Two Books the Anti-Bush Left Aren't Going to Like...

[Kodiak]

The Connection by Stephen F. Hayes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1)


Inside The Asylum by Jed Babbin (http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6506)

Will the Anti-Bushies read either of these, or will these books only end up preaching to the choir?

[Hutch]

Welll....

Given the section quoted from "The Connection" says that "The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before" (which it then excuses by saying well, of course the records aren't always that perfect) and then goes on to create a chain of dubious connections (he "acted like he had been trained by the Iraqi Secret Service?") and old quote's we have heard before--and nothing regarding the 9-11's conclusions--I must doubt that there is much new there.

And as for "Inside the Asylum", when a blurb for a book begins with a wowser of an ad hominem:

Democrats believe that America's national security and foreign policy should be made subservient to the United Nations and Old Europe

and are then followed up by these reasoned statements:

Tears the cover off.......

...he demostrates beyond all doubt.....

...only America is unwilling to kowtow to tryanny and terrorism....


well, perhaps I am biased, but my BS meter goes way into the red when I see that type of horse-fecal matter used for advertising someone's work--of any political persuasion.

You'll have to do better than that, old Ursus conservatis..

;)

[Cain]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The Connection by Stephen F. Hayes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1)

This guy was interviewed by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show". I don't think a guest has ever come so close to crying. I felt sorry for the guy, getting flayed on television and all.

But it doesn't matter, right? We went in to liberate the Iraqi people.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch
Welll....

Given the section quoted from "The Connection" says that "The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before" (which it then excuses by saying well, of course the records aren't always that perfect) and then goes on to create a chain of dubious connections (he "acted like he had been trained by the Iraqi Secret Service?") and old quote's we have heard before--and nothing regarding the 9-11's conclusions--I must doubt that there is much new there.

And as for "Inside the Asylum", when a blurb for a book begins with a wowser of an ad hominem:


and are then followed up by these reasoned statements:


well, perhaps I am biased, but my BS meter goes way into the red when I see that type of horse-fecal matter used for advertising someone's work--of any political persuasion.

You'll have to do better than that, old Ursus conservatis..

;)

I make no excuses for the webcites I linked. They are both trying to sell the book. I only presented these sites as a point of reference. I have as yet read neither book, though I plan on reading both. The only parts I found interesting were the parts taken directly from the books themselves.

I am just curious to know if people opposed to Bush, his policies, and the wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq will either ignore or automatically "poo-poo" these books, or read them (with some skepticism sure) without prejudgement - in effect whether or not they are willing to challenge their beliefs, something this forum, and even all of JREF, value very highly.

[Jocko]

I wonder how many people who pooh-pooh any and all Michael Moore ciritcism from those who haven't seen F9/11 yet will be willing to hold their peace until they've read these two books.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cain


This guy was interviewed by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show". I don't think a guest has ever come so close to crying. I felt sorry for the guy, getting flayed on television and all.

But it doesn't matter, right? We went in to liberate the Iraqi people.

No! You're absolutely right, Cain! It doesn't matter!

The author was "flayed" on TV by a comedian! OF COURSE THAT MAKES EVERYTHING IN HIS BOOK COMPLETELY WRONG!! :nope: :rolleyes:


Thanks Cain, for proving a very important point...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jocko
I wonder how many people who pooh-pooh any and all Michael Moore ciritcism from those who haven't seen F9/11 yet will be willing to hold their peace until they've read these two books.

They had better. While my past experience with Moore and his films, as well as the myraid negative criticisms by critics and pundits make me very skeptical, I'll reserve judgememt until I've seen the film myself.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Inside The Asylum by Jed Babbin (http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6506)

Will the Anti-Bushies read either of these, or will these books only end up preaching to the choir?
No and yes respectively:
The UN Security Council: how this grouping -- supposedly the world's strongest force for peace -- is interested only in tying down the U.S. and making any American action taken without UN permission illegitimate in the eyes of the world
[...]
The Security Council's willful blindness to feverish efforts by Iran and other rogue states to develop nuclear weapons
[...]
The principal weakness of the EU -- and why the United States should expect no friendship or help from this Frankenstein-like conglomeration of states
Despite their pretensions to superiority, says Babbin, the United Nations and the European Union are morally bankrupt - and increasingly determined in their opposition to the true leader of the free world, the United States.
That's four reasons I won't be diverting my whisky money towards this book...

[varwoche]

I for one have little doubt these books are lies, slander, and propoganda. I haven't read them, don't intend to, nor did I follow the dumbass link.

(Don't want to dispel any of these pre-conceived notions afterall.)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by varwoche
I for one have little doubt these books are lies, slander, and propoganda. I haven't read them, don't intend to, nor did I follow the dumbass link.

(Don't want to dispel any of these pre-conceived notions afterall.)

They aren't pre-conceived, as evidenced by your continued behavior and tactics on this forum of which your post above is only a single example...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BillyTK

No and yes respectively:

That's four reasons I won't be diverting my whisky money towards this book...

Fair enough. Thanks for the response. So being in disagreement with a few sentences or a single phrase is enough for you to disregard the entire book before its been read?

[glee]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I am just curious to know if people opposed to Bush, his policies, and the wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq we either ignore or automatically "poo-poo" these books, or read them (with some skepticism sure) without prejudgement - in effect whether or not they are willing to challenge their beliefs, something this forum, and even all of JREF, value very highly.

Who are these people 'opposed to Bush and the wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq'?

There was real international support for the military action in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was believed to be hiding there, and there was plenty of evidence that Al-Qaeda camps were there too.
It is sad that the Taliban are now making a comeback there, but there was no problem with the US seeking the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

By contrast, before invasion, Iraq was already under heavy investigation for weapons of mass destruction. Remember that was the only reason presented to the UN for the US to invade. Not a word about Saddam being a violent dictator, nor establishing democracy, nor any connection to 9/11.
Meanwhile, before agreeing to military action, the UK Parliament was assured by Tony Blair that:

- Saddam had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
- Saddam had mass destruction missiles aimed at UK bases in Cyprus
- Saddam was developing a nuclear weapon with uranium from Africa

And so the Iraq invasion took place without UN approval. No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found, the missiles didn't exist and the uranium connection was a forgery.
Tony Blair has never apologised for his war speech and instead exhorts us to 'move on and not keep looking back'.

The depressing events in US-run Iraqi prisons bring shame upon a great country, as does the continuing blatant disregard for human rights in Guantanamo Bay.

Next the so-called 'war on terror'.
Is this like the 'war on drugs'?
Is the US winning?
Who is the enemy, and how do we know when we win?
Is detention without trial, and torture, going to last till we 'win'?

Finally I despise Saddam and all his works. I wish the US had not installed him in the first place, and that Rumsfeld had not sold him the weapons of mass destruction Saddam used to kill vast numbers in the Iran-Iraq war.
Having said that, look at the way Saddam is being tried.
The US invades Iraq, and sets up an un-elected Governing Council. This body passes a law solely aimed at prosecuting Saddam, then disbands. What sort of justice is this?
Why won't Saddam be tried under internationally-agreed war crimes legislation? Presumably because the US won't sign up to it.

Have I made any mistakes in the above?
Do these books address any of the issues above?

Just to summarise - I think Bush is a terrible President who is making allies of the US feel ashamed.

[DavidJames]

Will the Anti-Bushies read either of these, or will these books only end up preaching to the choir? Check out the Moore the Fool thread if you want to locate people who prefer to criticize something w/o seeing it. Looks like you've got your directions backwords :)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jocko
I wonder how many people who pooh-pooh any and all Michael Moore ciritcism from those who haven't seen F9/11 yet will be willing to hold their peace until they've read these two books.

Well, when they offer the argument that their whiskey money is too precious to them to see in the pockets of a possible right wing polemicist, we can tell them to go straight to their public library and check it out.

If I had the option to do such a thing where F911 is concerned I'd have already done it. But, there is no option NOT to enrich Mr. Moore as one investigates his "art". Therefore I feel no need, no curiosity, and no ambiguously burning desire to see this film. The very thought brings on early, yet unmistakable pangs of boredom.

-z

[Mel]

How is it possible for Americans OR the int'l community to still trust the Bush administration when they have repeatedly shown they are willing to manipulate the truth & even the law when it serves their purposes?

How can any book restore our faith in this wretched administration?

[TillEulenspiegel]

As neither author was a quantity I was aware of , so I looked up same

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer for The American Spectator, a right wing bird cage liner owned by Mr.Fair and Balanced himself Rupert Murdoch

Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush Administration and now often appears as a talking warhead on MSNBC. He is a contributing writer to The American Spectator
A slightly more erudite right wing publication.

Neither of these facts alone make what they write incorrect, but on the bullsiht scale it's like asking James Carville for an analysis of the Bush administration or Yasser Arafat about the finer points of rabbinical law.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Neither of these facts alone make what they write incorrect

No, what you should have said was "Neither of these facts affect the accuracy or veracity of either book in any way, and can only serve as a fallacious means of discrediting what is written without actually refuting any of the data, claims, premises, or conclusions made by either of the authors."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Check out the Moore the Fool thread if you want to locate people who prefer to criticize something w/o seeing it. Looks like you've got your directions backwords :)

Not I. While I've criticized Moore and all of his previous works, I'm skeptical of F9/11, but have withheld judgement until I see the film for myself.

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Cain


This guy was interviewed by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show". I don't think a guest has ever come so close to crying. I felt sorry for the guy, getting flayed on television and all.


I saw that too. I'd never seen Stewart rip into someone like that before. He's usually very fair to right wing guests.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No! You're absolutely right, Cain! It doesn't matter!

The author was "flayed" on TV by a comedian! OF COURSE THAT MAKES EVERYTHING IN HIS BOOK COMPLETELY WRONG!! :nope: :rolleyes:

Thanks Cain, for proving a very important point...

Jesus Christ, calm down. I saw the author on television, he was asked difficult questions, and didn't do a convincing job of defending his point of view. In fact he did a miserable job. It felt very uncomfortable. I never came close to saying or implying that this encounter "MAKES EVERYTHING IN HIS BOOK COMPLETELY WRONG!!"

and...

Oh my God, Stewart is a comedian! That's certainly not a charge one could level at (oh, say) Bill O'Reilly's Peabody award winning work (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/30/1448200&mode=thread).

[glee]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Not I. While I've criticized Moore and all of his previous works, I'm skeptical of F9/11, but have withheld judgement until I see the film for myself.

A fair response!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
As neither author was a quantity I was aware of , so I looked up same

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer for The American Spectator, a right wing bird cage liner owned by Mr.Fair and Balanced himself Rupert Murdoch

Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush Administration and now often appears as a talking warhead on MSNBC. He is a contributing writer to The American Spectator
A slightly more erudite right wing publication.

Neither of these facts alone make what they write incorrect, but on the bullsiht scale it's like asking James Carville for an analysis of the Bush administration or Yasser Arafat about the finer points of rabbinical law.

Or seeing a Michael Moore film for a factual world-view? :D

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Kodiak


They aren't pre-conceived, as evidenced by your continued behavior and tactics on this forum of which your post above is only a single example...
Ouch.

Pardon me if my attempt at humor was inappropros given the solemnity of the thread. Please carry on.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cain


Jesus Christ, calm down. I saw the author on television, he was asked difficult questions, and didn't do a convincing job of defending his point of view. In fact he did a miserable job. It felt very uncomfortable. I never came close to saying or implying that this encounter "MAKES EVERYTHING IN HIS BOOK COMPLETELY WRONG!!"

and...

Oh my God, Stewart is a comedian! That's certainly not a charge one could level at (oh, say) Bill O'Reilly's Peabody award winning work (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/30/1448200&mode=thread).

Sorry if the tone was too much. I wanted to make my sarcasm clear, and maybe all the exclamation points and caps took it all a little over the top.

I agree with you completely regarding O'Reilly. I don't consider him a journalist or newscaster so much as a political and current-events-oriented entertainer, much like Stewart. I'd give neither of them much weight, but then again, it was you and not I who brought up the author's "flaying" at Stewart's hands...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by varwoche

Ouch.

Pardon me if my attempt at humor was inappropros given the solemnity of the thread. Please carry on.

Is that what goes for humor these days? :(

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I am just curious to know if people opposed to Bush, his policies, and the wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq will either ignore or automatically "poo-poo" these books, or read them (with some skepticism sure) without prejudgement - in effect whether or not they are willing to challenge their beliefs, something this forum, and even all of JREF, value very highly.

Two notes before I leave for a weekend with my brother and his family (fundie Lutherans, but the food is good).

1. What I read in the links does not give me any sense that I will be reading anything that will increase my understanding of the situation. History (of anything) written in real-time and "on the fly" is seldom compelling to me (FWIW, I do not have either Clinton's book or Clarke's either, nor plan to, for much the same reason)

2. So many books (still got 300 pages to go on the John Adams biography, 500 on the Battle of Leningrad, and haven't even started the one on the Pelepponesian War yet--550 pages) so little time.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mel
How is it possible for Americans OR the int'l community to still trust the Bush administration when they have repeatedly shown they are willing to manipulate the truth & even the law when it serves their purposes?

How can any book restore our faith in this wretched administration?

Trust and faith are a two way street.

To address your question, how can you even ask that if you are unwilling to even read the books in question?

In what form was the information that caused you to lose faith and consider the administration wretched? None of it was in written form?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch


Two notes before I leave for a weekend with my brother and his family (fundie Lutherans, but the food is good).

1. What I read in the links does not give me any sense that I will be reading anything that will increase my understanding of the situation. History (of anything) written in real-time and "on the fly" is seldom compelling to me (FWIW, I do not have either Clinton's book or Clarke's either, nor plan to, for much the same reason)

2. So many books (still got 300 pages to go on the John Adams biography, 500 on the Battle of Leningrad, and haven't even started the one on the Pelepponesian War yet--550 pages) so little time.

Both points seem reasonable and fair. If either book is either a stunner or piece of crap I'll let you know...

[Cain]

Originally posted by Kodiak

I agree with you completely regarding O'Reilly. I don't consider him a journalist or newscaster so much as a political and current-events-oriented entertainer, much like Stewart. I'd give neither of them much weight, but then again, it was you and not I who brought up the author's "flaying" at Stewart's hands...

Yes, and it was you who dismissed Stewart as a mere "comedian."

Try this link, which contains another link to an excerpt of a brief exchange: http://www.leanleft.com/archives/003173.html

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cain


Yes, and it was you who dismissed Stewart as a mere "comedian."

Try this link, which contains another link to an excerpt of a brief exchange: http://www.leanleft.com/archives/003173.html

Evidence please, of Jon Stewart's journalistic credentials or work experience.

The "daily show" is not a news program, and Jon Stewart is not Peter Jennings, or Tom Brocaw, or Shepard Smith.

The "daily show" is a comedic talk show, and Jon Stewart is like Leno, or Kimmel, or Letterman, or O'Brian.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Is that what goes for humor these days? :(

He´s saving up for TAM3, so now he can only tell very cheap jokes. :)

A word of warning: the same is true for me ;)

[zakur]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Evidence please, of Jon Stewart's journalistic credentials or work experience.Just for the record, Stewart won a Peabody Award in 2000 (http://www.peabody.uga.edu/archives/).

Something that probably bothers Bill O'Reilly a lot. ;)

[Charlie Monoxide]

I, for one plan on reading both books. They're on my list, right after I read the bible in latin, and re-read the Enid Blyton series.

Charlie (and read Latin For Dummies) Monoxide

[Cain]

Originally posted by zakur
Just for the record, Stewart won a Peabody Award in 2000 (http://www.peabody.uga.edu/archives/).

Something that probably bothers Bill O'Reilly a lot. ;)

I'm not sure if Kodiak clicked on the link of a previous post, but the only reason why I mentioned O'Reilly was to make the connection to TDS's Peabody award, the (ahem) highest award in broadcast journalism. But whatever.

Kodiak-
I'm sure if you look a little harder you can find a full transcript of the interview. Someone on the previously linked site did post an AVI (which does not appear to now be working).

[CapelDodger]

from Cain:This guy was interviewed by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show". I don't think a guest has ever come so close to crying. I felt sorry for the guy, getting flayed on television and all.I'd love to feel sorry for him myself. Do you know of any way I can download it for free? (Michael Moore said it's alright, which is good enough for me.)

from Kodiak:
Will the Anti-Bushies read either of these, or will these books only end up preaching to the choir?
...
I am just curious to know if people opposed to Bush, his policies, and the wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq will either ignore or automatically "poo-poo" these books, or read them (with some skepticism sure) without prejudgement - in effect whether or not they are willing to challenge their beliefs, something this forum, and even all of JREF, value very highly.
What you miss is that these books are going to be crap, and easily dismantled. Given what's been done to the blurb material already, you should have got that. There won't be any need to grip onto a prejudgment. Buy me the books and I'll show you how it's done. Way to go, starting the thread before you've read the books.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Or seeing a Michael Moore film for a factual world-view? :D

True that!

And the Lord saith, Seek Ye not political understanding from the fool* lest your outlook be a joke.



* arcane as in comic, entertainer.

[zakur]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'd love to feel sorry for him myself. Do you know of any way I can download it for free? (Michael Moore said it's alright, which is good enough for me.)http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/stephenhayes/

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cain


I'm not sure if Kodiak clicked on the link of a previous post, but the only reason why I mentioned O'Reilly was to make the connection to TDS's Peabody award, the (ahem) highest award in broadcast journalism. But whatever.

Kodiak-
I'm sure if you look a little harder you can find a full transcript of the interview. Someone on the previously linked site did post an AVI (which does not appear to now be working).

Stewart makes exactly the point I have been asking all along. Why Iraq?

There was a cartoon in a local paper, an interviewer is asking Bush why the US wants to invade Iraq, answer, because they might have WMD. Why doesn't the US invade North Korea, then. Because they DO have WMD.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


What you miss is that these books are going to be crap, and easily dismantled. Given what's been done to the blurb material already, you should have got that. There won't be any need to grip onto a prejudgment. Buy me the books and I'll show you how it's done. Way to go, starting the thread before you've read the books.

I think I just won a bet up there.

[Roadtoad]

Actually, since I've been challenged to go see F911, it might be worth it to not only go to the movie, but buy the books as well.

Much of what's been listed as being in the books has been covered in the media, but not very well. Perhaps this might provide better understanding.

Or not.

[Suddenly]

I kind of object to the thread title.

I'm in the anti-bush left, actually I'm a redneck liberal elite so that goes without saying...

However, I'm sure I would enjoy these books a great deal just as I have enjoyed the works of Rush and Ann. I feel all warm and fuzzy when I realize just how stupid most of these points are. Mostly empty rhetoric and accusations of being patriotic. With the occasional circular deal where you must share their views to find valid.

Highly entertaining, and a good morale boost. I recommend it to all redneck liberal elites. You know who you are...

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'm in the anti-bush left, actually I'm a redneck liberal elite so that goes without saying...

Dude, you worry me... :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I kind of object to the thread title.

I'm in the anti-bush left, actually I'm a redneck liberal elite so that goes without saying...

However, I'm sure I would enjoy these books a great deal just as I have enjoyed the works of Rush and Ann. I feel all warm and fuzzy when I realize just how stupid most of these points are. Mostly empty rhetoric and accusations of being patriotic. With the occasional circular deal where you must share their views to find valid.

Highly entertaining, and a good morale boost. I recommend it to all redneck liberal elites. You know who you are...

You aren't a fellow graduate of P.U. (http://www.peckerwoodamerica.com/university.htm) by any chance, are you? :D

[digitalmcq]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Evidence please, of Jon Stewart's journalistic credentials or work experience.

The "daily show" is not a news program, and Jon Stewart is not Peter Jennings, or Tom Brocaw, or Shepard Smith.

The "daily show" is a comedic talk show, and Jon Stewart is like Leno, or Kimmel, or Letterman, or O'Brian.

What do Stewart's 'journalistic credentials' have to do with anything? One can find fault with a written work without attending journalism school.

Also, you criticize those who dismiss these books without reading them. Have you seen (or read) the interview between Steward and the author of The Connection? If not, how can you simply dismiss Stewart's arguments?

That said, I actually saw the interview and was impressed by Stewart. He made some points that the author simply wasn't able to effectively respond to.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


You aren't a fellow graduate of P.U. (http://www.peckerwoodamerica.com/university.htm) by any chance, are you? :D

No.

What would a self-respecting redneck, even a redneck elite, be doing in North Dakota?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Fair enough. Thanks for the response. So being in disagreement with a few sentences or a single phrase is enough for you to disregard the entire book before its been read?
Apologies for the brevity of my earlier comments, I was required to run an errand for my better half, and though posting here was infinitely preferable to wandering around Sainsbury's in a hypoglyceamic haze, duty comes first. So I'll expand on my objections here.

I'm operating under the assumption that the page you kindly provided a link to is in someway representative of the book itself; the sentences I quoted struck me as examples of the sensationalist, but insubstantive, nature of the claims apparently being made by the book. The positioning of the US as oppositional to the UNSC would neglect the fact that the US is a member of it, with veto rights, and can no more make the US do what it wants anymore than the US can dictate to the UNSC. As such, the claim that the UNSC "is interested only in tying down the U.S." is so bad it's no longer even good in the catholic sense.

The terms "Rogue states" and "weapons of mass destruction" are not exactly unproblematic, but are revelatory about the political position the book is arguing from, as is the phrase "Old Europe" (who coined that one, exactly?).

The description that the EU is "Frankenstein-like" (artificial, cobbled together from disparate parts I guess is the implication) is a particular howler, considering the nature of the component states (can any state be said to be natural?) and shows a complete ignorance of the geo-politics of the region, that there's a huge bunch of different people inhabiting a relatively small chunk of rock; in fact, is the EU any less Frankenstein-like than the US, the alleged "true leader" of the free world (notice the question-begging in that styling).

So it doesn't strike me as being an objective and reasoned examination of contemporary global relations, and more to the point it doesn't strike me as being a fun read either. At least Moore had Chickenman, y'know? So even with the $8 dollar saving on that book, the Stirling equivalent of $19.95 would go a long way towards that serious single Speyside malt I've had my eye on for the past couple of weeks. You've got to get your priorities straight.

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

If I had the option to do such a thing where F911 is concerned I'd have already done it. But, there is no option NOT to enrich Mr. Moore as one investigates his "art".Yes, there is. Buy a ticket for another movie, and then sneak into F911 theater.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla

Yes, there is. Buy a ticket for another movie, and then sneak into F911 theater.

Thanks, Victor, for standing for integrity.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Roadtoad

Thanks, Victor, for standing for integrity.I accept your award with a great deal of appreciation, tempered by the trepidation at realizing that I am unworthy of such an honor. :)

I don't give a flying fsck about law in and of itself. I hardly think it's a matter of personal integrity whether Moore gets the money or not. if the choice is between ignorance due to refusal to give moore money, and an act of deception which costs Moore nothing (due to the ~$0 marginal cost of an extra movie viewer), I will pick the latter every time. This is not a matter of integrity vs. lack thereof, this is a matter of integrity of one sort vs. integrity of another sort; intellectual and political integrity vs. economically ideological integrity.