klenke

I agree, j_b, the administration should have never used the statistics to conclude we were winning the war on terrorism. That was dumb. The statistics don't tell the whole story. Besides, within wars there are battles and lulls. During lulls, strategies are formulated. Just because you're not battling it doesn't mean the war is over. The drop in statistics could have merely meant the war was in a lull, not that the war was swaying one way or the other. Oh, and ChucK, I didn't make up that glaucoma stat. Here is the source.

That's true, Josh. That may have worked too. Or it may not have (you could find the Iraqis looking a lot like the average impoverished North Korean). Who knows? You could say that, had we imposed more sanctions on Iraq, the Iraqis would have eventually had a civil war to depose Hussein. It might have taken four more years for them to get to that point but it would have saved billions of US$ and US-lives. Add to this that the Iraqis would be turning their anger inward to themselves and the ruling goverment instead of outward to us and the Western world. A civil war in Iraq is what we may get anyway...but with the added detriment of Arab hatred toward Americans. All their hatred toward us is missplaced and misguided. It is easy to blame the West. It is hard to blame and be active against the regime that controls you within your borders (e.g., Iran). If they want to ameliorate their lives, they need to enact their own regime changes and create democracies. Should we help to this end or should we be isolationists? Hard to say. One thing's for sure, we need to get off (seriously reduce) our dependency on oil so we can say "fuck 'em and their oil." I wish this could happen overnight, but sadly, it cannot. It will take initiative and time, neither of which we currently have in the U.S..

I think the statistics themselves don't really mean a whole lot. You have to place the statistics in context. Sure, the numbers were revised to capture more Western deaths, more terrorist incidents, but what does it really mean? There is no standard that says XX-many events over YY-timeframe means we are losing the war or winning the war. Whether or not we are winning or losing the war has more to do with public opinion and how at ease the public is with those events. Example of how statistics mean nothing when supporting info is not given (to us): "Doctors have determined that surfing on cc.com results in a 20% increase in the probability that users will develop glaucoma." Do you see the problem with this? This is all they ever tell you on the news. The 20% value doesn't tell you anything in the absense of supporting data, as in what is the initial rate from which the increase begins? How does this risk measure up against other risk factors? My point: with the terrorist act numbers changing as little as they have (not orders of magnitude changes but percentage changes) there is no way to conclude one way or the other what this really means at all, much less as to winning or losing. And you know you can't compare the rate over the last three years worth of terrorist events to the rate from 20 years ago or whenever. Today's world is different than then. There were other issues back then that affected our lives too but they weren't terrorism.

Yeah, that's right Gary, the terrorists just devise their plans in Canada then cross the border into the U.S. to do their dirty work. Remember the guy who got caught trying to smuggle bombs destined for LAX through Blaine? That was Ahmed Ressam. Like it or not, Canada is in this with the rest of the Western World. Also, regarding Iraq and the War on Terror, it could be legitimately argued that, had Bush not gone into Iraq to remove Saddam, the terrorists could have used Iraq to train and recruit anyway. No one knows for sure what could have happened in an alternate scenario (an alternate universe).

No. We can't conclude anything.

Okay, folks. Yes indeed. Whatever you say. Indubitably. They're all in error. Hey, this is how errors become propogated through histroy anyway. Nelson didn't do his homework. And you know Smoot never does his homework. Beckey referred to it as Thompson in his 1st Edition, 2nd Printing (1979) but added, "The peak was named for Seattle city engineer R. H. Thomson, who is apparently not remembered by a correct spelling." Note that current USGS maps have the correct spelling (as depicted in Topozone). Consider this a warning to Lampbone. Shape up or ship out. Edit: I looked at Lambone's picture. Not the same mountiain. The correct pronunciation for Goode is with a silent 'e' but it is often referred to in voice with a long 'e'. I say it as the latter only to make sure people know I'm referring to the mountain and not the word 'good'. I can justify my erroneous usage by saying that it is akin to nicknaming. Spelling errors in writing, as Thomson above, are more important to get right, though.

Huh? Mtnnut, I don't understand. A true documentary is absent of bias. It seeks only to document events from a position of objectivity. If objectivity is difficult, then the documentarian should attempt to present the subject from both sides' angles. That is, he/she should not just present the story from one point of view. If he/she chooses only one point of view, he/she is not allowing us (or wanting us) to make up our own mind. He/she has moved into the realm of making a propaganda film. There IS a difference. Most assuredly there is. Addenda: based on glacier's quote above (from The Slate), even Moore appears to understand F911 is not a documentary but an Op-Ed Piece.

Please note: The correct spelling for this peak is Mt. Thomson. The version with the 'p' is an error. Let's quit propogating the spelling error here and now.

Ah, j_b, it's about time you showed up. Yes, you are right and Ebert says as much in the article (Stonehead's link). When the movie industry started 90+ years ago there was no sense of awards and genres were just then being created. The first Academy Awards for documentaries were given in 1941. What was the definition of a documentary back then? Has it changed from now to then? If an Academy Award for Best Propaganda Film had been created at some time back then, then we may indeed have a distinction between documentary and propaganda. My contention--and it is merely my contention (you can agree or disagree)--is that there is a difference between an objective film and a subjective film. Moore's films are the latter, this we can all agree on. An objective film ought to have its own name and the name I am giving it is documentary. Over the course of years, objectivity has lost out to subjectivity mostly because, without the emotional appeal of the latter, the former results in ennui to those who watch. I'll be the first to admit Ken Burns documentaries bore the shit right out of my bowels. BTW, I do plan on seeing F911. I've said before I liked Roger and Me but I don't remember why (it's been many years); I was yes & no on BforColumbine; we'll see on F911. However, I always start off skeptical first. I don't assume anything ahead of time. This is merely my way of trying to maintain objectivity. This skepticism would be just important to me if I was watching an NRA propaganda film.

And yet even Ebert understands himself and the point--the same point I'm trying to make in response to Beck: Quoted from last paragraph of Stonehead's link: I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems. Ebert's political views have already tainted him. He will assume the "facts" Moore presents are real or straight ahead of time and go from there. He is not taking the skeptical approach because he already believes as Moore does and therefore will initially take his side. Ebert cannot be an objective juror. Can any of us? Maybe some Amish person who knows nothing of the exterior world outside of his/her village. Interesting thought: do Amish people have to pull jury duty?

Webster's: documentary: of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature; broadly: FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a ~ film of the war.> Key word: Objective. propaganda: 2. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect. You decide which you think Moore's film is. Like I've said before, he makes a meld of documentary and propaganda. I say this because he is not strictly objective in his methodology or his reasoning. The moment he stops being strictly objective is the moment he is no longer making a pure documentary. I have seen "Triumph of the Will" but not "Olympia" (thanks for the reminder on the latter). Both are propaganda films. Any propaganda film looks like a documentary--especially for historians many years later. TofW was definitely propaganda in Riefenstahl's intent. She was employed specifically by Hitler to make the film. Probably the same is true for Olympia. They came out within a year of each other (1935 and 1936). Roger Ebert is right but wrong. He is applying a broad definition to any film that is not your standard plot driven vehicle like 85% of films that get made for the general populace. It is unfortunate that propaganda films have to be placed within the documentary genre for purposes of cataloging, recognition, and awards, but that is as it is. Plus, I'm pretty sure Ebert is a liberal (this is standard for most people of artistic professions, of which the film industry fits). If he's liberal, then he'll be more apt to take the film as TRUTH, and therefore OBJECTIVE, and therefore, a DOCUMENTARY.

"Or should these be dismissed because they don't fit YOUR version of reality?" You answered my questions exactly as I would expect anyone to answer them, which is essentially that you do not know for sure what the real truth is. None of us do. I'm not saying Moore is incorrect; I'm not saying he is correct. Every left-winger just wants him to say what they already believe. Every right-winger already expects it's all bullshit. It's equivalent to how it is desired (by the judge and justice in general, not by the lawyers for either side) that jurors not have any preconceived notions about a trial's subject for fear they will not be able to weigh the facts objectively. Our preconceived notions about Moore and/or Bush's policies concerning 9/11 have already tainted us. It is hard to be objective...and not be a stoic bore. It's hard. I'm tired. It's old. Blah blah.

"First documentary to win Palm D'Or since Jaques Cousteau's undersea movie from the sixties." It is NOT a documentary. Know this. Understand this. Then go see the movie. You say Moore is spot on based on the trailers. But why do you say this? What is your basis for this? It is because it jives with what you already believe or think you know. Just as a right-winger would say Moore is way off the mark with the trailer, so too you would say he is spot on. You want it to be true, and therefore it IS true for you. And so it goes and so it goes.

I'm going here almost every day for the rest of my life. I'll be pulling plastic too--the plastic flush lever. I can't wait.

Moore makes what could be considered a melding of documentary and propoganda. You might consider him a 'propodocumentarian' or a 'docugandist'. Moore does not make pure documentaries. Don't fool yourself thinking he does. Once you come to grips with this, you can then realize that what he is presenting is not truth but a spin on the truth. Only God knows the truth. Because, after all, the court of public opinion is not concerned with pure truth (logic) but emotion--how the truth thus presented affects them. If you're one who already hates the Bush Administration (are a left-wing democrat), what Moore says in F911 will resonate with you. If you are one who likes the Bush Administration (are a right-wing republican), you will think F911 bunk. Your preconceived notions going into the movie will shape your opinion of it coming out.

Click here then select an Oregon National Forest. On a specific Oregon forest page, the info you want (trail conditions, etc.) may be given. At the very least, a phone number you can call will be supplied. For Southern Washington, you probably want Gifford-Pinchot National Forest. Other than that, you're on your own.

Re: Bradbury v. Moore The way I calclulate it, Moore has got Bradbury beat on this one: 4 + 5 + 1 = 10 but 9 + 1 + 1 = 11. Sorry, Ray.

If I can find balloon carcasses in the middle of nowhere all the time (found two last Saturday), then it seems reasonable that the crampons might be found some day. Might be all rusty by the time they're found, though. Besides, though it seems improbable, climbers often follow the same route through brush (the path of least resistance) whether there's a tread or not.

My #1 goal in life is to stick-clip 5.2 bolts.

That's a funny reminder for me since that movie is currently sitting on top of my TV waiting to be watched. "I want my Swingline."

It struck me that Tide probably makes a killing selling its bleach detergent over there. Four settings on Arab washers: Whites Whiters Whiter than Whites Whiter than Whitests

Definitely a new way to go in the "Ways to Go" book. But I think the armored Caterpillar guy in Colorado has him beat. New chapters being written for both of them.

For Dru: Animated Satellite I'm glad I opted out of my plan for this afternoon to climb up to Dock Butte about 8 miles south of Mt. Baker. As you can see, I'd be getting wet right now.

Must be some peculiar regional dialect you're hearing - maybe Cape Breton Island, or the Avalon Peninsula. Everywhere I've ever lived it's pronounced "abowt", unless it's being spoken by an American comedian making fun of how American comedians pronounce it "aboot". Hmmm, you must live in a vacuum. I probably hear Canadians say "aboot 30-40 times a year. And I'm not the only one. Only comedians saying it that way? My ass! It's not a big deal to me, just a way of lightly making fun of Canadians, kind of like calling them canucks or coneheads. I have a number of Canadian friends working here in the Seattle area. Although they try and successfully do say it about, I still hear them say it their old aboot way on occassion. Technically speaking, this is correct. But no-one outside of Toronto pays any attention, and there's no consensus on Toronto truly being part of Canada, either. It lies within our borders, but that's about where the relationship ends. The operative words here being "used to be..." and "...since moved to Memphis." Case in point. Why did they move to Memphis? It sure wasn't to get away from the huge mobs of over-zealous fans. I was just poo-pooing your sentence "However, being a discerning bunch, Canadians quickly realized that it's a profoundly stupid game and have never really given it much thought since." Although I realize you were probably being facetious, I thought I'd call you on it anyway.

2) the only people who says things like "aboot" are Americans who seem to think it makes them sound like Canadians. No-one knows where this delusion originated, but it's well entrenched now so we're probably stuck with it. Huh? We Americans say it as "aboot" because that's what it sound like you guys are saying. It's joking around based on a phonetic reality. 3) Basketball was in fact invented by a Canadian - James Naismith - so those archeologists would quite easily recognise what those things were. However, being a discerning bunch, Canadians quickly realized that it's a profoundly stupid game and have never really given it much thought since. Uh, isn't there a NBA team in Canada? The Toronto Raptors. Furthermore, there used to be the Vancouver Grizzlies, since moved to Memphis.