It's a wonderful world....

Christian Graus

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php[^] I watched the movie last night, checked out the website this morning. IMO it's slanted towards his point of view, but if you take the hype with a grain of salt, the fact presented are quite fascinating, in a depressing sort of way. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic

yaname

The media-promoted culture of fear is also interesting. I was sitting in an airport the other day and I heard CNN in the background. The promos for their news stories sounded like ads for the latest rape/incest/wife-abuse/disaster movie on Lifetime. X|

Brit

Yeah, I had to refrain from commenting a few days ago when you brought this subject up. I really disliked the movie. It was interesting, but he really uses some mixed-up statistics (the US has high gun homicide rates relative to the rest of the developed world, but when you compare homicide rates in general, the US doesn't look nearly as bad) and he really misses the causes of gun violence and homicide in general. In the end, I fear that he has only confirmed some liberal myths: (1) White America is violent. I was personally appauled by the history of america animation which involves Whitey killing everyone. He shows some scary pictures of the NRA and Michigan Militia. (I don't believe the NRA or the Michigan Militia have much to do with gun homicide rates in the US.) And then tells us that showing blacks on "Cops" is just racism which is meant to scare the White population. Speaking from personal experience of living in a poor black neighborhood, I have to say that it was the easily most violent neighborhood in the entire city. A group of gang members once shot (and hit) my roommate's car while he was driving down the road! (2) Violence in the US is somehow linked to American militarism (there are plently of reasons why this is a pathetic arguement, but he never mentions them in the movie, and in one interview, someone cornered him on this question and he backed down). And he talks about how American has been scared into "shoot first, ask questions later". I'm sure this is loved by the europeans and the American left because it confirms a myth about the inferiority of conservative, republican Americans and backs up the political argument that the US behaves too militaristically in the world. Actually, not many gun homicides involve people who don't know each other. Usually, there is a pre-existing relationship (whether a romantic relationship or a gang rivalry). Even worse, he comes down on the media for scaring America into some sort of "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, but then he turns around and uses shifty statistics to say "america is violent". Um, excuse me, but if Moore is complaining about how the media scares Americans, why is he using shifty statistics to scare America even more? He completely misses several opportunities to find the real reasons for gun violence. For example, in the scene where the kid from Eastern Michigan talks about stealing guns and selling them to gangs in Detroit. Come on Micheal Moore - doesn't it make sense to figure out what gangs are

Christian Graus

Brit wrote: In the end, I loathe the fact that people might actually believe what he has to say. But, the media is always strongest when it confirms what we already want to believe. And, this movie is very much about what liberals want to believe about America. Well, I have to tell you that at the end of the day, it's pretty clear at times that his view is not an unbiased one. However, at the same time, 65 vs 11,500 is a figure that's hard to dispute. There can be no denying that there is a problem. And he never claims that it's just that you guys all have guns. So what do *you* think it is ? I have a friend just come back from the USA, and having not seen the movie, he called me and said exactly what Moore says in the movie. He also said that your papers are full of lies, but I'll leave that for a new thread.... Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic

Brit

Christian Graus wrote: However, at the same time, 65 vs 11,500 is a figure that's hard to dispute. Well, let's break it down. I don't quite remember where the "65" number was from, but I'll talk for a minute about the comparisons between the US and Canada. First, I'll dispute Moore's numbers. According to the Statistics Canada report, Canada's homicide rate was 1.92 homicides per 100,000 people in 1997. In England and Wales, the rate was only 1.00 per 100,000 compared to 6.70 per 100,000 in the United States. Firearms were used in a full third of homicides in Canada. http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/06111998/g3.htm[^] What does this mean? With a little math, it means that Canada had 614 homicides in 1997, 205 of which were committed with guns. Second, Canada has 1/9th the population of the US. (32 million versus 280 million). I think the only fair thing to do for an accurate comparison is to compare per-capita gun-homicide rates. Third, guns are more likely to be used in homicides in the US than in Canada. I think the statistic was 60% of homicides in the US are commited with guns, whereas roughly 30% of homicides in Canada are commited with guns. The result of these two facts means that if we compare on a per-capita basis and look specifically at ALL homicides rather than ONLY gun homicide rates, a different picture emerges. (If you watch the movie carefully, you'll notice that Moore is always very careful to say "gun homicide" rather than "homicide".) I thought I remembered Moore using the number 90 for Canada and 11,000 for the US. This might lead someone to believe that homicide rates in the US are over 100 times as high. But, what do the statistics say about per-capital homicide rates (ALL homicides)? According to the Statistics Canada report, Canada's homicide rate was 1.92 homicides per 100,000 people in 1997. In England and Wales, the rate was only 1.00 per 100,000 compared to 6.70 per 100,000 in the United States. http://www.carleton.ca/Capital_News/06111998/g3.htm[^] Well, that puts the US homicide rate at about 3 1/2 times the Canadian rate. That's much, much different than the statistics Moo

Christian Graus

Brit wrote: To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert This is the only part of this post I take umbrage with. Great White rules !!! 'I'm stealing from the Devil, with no help from above, in this house of broken love'. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic