Thoughts On "Bowling For Columbine"

I just saw Mike Moore's documentary and loved it. The central question he addresses is why do American in very large numbers kill each other with guns? While it's not altogether clear that he provides an answer, the movie is both thought provoking and entertaining. I saw it at a suburban 30 screen multiplex in the heart of Republican country (Henry Hyde's congressional district), yet surprisingly, at least to me, the screen was sold out. Why aren't there more overtly political movies?
I really liked it as well. His minor points were more interesting than his oversimplified thesis centering on fear-inducing media, but it has to be hard to cover the complexity of the issue in a couple hours. I loved the Dick Clark, Chuck Heston segments and thought the Kmart segment was amazing. Moore was on Oprah talking about reasons for amount of US homicides that were not really touched on in the film, including my fave hypothesis, the all-about-me attitude.

"Why aren't there more overtly political movies?"
That must be rhetorical.

Republiophile reactions?..
The subject is guns, so I'm hunting, not fishing.
His movies are great. Thanks for the endorsement.

Once while exiting a crowded commuter train in Perth Australia there was quite a press of people going from the platform up the escalator to exit the station. When I got to the top there stood a policeman - without a blaster. It immediately dawned on me that his job was to protect the citizens, not to kill them.
I haven't seen the documentary, so I can't comment directly on it. If it advocates gun control, then please let me know so I can avoid contributing money to the producers, by renting this film. They can talk about gun control all they want, but I don't want to help them fund their efforts.
And how would that kind policeman protect the citizens, pray tell? Call for more unarmed policemen? Organize a global economic boycott of the criminal? Or maybe suggest a few "sensitivity counseling" sessions? Oh boy!
Twl, why so quick to make the gun control assumption? The filmmaker, Mike Moore, is a long time member of the NRA and an interview with Charleston Heston is one of the highlights of the film. Moore observes that in the U.S.A. on average 11,000 people a year are killed by guns which, even adjusted for population differences, is more than 10x higher that of other Western advanced economic nations. It's not a simple question and the movie doesn't treat it as such.
This thread makes we many of us are liberal and how many are conservative? Maybe it's just because I'm a politics/policy guy in DC, but the question *does* cross my mind from time to time.
Sorry, that's just what it seemed like. When a question about this has a "killed by guns" attachment, and not just "killed by any means", there is an underlying agenda there. I contend that if somebody wants to kill, a baseball bat will do the job, if he has no access to a gun. However, if the victim has no access to a gun, he may not have the needed means to protect himself against a larger stronger attacker, armed with a bat, knife, or gun. This is especially true of women against a male attacker. And, as we well know, the firearm restriction laws are only followed by the law-abiding, therefore making them an easy, unarmed target for the criminal who, by definition, disregards these laws. Gun control is just providing "job safety" for criminals, by ensuring that their victims can't fight back.

I have liked other Michael Moorer movies, especially the one about the Waco massacre. I have reason to think that he would treat the subject fairly.

Does he do a breakdown of the demographics of these killings, and draw any conclusions based on population density, or gang-related activity? Or any conclusions about anything?

In general, I would be interested in the informtion regarding the motivation of these killers, and any other "reasons" or "stimulus" they may have for perpetrating these acts. This, to me, is a much more important topic than which type of implement is used to perform the act. Of course, a gun is a perfectly designed item for performing this activity, but millions of people seem to be able to control themselves, and not use them for this purpose, unless in self-defense. What makes these other people behave differently, is a key to this question, in my opinion.

Also, I would note that this has only occurred since the "Social Reform" activities that started in the 1960s, and suggest that the root of the problems rests there, and not in an inanimate object that is used for the crime.
I've held a concealed weapons license for many years and rarely leave the house unarmed. Never had to use it and hope I never do but I don't intend to be a victim of violent crime. Here in Florida we have plenty of it.
Thirty percent of the adults in the county where I live have a conceal carry permit. In fact, the sheriff must have a compelling reason NOT to issue such a permit by state law. Without a doubt, the criminals have guns and I'm glad that law abiding folks standing next to me are likely armed and ready to deal with the types of violence that makes world headlines. Armed robberies and such are unheard of around here. Drive-by shootings and gang killings are another story.

Aside from the drug crazed and gang turf related homicides there are a number of reasons why we kill each other so often. Our society grades the value of life on a scale with the most expendable being the very young and the very old. The unborn are devalued entirely. Check out the sentences levied upon child and elderly killers compared to those in the prime of life. Statistics prove this to be true. Mental illness is another aspect that is in this curious mix. The late 70's and early 80's saw the wholesale eviction of mental institution residents. These poor souls make up a huge percentage of the homeless with nobody monitoring their intake of necessary medications. Health insurance coverage makes mental health treatment too costly for those needing it the most. Personally I see no difference between a broken leg or a broken mind. Both need to be fixed as best they can.

Most people are a mile wide and an inch deep when it comes to thinking these issues through. Everyone seems to want the quick fix and to hell with the consequences. Consider these differences when comparing the United States with other wealthy countries: The totality of individual freedoms offered. The constant influx of immigrants. The multitude of races. The volume of different religions. The various types of political persuasions. Sexual orientations. The breakdown of the family unit. Languages....The point I'm trying to make here is that the United States is THE WORLD mixed together in this great experiment. Does it surprise anyone that really getting along is difficult and without violence?

Guns and gun owners can't be broken down by political beliefs as easily as most believe. Classic, old school Democrats and Republicans share the belief that our Constitiution gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms. As in all cases of opinion, our press provides coverage to whatever group that boosts ratings and in doing so, minor players are often given disproportionate coverage which compel the viewer to believe that their numbers are greater than they are.

I wish that critical thinking were required courses for high school graduation. It troubles me a great deal that simple solutions are offered for complex problems and gun control is a simple solution. In my day to day life I fear law enforcement more than I fear my fellow civilian. And this isn't coming from someone that is anti law enforcement. Think about it. When police exceed their authority, who investigates them? I'm uncomfortable with all the potential abuses in the Homeland Security legislation. After all, the system isn't made up of special people. They are human just like the rest of us and history has shown that police will push the enforcement envelope and trample upon the rights of the citizens. Case law is full of examples of how police have been reigned in from time to time for abusing the trust the people have placed in them. To a large extent, Homeland Security has destroyed good case law and I'm fearful that the price we are paying for perceived security is much too high.

I'm sorry to ramble on so long about this as I'm sure most have given up reading this diatribe several paragraphs earlier. To those that are fellow citizens I only ask that we consider our similarities rather than focusing on our differences. To those that are from other countries I ask that you consider some of the issues that this nation faces that no other nation on earth faces in such magnitude.
Of course the sad thing is that the USA has developed a gun culture and once that is the case then the argument(pro and anti ) is a very complicated one.
Living here in the UK I am very glad that guns either used in violence (although growing)is still relatively rare and that our police do not carry guns.
I think from reading what I've read above it's clear that American society is the poorer for the development of such a culture..............
Lugnut, nice discourse. Ben, we are both richer and poorer in different ways from every other culture -- like our hobby, there is no best. Rather, there are trade-offs and things we have to bear (at least in the short run). America's culture is relatively new and relatively immature. Plus, we are in a place where gun control is virtually impossible even were it wanted. As Lugnut suggests, it is difficult to separate causes from both good and bad effects so violence is a difficult problem to address. We would all prefer that some sub-cultures (e.g., gangs) not exist, but we are not willing to bear the cost of doing so (i.e., to our fundamental freedoms and via higher taxes). I'm optimistic so believe that, over time, many various components will come together to provide us with a less violent set of social trade-offs.
What's a "gun culture?"
Ivanj- read the threads-however if you really need me to explain-in simple terms owning a gun,guns being used in violence,guns being relatively easy to legally own and reasonably cheap to buy,a police force that requires to be armed,accidents involving guns,people who feel the need to defend themselves with guns,youths with guns,massacres with guns-none of which are unique to America but sadly much more common than arguably anywhere else in the world.
Guns are part of American culture.
I would be most interested in hearing a perspective from Thedautch since he is a politics/policy guy living in Washington, D.C. which happens to have the most restrictive gun laws in the entire country. Am I correct that D.C. still enjoys the distinction of being the most gun violent city in the country? Do the citizens of D.C. feel safer now with all the gun contol than they did prior to the newer restrictions?

These are honest questions coming from one who lives 2,000 miles away from the nations capital without benefit of being able to ask acquaintances.
Lugnut--I appreciate your request for my perspective. Basically, here's how Washington works: it's shaped like a baseball diamond, and the four quadrants are called NE, NW, SE, and SW. Northwest is almost universally safe from gun violence. That section includes white-collar working areas such as the Farragut Square area near the White House and a number of government buildings. It also includes ritzy, upscale residential areas like Dupont Circle and Georgetown. Even the more middle-class parts of NW, like Cleveland Park, are also considered quite safe.

On the other hand, there's NE, SE, and SW. When it comes to gun-related violence, anything can happen in those areas, and it often does. Here's the bottom line: the respected people in DC who have a political voice and some efficacy live in NW, and they simply ignore the gun violence because they themselves are safe. The residents in the other sections of town are largely ignored, as they are mostly poor people of color who have virtually no political power at all. Please, don't read this as some sort of black/white commentary; I'm just describing how Washington breaks down demographically and sociologically.

"As long as the killers don't come up here," the Northwesterners effectively say, "gun violence isn't even an issue."

Those who don't want to deal with it move to a suburban enclave in Virginia (or a few select parts of Maryland) and only go into the District itself for work (usually in a nice, safe part of Washington).

If there's anything else you (or anyone) would like me to address that I may have glossed over, please let me know and I'll fill you in as best as I can.
The state of Vermont has virtually no gun control laws. Any law abiding citizen who wishes to carry a gun is free to. No permit required. The result? Lowest crime rate in the country. Criminals fear armed citizens more than the police.

I appreciated your response but I really had all that figured out before. It's my understanding also that most of the guns are brought into D.C. from some neighboring states. My question is this: Given your familiarity with the situation there, the volume of weapons in individual posession, states rights, the illegal gun trade which criminals partake in and all other aspects, what is the answer? My heart goes out to the unfortunate citizens in D.C. that live that nightmare since, no matter how many bad guys there are, most of the people are just trying to get by and aren't part of THAT problem. Are the innocents better off unarmed?
Ben Campbell...I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news; but the recent steady increase in violent gun use in the UK you mention has been shown to have started; and be correlated to the new stricter gun laws in the UK. The crooks in your country can now use there guns more freely, because the honest citizen has been disarmed. Sad but true.

Also note that the strictness of a country's gun laws is inversely correlated to the freedoms its citizens have. Countries that totally ban all gun ownership are the worst (Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc...)
Thanks to all for the thoughtful responses. I started this post because I think "Bowling for Columbine" is an interesting and worthwhile film for everybody in the U.S. to see. What is so refreshing about the movie is that it actually dares to address a serious social issue. So few films today even try.
All I can tell you, Lugnut, is that most people I know, i.e., professionals who live in Northwest or the suburbs, would be *extremely* uncomfortable carrying a weapon. Most of them just don't come from a gun-oriented background. I, myself, have far too severe a temper to carry a gun. I can almost guarantee that if someone pushed me too far at the wrong time, I'd pull out the piece. I believe, and most people I know (those with whom I've had this discussion), is to just stay away from known "trouble areas", and try to keep yourself in as safe a situation as you can. Does that make us ultimately safe? Of course not. Could we still be shot in the most posh store in Georgetown? Absolutely.

But in Washington, I really think most of us feel far more threatened by weapons other than guns. If polled, most people (including me), would probably say that they would die a violent death at the hands of (in order of likelihood):

(1) Terrorist attack
(2) Bomb
(3) Gun

That's just life in Washington. We don't talk about it much, but we all (and I mean ALL) secertly believe that we could die by either of the first two means at any time, especially (1). It genuinely doesn't occur to us to worry about (3).
From reading some of these replies you could get the impression that some are proud of the gun culture in the USA.
Imho it's tragic and a massive mistake to consider it part of American freedom and I'm sorry but your argument doesn't hold water for me.
As I stated earlier I believe the situation in America is complex and now it may be close to impossible to solve.
As for the UK gun crime is on the rise but it is mostly contained within underwold assinations and yes we've been having armed robberies and gun related murder since after the war.
It's a mistake imho to consider the tightening of gun laws related to this increase as the percentage of UK citizens who wish to own guns is minimal to say the least-I would think these laws are aimed at the criminal element.
I can assure you the criminals of Britain are not running riot with guns because Joe Public hasn't got a shotgun under his bed.
Of course any increase in gun related crime is worrying to say the least.
You can use Cuba,N.Korea if you like to highlight why American freedom works but you may wonder why the whole of western Europe doesn't have the problems America has.
I think you'll find we have the same freedom Americans have.
I have never stated anywhere in my threads a pro-gun control stance but I'm afraid your idea's concerning the UK are pretty out of touch.
Does anyone remember the early scene in the movie 2001 when the ape discovers he can use a tool to kill? He's overjoyed. It then skips our intervening evolution and goes straight to the orbiting space station.

Our society will remain violent so long as the people consider violence a form of acceptable behavior. Pre-meditated killers have a knack for rationalizing their crimes. From gangland revenge to national policy - "he deserved it" - lets the bullets fly.

For some instant karma, check out Jimi Hendrix's song Machine Gun.

Your observations have merit in that most of us would love to have peace be prevelent in our lives. What I find curious however is I have personally known two British citizens that won the lottery to imigrate to the U.S. Both of these great guys are now enjoying citizenship. I met each one shortly after their arrival in Boise. The first thing they did was to buy a hand gun. They did this for the enjoyment factor, because they could and not as personal defense. One of the fellows took to riding mules in the mountains surrounding Boise and quickly took to the persona of being a "mountain man", complete with all the appropriate dress. The other fellow loves to fire his weapon at targets which was an activity so regulated at home as to be nearly impossible. Thankfully there are numerous places one can go here to partake in this pastime.

We have spent many hours discussing the differences between the United States and the U.K. One of the common observations they had made was that violent crimes against women and burglaries were much more common in the U.K. than here and both of these guys felt much safer in the states than home. They both expressed surprise that life in this country is much different than what it's portrayed to be by the media where they came from. Both of these guys loved their homeland and missed many aspects of living there but felt that living in this country offered more of everything life is about.

One of the biggest differences that they brought to my attention is that our immigration policies provide access to all peoples from all countries around the globe while the U.K. has joint citizenship as a result of expansionist policies from long ago. It's my understanding, as an example, that people form India, which was a "posession" of Great Britian, can move to the U.K. at will and this has greatly affected the "feel" of what was their home. The United States keeps it's feel because of open immigration. Granted, the feel is changing through illegal immigration, but that is another topic.

One thing struck me as very insightful coming from these two imigrants. They both instantly recognized that private gun ownership in this country ensures that our own government cannot run roughshod over the population. Of course, these guys are old enough to have studied 20th century European history shortly after it unfolded and were aware that one of the first things a corrupt government does is disarm the populace. They both recognized that even if the United States wanted to disarm the common man that it could only be done in theory. Most weapons are not registered since they were made and owned prior to such legislation. Nobody that owns one of these weapons would ever comply with turning them in.

The point I'm trying to get to is this: Our violence with guns and the deaths that occur in that fashion may be a less costly price to pay to ensure that freedom will always prevail here because of private gun ownership. Let's face it. We don't have friends in government, at least in this country. Citizens are a commodity; a natural resource. If our government really cared about we citizens (after 9/11) then we would be organized on the block level to care for one another and prevent chaos in the event of more terrorist activity. This was done during WWII but is not being done today. Why not?

The movie Brave Heart should be required viewing in all free countries since it's a fairly accurate portrayal of events of that period and should show that maintaining ones freedom is less costly than gaining ones freedom in terms of blood shed and lives lost. This is why a well armed populace is necessary once freedom is gained.

What is not discussed by Michael Moore is the accuracy of the gun death data. Many of the deaths are suicide. Many others are from police. Many are from self defense. Many are hunting related. Many are accidents. They are all rolled into one set of data to make us look as bad as possible for the purpose of disarming us. I for one am comfortable that the bureaucrats, police and elected officials can only do as much as we allow them to do.
If a heavily armed populace is an effective protection for citizens, then why in the two nations where virtually everybody is armed, Afghanistan & Isreal, are their citizens so unsafe?
Lugnut-I'm sorry but your logic defeats me.
First up Braveheart is full of historical inacurracies-I have a friend who studied history and nearly passes out at the mention of Braveheart such are the liberties taken with history-as a Scottish person I can say I truly hated the movie.
If you take your argument far enough about freedom you get terrorism,follow Irish history it'll teach you all you need to know.
That aside I cannot see that the thousands of deaths that occur in America may be a less costly price to you and your idea of freedom but to me it's a crazy logic.
As for governments disarming their citizens as a first step of control then the logic bypasses me on that one too.
America is clearly a wonderful country with much to be proud of but imho using your gun culture as a valid representation of that freedom is frankly twisted to my way of thinking.
Shooting guns as a hobby is valid but it isn't much of a big positve against all the negatives we are talking about.
America's gun culture isn't something that was planned as a pillar of freedom but rather something that developed over a long period of time and as such when it becomes part of the culture then it is absorbed into the criminal mentality.
When that happens then decent law abiding citizens and their law forces need to protect themselves.
Is that really freedom?
Seems like a kind of imprisonment to me.
Onhwy61, Afghanistan is a tribal society without ever having had a functioning government that represents all it's people. Isreal has only existed since 1948 by U.N. decree and the middle eastern tribes, right or wrong, have tried to destroy Iseal since that time.
Ben, You are correct about historical innacuracies but the overall story is true. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has been in our Constitution since 1791.....being necessary to the security of a free state indicates that this concept has been around awhile. This was the first Amendment to the U.S. Constituion which happened long after our battle for independence. We simply don't agree and I respect both your opinions and your freedom to express them.
Likewise Lugnut I respect your might have a gun.
Along with the rights granted us as United States citizens, we also have certain responsibilities to the society that grants us the freedoms we have. We need to focus on the concept of personal responsibility. We are each personally responsible, to a large degree, not only for our station in life; but also responsible for accepting the consequences of our actions. We as a culture need to stop leaning on the crutch of "victimization" and accepting the idea that we are each responsible for what we do in our living. The United States affords each of it's citizens the opportunity to achieve anything; we are only limited by our desire to achieve. If we choose another path - such as a criminal one, we must be prepared to accept personally the consequences. Too often, we put the PC spin on to explain aborhant behavior, we glorify thuggish, criminal behavior from "professional" athletes. Athletes have been given an enormous gift in their abilities. They make millions of dollars, yet we excuse their negative social behaviors because they are "victims". Until the consequences for negative behaviors are as serious (and enforced) as the rewards for positive behavior are given, personal responsibility of the individual will take a back seat to the crutch of victimization. Just my 2 cents.
Lugnut - the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill affected mostly those with delusional disorders (especially people with schizophrenia)who are not statistically more violent than the average person. Sociopaths and related MI/PDs are the more violent ones, but there was never a time when a significant number of those where kept in a mental instiutions. They have always just gone to prison.

Everyone here is armchair quarterback on this subject, which is not too surprising for an audio board. I have similar views with Ben Campbell, but its tough to say without the data in fron of me and the knowledge to interpret it.
I'm with Ben, and could not have put the arguments better. Slipknot also raises a good point. The US has become a nation of people with wide ranging rights, but apparently no responsibilities. The Bush administration demonstrates this on an international level.

I think it's high time we removed all barriers to immigration between Europe and the US and let people vote with their feet.
Sean, what country do you live in?
I'm for anyone that wants to leave this country, to go on, and get out. We have enough problems without having to put up with the whining of those that don't want to be here. Unfortunately, we get stuck with the Alec Baldwin types who whine incessantly about how they will leave if just one more American right is retained, and then they don't leave, they stay here and whine some more.

Regarding allowing unlimited immigration/emigration between the US and Europe, why not? After all there is no limitation on immigration from Mexico, is there? They don't even need passports. They just come in, and nobody says anything about it until voting time, and then the government does a mass-citizenship of all illegals so they can all vote. Seems to me that Europeans should get at least equal treatment in that regard. How come they don't?

And as far as people from the UK not understanding how we could be so attached to our Constitutional rights, well that's because we are Americans and you're not. We have this peculiar desire to try to keep what we fought for, even though the politicians are doing their damndest to give it away. And you may be interested to know that many/most Americans consider politicians to be little or nothing more than criminals in suits.
Lugnut I am a British citizen who has been living in California for 5 years. I'm moving back to the UK next year, and may go to live in mainland europe shortly thereafter. I prefer the european quality of life, but each to his/her own.
Twl ... Americans consider politicians to be criminals in suits ? That's not what I see. From what I see the american people are being completely hoodwinked by a powerful political / industrial / media complex that is creating a powerful class system in what was supposed to be a meritocracy. I'd say the average european voter is much more skeptical of government, and rightly so.

If I really believed you then Nader would be president right now. The only guy who tells it like it is.

I think we'd better get back to hifi before fights break out !
Sean, alot more Americans know what is going on than many might think. The problem is that it is not really known what to do about it. It is a very sticky problem, and all the "normal" roads to the solution have been cleverly blocked or subverted by the people you refer to. It leaves only some very unsavory options, which most Americans seem unwilling to consider at this time. The cabal of power that you refer to, is real, and has consolidated itself deep into the governing structure, media, education, and industry, just as you say. When they are in that deep, just how do we get them out? They certainly are not going to give up willingly. This is a dilemma that ultimately will have to be dealt with, but it is not a pretty picture. Many of the "police state" measures being taken right now, are not intended to control terrorists, but are intended to control opposition to the inevitable "tightening of the grip" that is coming. Alot of us feel it, but how do you stop it? There is always a "plausible reason" accompanying these measures, in order to calm the fears of "the herd". But even "the herd" is starting to notice that no terrorists are being caught, and alot of rights are going out the window. Once the "security force" is in place, how will anyone oppose it? I'm sure that many Europeans recognize the dance, as the same one that was played in the 1930s. Heaven help us.

I figured that you were a British citizen. So, let's want open borders between Europe and the U.S.? You're also going back to the U.K. and later plan on living in mainland Europe. So, if people vote with their feet you'll have plenty of elbow room where you're going to live. Pretty self-serving.

Also, if you have lived in California for the last five years you have a left coast view of this nation. I urge you to visit the heartland before you go. Many of us do not take the gifts bestowed upon us by our founders for granted.

Twl is correct that the wickedness is deeply entrenched in our institutions. Rooting out the bad guys and turning this nation around will happen only when the government has gone too far. Ralph Nader was not the answer and a European ideal isn't either. This country belongs to we the people and I'm reasonably confident that we will prevail.
In a multiplex filled with remakes of remakes or stories based upon comics, "Bowling For Columbine" stood out as movie willing to tackle a serious socio-political issue. While I truly appreciate everyone's participation in this thread and find all of the positions and particularly the passion behind those postions most enlightening, I would prefer that we get back to the subject of politically oriented movies. WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE POLITICAL OR ISSUE ORIENTED MOVIE? My vote goes to "The Godfather II". It's a searing indictment of the corroding effect of unrestrained capitalism on the family unit. As FFC said, "Micheal is America." My second place vote goes to "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". The townspeople get together and vote for statehood while their representative questions the true price of law and order. It stars John Wayne, Jimmie Stewart and Lee Marvin.
The current Forbes magazine has a list of inaccurate things that are in that Michael Moore movie.
I see my point on the UK gun laws was missed. It is not the level of gun violence between the UK and USA; it is the simple fact that the new laws in the UK have had no effect on the level of gun violence in the UK. The law will end up hurting more than is helps because the crooks already could care less if they use an illegal gun to commit an illegal act.

If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

Same as the new security measures at US airports. They are silly and only give the illusion of more safety.
Sugarbrie-I'm no expert on the changes on gun laws but I do know there was massive campaigning for changes when the Dunblane(Scotland) tragedy happened about 8 years ago.
This was when a maniac with a LEGAL gun permit shot and murdered some 17 or so children in their class room-all younger than 12 years old.
There was a massive public backlash and gun law reform was demanded.
I think I'm right in saying the two major gun massacres in UK history were carried by individuals with legal gun permits.

Of course you are right,the criminals will always have the upper hand .
You are right too that the gun law reforms will not totally stop the rise of gun related crime.
I'm also aware that the rise of gun related crime will change public opinion and sadly inevitably how we police this and eventually the time may come when people demand the right to defend themselves.
However we are simply not at this stage in the UK and imho the gun laws are being changed to prevent the growth and ease in which people can own guns-it's not the crux of the matter but it may be an important element in preventing a gun culture developing.
The key to me is stopping the criminals before things get out of hand.
I also want to make it clear to the likes of TWL that I neither underestimate American's pride in it's constitutions nor think the UK is perfect.
This is my last words on this and I'll try to answer Onhwy61's political movies question..
Onhwy61, I'd vote for two Peter Sellers flicks: Dr. Strangelove and Being There. The latter was an exceptional film I would put in a top ten list. It is a fine indictment of the political system as being very skewed to those who look the part and points out how much even the crudest, most basic common sense is lacking among those in the media eye.