h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There was a flurry of gun control debates on this site several months ago that I was involved in. "Haven't you seen 'Bowling for Columbine'?", I was frequently asked, as if seeing that film would have changed my mind completely (for those who missed it, I support responsible gun ownership... something we don't really have here in the US). The movie was quoted or referenced often.

So, naturally, I was expecting this fiercely anti-gun movie. It doesn't help that I only know of Michael Moore by reputation. He's one of those people who are frequently named by stark-raving conservatives who practically spit when they say the word "liberal," so I expected him to be just as bad as them... the closed-minded, intolerant yin to their yang.

So I watched it. And it wasn't what I was led to believe it was. In fact, I have a suspicion that those people who quoted it at me quit watching after the first 20 minutes. So, for those of you who wandered off (and are still paying attention here... it may have taken some of you 20 minutes to read this far, and you may be pondering the origins of your belly-button lint or gazing at a shiny object), here's the recap:

1) A violent history is often blamed for the murder rate in the US, but our history is no bloodier than those of Germany, Japan, or the UK.

2) High gun ownership is not really to blame, because Canadians have a ton of guns, too, but they're not using them on each other.

3) A big part of the answer is the media and the government. By sowing fear, they're making people jump at shadows. Now with the whole terrorism thing, the US government doesn't even need to give us a reason to be scared.

I didn't find much to argue with in these three major points. I found the movie to be well-informed and somewhat well-balanced (he still went on quoting international gun crime statistics, a fallacy that is misleading to say the least). And I after watching it, I still hold the same position I held before.

Well, yes that is a good description of Moore's position, as I saw it in "Bowling for Columbine". The Canadian comparison is a large part of the thesis -- Moore seemed quite mystified at the way Canadian city-dwellers leave their doors open. Opening a few at random was a pleasant way of showing, entirely convincingly, that that really is the case and they are happy with it.

His conclusion (as I read it) was that the Canadians have enshrined some social fairness in their laws, something the US legislature strenuously avoids. For me the most telling parts of the film were the cartoon history (why WASPs are paranoid) and the revelation of Charlton Heston as a cardboard cut-out, even more toothless than the Wizard of Oz.

Unfortunately when Moore speaks of Ireland (my home) he deals in gross generalisations. Otherwise he seems to use his genuine redneck credentials to excellent effect.

Are not Canadian gun controls a lot tighter than those found in most of the USA

"and the revelation of Charlton Heston as a cardboard cut-out, even more toothless than the Wizard of Oz."

That might have something to do with the fact that he has Alzheimers. There was some controversy over this part of the film (well, quite a lot of the film but that's been documented elsewhere) since, although Heston should be made to defend what he believes in, his mental state might have made it difficult for him to answer questions as well as he might.

Yes that is true. As I recall Moore was gentle with him and his greatest 'insult' was to ask Heston whether he would like to apologise to the people of the towns he had visited shortly after a shooting incident to give his 'cold dead hands' speech. Heston appeared not to have known there had been shootings there.

All the more shame on the people who wheeled him out to give that speech.

One American's view: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1020-05.htm - more anti-NRA than anti-guns, it seems. Me, I'm anti-both.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Good article. From this side of the Atlantic (Ireland) we watch the USA with open-mouthed amazement.

Recumbent: I'd be interested to see you elucidate your point about "social fairness."

Personally, I didn't find that theme in Bowling. He seemed to blame the sensationalist media and our equally sensationalist government for keeping the American public in a constant state of fear. Scared animals aren't rational ones. And this point is one I found eye-opening and enlightening. I've never actually sat down to watch the news in another country, so I had no basis for comparison... but that the US media is sensationalist, irresponsible, and otherwise completely useless is something I've known for a long time.

I just haven't seen that it's different elsewhere, but then, my only sources outside the US have been internet articles from the BBC and the Guardian.

Happydude: It's impossible to generalize about US gun control laws, since every state has its own... and those can be superceded by local law. Some places have tighter controls than Canada, some have much, much looser.

About social fairness; it's a general impression I got from the movie. I can't quote many details, it's got to do with Moore's little interview with a black American who just felt easier in Canada, and other things in the film, for instance the horrendous poverty traps that prevent low-paid workers in the US from improving their lot. I agree he blamed the media for spreading fear, but I picked up (perhaps wrongly) the feeling that the media were doing what the right-wing (if not the government) wanted in this?

I remember seeing a report of a study into the effects of violence on TV; it seemed to say that people who watch too much TV become frightened to go out of their front door.

Horrendous poverty traps? I don't recall him spending time on poverty. Upper middle-class Columbine was used as an example that it *wasn't* a problem based on financial status.

Michael Moore may or may not have wanted to blame right-wing elements in the government for the spreading of fear, but let's not forget a Democratic president who bombed a harmless pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Both sides have been guilty of this in the past.

"Both sides have been guilty" -- agreed.

Poverty trap: wasn't there a sequence about a worker forced to spend so much time and money bussing back and forth to a distant workplace, and given so little help with childcare, that her child lost out both on education and decent human contact?

Oh, that's right. I took a different message from it. He wasn't talking so much about general poverty... he was talking about one particular work program in Michigan(?) that made people ride the bus to work uptown. The child's mother spent too much time on the bus and was neglecting her child as a result.

But I remember when that shooting hit the news. Here's the part Moore *didn't* tell you about... she had a man living in her home who was a convicted felon. A convicted felon is not allowed to own a firearm anywhere in the US. It was his illegal gun, left on the couch, that the kid brought to school.

That information would have ruined the hard-working, dedicated mom image Moore was trying to build. There was a whole lot more going on there than a misconceived work program.

Sure. I'd forgotten that was connected with a gun story.

I agree with you that "Scared animals aren't rational ones. And this point is one I found eye-opening and enlightening. I've never actually sat down to watch the news in another country, so I had no basis for comparison... but that the US media is sensationalist, irresponsible, and otherwise completely useless is something I've known for a long time."

It has been the pride of the BBC that their news was sober and informative, and Ireland has benefited from having British broadcasts to compete with; but it is getting worse here now. Sky News is satellite news that seems to be like Fox and CNN.

On the other hand an American who came to secondary school here (I was in school in the sixties) complained that the Irish news never told us where the government was putting its money; that kind of hard news was kept quiet.

"Sky News is satellite news that seems to be like Fox and CNN." - Sky News is a British affiliate of Fox. And Fox proved themselves to be absolute conservative lunatics during the last Iraq War. I got most of my news from Fox during the conflict, but now I'm better. Sky was providing Fox with a lot of their reports from the field.

A benefit of a sensationalist media is that they're always looking to break stories of government corruption, and so they spy on the government like hound dogs, desperately hoping to catch a meaty story from their plates. A close public watch on the government is the surest safeguard of liberty... though it doesn't seem to be working for us anymore.

Hello again. Yes, it's hard now to work out what the function of a government should be, and how to protect ourselves from too much or too little of it.

I think the gist of the section of Moores film was more along the lines of: Is it worth more to this country to help families look after their children than it is to force them into poverty trap jobs.

That the boy in the story was living with people who owned guns (legally or not isnt that important is it?) when the issue is the proliferation of gins and the way the US sees them. That the boy had to be looked after by other people because in the majority of the boys waking hours his mom was riding a bus to go and spend hours in low paid work. Rahter than perform the invaluable function of looking after her childs developemnet and behaviour was Moores point I think.

There were other issues that tied in, the cheapness of ammunition. This mania for the creation of wealth as with the welfare to work programme was undermining the safety of ordinary people within America.

one love

The issue of parenting is under review now. It seems that studies of siblings, adoptive siblings and separated twins point to the conclusion that the differences between people's personalities have very little to do with the parenting they have received. About 50% genes and 50% combined chance-plus-peer-group-influence is how some recent studies put it.

Quality parenting is still valuable, but only in order to be friends with your children, not to mould them to some desired personality.

Yes, Judith Rich Harris (if you want to Google for more info) says (according to my unserstanding) that parents' influence on their kids is limited to the genes they pass on to them, and the choice of where they live, which determines who they have access to to form their peer groups. Parenting has little or no effect, apparently. Bad luck for step-parents like me!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

There are some studies that need a little deeper thought than the surface facts.

Is the study just viewing parents as one whole mass. If so Id *expect* parenting to have no discernable effect. However Im sure most people can tell from the evidence of their own lives that there are differences in the standards and qualities of some parenting (whether it is biological parents or some other carer who provides the parenting).

Received wisdom is that in all but the most dire cases children are better off with their parents. I cant say that I wholeheartedly agree with all the decisions Ive seen review panels and family courts make but on the whole I agree.

Its apparent to me that the children I work with are so individual that making blanket statements like the ones you have drawn from the studies you have read is generally a good way to end up with egg on your face. Even in the face of the myriad of influences on our ever developing selves I think discounting the parental bond and influence is an extreme folly.

one love

I would agree.



If I proclaimed the utter and complete truth of such studies, I would agree. But I did no such thing.

It is my personal experience that I have had virtually no influence at all on the sort of people my (step-)sons have grown up to be. That is not to say that my parenting, however good or bad, has had no effect, or that I have no relationship with my sons.

I assume it was me you were replying to, Blicky? It's just that you seem to be accusing me of loads of things I didn't say....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"