michael moore ignored the drugs

[Nie Trink Wasser]

makes me wonder why he would do such a thing....



http://www.nypost.com/gossip/16103.htm

Quote:
February 8, 2004 --

The health expert went to Columbine and talked to some of the same people Moore had interviewed. "They had told Moore repeatedly about the meds — he didn't use any of it," our source said. "When his documentary came out, it was all about the guns.

[Tmy]

There are millions on those drugs. If they had such a profound effect on people we'd have massacres every day.

[Segnosaur]

Hmmmm.... who to believe....

Moore, who has ulterior motives in the whole Columbine shooting thing, or some other documentary makers who may be out to 'proove' kids are taking too many prescription drugs.

Kind of like the choice of whether its better to take cyanide or arsenic.

By the way, you may want to edit your post... I don't think you're supposed to quote entire articles.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

what interests me is that he asked questions in the town and left out answers concerning the meds.

[Segnosaur]

Don't know if its the same person who is making the documentary, but go to http://www.garynull.com/

The guy seems to have some, well, unorthodox views (to put it mildly...)

- Seems to post a lot against vaccination (doesn't seem to come right out and say he is against it, but only posts negatives)
- Seems to think HIV and AIDS aren't linked
- Is against Floridation

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
There are millions on those drugs.

Well, there are millions of guns, too. What does that mean?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
what interests me is that he asked questions in the town and left out answers concerning the meds.

Although Moore is guilty of misrepresentation, etc. in his Bowling for Columbine documentary, his failure to mention prescription drug use should not be considered a problem. As Tmy pointed out, millions use the same medications, without ill effect.

[Segnosaur]

More stuff on Gary Null:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

Null is prone to see conspiracies behind many of the things he is concerned about.
...
His lengthy series, "Medical Genocide," began appearing in Penthouse in 1985 with an article calling our medical care system a "prescription for disaster." Other articles in the series have promoted chiropractic and homeopathy, claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed, claimed that chelation therapy was safe and effective for treating heart disease,

[epepke]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Although Moore is guilty of misrepresentation, etc. in his Bowling for Columbine documentary, his failure to mention prescription drug use should not be considered a problem. As Tmy pointed out, millions use the same medications, without ill effect.

However, those millions tend to be adults. There is enough of a question about the wisdom of using antidepressants with minors that the UK has banned all antidepressants other than Prozac for minors.

[Mr Manifesto]

Anyone who actually saw Moore's documentary -anyone with half a brain, that is- would realise that Moore didn't actually blame guns for the Columbine shooting. He criticised the NRA for a lack of compassion. But he also pointed out that Canada has a high amount of gun ownership, yet does not have as many gun killings as the US. Moore feels that America's 'culture of fear' has more to do with violence in America.

For example, in his interviews with Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson, they all seemed to feel that the Columbine kids were afraid that they were going to be losers all their life. That's what made them angry, and shoot up the school. Stone felt the disaster could have been averted if someone had told them that high school does not decide their entire life. Manson reinforced this when talking about US popular culture, and advertisements that suggest you are going to be doomed if you don't buy the products.

So, possibly, the drugs weren't mentioned simply because Moore didn't think they were relevant. No-one mentions the other stuff that Moore left out of his documentary, like the school that was auctioning a gun to raise money. If Moore wanted to really keep making the point that Americans are gun-nuts, why didn't he include this?

Moore, incidentally, is a lifetime member of the NRA. Does that sound like someone who's anti-gun?

Never mind. We won't let the truth get in the way of a good story, will we Mr Wanker? :roll:

[Theodore Kurita]

Wasn't Moore's video more of a rant AGAINST Fear Mongering in the media.

I personally would rather see Canadian Style regulations on guns myself instead of an outright band on certain types of guns.

[Ælfgifu]

I've found this site helpful.

I'm all for stricter gun control, I just don't like it when the advocates who support my views resort to lying to make their point.

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

Have a nice day,
Kelly :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
what interests me is that he asked questions in the town and left out answers concerning the meds.

What interests the rest of us is how you got to be this stupid?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Anyone who actually saw Moore's documentary -anyone with half a brain, that is- would realise that Moore didn't actually blame guns for the Columbine shooting. He criticised the NRA for a lack of compassion. But he also pointed out that Canada has a high amount of gun ownership, yet does not have as many gun killings as the US. Moore feels that America's 'culture of fear' has more to do with violence in America.

For example, in his interviews with Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson, they all seemed to feel that the Columbine kids were afraid that they were going to be losers all their life. That's what made them angry, and shoot up the school. Stone felt the disaster could have been averted if someone had told them that high school does not decide their entire life. Manson reinforced this when talking about US popular culture, and advertisements that suggest you are going to be doomed if you don't buy the products.

So, possibly, the drugs weren't mentioned simply because Moore didn't think they were relevant. No-one mentions the other stuff that Moore left out of his documentary, like the school that was auctioning a gun to raise money. If Moore wanted to really keep making the point that Americans are gun-nuts, why didn't he include this?

Moore, incidentally, is a lifetime member of the NRA. Does that sound like someone who's anti-gun?

Never mind. We won't let the truth get in the way of a good story, will we Mr Wanker? :roll:
Hello.
I don't think too many people who criticized the movie saw it, including NTW.
He made the points, that its NOT too many guns, or lack of "gun control". As you point out he's a lifetime member of the NRA.
Wonderful movie, especially the interviews with the local police chief and prosecutor, neither of whom are "liberals" implicating short-sighted economic policies in one particular death.
The movie simply raised questions, rather that offer simplistic answers, such as "it was anti-depressants".
It wasn't just about Columbine anyway.
It wasn't anti-gun. NTW should watch the movie.
I didn't think I'd like it, having had some personal experience with Moore.
Many should learn the lesson: "My adversary is my benefactor."
Good points, conceded, can strengthen your position.

[iain]

Having read some discussion on JREF in the past, I saw Bowling for Columbine last week and was a bit surprised - it didn't seem to be quite the same film people had been discussing.

Overall, Michael Moore did seem to end up putting more blame on the way the US media instills an unrealistically high fear of crime in people. I guess he would argue that this fear of crime leads people to own guns when (and where) they don't really need them - for self-protection against a mythical enemy. He certainly didn't suggest that gun ownership per se was the problem.

I thought the documentary was quite good, though it came over as fairly polemical in places and didn't seem to me to have a very coherent narrative (e.g. you could easily watch part of it and come to the conclusion that it was anti-gun; you had to watch it all to get the overall picture).

I also thought that the use of statistics was shaky in places. For example, in the Canada section Moore slips casually between "murders" and "gun murders" as if the two were the same, ignoring the possibility that in places with gun control there might be as many murders but by other means.

[richardm]

Originally posted by iain
Having read some discussion on JREF in the past, I saw Bowling for Columbine last week and was a bit surprised - it didn't seem to be quite the same film people had been discussing.

I had exactly the same feeling when I finally saw the film. I was expecting a rant about how guns were terrible and should be purged from society, but it wasn't about that at all. Everyone seemed to focus on the bank giving away a free gun ("No it wasn't!") and Charlton Heston's speech ("It was stitched together!"). To focus on those elements is to miss the whole drive of the film.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
What interests the rest of us is how you got to be this stupid?
Not much to tell. He just started out stupid and stuck with it. It is an inspiring story of perseverance.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
makes me wonder why he would do such a thing....



I had not seen the Bowling for Columbine until the other day, so hesitated on commenting on this thread until I had actually saw the movie.

And now that I have seen it, I wonder if Nie Trink Wasser saw it.

The movie did not blame the NRA for the Columbine killings, in fact, Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. Also, Moore went to Canada which has very high gun ownership and a very low crime rate: he met several Canadians that do not even lock their doors, and he did find out that it was true!

However, he did say that the NRA was insensitive for the gun show they put on in Colorado shortly after the Columbine killings and the killing in Flint, MI. Also, Moore really seemed to be blaming the media for the very high number of gun murders in the USA. The media gleefully reports on police chases, armed robberies, domestic violence, etc. but does little if any reporting on issues that are very important that wide impact such as air pollution.

If NTW really wanted an answer to his question, then I expect that it should be asked to Moore who wrote, produced, and directed the film, but since Moore studied many of causes of violence in the film, I expect that the reason why he did not include stuff about the medications is that he did not think that it was material.

That sort of thing happens all the time with people who do documentaries; they normally have a great deal more footage than they can really show, so some things just have to be left out. So they leave the things that they think are not relevant, that are incorrect, that are uncorroborated, and so on.

[hammegk]

I'll be darned; I never thought I'd agree with crossbow on anything, yet I just did. BTW, I've seen the movie.

[headscratcher4]

Moore is an A** ass.

I lived in Flint when he was doing Roger and Me. I knew him periferally. He's a jerk. He got much of the Flint/GM story wrong.

He also got a lot of it right. Very right. You can call him on facts he included or didn't include, but he was, right or wrong, trying to paint a larger picture. That is what he did in BFC.

That is the nature of documentaries.

Docmumentaries are a personal vision of reality. You leave out, or put in, whatever thinks makes your case...it is sort of like writing history or, for that matter, laying the groundwork for the invasion of another country by claiming they have certain weapons. The point is, it is, essentially, opinion based on selective airing of the facts. Such is art. Such is all reporting. Such is propoganda.

What are you really mad about? That he is applauded by people who you don't agree with anyway? That he left out facts that you think relevant? Don't see his movies. Go make your own film.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
what interests me is that he asked questions in the town and left out answers concerning the meds.

Well NTW, I have say that means you most likely haven't seen the movie. The dirtiest trick that MM uses is to rearrange the order of parts of his interview with Chalton Heston, there is an interview at the end of the movie that makes Moore look like a big ass and heston a total dunce. Charton comes out bad because of the arrangement of the questions and answeres.

And MM concludes that Bowling is the likely cause for the Columbine massacre.

The kids had also had frequent contacts with the police, that didn't make it into the movie.

[Withnail]

I felt this whole film was constantly contradicting itself. Moore is telling us that perhaps violence in America is because of a society based on fear and death yet then runs extended footage of a high school massacre. Then, later, he gives statistics that violent crimes in America are actually going down, so why make the film at all? He seemed very sneaky in his presentation of many of his ideas. Overall, this film made be feel emotionally raped and intellectually vomited on. Besides, Jello Biafra talked about these topics years ago and much more convincingly, IMO. The movie, however, was entertaining at times, such as the Matt Stone cartoon. Most of the rest was unwatchable.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

I saw the film at the Grandin theatre when it came out and then I saw it again on dvd.

It's exhausting to watch because it is so stupid and irresponsible.

much like the people who enjoy such films.

[clk]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

It's exhausting to watch because it is so stupid and irresponsible.

much like the people who enjoy such films.

:i: :i: :id:

Are those people as dumb as the people who make broad and irresponsible generalizations? I doubt it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I saw the film at the Grandin theatre when it came out and then I saw it again on dvd.

It's exhausting to watch because it is so stupid and irresponsible.

much like the people who enjoy such films.

What, in your opinion, is 'irresponsible' in the movie?

Note I said 'your opinion', see if you can answer this one without using the 'cut and paste' option.

[Bearguin]

Haven't seen the movie and am not really commenting on it, but

Originally posted by Crossbow

The movie did not blame the NRA for the Columbine killings, in fact, Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. Also, Moore went to Canada which has very high gun ownership and a very low crime rate: he met several Canadians that do not even lock their doors, and he did find out that it was true!

Where do they live? I've got bars on my basement windows and I'm in a small city. I've had attempts into my house twice and my truck stolen. I'd love to feel like I didn't have to dead-bolt my doors.

And as far as our gun control, this is a prime example of regulation out of control and having little or no effect on actual crime.

Maybe I'll have to see the movie, but I do question the "very high gun ownership" statement. I'm not sure we approach the level of ownership the US has.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What, in your opinion, is 'irresponsible' in the movie?


for one the "fearful white man" cartoon was completely lame and predictable. I just sat there and stared at it, as id most of my friends, trying to find something funny about it, but instead all we saw were BROAD GENERALIZATIONS about it all being the "scared white man with itchy trigger finger's" fear and oppression of black people.

it was ridiculously stupid and unfunny, because it was so irresponsible.



Note I said 'your opinion', see if you can answer this one without using the 'cut and paste' option. [/B]

do you have your driver's license yet or are you too busy memorizing conspiracy theories ?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


for one the "fearful white man" cartoon was completely lame and predictable. I just sat there and stared at it, as id most of my friends, trying to find something funny about it, but instead all we saw were BROAD GENERALIZATIONS about it all being the "scared white man with itchy trigger finger's" fear and oppression of black people.

it was ridiculously stupid and unfunny, because it was so irresponsible.



So, it's irresponsible because you don't think a particular cartoon was funny? Got it.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Withnail
I felt this whole film was constantly contradicting itself. Moore is telling us that perhaps violence in America is because of a society based on fear and death yet then runs extended footage of a high school massacre. Then, later, he gives statistics that violent crimes in America are actually going down, so why make the film at all? He seemed very sneaky in his presentation of many of his ideas. Overall, this film made be feel emotionally raped and intellectually vomited on. Besides, Jello Biafra talked about these topics years ago and much more convincingly, IMO. The movie, however, was entertaining at times, such as the Matt Stone cartoon. Most of the rest was unwatchable.

Actually, it was not a Matt Stone cartoon. It just happened to be inserted after the Stone interview.

[Toastrider]

If the NRA is so thoughtless and cruel (for holding that meeting in Colorado after the shootings)....

Why did they cancel just about everything, except for the board meeting that could not be cancelled for legal reasons?

And while Moore may pay NRA dues, he knows crap about handling a firearm. *smirk*

--Toasty