and oldie but goodie - a review of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine

This was previously put on my personal web page, but I feel it now rightly belongs here. Enjoy

   Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine is about gun control and gun abuse that culminates in the murder of teens by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.  Why, he asks, are we so obsessed with guns that militias hoard them, our movies glorify them, and banks give them away to new customers.   Are we nuts about guns or just nuts, he wonders.  His search for American gun madness uncovers several reasons that never pass tests of truth - reasons he never develops as to prove them.  His passage through his search raises logical fallacies he cannot escape.

   Moore first begins his search for the reason for gun obsession at his interview of Evan McCollum of public relations at Lockheed Martin,   the largest weapons producer in America. Moore subtly suggests - by showing scenes of violent overthrows of dictators by the United States and violent support of them and finally a scene of the planes flying into the world trader towers - that the murders at Columbine are somehow related to the U.S. history of weapons productions and the support of wars after.  The message from this montage seems to be that the murders at Columbine are a result of the history of violence and war because of the United States.

   This suggestion is immediately debunked by Moore’s statement that a violent past is not to blame for out-of-control gun use.  For instance, according to Moore, Germany has little gun abuse despite its violent past. Neither does Great Britain.  If a violent past is not to blame for gun abuse in the United States, what is to blame?  What is the point of showing a montage of American violence that has nothing to do with the cause Moore is exploring?

   My confusion is amplified by Moore’s interview of Matt Stone, co-creator of cartoonish comedy South Park.  Stone, Moore says, took out his anger about being different by developing a comedy about living in a small town.  The suggestion one gets from this interview is that the solution to gun crimes is teaching kids to take out their anger by funneling it into more productive uses instead of shooting up their town.  However, Moore does not develop this thesis.  Rather, Moore follows up on his theory that gun and bullet restrictions are the solution to gun accidents and misuse. 

   This theory, however, does not reach fruition until later in the documentary.  Another theory propounded by Moore is what I call the “fear” thesis.  His comical rendition of what he calls a “brief history of the United States” includes the suggestion that the Pilgrims came to America because they were scared and then killed indigenous Indians because of their fear.   White men then became scared of the British and witches and killed them both, later forming the NRA (National Rifle Association) and Klu Klux Klan to temper their fear.  Their fear even expanded to killer bees (a fear that never materialized), razor blades in candy, and escalators.    Moore places a strong emphasis, however, on white man’s fear of black men.  His theory, it seems, is that America is enveloped in a fearful culture and guns are used by the fearful to terminate what they fear.

   Moore abandons this theory also and later in the documentary tracks down Dick Clark, host of American Band Stand and creator of Dick Clark’s American Band Stand Grill where Tamarla Owens worked two jobs to support herself and her young son.  Owens was on the welfare-to-work program that got welfare mothers off government assistance and into the work force.  Even though she worked two jobs, she could not make enough money to pay the rent and was given an eviction notice.  Her son was sent to live with his uncle and there he found a gun he brought to school.  The gun was used to kill another first grader at Buell Elementary in Flint, Michigan.

   This accident at Buell Elementary obviously has nothing to do with the violent history of the United States or the fear factor that Moore displays in his comical rendition of U.S. history.   Rather, it has everything to do with a man who accidentally leaves the gun where his nephew could find it.  Moore does blame the welfare system because he feels that if Tamarla was not working two jobs, she would have been able to supervise her son and keep guns away from him.   However, if the child’s uncle had been able to hide the gun, then Moore would not be blaming the welfare-to-work program for this death much less faulting Dick Clark for owning a business that pays substandard wages.  It’s obvious that fault lies with the Uncle, to a certain point, for leaving the gun lying around where the nephew can get it and human mistakes for creating the situations the welfare system must fix.  Without these mistakes, Tamarla would not be in the situation she is in.  Moore does not address this either. 

   At this point in the documentary, Moore has abandoned his first two theories explaining our high rate of gun tragedies and misuse and never fully explored any of them.   Neither has he allowed for other possible reasons for gun misuse, such as poverty, delinquent parents, or genetic predispositions toward violence.  Moore seems biased against guns, despite his membership in the NRA, and desperate to find a reason to blame guns for these tragedies despite his exploration of  other causes for gun tragedies, causes that he never fully explores and causes that are never proven.

   The answer to Moore’s question about gun tragedies, if in fact they exist, lies in the nature of humans rather than the presence of guns.    Surely the presence of swords did not prompt ancient cultures to wage war on others using swords as weapons just as the presence of lions did not cause the Romans to toss Christians to them.  The presence of a knife did not prompt a woman to cut off her husband’s penis either.  Rather, swords and knives, tanks and bombs, were the weapons of choice in cultures or people that were already predisposed to war.  Perhaps guns were the weapons of choice for those already predisposed to violence.  It is important to keep guns out of the hands of minors and those who might do harm with them, but the overwhelming non-violence by those who own them, including Charlton Heston and Michael Moore himself, testifies that it is more than the presence of guns that causes gun violence.  Rather guns are the weapons of choice because of their lethality in groups of people that are already predisposed to do violent and lethal acts.   

   This is Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, an interesting tale of experiences, interviews, and events.  Yet, it is a muddle of logic that one seems unable to escape from.  It leaves one wonder, “What is Michael Moore’s point?”

Why Liberals hate Sarah Palin - lack of clear thinking

 In 2008, Sarah Palin entered the political fray igniting a liberal and conservative firestorm.  Conservatives loved her fresh face while ace feminist Gloria Steinem fumed.

  In an article for the Los Angeles Times, Steinem claimed that Palin is unqualified (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/04/news/OE-STEINEM4).  Watching Palin in debate, I felt she needed a bit more seasoning and so I agree with her on this point, but that is not the main substance of Steinem’s criticisms.  Her problems with Palin are more ideological because Palin, she believes, doesn’t support what women support and hence is a slave to patriarchy.  Steinem says:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

   Let’s take this paragraph point by point.  According to the gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx) and common experience derived from merely stepping into a church, it would be incorrect to state that women as a rule do not support the teaching of creationism.

   Steinem links gun control with the control of women’s wombs by prohibiting abortion.  Here the logic gets ridiculous.  What is the connection?  As gallup shows, it is not true that women necessarily support abortion on demand (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx).  Even if they did, the abortion debate is concerned with when the right to life begins, what the fetus is, and what responsibilities we have toward it and others.  The gun debate is concerned with the right to control a weapon for either self defense or sport.  There is no overlap between the two issues and one can legitimately argue that one can own a gun because the constitution allows it and it is necessary for self defense and killing the unborn is immoral since unborn children have a right to live just as others.

   As far as global warming, again there is no logical reason to suggest women would or would not believe the Earth is warming because of man-made causes.  Of course Al Gore is one of the more prominent proponents that humans are causing the warming, but the opposite case should be looked at also. (See the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, for instance.)

   As far as abstinence and stem cells, there seems to be some good information that useful research is derived from adult stem cells, not fetal ones (http://www.lutheranscience.org/2005-EmbryonicStemCell1.html).  The reason the use of fetal stem cells is so important to her, I think, is abortion.  If liberals can suggest that more fetuses can be destroyed to produce positive effects, then the case for abortion is strengthened (which is what she wants).

   Her comment on abstinence reveals common liberal thought.  Notice that she attributes sexual diseases, abortion, and unwanted births to abstinence programs.  Such programs do not cause these problems; such problems would not exist were it not for sexual intercourse.  Apparently it is not abstinence teaching that causes the problems but the inability to abstain! (Following Steinem’s logic, if someone buys a gun and shoots a person despite proclamations to limit gun use, we blame the anti-gun message rather than the person who shoots the gun.)

   We see here the common liberal desire to wish Americans held liberal beliefs as they fail to admit such ideologies are out of step with Americans.  Steinem should be seen for what she is:  an old liberal hag who wants all women to be what she thinks they should be.

   Speaking of patriarchy, an interesting book I picked up years ago was Rene Denfeld’s The New Victorians.  Denfeld is no conservative but does poke holes in the modern feminist movement partly because it does not deal with modern issues important to women and hence most women today do not label themselves “feminists.”  These feminists are more concerned with their battle against “patriarchy” – however loosely defined.

  For example, Anne Merkelson, a production coordinator whom Denfeld quotes, suggests many in the new feminist movement look at things negatively as if a giant conspiracy exists to keep women down.  Life is not that simple. “For me,” Anne says, “it’s much more natural to look at individuals. When it starts getting blanket, I think that’s also why I’m not involved.  I can’t look at things that broadly.  It just doesn’t work for me.”  Denfeld sums up that “feminists have found something to lash out against, and that’s the patriarchy. But instead of venting frustration and then moving to change things, they have sunk into the miasma of their own theory.  They have created a straw man to condemn.”  Contrary to patriarchy, these feminists have proposed a utopia that promises peace, but this is based on bad science and sexist stereotypes that threaten to undo many hard-won victories and plunge the movement into a quest for an unattainable goal.        (p. 154-155)

  We see that Steinem is exactly the type of feminist that Denfeld is describing.  Steinem also, according to Peter Schweizer in his book Do As I Say (Not As I Do), doesn’t practice what she preaches.  She has criticized women who put so much stress on their looks, but she herself has given herself an occasional “touch up.”  She has promoted the view that men are not needed by women and merely an appendage, but has been in numerous romances herself.  Steinem should be cheering Palin for her popularity, but she can’t.  Palin is simply not Steinem’s kind of bigoted woman.

Jeff Stueber

jstueber@charter.net

welcome to my blog - who gets whose wealth?

Thanks for viewing my first blog.  I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you a little bit about it's purpose. If you see the title, it says "logic in exile."  That means there are times when logical thought takes a vacation in people's minds and illogic takes over- most of the time, actually.  This blog is devoted to exposing that illogic.  In essence, at times logic goes into exile.  Hence, the title of this blog.

I've noticed this in fifteen or so years of researching religion, philosophy, and politics.  For instance, I wrote an essay years ago exposing the faulty arguments of the pro-abortion movement and detailed them at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/abortwr.htm#N_3_  and I've also detailed faulty evolutionist arguments as well at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/foolsus.htm Last, but not the least, I took on several liberal themes at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/libralsm.htm.  There are plenty of things to criticize everywhere and the "magic" continues with the current Obama administration.

Take for example Obama's suggestion to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."  (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-tells-tax-burdened-plumber-the-plan-is-to-spread-the-wealth-around/)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html

This exchange received much press in conservative venues and without a fair listing of the entire conversation, one might not know why this comment came out.  Obama is concerned with bringing up the lower classes by spreading more of the upper class's wealth to them so that there is upward mobility.  So he had more noble goals in mind than conservatives gave him credit for even though this quote reveals a philosophy that is not reasonable. Let's unpack the parts of his argument to expose the issues that we must factor in to figure out what is being said here.

1.  We are dealing with wealth which is, for the most part, money gained by people for doing useful work.
2.  We are dealing with people who need to gain money to give themselves  upward mobility (that is to say ability to buy more and better things).
3.  We are dealing with the taking, through tax policy, of more money from some segments of the population to give to others through tax policy.

Numerous assumptions reveal themselves here.  First, Obama assumes that the taking of one group's money is morally justified.  Let's shift gears here.  I make somewhere between $10 per hour and $15  per hour and them some additional money through a paper route. Through the years I've saved some money up in investments and, of course, have more money than my oldest son who is starting out just as I did in my first job.  Would it be (a) moral for any government offical or organization to take some of my money to give to him to "spread the wealth around" or (b) stimulating to the economy if he spent that money rather than I did? Now it is doubtful that anybody would consider (a) morally appropriate and neither would they suspect that (b) is true either. So why does Obama suppose that this is true unless he has a dogmatic belief that denies people have a moral right to earn their due and believes that economic activity can be enhanced by taking from one group and giving to another?

Second, Obama presumes that the only way for people in the lower classes to move up the progress ladder is by increasing the taxes of those in the upper-income brackets.  Now that has certainly not been true in the past and not true when I was entering the job market (otherwise I would not be in a position where I am now) and it is questionable whether it would be true in the future as long there is economic opportunity for people to create jobs and obtain them.  I've worked jobs where I've been rewarded for hard work and most likely that is true all around the United States.  Hard work creates upward mobility and the ability to save what one earns.  Taking from one group of people to give to another is only rational if (a) it is moral and (b) the economy can be stimulated by doing so which would suppose that the "rich" do not spend their money on activities that could possibly create jobs and lower income people could spend it better than them.  Both are in doubt.

My suspicions are that Obama is not really concerned about the inequity present in our economy as much as creating a climate in which it is proper to take from others.  Since those in the higher incomes are those others are most jealous of, than they are natural targets for confiscatory taxation.