PDA

View Full Version : The Latest From Micheal Moore


PsychoSy
05-12-04, 03:34 AM
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"

by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman). Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true. Of course, it would take a lot of my time to contact all these sites and media outlets to correct their errors and I think it's more important I spend my time on my next book or movie so I just let it ride. But is that fair to you, the reader, who has now been told something that isn't true?

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them and then stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!

Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they have ended up discrediting themselves. Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year, then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me. Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't whining about it now. I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice. That's how they got to be so powerful. So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat ****ing piece of ****") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!"). I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.
Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control -- has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie. So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork. And that's what happened.

Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy. So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites:

#1 -- "That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"

Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country -- "More Bang for Your Buck!" There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film. When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine", that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you
spell Caucasian?") which I am filling out here for the first time, the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database, which includes all federally approved gun dealers, lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (I've posted the outtakes which you can view). And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:

#2) "The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction!"

That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters. Well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking! After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: 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.

The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

#3) "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."

Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: 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?

The gun nuts don't want to discuss either specific points or larger issues because when that debate is held, they lose. Most Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center) and the gun lobbies know it. That is why it's critical to distract and alter the debate and go after anyone who questions why we have so many gun deaths in America (especially if he does it in best selling books and popular films). I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like
this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country -- every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality, they would have. But they didn't and they can't because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them. So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film, or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

Well, there you have it. I suppose the people who tell their make-believe stories about me and my work will continue to do so. Maybe they should be sued for knowingly libeling me. Or maybe I'll just keep laughing . laughing all the way to the end of the Bush Administration -- scheduled, I believe, for sometime in November!

Yours,

Michael Moore
Director, "Bowling for Columbine"

PS. From now on, I will deal with all wacko attackos on this page.
If you hear something about me that doesn't sound quite right, check in here.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Just to show the people the truth!

Ahaha!! :D :p

Oh, I edited it for brevity -- it was 18500 characters long! :eek:

vampireuk
05-12-04, 04:31 AM
The lockheed scene was completely stupid, trying to make a connection with the violence at columbine and people making weapons to defend their country, Most of that film was a complete joke.

Casper
05-12-04, 04:43 AM
Eeeh I do think Lockheed export weapons too and I do think they make some real profit out of it. I don“t think they develope these weapons for world peace or charity giving it away to underdeveloped countries ;)

Anyway I love Michael Moores documentaries. He has a great sense of humour in it. Just the thing that when you open a bank account you get a rifle lol

I would wish someone would take advantage of that. Open an account bring ammo and then rob the bank with the gun you get. Not to smart but it sure would have been fun. That guy would be my personal hero forever lol.

Riptide
05-12-04, 08:33 AM
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

He is a liar and a great propogandist at that.

vampireuk
05-12-04, 09:12 AM
The plaque is listed on a number of anti-Bowling websites, but I wanted to go to a neutral source. I found on in www.colorado-mall.com/HTML/EDUCATIONAL/COLLEGES/ AFA/AIRPLANES/B-52/airplanesB52.html -- but that webpage, and indeed all with its ISP, vanished last week. You can still find it by doing a Google search, for the words Diamond Lil B-52 plaque, and click on "cached."

Here's the complete text:

Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26 year history in the command. Aircraft 55,003, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52's credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam conflict.

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.

The particular feat was accomplished by Airman First Class Albert E. Moore, who brought down a MiG-21 which was closing to attack 'Diamond Lil.' The reason its MiG kill was so celebrated was that a B-52 which got within range of a fighter almost always lost the fight. B-52s were built on the assumption that enemy fighters would be kept at bay by their own fighter escort, and so they had minimal defensive guns.

A WWII B-17 carried, oh, 10 to 14 (depending on model) .50 machineguns facing in every possible direction; they flew in dense formations so that there were hundreds or thousands of guns covering each direction. Facing WWII fighters, the B-17s still took severe losses.

A B-52 had only one defensive gun position, in its tail, which could cover no direction save rearwards: early models had four .50s in it, later ones a 20 mm. It had, in short, a lot less defensive capability, yet was up against modern jet fighters with hundreds of knots speed advantage, air-to-air missiles that could kill from miles off, and heavier guns for close-in. If an enemy fighter closed on a B-52, odds of survival were low.

Diamond Lil was thus commemorated for its rare feat of downing the attacking enemy fighter, instead of being downed by it.

A feat which Moore apparently finds appalling.

DivotMaker
05-12-04, 09:19 AM
Most of that film was a complete joke.

....much like the propaganda posted in the initial post of this thread? :rolleyes:

vampireuk
05-12-04, 09:33 AM
First of all I thought he was just a tosser adding his own stupid political view to facts, you can see through his bias a mile away. Having read the link that was just posted he is a utter tosser who is lying through the back of his teeth. Anything by moore is propaganda and most likely false.

Sazar
05-12-04, 09:51 AM
charlton heston is a tosser :)

vampireuk
05-12-04, 10:21 AM
Michael Moore however is a even bigger tosser :p

Sazar
05-12-04, 10:28 AM
nah... heston is... ;)

UDawg
05-12-04, 11:12 AM
He has his new movie coming during an election year and right before the election, Fahrenheit 9/11. He links the president to the Saudis and Osoma. Another documentary, of course. Anyway this will be full of lies just like his last "documentary".

BTW He can spin his excuses anyway he wants but the facts about the lies in his movie are well documented.

Oh and he does hate America. He just doesn't have the balls to admit it. Shoot even his own liberal buddies bood him at the oscars.

PsychoSy
05-12-04, 11:24 PM
If he's lying so much ... where's the lawsuits?

C'mon, how threatening can a fatass living above a Baby Gap store possibly be?!? :p ;)

UDawg
05-12-04, 11:26 PM
LOL! I don't find him threatening, just annoying, kinda like Rush but with out the weight loss.

BTW I am willing to be Michael has his own drug addiction.

vampireuk
05-13-04, 07:09 AM
The fact is he does lie and mislead people, where was the bit about how the kid who shot that little girl was suspended for stabbing a student with a pencil. Or how he had a fight with her the previous day, or how his uncles house was a crack house, or how the kid was since then stabbed another kid. What kind of a mother sends her son to a crack house.

The B-52 that proudly proclaims it killed vietnemese people, it in fact proudly says that it defend itself from a fighter attack. Moore is a idiot who never tells the truth.

2fast4u
05-13-04, 07:38 AM
The lockheed scene was completely stupid, trying to make a connection with the violence at columbine and people making weapons to defend their country, Most of that film was a complete joke.

there was no attempt to make a connection between lockheed and columbine in the movie at all, more a connection to the militarism that reigns in the united states.

i have read a few of michael moores books and i wasnt too impressed. the movie bowling for columbine was brilliant in huge parts though. however i do think he is overrated and taken too seriously. people now tend to see him as a serious political commentator rather than what he is - a satirist.

2fast4u
05-13-04, 07:39 AM
What kind of a mother sends her son to a crack house.

there is mothers who throw their new born kid in a dumpster. in face of that your question is kinda redundant.

silence
05-13-04, 07:41 AM
The B-52 that proudly proclaims it killed vietnemese people, it in fact proudly says that it defend itself from a fighter attack. Moore is a idiot who never tells the truth.


huh, this isnt flame or anything and i didnt watch "bowling..", so i have pretty simple question.

that plane (or its crew) were awarded medal for taking down enemy aircraft... what i wanna know is -> did he say they won medal for killing vietnamese or just that they won it in course of such action?... cause b-52 didnt fly there for sightseeing.

that would clear alot for me in this thread ....

vampireuk
05-13-04, 08:41 AM
South of Denver in littleton on the grounds of the airforce academy there sits a actual B-52 bomber, the plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed vietnamese people on christmas eve 1972, it was the largest bombing campaign of the vietnam war

Notice how he doesn't actually say what the plaque says, he simply says it killed vietnamese people and makes it sound like they were bombed, the plaque has nothing to do with the bombing campaign.

there was no attempt to make a connection between lockheed and columbine in the movie at all

Yes there was, and I'll quote it directly...

So you don't think our kids say to themselves well gee you know dad goes off to the factory every day and you know he built missles, these are weapons of mass destruction, whats the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at columbine high school

If thats not him trying to make a piss poor link between the two then what is.

there is mothers who throw their new born kid in a dumpster. in face of that your question is kinda redundant

Why? Because there are other bad parents out there too? Just because there are other bad parents around it doesn't make my point redundent.

2fast4u
05-13-04, 08:50 AM
Yes there was, and I'll quote it directly...

...

sounds like a piss-poor point indeed...

Why? Because there are other bad parents out there too? Just because there are other bad parents around it doesn't make my point redundent.

you asked what kind of mother would send her kid to a crack house as if that was so unlikely. its not.

vampireuk
05-13-04, 08:51 AM
The point is though Michael makes her sound like a devoted and caring mother, he completely disregards all the facts and trys to blame it on a big corporation.

silence
05-13-04, 09:24 AM
fair nuff vamp.
maybe i should watch it and make my own mind about it.


and i dont doubt there is some spin there... other thing is if i might agree with spin he put there ;)

vampireuk
05-13-04, 09:36 AM
If you end up watching it, read this afterwards

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

It will suprise you

silence
05-13-04, 09:38 AM
heh...need to find it first ;)

but thnx..if i get it, i'll take a look there.