BOWLING FOR BALONEY
23 November 2004
By Larry Swickard
Part of what I hope to accomplish in this series on Hollywood film maker Michael Moore is to expose the fact that his work is no more than leftist agitprop masquerading as legitimate social commentary. Moore apparently believes the end justifies the means. Because of this, he evidences no qualms about employing distortions, splicing together different parts of speeches to put into the mouths of his villains (the gun owning public) words they never uttered, and whole-sale lies. Hence, my label of "fraudumentaries" for his films. My second goal is to compel people to spend less time in front of the boob tube and more in researching the facts when it comes to political propaganda masquerading as cinema.
As I wrote in the two previous segments, Moore is a public expression of what many on the left think about gun-owners and Middle-America. Moore loves to tell his foreign audiences that "Americans are the dumbest people on the planet." He recently declared, "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or the 'enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen and their numbers will grow. . . they will win" (Wayne LaPierre, "Standing Guard," American Hunter, No. 9, September, 2004, p-10). One can only surmise that it is with great sorrow Moore contemplates the not too distant future passing of another great humanitarian and champion of democracy, Fidel Castro.
In Part Two of this series, I ended with David Hardy's powerful and unimpeachable point by point dissection of Moore's film Bowling For Columbine. Attorney and author Hardy's work demonstrates that Moores strung together lies, distortions, and premeditated deceptions, presented as fact, to create a film divorced from any semblance of reality. Remember, Hollywood bestowed on this film an award for Best Documentary (For more on Moore, I highly recommend the book, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, by David T. Hardy & Jason Clarke, New York, N.Y., Regan Books, An Imprint of Harper Collins, Publishers, 2004). In Part three I want to pick up with how Moore stooped to using the tragic murder of a young girl as a prop to continue his crusade against the N.R.A., Middle America, and you.
In February of 2000, six year old Kayla Rolland was murdered at school by a classmate in Mt. Morris Michigan, north of Flint. Moore then depicts an NRA rally at Flint and declares in his film Bowling, "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint to have a pro-gun rally" ("Truth About Bowling For Columbine, at
www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling, and see also, Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, David T. Hardy, pp. 72-76). Moore's point is that after two tragic shootings of kids, the NRA and an insensitive Heston callously responded by rushing to both locations (Denver and Flint) to rub salt into open wounds by holding a pro-gun rally. As I demonstrated in Part Two, the NRA rally in Denver had been planned years in advance of the Columbine murders and corporate law would not allow cancelation of an annual member's meeting. In addition, although Heston and NRA officials issued statements to denounce the murders and console the victims, Moore edited these out of his film and substituted fictitious and heartless sounding statements that he created by splicing together parts of speeches made by Heston at two different cities a year apart. Moore's pattern of deceit was no different in Flint.
Kayla Rolland was murdered on 29 February, 2000. The NRA's Flint rally, featuring speeches by Charlton Heston, was held on 17 October, 2000 a full eight months later! The NRA was actually in Michigan as part of a get out the vote drive for Texas Governor and presidential candidate George W. Bush. In fact, anti-Second Amendment presidential candidate Al Gore was campaigning in the same area at about the same time as George Bush. Not only that, Michael Moore was himself in the Flint area stumping for his candidate Ralph Nader (hardylaw.net, p-4). Moore depicts the Heston Flint speech in a rapid sequence over 40 seconds to hide his deception. First, the camera shows Moore comforting Kayla's elementary school principal. In the background one can hear Heston's voice intoning, "From my cold dead hands" which he never said at Denver or Flint. Hardly states that when the camera pans to Heston's Flint speech, he is saying that "...freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense." The impression created by Moore is Heston's plea is urgent, in response to Kayla's murder, rather than in relation to the presidential election (hardylaw.net, p-4). In fact, just as he falsely stated in Bowling that Heston rushed to Denver in response to the Columbine massacre, Moore claims that Heston came to Flint in response to Kayla's murder to have a big pro-gun rally which is a lie (hardylaw.net, p-4). Moore then claims that prior to coming to Flint, Heston was interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya University student newspaper about Kayla's death. The camera pans to an image of the Hoya with highlights on the words of the reporter who mentions Kayla and then on Heston's name but not his response. Moore's intended impression is to hammer home his claim that Heston rushed to Flint in response to Kayla's murder even though the rally was eight months after her murder. In addition, Moore claims in his film Bowling that Kayla's murder was discussed on Heston's "...own NRA" webpage. The next image in Moore's film is of an NRA webpage with the text stating "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead," highlighted. Again, Moore's desired effect is to create the impression that 48 hours after Kayla's murder Heston and the NRA rushed to Flint for their rally instead of eight months later (hardylaw.net, p-5). The camera then pans to a group of protestors featuring a woman with a "Million Moms March" T-shirt who is expressing shock and anger that Heston came to Flint which in her opinion was the same as rubbing their face in Kayla's murder. David Hardy notes that one movie reviewer claimed that Heston and the NRA held their rally only 48 hours after six year old Kayla was murdered. Another reviewer asserted that Heston had rushed to Denver and Flint following the massacre of innocent children (hardylaw.net, p-5). These were probably reviewers whose own political agendas clouded their judgment and objectivity. . . something Dan Rather knows all about.
As already explained, Heston's speech and the NRA rally came eight months after Kayla's murder, had nothing to do with it, and was part of a presidential get out the vote drive. When the student reporter for the Georgetown Hoya asked Heston about Columbine and Kayla Rolland, he responded only about Columbine because he may not even have been familiar with the Rolland case. Heston's webpage is actually the official NRA webpage. Moore's camera zoomed in and spotlighted only part of a sentence. What the sentence really stated was "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on the Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, 'Maybe this tragic death will help." The statement had nothing to do with the NRA, Heston, or the NRA rally which makes sense because it was still eight months in the future (hardylaw.net, pp. 5-6)! Moore had selectively edited and spliced film to invent a wholly fictitious chain of events and circumstances. .. . and this is "documentary" Hollywood?
Moore's film next depicts Moores' infamous interview with Charlton Heston that many have likened more to an ambush. Moore's interview takes place at Heston's home. It quickly becomes apparent that Heston's recollection of his speech at Flint is sketchy at best. This possibly stemmed from the fact that Heston's Flint appearance was part of a nine stop speaking tour that covered three states in three days. Moore accuses Heston of being insensitive for coming to Flint directly after Kayla's murder. He says Heston should apologize to the community. Heston, caught off guard, didn't recall during the interview that eight months separated the murder and the rally. But Moore was fully aware of this cowardly deception commonly referred to as a "sucker-punch." It only gets worse.
Following the lout's ambush of Heston, Moore then continues with an animated sequence equating the NRA with the Ku Klux Klan! Moore notes that the NRA was founded in 1871 the same year the Klan was banned as an illegal terrorist organization. His film then depicts a cartoon Klansman, white sheet and hood, morphing into the NRA and an NRA member helping to burn a cross (hardylaw.net, pp. 6-7). Is this not craven slander at its worst!
Moore's message is not subtle. When the Klan was outlawed, they simply formed a new organization called the National Rifle Association. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by an act of the New York State Legislature at the request of former Civil War Union officers. The Klan had been founded in 1866 not 1871. The year 1871 was when the U.S. government declared the Klan illegal. Congress empowered the President of the United States to use federal troops to suppress the Klan. The Klan Act and Enforcement Act was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. The Union General turned President pursued the Klan vigorously and his troops made 5,000 arrests. When Ulysses S. Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him their eighth president! When Grant's term ended, the NRA elected former Union General Philip Sheridan as their next president. General Sheridan had removed the Governors of Texas and Louisiana for failing to suppress the KKK. In fact, the NRA was founded by former Union officers and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans! Even more enlightening is the fact that during the 1950s and 1960s, Black Americans organized NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles from the government to protect themselves from the Klan (hardylaw.net, pp. 6-7)! But none of the these facts fit with Moore's propaganda hatchet job so he conveniently ignored and replaced them with fabrications and lies. In Part Four, I will conclude with an examination of Moore's perfidy.
