ethnicity."
- And of course, bowling.
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 10/16/2003 2:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Bomb kills three U.S. citizens in Gaza
Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson, Washington Post
BEIT LAHIYA, GAZA STRIP -- A huge roadside bomb exploded Wednesday beneath a car full of security guards escorting a U.S. diplomatic convoy through the northern Gaza strip, killing three Americans and injuring one, U.S. officials said. The blast, which ripped apart the armor-plated vehicle and flipped it upside down, was the first fatal attack on U.S. officials or diplomats in the Palestinian territories or Israel during the three-year-old Palestinian uprising.
The victims were employees of DynCorp, a Reston, Va.-based government contractor that provides security services to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv.
State Department officials identified them as John Branchizio, 36, born in Texas; Mark T. Parson, 31, born in New York City; and John Martin Linde Jr., 30, born in Missouri.
No credible claim of responsibility for the attack was made, but some Israeli and Palestinian officials said it appeared that whoever carried it out knew that Americans were in the convoy and deliberately targeted them.
The two large, silver Chevrolet Suburban sports-utility vehicles in the four-vehicle convoy were not marked, but they were well known as the type of car used by U.S. diplomats when they travel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The diplomats in the convoy were in Gaza to speak to Palestinian professors about Fulbright scholarships, said the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer.
The U.S. Embassy advised Americans to leave the Gaza Strip after the attack. Kurtzer said 200 to 400 Americans, some of Palestinian descent, work in the Gaza Strip, many for aid groups.
Blame, condolences
In Washington, President Bush laid blame for the attack on the Palestinian leadership. "Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms," he said.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat condemned "this ugly crime targeting American observers as they were on a mission for security and peace."
Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said: "We strongly condemn this incident, and we will conduct an investigation, and we will follow it to find the source of this attack."
Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian Cabinet member, said Palestinian security officials had begun an investigation of the incident, and he offered a joint investigation with the United States. Kurtzer told reporters that an FBI team would join the investigation.
U.S. investigators, who arrived at the scene several hours after the bombing, quickly left after they were pelted with rocks by gangs of young Palestinians.
Wednesday's attack occurred around 10:15 a.m., shortly after the vehicles passed through the northern Erez crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip.
According to witnesses and U.S. Embassy officials, a Palestinian security team led the convoy in one car, the U.S. security guards occupied the second vehicle, at least two U.S. diplomats were in the third, and another Palestinian police car brought up the rear.
The blast left a crater 3 1/2 feet deep and 8 feet across, and completely destroyed the vehicle, flipping it on its back and leaving the chassis and undercarriage a twisted and torn wreck.
Witnesses said that one of the victims was blown in half; another, they said, stumbled out of the car and died a short time later.
A gray cable hanging into the crater left by Wednesday's attack on the U.S. vehicle suggested that the bomb might have been ignited by remote control from a nearby concrete hut.
U.S. calls for reform
Until Wednesday, foreign diplomats and international officials had been considered largely off limits by Palestinian militant groups, which stressed that their conflict was against Israel. The two largest groups -- Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas, which are both headquartered in Gaza -- denied responsibility for the bombing.
U.S. and Israeli officials said the attack underscored the need to dismantle Palestinian militant groups -- a requirement of the stalled, U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan that Palestinian leaders have refused to carry out.
At a news conference, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he made clear to Qureia "that the only way forward is for him to get sufficient political authority to deal with this crisis in the Palestinian community, to gain control of all the security forces of the Palestinian Authority and to use those forces to go after terrorism."
U.S. diplomats are allowed to travel inside Gaza, but they must be accompanied by security personnel, inside protected vehicles. The vehicle involved in Wednesday's blast was armored-plated, officials said, but it was unclear whether it was hardened on its underside to protect against landmines, they said.
According to an Israeli government official, when U.S. diplomats travel in the Palestinian territories, "it's very clear who they are. This appears to be well planned. It's not accidental. It was a clear American target, but who did it and how we don't know."
Since Israeli-Palestinian fighting erupted three years ago, 49 U.S. citizens have been killed, including those who died in Wednesday's bombing.
Most were dual American-Israeli citizens killed in Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel. Others died in combat as soldiers in Israel's military. One was a Palestinian-American woman killed by Israeli army fire in Ramallah.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 10/16/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Electra
Here's another image that reinforces Moore's point about media fear-mondering:
Here is the picture the Associated Press selected to illustrate the car bomb that rocked central Baghdad near the Baghdad Hotel on Oct 12, 2003. It happens to be of an angry black man, shouting and carrying a gun, with a burning car in the background. Was this image chosen because it is the best one to illustrate the situation? Or because it is the one that is most likely to get a reaction by playing on (and therefore reinforcing) American stereotypes?
Electra
I see a powerful black man defending the Baghdad Hotel moments after a devastating terrorist attack. It is a remarkable photo, dramatically revealing the emotion and intensity of the moment. The photograph effectively conveys the trauma, fear, and destructiveness of the bombing. It is hard for me to imagine a photo BETTER able to illustrate the situation than this one.
When I see this photo, I see a powerful black man acting courageously in a time of war. Electra, how do think this invokes a stereotype? It seems to me that this man is clearly a security guard with the hotel or some agency. He has a badge around his neck. How in the world is every picture of a black man with a gun a STEREOTYPE?? Do you feel that way when you see a picture of a black policeman chasing down a criminal? How about a picture of a black soldier shooting at the enemy? Now, if there was a riot going on that involved just as many whites as blacks, and all the photos were of black rioters, I could see your point. But to say that any photo of an intense black man with a gun - even one showing an act of courage in a time of war - plays to "American" stereotypes, to me seems rather stereotyped. Aren't you presupposing the stereotype that any black man with a gun is dangerous? And doesn't a photo like this show the exact opposite of that?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/16/2003 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia and Laika,
I’m very happy that it’s obvious to you both right away that the man in this image is a helper and not a threat. I must admit that I do struggle with stereotypes when I see images of angry black men. I am working on this, which explains my sensitivity to how black men are protrayed in the media. Since my stereotypes are not grounded in my experience at all, I think they are a result of how I have been socialized in America, and the media plays a big role in that.
Here are some things I think the people responsible for this story could have done to help people like me who struggle with stereotypes and are trying to overcome them:
1. In the caption, the man is described as an “unidentified armed gunman” at the scene. Maybe instead of calling him an “armed gunman”—which is redundant anyway—they could have clarified that he was a “helpful gunman.”
2. This is the only photo I found that featured a black man. Even though they didn’t know his identity, maybe they could have specified whether he was a soldier, securiaty guard, CIA agent, or civilian, like they did in photos featuring Iraqis or white Americans on the scene. In fact, though there were many pictures of people carrying guns related to this story, this is the only photo in which the person featured is identified solely as a “gunman.”
3. Semeia: “It is hard for me to imagine a photo BETTER able to illustrate the situation than this one.” I think photos depicting Iraqis and (black and white) Americans working together to help the wounded at the scene of the bombing depict the circumstances of the event much more accurately than this image. These photos capture the emotion and intensity surrounding it without playing into the emotion surrounding stereotypes about armed black men that many Americans struggle with.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 10/18/2003 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Electra
I didn't ask for the stereotypes I have about black men, and the fact that they enter my mind makes me angry (like the way Doc talked about "microchips" we get from our culture in the sermon last week). Countering prevalent stereotypes about black men (glad to hear you're an exception!) takes more intentionality and conviction than just going for the most dramatic image. One of the most effective--but cheap--ways to create drama is to play into peoples' stereotypes because the framework for an emotive response is already there.
Electra
You blame the media for your stereotyping of black men? I grew up in the Midwest, read the newspaper and popular magazines, watched t.v., went to movies, was subjected to the same overall media as most people, and yet I didn't emerge with the same kind of apparent stereotyping that you did. Nor did my brothers and sisters, nor my parents, nor my husband, nor his immediate family, nor the majority of my friends. Nor do my children show an inclination in that regard. We do have relatives from the south, some of whom hold stereotypes, some of whom don't. The people I knew growing up who were bigoted all had parents who were bigoted - so I've always thought that the strongest influences in that area were parents and possibly peers. I share the same popular culture as bigots do, and yet I have never come to the same conclusion, so I find it odd to blame the culture.
For you to look at that picture of a black man and see a stereotype and then blame the journalist for "play[ing] into people's stereotypes" seems to me like a way of not taking responsibility for your own thoughts. "Black people are good dancers" is a stereotype - should journalists avoid showing black people dancing? Should we have newspapers delete all articles about gay people in the theatre? How about anything that reflects the industriousness of Asians? If a Chinese child wins the spelling bee, should that story be omitted to avoid playing into stereotypes? And wouldn't that be distorting the truth?
If in fact you know the stereotype “all black men are dangerous” is false, why do you yet look at a picture of a courageous black man in a time of war and see a stereotype? I didn’t hear Greg’s sermon, but I briefly looked at the sermon notes and it seemed to me that Greg was saying to “take every thought captive” and “transform the mind” because the power for such transformation lies within us, not without. If you recognize that your stereotyping of black men is false and a distortion of reality, why do you continue to hold to the false when you see an image of a black man? To suggest that the newspaper should remove the photo to avoid inciting false thoughts in people like you who are susceptible to prejudicial thoughts is to suggest that journalists should distort reality in order to prevent others from distorting reality. The irony, of course, is that to remove the photo to avoid “playing into” people’s stereotypes would be to remove a POSITIVE image of a powerful black man acting courageously in a time of war, which would play into someone else’s stereotype. And if you applied this same standard to, say, black musicians’ music videos, you would have to say that the majority of them are FILLED with stereotypical images of blacks, and, according to you, “cheap” ways of creating drama. So do you also blame and are you also angry at black musicians for causing these stereotyped images to enter your mind?
You say, “I didn't ask for the stereotypes I have about black men, and the fact that they enter my mind makes me angry…” which seems to suggest that you are a victim of your own prejudicial thoughts, which are mostly the fault of the media implanting them in your brain like “microchips”. But unless you have suddenly become highly deterministic, it would seem that the responsibility for these thoughts lies squarely with you. If many people look at such images without that response, then the false idea cannot be coming from the picture itself.
I was raised to believe that skin color is no more determinative of anything about a person than eye color is. Having never found any credible evidence to counter that belief, in general I do not even “see” color in people, unless there is some reason inherent in the situation specifically related to color, like an article about racial tension or racial profiling or some such thing. If I saw the picture in question apart from this thread, for example, I would have seen it as a courageous man defending in a time of war, NOT a courageous black man defending (etc), because there is nothing to flag “color of skin” as in any way relevant. Now, if it was an article about racial profiling, detailing the very real and statistically provable discriminatory process by police of stopping individuals in a less than random way based on the color of their skin, then of course color is a relevant issue. But other than that I don’t go around “identifying” people as black or white, other than to perhaps notice shades of skin color like I might with my own children – my son having a dark olive complexion and black eyes, my daughters very fair, peaches and cream to translucent. I don’t have a lot of “logic” associated with skin color, because it tells so little. A black person from inner-city America and a black person from suburban America and a black person from Haiti and a black person from South Africa and a black person from Nigeria and a black person from Aruba and a black person from Europe and a black person from Egypt have little if anything in common. Skin color is not much of a clue, is it? I do not see how Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society will ever be achieved as long as people see their perceptions and logic about skin color as something from outside themselves that is happening to them, rather than as an internal filter that is completely within their power to change.
One reason I don’t like a lot of the methods used in “campaigns” for racial reconciliation is because they often HIGHLIGHT the very thing that we are supposed to be blind to – namely, skin color. If I need to make it my mission in life to reconcile with black people, then the first requirement is that I divide the world up into “black” people and “non-black” people. Since it is that very division that is supposed to be overcome, I don’t see how highlighting it can ever accomplish the task. In fact, it seems that the process itself helps to promulgate and sustain the division, because one needs to identify people by skin color to even get started.
I do believe that any and all discrimination against any person, be they black, gay, female, handicapped, left-handed, etc., should be vociferously protested and rooted out anywhere it is found. This would include any discrimination against white men through implementation of discriminatory hiring practices that favor minorities, in the mistaken belief that a new form of discrimination can ever be a corrective to an old form of discrimination.
Obviously discrimination highlights these particular “qualities” about people, like skin color and gender and sexual orientation, etc., and fighting particular discrimination involves talking about these “categories.” But eradicating discrimination is quite different from seeking reconciliation, and for reconciliation to ever occur requires the erasures of the categories themselves, “no more jew or gentile, male or female…”
I don’t feel any need to reconcile with black people, because there is nothing in my thoughts or actions which are UNreconciled. Ditto with gay people or men or handicapped or whatever. MY personal need for reconciliation involves my internal judgments about people whom I perceive as self-righteous, ignorant, pharisaical, etc. Any call to reconciliation should not assume where that need is in individuals, because we all have our particular distortions of the world that arise out of internal judgments and self-serving filters. One thing is for sure, though – my judgments are an internal process, and no matter what external influences may have helped to develop them, they are nonetheless within my power and my responsibility to overcome. I don’t think it is up to the media to limit images of self-righteous people because that will somehow lead people like me to have judgments about them.
I am sorry for digressing into the topic of reconciliation (on my mind from the thread on Dwayne’s sermon) but it does overlap with the issue of stereotyping and individual responsibility.
My question to you, Electra, is that if you truly see the stereotype “black men are dangerous” as false, why do you continue to react to images of black men as if it were true? And why do you not see that the power to change that response resides within you?
To know the truth you must first see the false as the false.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 10/19/2003 3:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
I think that you and I come from similar backgrounds (white women, raised in Midwest, etc.), but we have very different ideologies when it comes to race issues. The movie Bowling for Columbine briefly touches on the way black men are portrayed in the media, and how these portrayals reinforce stereotypes. The book Divided by Faith by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith helped me understand how the individualistic, color-blind approach to race issues typical of most evangelical Christians serve to clear individual white consciences, but actually prevent greater reconciliation between black and white Americans.
Just because I point out some external, cultural factors that I believe contribute to prevalent American stereotypes about black men doesn’t mean that I don’t take any personal responsibility for these stereotypes (though I admit I still have a long way to go!). A more systemic understanding of racial reconciliation does not excuse anyone from taking personal responsibility for how they have internalized the system that they have been socialized into it. In fact, without understanding this need systemically, it wouldn't have occurred to me to take any personal responsibility for it.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 11/18/2003 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | I finally saw the movie.
I agree Moore shouldn't have bugged Dick Clark like that and I don't know about the truth about the family situation of the boy that shot the girl.
However, many welfare to work programs do put more burdens on poorer families and increase their work-load.
But that was their intention. To tie elgibility for further federal support to the former recipients getting jobs, even if they need to be bussed to those jobs.
I don't think the tie to gun-violence was as strong as he made it out to be. And, of course, he skirted over the question of why the gun was in the house in the first place.
But, yeah, it really stank to be a USAmerican at the end of the movie.
As I understand it, the original intent of the right to bear arms was the provision for local militias as an alternative to a standing army, which was seen as a source of corruption and abuse of power in many existing gov'ts at the time.
So how do you regulate the media? Reduce the competition to get hot-stories on gun-murders and the like..., I believe that would be opposed as a restriction on the freedom of speech.
I mean, there are more gov't controls/regulations on tv in other countries and that puts some restraints on the news-media as well.
Clearly, Moore does show that we are subject to manipulation in that regard.
Anyways, I'm sorry I called Moore a liberal fundamentalist. Clearly, he's one of those types that does admire Canada a lot and he works in his political views into the film.
I have worked in South-West Detroit, where like Flint, they experienced a drop in the number of jobs and Great-Depression level unemployment levels for a significant amount of time.
And, as I understand it, the significantly higher unemployment rates in Canada and much of Europe is because lower-skilled workers can't find jobs due to the high minimum wages and the significant costs of firing someone.
Also, in Canada, unlike in the US, there never was gov't support for the flight to the suburbs and so middle-class and lower-class neighborhoods stayed nearby and there likely was much more cross-subsidization taking place wrt schooling/police protection and other public provisions to prevent so many "bad neighborhoods" from emerging.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| 47 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|