Michael Moore charged my university $18,000 an hour for two hours of speaking at an assembly. Today, in my history class, I finally concluded seeing 'Bowling for Columbine'. I invite opinions on this guy; pro or cons, and what we think of his biased, liberal approach to solving America's gun problems.
You do realize that Moore made that film as a joke, right?
If you read up on him you'll see how smart he is. Especially since he was able to get money out of a college.
No, he really believes that shit. Trust me.
That was a weird movie, and that bowling song made no sense, in the name of whoever wrote it it just doesn't add up. No one says all bowling alleys are the same, not because it is or isn't true, but because the similarity of bowling alleys NEVER EVER comes up in ANYONE'S conversations, EVER! Well, excepting this one, which doesn't count...
That was an odd contradicting movie. If he made it as a joke, then it makes sense. It's weird, at one point he tries figuring out what makes America so violent, and he concludes by going to Canada, where they also have guns, that it's not the guns themselves. By the end though, he's trying to get all guns banned. That's just some of it.
It's a parody of modern Americana. It's showing the extremes, why and how they exist and are ineptitude to do anything about it. As a society, we dont take any responsibility for ourselves or our children, we just find things to blame.
John and Jane Public have no idea what morals are, or responsibility with children. They have kids and then immeadiately try to contunue their lives as normal, getting angry when they cant do the things they used to be able to do. They ignore any personal issues with their kids and hope TV will explain it to them. These people grow up with almost no idea of how to resolve anything and end up getting advice from people their same age with the same problem. The end result is every generation's teen years are becoming worse and worse as more and more boundries are pushed or removed.
Why doesn't Canada have school shootings? How come you never hear about drive by shootings in London? It all comes down to being in the red, as every person is in debt by the time they're 21 in America and we spend the rest of our adult hood working our asses off for money; No time to spend raising kids = Kids raise themselves = Problems, issues, negative outcome, a country in hushed turmoil.
Michael Moore: prick by any standards.
There's a nice description. Quite desperation, a lovely picture really. That's why I will NEVER get a credit card or take out a loan. The key is to OWN your first house, not rent it. Renting is for suckas. Also, the responsible morality to kinda make sure you actually DO that. Oklahoma is like the hive mind of this whole thing, or so I thought, but lazy has noticed it everywhere. Just about every single peer I used to know has made the mistake of getting married right out of high school and having kids right then and there, thus, when I ask them to get me a large vanilla shake, and then change my mind and say "no wait, extra large", you can see the quiet misplaced anger directed at me, deep in their eyes, as they smile that smile and change the order.
lazy made a good move actually GOING to collage first.
Quote:Why doesn't Canada have school shootings?
There was one, a few weeks after Columbine in the town of Taber, a couple hundred km south of where I live. A whopping two bullets were shot, one student died.
Quote:That's why I will NEVER get a credit card or take out a loan. The key is to OWN your first house, not rent it.
What? How do you expect to pay for your first house then, in cash?? You'll be living at home for years until you get enough to pay for a house without taking out a loan.
How do people rack up so much credit card debt? There's people that are THOUSANDS of dollars in debt just because what they buy with credit cards! I don't think people really understand how to use them properly. Credit cards should be for emergencies not for everytime you decide you have to have something but just don't have enough money.
Apartment first, THEN a home. Also, it doesn't have to be paid for all at once, but rather in payments. Besides, the first house doesn't have to be a GOOD one, it can completely suck, but the important thing is that when you are done, you are DONE and don't have to pay any more for it. Then, all the money that goes to payments on the house goes to the NEXT house, which will be better, and when you get THAT one, just rent out the house to people who aren't as smart as you, and you are making PROFIT. Keep it up and get a whole chain going. You see, life when lived like you play a video game (on your last life in one with no save or password feature) actually tends to WORK. Just go around from person to person and ask people if they have seen the mysterious cloaked villian.
Ya know, I too have to know how people rack up so much debt GR. It's like they have NO sense of impulse control at all. They couldn't just wait until they had the money for the TV? I mean, by the time they are done paying off that TV, which is old and might even be broken, I just got the money to get it at once, without interest, BRAND NEW, and the latest model at the same price as their old model back then.
But using credit cards, and paying the bills timely, is a great way to establish and build credit. I use mine for small impulse buys. I've never maxed it out, and I never spend any more than I can pay off at once. I use the card and pay the balance almost immediately, building credit and avoiding interest.
And seriously, if you're going to buy a house with cash, you'd better have a very good paying job, otherwise you'll be ninety when you buy it.
Yes indeed, and if you plan on using credit, that's important. I however plan on just keeping some extra cash on hand at all times for emergencies. Also, as I said, it's not that one buys the house in one lump sum, it's that some intelligent people make sure to buy their house with cash they already have rather than taking out a loan. It's still done in payments, and generally that does mean interest, but it's with money one already has, and if it's a good deal, no different than rent except that it eventually ends.
Edit: I just wanted to explain something. I didn't just think of this out of the blue. I'd certainly not listen to a life plan I just magically thought up one night after a catnip induced adventure ending somewhere on Phobos, a moon of Mars.
Thing is, this is the advice I've been getting from the more intelligent members of my family who learned this the hard way. One of my grandmothers in particular (someone I have a lot of respect for) made it abundantly clear that going without a credit card is something FAR superior than otherwise. This speech she gave me after FINALLY paying off years of debt herself and cancelling every single one of her credit cards. Having lived renting and finally owning a house herself, she greatly encouraged becoming a land owner as soon as possible, also recommending that it's done best if you aren't in debt.
Now, listening to some random person on the internet's supposed relative isn't exactly supposed to convince YOU or anything. I'm just telling you what convinced me.
Bowling for columbine waisnt factual, 1. They never went bowling before the shooting.2. Charlton Heston never went to Littleton 10 days later after the shooting it was a good year after.He made that shit up to make it more interesting.
Its interesting that you got to meet Micheal Moore,Charging schools is nothing new I cant comprehend how many self up authors came to my high school and charged us a hefty bill for himself just to tell us we needed to give more money to help them poor sick children. :shake:
How can he get away with lying like that then. What, if not reality, was the point of that film.
I thought the film was halirious, It was sopposed to be agaist violence yet some violent scenes were done in such a funny way you couldnt help but laugh at people getting executed.
For every good point Moore makes there is ten bad ones.Documentories are sopposed to be about true life facts and not gossip or hollywood imagination.
I dont get the part were he blaims Dick Clark for the little black boy in flint michigan that shot a little girl.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st..._disney_dc
Okay, so a few facts were wrong in Bowling for Columbine. It was still a good film.
Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Disney tried that...
My faith in Disney to make good business decisions just went up a little bit.
Micheal Moore isnt the first to do a film on the subject of Bush and the saudi connection.But I think the film would offend alot of people, Unlike bowling for columbine which was basically a documentory on american gun culture and some related issues, This next movie makes acusations at the president and it is alot more controversial.
Say, DJ, how are you paying for college? Going to college, living on your own, paying for you own food, etc.?
Michael Moore sucks. Here's my review for class on him:
Now having concluded seeing Bowling for Columbine, I can fully reaffirm what I’d thought of Michael Moore before hand: he is a deceitful liberal charlatan. Is this one-sided swindlerl really the guy whom my university foolishly paid $18,000 AN HOUR to come lecture?
So as not to be like him (one-sided), I’ll concede some points that he made well. People here are compelled by fear to consume. This is a horrible thing, and it consumes our nation. The media industry especially is to blame---that was a good point on his behalf. Every night, the news begins with the day’s murders, car accidents, and defective merchandise recalls. While I cannot speak for the media in other countries, I do find this sad. Mr. Moore would have us believe that all foreign media in all countries centers around same tame things as new speed bumps being installed---a ridiculous claim. But ask yourself this—when you get home from work, would you want to watch a news program that was centered on highway construction footnotes? The news that we watch is sad, and controlling; but it’s what we crave. No one would watch the nightly news if there wasn’t any real news in it. People are psychologically compelled to view and take in violence; it’s in our survival instincts. When he condemns the American media industry as deliberately only showing the violence in the world, he’s right in as much as that they do it to greedily make money---but would you watch the news if they didn’t? That being said, I refuse to believe that the Canadian news has nothing more macabre to report than new speed bumps. If one watched that entire news broadcast (instead of the fifteen seconds he wanted us to see; the fifteen seconds about speed bumps that supports his claims,) we’d certainly see greater similarities between it and ours.
Beyond that one clever observation on his behalf, I found his entire documentary to be an elaborate ruse. He showed what he wanted in his documentary and nothing more; no two sides to the debate. He showed fifteen seconds of Canadian news broadcast to make us believe that all Canadian news is about such criteria. He went to a low-income housing development in Canada that seemed fairly nice by our standards, so that we’d believe that all of Canada lives in pleasant little homes like that. Only a fool would believe that Canada has no slums, and that what he showed us was the worst that they have.
His one-sided liberal bias undermined all of his would-be good arguments. The part that roused the most angst in me was his depiction of white people in general as cowardly, hostile and dim-witted. The cartoon that he showed broadly used the term “white people”, and cast a very poor light on all Caucasians, and thus even himself. He claimed that it was a cute little, brutally honest depiction of the history of the United States—but he once more, only showed what supported his claims. He showed hypocritical settlers who sought freedom from Europe coming to America, and repressing those that they found here. He portrayed that the settlers who came were immediately and openly hostile towards the aboriginal inhabitants; he declined to acknowledge that the first settlers were friendly and pacifistic, or that the first fatality in the new world was from fearful Indians, not the cowardly settlers that he portrays. He furthermore portrays all Caucasians as lazy, with his outrageous claim that ‘white people were afraid of work, and so they went to Africa and enslaved black people.’
He delves deeper into his hidden liberal bias with his portrayal of the single mother of the first grader who murdered a fellow student. In his view, all single mothers are black, and are slaves to the society for having to work off their welfare money. It goes without saying that there are white single mothers who go through the same as those whom he showed in his documentary. Furthermore, it was her own irresponsibility that got her into that situation—as it is with all people of any ethnicity who wind up young, single and with children. Should the taxpayers be obliged to feed and take care of her, and all people like her? I feel that she did have a debt to society; is Mr. Moore really suggesting that she shouldn’t have to work because she has children? Why is he portraying the government as an evil slave driver? He idolizes the young woman as working hard and being industrious—he claims that she works seventy hours a week at two jobs just to pay off her welfare debt. If she’s so hard working, why couldn’t she have worked before she applied for welfare, and thus not have accumulated the debt? Everything can be taken in more than one perspective; and Mr. Moore decidedly declines to show this.
At this point, I will again credit Mr. Moore with another point that he touched upon in Bowling for Columbine. He said that it isn’t the music and games that children play that make them psychotic. I completely agree with him on this remark—psychotic children listen to psychotic music after the fact. It isn’t the music or the games that change children; they’re already demented and then they embrace these. The media would have us believe that it is music and videogames that destroy youth and drive violence into the minds of children. This is not so, and Mr. Moore was correct in my opinion for making this point.
I also found Mr. Moore’s finger pointing at Mr. Charlton Heston, and at K-Mart Corporation as being unbelievably unfair. He someone finds fault for the murders at Columbine with K-Mart corporation for carrying ammunition? That’s not bad logic; it’s horrible logic! If the murders at Columbine had been done not with handguns, but with baseball bats, would he have gone after a sporting goods store? K-Mart in no way was even remotely responsible for the tragedies at Colorado. I believe that the fault rests with the demented duo that performed the acts; and perhaps even with those who failed to report and take action to prevent them.
Mr. Moore also levels a sound charge at all NRA members, and especially Mr. Charlton Heston. Moore once more deceivingly goes around, and selectively chooses what he wants to film. He films redneck NRA militia in Wisconsin. He films a psychotic old man who sleeps with a loaded revolver under his pillow; and then the madman playfully puts the gun in his mouth. Mr. Moore would have the viewers believe, therefore, that all NRA members must be deranged. Is it a coincidence, or planned occurrence, that no normal, sane NRA members made it into Mr. Moore’s final cut?
All of these topics were woven into his documentary with clever, subtle references. Mr. Moore decidedly dropped psychological ‘Easter eggs’ around his movie to help coax the viewer to his point of view. He appears in the documentary, as he wants you to see him: he’s unshaven, he’s dressed in cheap attire, and he presents himself as the average, hard-working American. He’s trying to appeal to the common tax-paying American, and so he presents himself as one. But does the average American make $18,000 an hour? Also, if Mr. Moore is so virtuous and good, why wouldn’t he make these tours to places of education for charity? The fact is that Michael Moore made $35,000 for two hours’ lecturing here at UMASS Dartmouth. The average entire income for a real American in the United States in 2003 was $36,300---for an entire year’s worth of hard work.
Another of his ‘psychological Easter eggs’ was a piece of pure theater. As he exits the Charlton Heston estate, Mr. Moore decidedly chooses, on camera, to leave a large photo of the young first grader who was murdered. He does so in silence, with a certain aura of injustice in the world. Should we deduce from that, as he wants us to, that Mr. Heston was at fault for her murder? Stricter regulations on the purchase of firearms wouldn’t have help that poor little girl; it was the other child’s idiot uncle who left the fire arm in the open, and fully loaded for the taking.
In conclusion, I declare Mr. Michael Moore less of an eye-opening leader in journalism, and more of a conceited, wealthy liberal who is merely seeking to further his political ambitions: namely his war on guns. My final word is this: Mr. Moore seems to think that he knows where the blame is, and he cites many causes. But he fails to suggest a solution. All he truthfully does is reproach the Caucasian ethnicity, gun advocates, and the United States government.
Quote:Say, DJ, how are you paying for college? Going to college, living on your own, paying for you own food, etc.?
I'm planning on getting a full scholarship to get me through college, although that means going to a college that isn't so great. Why does DigiPen cost so much money?!
Kickass, Darunia. I agree with every word of it.
...you're still all missing the point that the movie was a complete joke.
It's supposed to confuse you, piss you off and create stereotypes, that's what the media is for. The whole movie is bathed in sarcasm and is at its heart a comedy. He's Staleny Kubrick AND Dennis Miller at the same time! He makes a valid point, dramatizes it, and then gives it a punch line.
Pause, reflect, move on.
About using credit cards, you cant live without them in the United States. Unless you have a really good job. I invite anyone here to look around their house and try to imagine buying all that shit with cash (house included, and the car in the driveway). It just cant be done. By getting credit, you can buy all the bullshit things we dont need but make us a little happier and live better quality lives. Without credit (through cards, loans, etc), we're basically a third world nation. Because it exists, I was able to go to an expensive school, get a nice apartment, feed my wife and I and buy video games to play on my HDTV. I'm a happy little consumer. But without credit, i'd be living in a box working minimum wage and making just enough money to be miserable (as opposed to dead).
Credit's awesome, but dont let it fuck you. As soon as you get a credit card, just tell youself: "I will now be sending 20 to 100 dollars every month so I can buy expensive shit". That's exactly what it is, just make sure you can afford the payments. If you find yourself having to buy groceries or pay bills with a credit card, you're in trouble. You need a cash flow. I'm in that boat right now.
That was well written and I hope you get good marks.
The part of about canada not having slums isnt true,Vancouver BC has a pretty notorious section of town that is known as the crack alley, Were if you walked by in the spring and summer time you will find people injecting drugs and snorting crack freely as you walk by, Every city has its dangerous neighborhoods and canada's major cities are no different. But what is different about it is that it isnt stereotypicaly ethnic minorities that live in the slums, It usually is caucasians.
I bet Moore is laughing his rolly polly ass off right now.
I myself have bought everything I own with cash. It's worked so far. Sure, I can't just buy every single cool game I see, in fact I have to wait a few months between games, but I don't really need it all and manage well enough.
What lazy says is absolutely true. Unless you're very rich or are willing to live crappily, you will definitely need loans and a credit card. And you'll need good enough credit for the bigger things, so you'll have to get a credit card and buy sparingly while paying it off immediately so that you don't have to pay interest. And with college, if you don't get any loans then you'll need a very nice scholarship which will not only pay for your tuition and books but also your food and housing. Then right after school you'll need to find your own place and get a job, which right away probably won't be what you went to school for unless you're really lucky. And if you haven't worked during college (since most jobs require you to have a car, which you won't be able to afford unless it's given to you, and most people aren't that fortunate, and that's not even counting insurance and gas), your resume will be crappy so you probably won't get a very good job at first while you're looking for that profession you worked your ass off at school for. And if you ever get married you're definitely not going to want to stay in that crappy little shack you paid for with cash so you and your spouse will most likely want to get a house. You will need a loan for that unless you've saved up a shitload of money over a very long period of time.
But hey, if you can pull it off, then you're absolutely amazing and good for you.
Quote:Say, DJ, how are you paying for college? Going to college, living on your own, paying for you own food, etc.?
My parents pay (well, what they have to now after loans and stuff) and my school doesn't cost that much anyway... (though the fact that my sister's now in her first year of school and hers costs quite a bit more more than makes up for that...)
Who'll pay the loans? I assume I'll have to pay some of them, whenever I get a job that actually pays something worth mentioning...
Oh, did I mention that my dad's college is really cheap? Lots of schools will give free scholarships if children of faculty go to the school, and a lot if they go elsewhere. His gives about $1700, no matter where you go. Not much...
Oh, and I don't have a credit card. Don't really want one at the moment...
Ah, well then you're lucky. I gotta pay for everything--school, car, insurance, etc. :)
Hmm, that quote seems a little different than what I thought someone else asked... whatever.
Anyway, as lazy said, if you are using credit to pay for your food, you are in trouble. As I said before, paying for a house can be done without credit, though not in a lump sum. School, that's what scholarships are for, and saving money. When I say "I don't have the money to get that game right now", it's not because I'm actually flat out BROKE, it's because a large calculated percentage of my cash goes straight into a bank, which I call the "magic future machine", and there it gestates and grows until magical pixies eventually emerge, which will grant me the wish of knowledge.
I'm not talking about using credit cards for food. You work and earn money in order to buy food. I'm talking about working while going to school and paying for your own car and everything. Scholarships don't pay for all living expenses when you go to college, so you need at least a part-time job on the weekends or something. It really all depends on how much aid your parents can give you.
Quote:About using credit cards, you cant live without them in the United States. Unless you have a really good job. I invite anyone here to look around their house and try to imagine buying all that shit with cash (house included, and the car in the driveway). It just cant be done. By getting credit, you can buy all the bullshit things we dont need but make us a little happier and live better quality lives. Without credit (through cards, loans, etc), we're basically a third world nation. Because it exists, I was able to go to an expensive school, get a nice apartment, feed my wife and I and buy video games to play on my HDTV. I'm a happy little consumer. But without credit, i'd be living in a box working minimum wage and making just enough money to be miserable (as opposed to dead).
I never said that credit cards are inherently bad, because they can be a great assest. But so many people abuse them all the time, racking up huge bills and not giving a thought about what that will due to them on bill day. The problem isn't credit cards or even using credit cards, the problem is people who don't know how to use them properly and/or manage their money. My parent rarely use credit cards and built their own house [over 20 years ago now] with a loan from the bank and have managed to keep out of debt for the most part.
Indeed, I want to make another thing clear. No, I don't think credit cards are ACTUALLY evil. In the right hands they are as good as GR said. My hands, however, are NOT the right hands. As the guys at Penny Arcade put it long ago when one of them first got a credit card, I fear that if I suddenly got one of these things, it would be molten by the end of the day. So, I avoid it the way I avoid alchohol and drugs and such because I know I have an addictive personality. Just look at how much time I've put into video games. That's why I'm going without and will continue to go without credit as long as I possibly can, which will likely be my whole life if I play my cards right.
Anyway, Weltall raises a good point. Perhaps I should take out loans and IMMEDIATLY pay those loans back WITH THE MONEY I WAS JUST LOANED to boost my credit, just in case I ever find myself actually NEEDING it. Sorta like any cheap trick you've ever done to boost stats in an RPG...
Yes, that is what I'm doing. I already have really good credit. :D
I don't think that car insurance should be mandatory---or at least, not very much should be. I've never been in a (documented) accident; and so my driver rating went up. That's supposed to mean that your insurance payment goes down because you're a safer driver. Instead, my monthly extortion went from $135 to $165.
I say fuck the insurance companies and attache Goatse images to their office computers.
Yeah, as for credit cards, my parents have always said it's important to not spend more than you can afford... if you can't pay off the whole monthly bill you quickly go downhill, it seems (never happened to us... to the credit card companies' dislike -- they don't like the people who actually pay their bills because the companies only really make money off the people who fail to...). But since you can't actually see the money you're spending I can see how you could spend too much...
You can't see the money you're spending? What's that supposed to mean?
You aren't giving people actual bills. It's just virtual money dissapearing... you don't see the balance go down until the end of the month...
Maybe if you live in the stone age that's the case, but there's this amazing thing called "the internet" that is pretty popular nowadays, and you can see every single credit card transaction that you've made by going to your Bank's website and looking at your accounts.
Sure, you CAN. But WOULD people? And that's still not a 'point of transaction' thing... you need to seek it out...
If you're too incompetent to look at your daily credit card balance online then you're too incompetent to even use the internet.
But if you start spending more money than you should, you probably wouldn't WANT to look at the balance...
Only a really big idiot would do something like that.
I know... isn't that pretty much what I was saying? :)
You're saying that it's tough to see how much credit you're using, while I'm saying it's very easy.
I think I understand what ABF is trying to say. Spending "virtual" money is a lot easier than spending that last 20 you have in your wallet. People just think a lot less about it and so rack up huge amounts of debt.
And what over the past..well...FOREVER has shown you that the vast majority of people aren't?