tim_the_bald
Iscritto in data apr 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni5
Valutazione di tim_the_bald
As the record-low television audience that sat through Hollywood`s latest celebration of Hollywood knows, the Academy Award for a feature documentary film was given to Michael Moore`s Bowling for Columbine ?a painfully pretentious work of anti-American, anti-gun, anti-NRA propaganda.
But many don`t know that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had to violate its own rules to allow Moore to compete for, much less win, an Oscar. The Academy`s "Special Rules for the Documentary Award" define a documentary film "as a non-fiction motion picture," with the emphasis "on factual content." Bowling for Columbine miserably fails this practical test. It is a work of propaganda, pure and simple, riddled not with slovenly conducted research but with calculated dishonesty.
For example, Moore splices together two separate speeches by NRA President Charlton Heston to create the false impression that viewers are seeing a single speech given at the 1999 NRA Annual Meetings in Denver. Moore`s intent is to make NRA`s president appear insensitive to the senseless murders at Columbine High School earlier that year in nearby Littleton.
To further his lie, Moore depicts President Heston raising a musket at the Denver meeting and delivering his familiar line "from my cold dead hands." The facts?that President Heston was actually filmed one year later and 1,354 miles away in Charlotte, N.C.?aren`t something Moore cares to document.
The deception continues with Moore repeatedly referring to the Denver meetings as pro-gun rallies. He fails to document the well-known fact that out of respect for the families victimized at Columbine, NRA canceled all events and meetings in Denver except those required the Association`s bylaws and laws regarding not-for-profit corporations.
No lie is too poisonous for Michael Moore. He actually tries to make viewers believe that NRA makes a habit of holding rallies in the wake of tragic shootings. After failing to document that NRA`s Denver meetings were scheduled years in advance, Moore jumps to a Michigan campaign rally, claiming: "just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally." Moore wants viewers to believe the Flint rally took place immediately following the shooting death of child in a local classroom. In fact, the rally took place eight months later during the regular campaign season.
Another outrageous sequence in Moore`s supposedly "non-fiction motion picture," tries to associate NRA with the Ku Klux Klan and depicts an NRA member assisting in a Klan cross burning. The rationale? NRA was founded in 1871?the year the KKK was declared an illegal organization. The absurd connection is intentional. It`s Michael Moore`s idea of humor.
An honest documentary would record that NRA was founded by former Union Army officers who fought a war to bring an end to slavery. It would record that Civil War veteran Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside was the Association`s first president. It would record that the man who signed the act making the Klan an illegal organization later became NRA`s eighth president?Ulysses S. Grant.
A true documentary would note that NRA`s early history was written by figures who had not only fought to end slavery, but who would later oppose the persecution of freedmen. Such a man would assume command of the Fifth Military District, and he would then remove governors in Texas and Louisiana for failing to oppose the KKK. That man later became NRA`s ninth president?Gen. Philip H. Sheridan.
Bowling for Columbine is a compilation of deceit piled upon deceit?facts omitted, time lines distorted, and editing tricks employed to present a false view o f American culture in general and the "gun culture" and NRA in particular. And yet, no matter how shameless its deceptions, no matter how brazen its lies, Moore`s propaganda film does have its fans, including the Brady Campaign.
When Moore`s Oscar nomination was announced, the gun-ban group was "very pleased" that " Bowling for Columbine is receiving the acclaim it deserves." The Brady bunch fell silent, however, in the days following Moore`s win. Possibly they found him less appealing after his tasteless Oscar acceptance speech. Unable to resist a captive audience, the self-indulgent Moore railed against the war in Iraq and President Bush. He may have been warmly received by the Hollywood millionaires in the Kodak Theater, but the poseur-populist was booed loudly by the stagehands actually working the event. A clear message was sent.
As more and more Americans catch on to the deceit that is Bowling for Columbine , its maker will have to seek out a more gullible audience. The Wall Street Journal`s John Fund provides a road map: "Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation." Most Americans would gladly say, Au revoir, Monsieur Moore!
But many don`t know that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had to violate its own rules to allow Moore to compete for, much less win, an Oscar. The Academy`s "Special Rules for the Documentary Award" define a documentary film "as a non-fiction motion picture," with the emphasis "on factual content." Bowling for Columbine miserably fails this practical test. It is a work of propaganda, pure and simple, riddled not with slovenly conducted research but with calculated dishonesty.
For example, Moore splices together two separate speeches by NRA President Charlton Heston to create the false impression that viewers are seeing a single speech given at the 1999 NRA Annual Meetings in Denver. Moore`s intent is to make NRA`s president appear insensitive to the senseless murders at Columbine High School earlier that year in nearby Littleton.
To further his lie, Moore depicts President Heston raising a musket at the Denver meeting and delivering his familiar line "from my cold dead hands." The facts?that President Heston was actually filmed one year later and 1,354 miles away in Charlotte, N.C.?aren`t something Moore cares to document.
The deception continues with Moore repeatedly referring to the Denver meetings as pro-gun rallies. He fails to document the well-known fact that out of respect for the families victimized at Columbine, NRA canceled all events and meetings in Denver except those required the Association`s bylaws and laws regarding not-for-profit corporations.
No lie is too poisonous for Michael Moore. He actually tries to make viewers believe that NRA makes a habit of holding rallies in the wake of tragic shootings. After failing to document that NRA`s Denver meetings were scheduled years in advance, Moore jumps to a Michigan campaign rally, claiming: "just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally." Moore wants viewers to believe the Flint rally took place immediately following the shooting death of child in a local classroom. In fact, the rally took place eight months later during the regular campaign season.
Another outrageous sequence in Moore`s supposedly "non-fiction motion picture," tries to associate NRA with the Ku Klux Klan and depicts an NRA member assisting in a Klan cross burning. The rationale? NRA was founded in 1871?the year the KKK was declared an illegal organization. The absurd connection is intentional. It`s Michael Moore`s idea of humor.
An honest documentary would record that NRA was founded by former Union Army officers who fought a war to bring an end to slavery. It would record that Civil War veteran Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside was the Association`s first president. It would record that the man who signed the act making the Klan an illegal organization later became NRA`s eighth president?Ulysses S. Grant.
A true documentary would note that NRA`s early history was written by figures who had not only fought to end slavery, but who would later oppose the persecution of freedmen. Such a man would assume command of the Fifth Military District, and he would then remove governors in Texas and Louisiana for failing to oppose the KKK. That man later became NRA`s ninth president?Gen. Philip H. Sheridan.
Bowling for Columbine is a compilation of deceit piled upon deceit?facts omitted, time lines distorted, and editing tricks employed to present a false view o f American culture in general and the "gun culture" and NRA in particular. And yet, no matter how shameless its deceptions, no matter how brazen its lies, Moore`s propaganda film does have its fans, including the Brady Campaign.
When Moore`s Oscar nomination was announced, the gun-ban group was "very pleased" that " Bowling for Columbine is receiving the acclaim it deserves." The Brady bunch fell silent, however, in the days following Moore`s win. Possibly they found him less appealing after his tasteless Oscar acceptance speech. Unable to resist a captive audience, the self-indulgent Moore railed against the war in Iraq and President Bush. He may have been warmly received by the Hollywood millionaires in the Kodak Theater, but the poseur-populist was booed loudly by the stagehands actually working the event. A clear message was sent.
As more and more Americans catch on to the deceit that is Bowling for Columbine , its maker will have to seek out a more gullible audience. The Wall Street Journal`s John Fund provides a road map: "Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation." Most Americans would gladly say, Au revoir, Monsieur Moore!
The episode of "7th Heaven" show in syndication on July 31, 2001 was a blatant propaganda piece for the anti-gun/freedom movement, a piece filled with lies, distortions, and misrepresentations on a scale so huge I would not have thought any network were capable of broadcasting them.
One of the big lies spewed in this program ostensibly by a policeman is the lie that a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member rather than a criminal. The facts are as follows:
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This fallacy, fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns is the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity. Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse. From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection. Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
In this idiotic program the gun owner was made to seem the villain. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of Aaron Spelling for this ludicrous tapestry of lies and distortions. I urge all the kids whose mind was poisoned by this garbage broadcast to visit the NRA's website to get the true facts about gun control, then stop watching this program. It's nothing but anti-Constitution propaganda.
One of the big lies spewed in this program ostensibly by a policeman is the lie that a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member rather than a criminal. The facts are as follows:
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This fallacy, fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns is the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity. Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse. From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection. Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
In this idiotic program the gun owner was made to seem the villain. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of Aaron Spelling for this ludicrous tapestry of lies and distortions. I urge all the kids whose mind was poisoned by this garbage broadcast to visit the NRA's website to get the true facts about gun control, then stop watching this program. It's nothing but anti-Constitution propaganda.
My little Filipina wife is crazy about this show, so sometimes I watch it too.
All of the characters in the family are well developed and have their own personalities. The good elder brother who can be relied on, the black sheep oldest sister who provides the drama of the show as she screws up again and again and gets punished, The pre-teen middle sister, Simon the blond brother who is smart, Ruthie the cutesy little girl and Simon's shadow.
My one gripe about this show is that the character of Happy the Dog has not been developed. I haven't seen any episode centering around Happy. Does he ever run away, eat a bug, poop on the floor, or bark at the moon? If the writers fixed this flaw they would have a gem of a show.
All of the characters in the family are well developed and have their own personalities. The good elder brother who can be relied on, the black sheep oldest sister who provides the drama of the show as she screws up again and again and gets punished, The pre-teen middle sister, Simon the blond brother who is smart, Ruthie the cutesy little girl and Simon's shadow.
My one gripe about this show is that the character of Happy the Dog has not been developed. I haven't seen any episode centering around Happy. Does he ever run away, eat a bug, poop on the floor, or bark at the moon? If the writers fixed this flaw they would have a gem of a show.