Charleton Heston's "Columbine" Speech (The FULL Text).

[Lebell]

It has been discussed repeatedly in Michael Moore threads, so I thought I would present the ENTIRE speech here, instead of the snippits Moore strings together in Bowling For Columbine.

Note how Heston NEVER says "From my cold dead hands" in this speech as Moore tries to portray. (This was taken from a different speech a year later in Charlotte, NC).

Notice also that Heston is very concerned about the recent events and speaks specifically about those who are trying to blame them on the NRA.

He also prophetically addresses those who seize "soundbite(s) out of context" in order to ridicule NRA members.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html (contains a side by side comparison to the BFC "speech")

http://www.freedaily.com/articles/990504n1.html
------------------------------------

Charlton Heston's Speech at the annual NRA Convention

01 May, 1999

Denver, Colorado


(Editor's Note: The following remarks by NRA President Charlton Heston were transcribed by CNS from a RealVideo presentation of his speech before the NRA's national meeting in Denver, Colorado May 1.)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. I am very happy to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you all for coming and thank you for supporting your organization.

I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction, but we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction, but it's not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

Still they say don't come here. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care. We don't care as much as they do, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

NRA members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surly among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

[OFKU0]

First of all, what's your point?

Second, Charleton Heston has every right to say what he wants. Some people agree with it it. Some don't.

Lastly. Is he still alive? I though he died.

[Lebell]

My point is multifold;

First, to illustrate just one of the tricks that MM tries to pull in BFC, and
Two, to illustrate that Chuck isn't the heartless bastard that MM portrays him as, and
Three, to put out a post that I can reference the next time the topic of how fricken great BFC is.

And yes, this just in, Charleton Heston is still dead. (extra points if you get the joke).

[OFKU0]

Originally Posted by Lebell

And yes, this just in, Charleton Heston is still dead. (extra points if you get the joke).

Nope. . Don't know that one.

[JumpinJesus]

First, I'll say that I do like Michael Moore - I may be one of the few people who really do and will admit it. However, I also admit that he was an ass in his portrayal of Charleton Heston in Bowling for Columbine.

Charleton Heston was very cordial and hospitable to him, and Moore was a lousy guest. I think few people would have been as patient as Heston was.

[host]

Two threads devoted to this subject. IMO, Lebell, your endeavor to discredit
Moore is a distraction from discussion of more substantative issues of which
Moore has had much to say.

[JohnBua]

If Moore's points were so valid, why does he need to manufacture cheap stunts like the Frankenheston speach?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by host

Two threads devoted to this subject. IMO, Lebell, your endeavor to discredit
Moore is a distraction from discussion of more substantative issues of which
Moore has had much to say.

That's pretty funny Host. See it seems to me that articles like this point to one big truth, that it doesn't matter what Moore has to say about anything because he lies and spins the truth; therefore all of his arguments and positions are void.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

That's pretty funny Host. See it seems to me that articles like this point to one big truth, that it doesn't matter what Moore has to say about anything because he lies and spins the truth; therefore all of his arguments and positions are void.

Sorry, but that's an incredibly weak excuse. If someone spins the truth it does not mean all of his arguments and positions are void. I know you would like to summarily dismiss Moore and therefore you attempt to pinpoint a handful of cases where information has been distorted to do so. But an instance of distortion does not even come close to making all of his arguments and positions void.

Nice try. But only the people that already think like that will agree to those terms of discourse. And even then, it will be hypocritical, as there has never been a person who has been 100% objective in their discourse, therefore your logic requires you to dismiss all arguments and positions, by anyone and everyone, as void. And the first step is to dismiss your own arguments and positions.

[roachboy]

round and round it goes:

for conservatives it is bad to make a political argument about guns in the context of a documentary film--IF you do not support the politics of the film maker:

but it is just dandy is an administration markets an entire war on false pretenses across the medium of television.

so the conclusion i get from this kind of thread is--in conservativeland, anything goes from the right. they right can say and do and act as it wants and its supporters will go along without question.
when it comes to criticque, however, the opposite it the case: nothing can be true because everything critical is a lie lie lie.

quite the paragon of a democratic mode of interacting with information, arriving at informed decisions, participating in meaningful debate. no wonder most of you enjoy the more authoritarian elements of bushworld.

but wait-----you are free as individuals, no matter how unable to think critically you might be, because you have guns.
yes, in a pseudo-democracy american-style, in which everything is a commodity, what guarantees your "freedom" is possession of the magic commodity, a gun.

this american-style "freedom" has everything to do with fetishism.

[JohnBua]

Originally Posted by Manx

Sorry, but that's an incredibly weak excuse. If someone spins the truth it does not mean all of his arguments and positions are void. I know you would like to summarily dismiss Moore and therefore you attempt to pinpoint a handful of cases where information has been distorted to do so. But an instance of distortion does not even come close to making all of his arguments and positions void.

Nice try. But only the people that already think like that will agree to those terms of discourse. And even then, it will be hypocritical, as there has never been a person who has been 100% objective in their discourse, therefore your logic requires you to dismiss all arguments and positions, by anyone and everyone, as void. And the first step is to dismiss your own arguments and positions.

So you will defend Rush and Ann Coultier?

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Manx

If someone spins the truth it does not mean all of his arguments and positions are void. I know you would like to summarily dismiss Moore and therefore you attempt to pinpoint a handful of cases where information has been distorted to do so. But an instance of distortion does not even come close to making all of his arguments and positions void.

Glad to know that, because that is what many have been saying about Bush and the war in Iraq.

Also glad to see that you are admitting that Moore resorts to distortions when it suits him.

Of course there are substantially more than "a handful of cases".

Originally Posted by roachboy

round and round it goes:

but it is just dandy is an administration markets an entire war on false pretenses across the medium of television.

so the conclusion i get from this kind of thread is--in conservativeland, anything goes from the right. they right can say and do and act as it wants and its supporters will go along without question.
when it comes to criticque, however, the opposite it the case: nothing can be true because everything critical is a lie lie lie.

I don't recall that this thread was about anything but Michael Moore, but since you feel compelled to bring in Bush, the war and everything else "in conservativeland", I'll make a bold assumption and say that either a) you only support distortion and spin when it is on the left or b) you support spin and are calling the right hypocrites because they only point out distortion and spin on the left.

If it is b), I agree that it is hypocritical to only point out spin on one side, but of course, I am not "a conservative" or "liberal".

As to the "lie lie lie", the actual lie was clearly pointed out. Or are you still denying that Moore purposefullly edited those snips to make a speech Heston didn't give?

quite the paragon of a democratic mode of interacting with information, arriving at informed decisions, participating in meaningful debate. no wonder most of you enjoy the more authoritarian elements of bushworld.

Oh, I guess discussing MM's journalistic integrity isn't "meaningful debate" whereas your post is?

To me it is of fundamental importance to get accurate FACTS when attemping to to arrive at "informed decisions.

but wait-----you are free as individuals, no matter how unable to think critically you might be, because you have guns.
yes, in a pseudo-democracy american-style, in which everything is a commodity, what guarantees your "freedom" is possession of the magic commodity, a gun.

this american-style "freedom" has everything to do with fetishism.

Well.

I've seen it argued repeatedly that BFC isn't about guns and I wish to point out, neither was my post, but you seem determined to bring them into it (must be connected somehow to "conservativeland".)

So be it.

Whether you like it or not, guns have been used to defend your right to say what you want and live how you like many times, including in the fine city of Philidelphia, home to the Continental Congress and many sons of liberty who shed their blood to secure your "rights".

While you might not agree to the current action, it ignores centuries of history to sneer at those who have taken up a gun to defend themselves and their country.

It is also extremely offensive as well.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by JohnBua

So you will defend Rush and Ann Coultier?

I Will defend Rush...as much as I disagree with virtually everthing he says. He serves a purpose and has the right to state such opinions....sometimes he even makes sense. As for Ann....nope, sorry, she is a little too far out there for anyone with intellect to consider worth the effort to take seriously....quite entertaining though.

As for Mr. Moore. I can appreciate what he is attempting to accomplish, and I respect him for that. He does tend to stretch things to the point of damaging his own reputation, and defeating the agenda he follows.
But then.....Don't they all. I have an Idea.....let's all form our own opinions based on what we percieve as the most likely to resemble fact.

[Lebell]

On a side note, it seems that most of Moore supporter's arguments boil down to this:

Yeah, sure, he stretches and distorts the truth sometimes, but his basic message is good.

To which I would say, that is what those who support the war have been saying about Bush.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by Lebell

To which I would say, that is what those who support the war have been saying about Bush.

So in your mind, Bush and Moore have equivalence in this respect. In essence, you defend Bush when he is attacked for his distortions because you agree with his overall message. And you attack Moore for his distortions because you disagree with his overall message.

Is that correct?

Additionally, I'd point out that very few people are claiming that Moore is not spinning or distorting information. Quite a few people have claimed that Bush is not spinning or distorting information.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Manx

So in your mind, Bush and Moore have equivalence in this respect. In essence, you defend Bush when he is attacked for his distortions because you agree with his overall message. And you attack Moore for his distortions because you disagree with his overall message.

Is that correct?

Additionally, I'd point out that very few people are claiming that Moore is not spinning or distorting information. Quite a few people have claimed that Bush is not spinning or distorting information.

Not quite, but I see where you get that from.

I would agree that both sides are using spin in order to pursuade the public to their particular points of view.

But beyond that, the comparison breaks down.

To use specific cases to illustrate, Moore knowingly edited Heston's speech so that the overall message was not original, as he knowingly lied about a particular plant making missles (to make a point about the American military machine), whereas if Bush lied about WMD's, then so did the Clintons and other major liberal political figures. But then, I don't believe Bush intentially lied either.

No, there is volumes of documentation that says that there was a massive intelligence failure coupled with Saddam Hussein's own propaganda (with which he hoped to deter a war with the US).

As to my attacking Moore because his message disagrees with my own opinions, yes, of course I don't agree with him, but he himself dictates the vehimency of my attack because of the lies and distortions he uses.

If he wanted to discuss gun violence and ways to reduce it, then by all means. But he doesn't. Instead he turns to personal character assassination and an attack on all NRA members, with special attention of those who dared to attend a convention that had been years in planning, as if somehow they should be ashamed of owning guns because of two sick young men in Littleton.

[tecoyah]

I would agree that the similarity breaks down.....in that Moores' fabrications have not lead to War and military deaths. I would have to disagree however with the premise that Bush was simply fooled into believing what he and his administration fed the public.
Were this actually the case I would expect some relatively drastic measures levied against them for complete incompetence and a failure to show due respect for the lives they risk. Either way....these two are not on the same level of responsability and accountability. One leads the free world, and one makes movies.......I would think the focus should be obvious.

[host]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Glad to know that, because that is what many have been saying about Bush and the war in Iraq.

Also glad to see that you are admitting that Moore resorts to distortions when it suits him.

Of course there are substantially more than "a handful of cases".




I don't recall that this thread was about anything but Michael Moore, but since you feel compelled to bring in Bush, the war and everything else "in conservativeland", I'll make a bold assumption and say that either a) you only support distortion and spin when it is on the left or b) you support spin and are calling the right hypocrites because they only point out distortion and spin on the left.

If it is b), I agree that it is hypocritical to only point out spin on one side, but of course, I am not "a conservative" or "liberal".

As to the "lie lie lie", the actual lie was clearly pointed out. Or are you still denying that Moore purposefullly edited those snips to make a speech Heston didn't give?



Oh, I guess discussing MM's journalistic integrity isn't "meaningful debate" whereas your post is?

To me it is of fundamental importance to get accurate FACTS when attemping to to arrive at "informed decisions.



Well.

I've seen it argued repeatedly that BFC isn't about guns and I wish to point out, neither was my post, but you seem determined to bring them into it (must be connected somehow to "conservativeland".)

So be it.

Whether you like it or not, guns have been used to defend your right to say what you want and live how you like many times, including in the fine city of Philidelphia, home to the Continental Congress and many sons of liberty who shed their blood to secure your "rights".

While you might not agree to the current action, it ignores centuries of history to sneer at those who have taken up a gun to defend themselves and their country.

It is also extremely offensive as well.

IMO, Lebell, it would be disingenuous of you not to admit that your motive
for criticizing Moore was stoked as much by his Farenheit 9/11 "documentary", as it was about BFC. You demonstrate to me that you are
bothered much more by Moore's distortions, which seem to aggravate and
frustrate his detractors, and may mislead some of his viewers who choose solely his message to form opinions on the subjects he addresses, than you are by Bush and his appointees' spin that was intended to justify a war of aggression in Iraq.

[Lebell]

I have considered that particular argument, but I don't see that you have presented any evidence to the contrary that almost everyone, left and right, believed that he had WMD's. That you haven't seen a particular punishment does not logically derive only from false information (there are many explainations possible, including that perhaps such punishments have indeed been metted out. Don't I recall several shakeups in the intelligence community recently?)

And yes, Moore makes movies and one leads the free world, but also, the arguments for taking out Hussein likewise show a factor of greater importance as to those of promoting a particular agenda in a movie; specifically that he was still a butchering psychopath, with a known history of making war on his neighbors and pursuing chemical and nuclear weapons.


I mean, it isn't like we went to war on the Dali Lama.

And THAT is the main reason that I still ultimately support the war inspite of the WMD fiasco, or to quote,

If someone spins the truth it does not mean all of his arguments and positions are void.

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by Lebell

And yes, this just in, Charleton Heston is still dead. (extra points if you get the joke).

I think I get this joke, but you misquoted(very slightly) it if I do. It was Chevy Chase doing Weekend Update, with Garrett Morris assisting for the hearing impaired, shouting "Our top story tonight, Generallissimo Francisco Franco is still dead." Then Jimmy Fallon did a joke about it a few decades later -- "Chevy Chase's TV show is still dead."

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by host

IMO, Lebell, it would be disingenuous of you not to admit that your motive
for criticizing Moore was stoked as much by his Farenheit 9/11 "documentary", as it was about BFC. You demonstrate to me that you are
bothered much more by Moore's distortions, which seem to aggravate and
frustrate his detractors, and may mislead some of his viewers who choose solely his message to form opinions on the subjects he addresses, than you are by Bush and his appointees' spin that was intended to justify a war of aggression in Iraq.

Hmmm,

In all honesty, I can say that no, my criticism in this instance was not "stoked" by F9/11 as it was by BFC, because my opinion on Moore hit bottom long before F9/11.

In otherwords, I would have been just as vehiment if F9/11 had never been made.

If this seems strange, understand that I am a native Denverite who knows people who attended Columbine and who was in Denver on that horrible day. Three days after, I went to rebel hill and and placed a candle amonst the hundreds of others and wept. I then went to a memorial nearby and wept some more. I also personally have toured that LM plant and seen the rockets, as well as having seen that B52 outside the Airforce Academy.

And I am an NRA member who believes in the right to keep and bear arms.

So to have MM make that movie, which uses this tragedy to advance his politcal agenda, drives me to an incredible rage in a way that I am rarely moved.

So no, I didn't need F9/11 in order to post as I did.

And if it isn't clear, I AM bothered by aspects of this war.

I wish we had better intelligence.

I also wish that the UN had acted when Hussein had violated the original peace treaty the first say dozen times.

But I also recognize that the UN is largely a political body with many members more concerned with reigning in American power and influence and censoring the Jews than with people dying in Iraq or Palestinian suicide bombers. I also recognize that there are significant financial benefits in doing so.

Now, I wish that people would recognize the fact that like it or not, we ARE there and that it is to everyone's benefit if we DIDN'T fail. But again, for some, there are significant gains, political and financial, to be made if we did.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Kadath

I think I get this joke, but you misquoted(very slightly) it if I do. It was Chevy Chase doing Weekend Update, with Garrett Morris assisting for the hearing impaired, shouting "Our top story tonight, Generallissimo Francisco Franco is still dead." Then Jimmy Fallon did a joke about it a few decades later -- "Chevy Chase's TV show is still dead."

Well done

[host]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Hmmm,

In all honesty, I can say that no, my criticism in this instance was not "stoked" by F9/11 as it was by BFC, because my opinion on Moore hit bottom long before F9/11.

In otherwords, I would have been just as vehiment if F9/11 had never been made.

If this seems strange, understand that I am a native Denverite who knows people who attended Columbine and who was in Denver on that horrible day. Three days after, I went to rebel hill and and placed a candle amonst the hundreds of others and wept. I then went to a memorial nearby and wept some more. I also personally have toured that LM plant and seen the rockets, as well as having seen that B52 outside the Airforce Academy.

And I am an NRA member who believes in the right to keep and bear arms.

So to have MM make that movie, which uses this tragedy to advance his politcal agenda, drives me to an incredible rage in a way that I am rarely moved.

So no, I didn't need F9/11 in order to post as I did...........

Lebell, thank you for sharing your comments quoted above. I wish that I
had read them before posting the following post. In view of what you wrote,
please accept my apology for taking this thread so far OT, and for misjudging
your motives concerning your Michael Moore threads.

[host]

Originally Posted by Lebell.........To use specific cases to illustrate, Moore knowingly edited Heston's speech so that the overall message was not original, as he knowingly lied about a particular plant making missles (to make a point about the American military machine), whereas if Bush lied about WMD's, then so did the Clintons and other major liberal political figures. But then, I don't believe Bush intentially lied either...........

Lebell, Clinton wisely confined the U.S. response to Saddam to maintaining the
"no fly zones" in the nothern and southern skies of Iraq, occasionally launching
prescision cruise missle strikes on strategic Iraqi targets, and making verbal
assaults on the Iraqi leader, continuing a strategy similar to GWH Bush's
after the 1991 war.

Powell and Rice both declared in 2001 that this strategy had rendered Saddam
impotent and specifically noted that he has not re-armed but needed to be
monitored.

<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose.
That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq,
and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."

If you truly believe that Bush did not knowingly mislead Americans about
the threat level actually posed to this country by Saddam and about the
specifics of his nuclear and other WMD threat to the U.S., and that Bush
was simply given "bad intelligence" about Iraq, how do youi explain Powell
and Rice's pre 9/11 declarations, and Bush awarding former CIA director
George Tenent the Medal of Freedom; the nation's highest award, a few
months ago. I submit that it takes an extreme amount of blind faith in Bush,
or denial, or an uncurious inclination, in order to post a belief that Bush did
not intentionally distort and spin the facts as to Iraq's actual threat level
to the U.S. late in 2002 to early 2003. If your "out" is to remind me that
that you don't believe that Bush "intentially lied either", my response is
that in matters as weighted as whether to initiate an invasion and occupation of another country, necessitating the ordering of U.S. troops to
put their lives on the line to defend the security of the U.S., intentionally
making misleading statements about WMD's and threat assessments to trusting citizens and soldiers do not need to be categorized as "lies" to be
regarded as outrageous and possibly treasonous!

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Lebell

I wish we had better intelligence.

I also wish that the UN had acted when Hussein had violated the original peace treaty the first say dozen times.

But I also recognize that the UN is largely a political body with many members more concerned with reigning in American power and influence and censoring the Jews than with people dying in Iraq or Palestinian suicide bombers. I also recognize that there are significant financial benefits in doing so.

Now, I wish that people would recognize the fact that like it or not, we ARE there and that it is to everyone's benefit if we DIDN'T fail. But again, for some, there are significant gains, political and financial, to be made if we did.

Well done

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Well done

Thanks. I feel much happier and relaxed lately with my involvement in Politics limited to identifying decades-old humor.

[irateplatypus]

the left tolerates moore as their spokesman only because of their tolerance of the ends justifying their means. they know how false he is, they know his methods are shaky, they know they're viewing absolute propaganda... but they don't care as long as he feeds their satisfactions.

[roachboy]

one more time: a documentary film is an ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW THE WORLD SHOULD BE usually routed through a documentation of elements of what obtains at a given moment. it is NOT journalism...even if objectivity existed, they WOULD NOT BE objective....a documentary filmmaker's argument can be attacked at any number of levels, including error of interpretation of particular bits of data--in which case you are taking on the argument. complaining about moore--or anyone else who works in this film style--not adhering to "journalistic standards" is pointless.

pointing out that a film made by someone like moore operates "with an agenda" is to say the obvious. to imagine that the same is not true of journalists--whose genre is different, and who can and should be held to different standards--is naieve.

as for the claim that folk "from the left" (what is that exactly in these tremendously free united states?) "tolerate" more error from folk with whom they agree politically--i wonder what actual basis, if any, this works from....in the numerous prior michael moore threads, my position has been the same as it is here....you might take me for a representative of "the left" if you like....myself, and most of the people that you would probably understand as being on the left (what is that again?) i know are not fans of michael moore as a filmmaker. most prefer other films that make parallel argument. moore's films are never interesting as films. others are. i really dont know what you are talking about.


last note:

lebell--what i wrote earlier is what i meant--it was not about individual people who might at one point or another have used a gun to do something or another that you or i might approve of--what i was talking about was the attitude toward guns as the magic commodity, the guarantee of freedom and all that: you know, from that strange political space where nra and militia group rhetoric gets burred together.

a political attitude toward a particular object was what i was referring to. not every possible relation to that object.


and for the record, i am personally agnostic about gun control.

[drakers]

Charleston Heston's ego was on high and he seized in portraying the NRA as ignorant and a i-don't-give-a-fuck-about-the-situation type of club. How many kids died in that tragedy were Americans whose parents probably did not want to be reminded how their loved ones were killed, by the NRA coming down. Its not about having the right to come down and make a speech, its about allowing things to quiet down and bring a normalcy to the situation at hand; and not to be at the forefront to create publicity for a club who is more demonized then glorified.

[Bodyhammer86]

Originally Posted by drakers

Charleston Heston's ego was on high and he seized in portraying the NRA as ignorant and a i-don't-give-a-fuck-about-the-situation type of club. How many kids died in that tragedy were Americans whose parents probably did not want to be reminded how their loved ones were killed, by the NRA coming down. Its not about having the right to come down and make a speech, its about allowing things to quiet down and bring a normalcy to the situation at hand; and not to be at the forefront to create publicity for a club who is more demonized then glorified.

Drakers, they couldn't have canceled that meeting. Why you ask? Because it was required by law to hold this meeting by its non-profit charter from the state of New York, so cancellation was impossible. And furthermore, that meeting was scheduled at that place and date years in advance. Even if Heston could without breaking the law, changing location at that time would have been impossible, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of of 4,000,000 members.

[The_Dunedan]

What nobody ever discusses about the "NRA Denver Incident" is this: the NRA canceled all of their events except for the dinner at which Heston made this speech. A multimillion-dollar event, eight days long, planned years in advance, was scrapped on less than a week's notice. This dinner was required by law in order to retain the NRA's 501-c Tax Exempt status, and is required by their Charter as well: it's the equivalent of the State Of The Union Address.

As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings.

The simple fact is that this dinner could not have legally been cancelled without resulting in the dissolution and disbanding of the National Rifle Association. Everything that could be canceled, was.

[irateplatypus]

rb,

for the last time, i don't care what you think documentary means. you cannot expect someone to take your definition of a documentary while it is at odds with the dictionary definition. if we're to have any real discussion we must agree on the meaning of terms... i can think of no more authoritative source than the damn dictionary. petition the american heritage or webster versions to change it if you like. it's unreasonable for anyone to take a poster's word for a definition while the dictionary is clearly the opposite of what you claim.

are we confused on what it means to be on the right or left side of the aisle now?

which films that make similar arguments to moore's draw anywhere near the level of support from liberals? moore has an incredible following from his self-promoting propaganda enterprise... if his support doesn't come from the left where does it come from? even if you believe the role of a documentary is independent of issues of bias, why is such clout earned by a man whose tenuous hold on presenting things evenly is so obvious? if his points were able to be made convincingly without such antics, don't you think he would make them that way?

his support is undeniable... but it must be embarrassing that one of the biggest standard bearers on the left side is he. either they are blind to manipulation (and are unable to recognize and appreciate truth), or they recognize his failures yet are unable to find someone more fitting for their adoration (and dollars).

moore's poor treatment of heston is just a single example of his poor respect for the truth.

[roachboy]

irate: you might read any--and i mean any--history of documentary as a form.
dictionary definitions are often kinda like cut analyses--they show what the state of a word is at a present, but not how it got there. the oed is an exception, but at the level of the examples of usage across time more than across the various definitions.

from the outset, documentary was understood as a form of critique of the existing order, not its reproduction.

but whatever.

moore is often an embarrassment, its true. i do think that similar points can and have been made by other films--for example "control room" is a far more effective film demolishing various aspects of the bushworld-specific fantasy that is the war in iraq than anything in f911 is...but it is geared for a different audience.

the only interest i have in debating moore--ever--is that there is a tendency--which you reproduce--to throw the baby out with the bathwater (a curious cliche)--that moore's film about the war in iraq has some data problems does not mean that the critique is not basically correct--nor does it mean that all critiques of the war and the bushworld view of it are identical to that done my michael moore. similarly on the question of bfc--a film that i thought was more ambitious and better than f911, but which was still problematic in some ways.

you are not really interested in the question of moore's films, it seems to me. you are more interested in trying to do what i pointed to above: using moore's films and the problems you may find with them to dismiss the arguments he makes in toto, as if the critique of the war in iraq originated with michael moore, as if questions about american gun culture did not exist publicly before bfc.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Glad to know that, because that is what many have been saying about Bush and the war in Iraq.

I'm glad you hold someone responsible for making a movie, and someone invading another nation, to the same standard.

They day Moore is president of the USA and releases his documentaries as official government positions, then proceeds to implement them, is a day you must fear!

Originally Posted by Lebell

As to the "lie lie lie", the actual lie was clearly pointed out. Or are you still denying that Moore purposefullly edited those snips to make a speech Heston didn't give?

Moore introduced the section with Heston's most famous soundbite.

Moore then strung together the most offensive parts of the speech given. Where did Moore make Heston mean something that Heston didn't mean?

As far as I could tell, at worst, Moore changed the tone of the speech, by removing mollifying content.

Originally Posted by Lebell

While you might not agree to the current action, it ignores centuries of history to sneer at those who have taken up a gun to defend themselves and their country.

It is also extremely offensive as well.

When has carrying concealed handguns legally defended freedom of speech? It looks like you are using the "wrap yourself in the flag" arguement.

Do you think pro-gun registration activists want to prevent the military from carrying guns?

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Yakk

I'm glad you hold someone responsible for making a movie, and someone invading another nation, to the same standard.

They day Moore is president of the USA and releases his documentaries as official government positions, then proceeds to implement them, is a day you must fear!

I've already addressed that above.

Moore introduced the section with Heston's most famous soundbite.

That's a laugh.

Yeah, I know that's how Mike defends himself on his website, but don't you think it abit odd that Moore never give any indication that he is "introducing" the speech?

No, instead he strings it in with the other sound bites using the same cut away editing technique he uses in the rest of the segment.

But hey, it's not Mike's fault if the viewer doesn't know that Mike is introducing Heston's speech with another snippit a year removed, and it's not Mike's fault if the viewer doesn't notice that Heston is wearing a different shirt and tie, and it's certainly not Mike's fault if the viewer assumes that a bunch of clips strung together in a sequential order, all separated by cutaways aren't actually the SAME SPEECH.

You know, this type of oblique "not my fault if you got the wrong impression" lying is almost worse than an out an out lie, becuase it smacks so much of underhanded subtrafuge.

Or maybe Moore is just relying on all the "Stupid White Men" out there to get the wrong idea from his films.

Moore then strung together the most offensive parts of the speech given. Where did Moore make Heston mean something that Heston didn't mean?

As far as I could tell, at worst, Moore changed the tone of the speech, by removing mollifying content.

Oh yeah, nice understatement.

How much snipping is required before the speech becomes something that wasn't given? Two lines? A dozen? HALF??

Mikey again tries to defend himself by saying that the original speech is far worse than the snippits he took, when the reality is that the full speech is actually respectful in its disagreement with Hizzonor, Wellington Webb (someone I've met, btw).

When has carrying concealed handguns legally defended freedom of speech? It looks like you are using the "wrap yourself in the flag" arguement.

Huh? Where does this come from?

Do you think pro-gun registration activists want to prevent the military from carrying guns?

Again, Huh?

Are you intentionally trying to put silly statements and words in my mouth?

Are you secretly Michael Moore???

[edit; yeah, I see the mispellings, don't care to correct them at this point...]

[irateplatypus]

rb,

ahh... but i think you're twisting the issue... don't write me off just yet. the discussion (or, at least, my part of it) has nothing to do with whether or not any of moore's pose relevant questions to society. i only said that moore has a poor respect for the truth when convincing his audience and that it was sad that so many throw so much behind his causes when it's obvious he is a fraud in many ways.

in truth, i do think that roger and me as well as bfc are relevant to our times. i'm sure that my solutions to problems discussed in those films often differ from moore's, but that is besides the point. again, the mystifying thing to me is why he gets such rabid and widespread support from liberals around the world. i've not seen "control room", so i can't speak to how they presented the documentary. however, assuming it did a much better job than f9-11 at making its case... why is it that moore commands the power and money that he does while (supposedly) more sober/insightful productions languish?

the answer is that the moore crowd isn't interested in the truth, just like moore is not. moore is the pied-piper for the legions of those who thrive off the sort of self-satisfaction moore's films extend to the like-minded. that is why his indiscretions are discounted... not because of some imagined sort of greater good involved with the issues he treats, but because it's a more visceral reaction to his rhetoric and not an intellectual one.

so i won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. i will, however, condemn those who wrangle the truth to further their own agenda and line their own pockets. if we're really to solve these problems, we must get to the root of the issue. getting to the fundamentals of the problems demands that we must seek and value the truth. we do that by rewarding the truth-tellers and shunning those who place little value on it. a good first step for the country would be for those who agree with the more sober aspects of moore's philosophy to find a better champion for their cause.

[roachboy]

you may well be surprised to find that i agree with you in recommending that another documentary filmmaking spokesmodel would be better for the left, whatever that is--to the extent that moore can be taken as representing a position beyond his own personal one--which is magnified in importance because he is in a position to make and get distribution for films.

i think you overestimate his influence amongst folk on the left--for the most part, his films are agitprop aimed at conservatives--for better or worse--that is obviously the structure of f911 (which i found a deeply alienating film for a variety of reasons). you would have to know some of us in 3-d world to know that, however: there is every reason, in a space of disembodied argument (like here, like tv) to collapse moore into the "left" and act as though all operate with the same standards regarding things like documentation of claims--there is every reason if you are looking to discredit the left along the way. it happens all the time in the conservative public sphere, just like it is happening here.

i would wonder how you actually can prove (an outline of a procedure would be fine here--not asking for detailed documentation) the claim that the left, whatever that is, simply follows the lead of michael moore--to the exclusion of other possible relations (for example, folk might find that moore raises issues useful because they get raised, but only as a point of departure for more careful, informed discussion)--how would you know which relation obtains amongst a group of people who dont know personally (i would expect...maybe i'm wrong about this last bit, but the question still obtains)

[Lebell]

I think that a "collapsing" occurs on both sides.

Consider a recent rash of posts excoriating the "conservatives", when there is at least as much difference among them as among the left.

Or consider the phrase "Bushworld" for anyone who supports the war...

You see? Everyone does it.

But in my own defense, if you go back to the very first post, I said NOTHING about liberals or the left.

My beef is with Michael Moore specifically in this case.

So I would submit that if you feel any "collapsing" being done in this thread, it did not come from me.

[Mephisto2]

Lebell,

Is your hatred of Moore based upon his desire to limit gun ownership, or his manipulation of interviews to make a point?

I'm just curious and I'm not trying to bait you. I'm still not sure where you stand.

You're pro-gun. Moore is pro-gun control. He made an entertaining (apparently) Oscar winning film to promote his agenda. I guess I'm tempted to say "So what?", but gun control seems to engender lots of debate and emotions.

I value your opinion, so please don't take my question as an attack. It's not.

Mr Mephisto

[Lebell]

Mr. Mephisto,

Understood.

There are valid arguments to limit gun ownership, and there are ways to do it that most of us on both sides can agree upon.

But in all honesty, my dislike probably stems from a little of both.

I naturally dislike people who lie and manipulate to make a point, and when I feel that the person doing so are doing it for a cause that I feel is in the wrong, the dislike intensifies.

To draw another example, I strongly dislike those in Operation Rescue because I feel they lie and manipulate in order to further their cause, one which I feel at it's roots is immoral.

On the other hand, I have many friends that are on the pro-life side who do NOT lie and manipulate and can at least hold a civil discussion on the matter.

Back to MM, I see nothing but lies, half lies and manipulation as he tries to make his point, which is too bad.

He clearly is a talented film maker, and he clearly is passionate about his causes, but it seems like he also plays a "win at any costs game" where the ends justify the means, much like Operation Rescue does in their quest to "save babies".

So if MM stuck to facts (example, labeling the "from my cold dead hands" snippit as being another rally in NC and presenting the entire Heston speech), then I could at least respect him. But the way he twists things to demonizes his opponents means I can't respect him.

That he is against guns (and yes, I KNOW he says hunting is OK, but HUNTING is never mentioned in the 2nd), which I feel is a sine qua non of a free people, transforms it to hatred.

I'll also note that there are many here that are against guns, but that they can at least admit to the facts. One such example is those who agree that the Assault Weapons Ban was complete BS and that such guns are hardly a blip in the gun crime statistics.

Those people I can at least respect.