hey i wasn't disagreeing with you. i was just relating it to the post structualist argument of the Self being embedded in systems of knowledge. and besides that particular argument isn't a straightout rejection| of Trust No One as it is a scepticism of unconvinced certainty| how can i be certain of anything?

"Lastly, Bullshit filters, Subjectivity and trust of Self. i won't go into it very much since it would take much too long, but the Post-structualist would argue that you Cannot even trust yourself."

Dammit Eric... you didn't even read my posts. That's EXACTLY what I said 2 posts ago. Here's what I said:

Well, if you agreed that the answer to "Who can you trust?" is "no one but yourself", then I'm completely and utterly disappointed. In my limited experience, the only answer to that question is "Trust no one; even and especially yourself."

Anyone want to go go-carting at the Whitemud amusment park?
I'm thinking on wedensday before everyone splits off and goes to Chili's/Druid/Spiderman.

Probably around 6:45-7,
Let me know

eric, i think nader by that comment just meant dont let ur disgust of liberal mismanagement drive u into the arms of the conservatives, since by voting against the liberals u r essentially voting 'indirectly' for the fraser institute's plan for canada.... he wasnt saying vote for the party that has the best chance to beat the conservatives,whcih would have be similar to the startegy of voting for the guy who has the best chance to beat bush..... as for nader not mentioning the greens.... well the green party of america isnt even endorsing nader for president this time, theyve nominated their own candidate... it may also be a comment on the current direction of the green party in canada, as i happened to read in the papaer a while ago that many of the older members are unhappy with the new platform, and their former leader joan russow, who has since joined the ndp, slammed the party for veering to the right... as eric mentioned the other day, the greens are basically fiscally-conservative with an environmental bent... most of their policies for protecting the environment are purely voluntary on the part of corporations, since the greens would just revise corporate taxation rules to favour companies that are more "green".... gone are the strict governmental regulations that would force corporations to comply with environmental standards..... their leader, jim harris, is a former motivational speaker for corporations, that should speak volumes.... sure its nice to see that they champion environmental protection, but really how different are they from the ndp... they are a party that sold out most of their core values to make a move into the mainstream, and if theyre willing to sell out so easily now just imagine what they would do if they ever had a chance to grab some power..... the green party is morally bankrupt in my opinion

found this and though I'd share it:

The Green Party is like a watermelon - green on the outside and red on the inside.
Rep. Bill Dannemeyer, R-Fullerton

made me laugh...

I looked into it, Westmount has a showing of spiderman at 10:10pm tomorrow, which is what gets my vote. Failing that, Galaxy has shows at 9:45 and 10:40, and South Edmonton has shows at 9:45 10:15 and 10:45.

as far as I know, it was Ralph Nader sending that letter. I got it through the Edmonton Small Press Association. It disappointed me too. I mean, really, the man ran as a Green, and said nothing of the Greens in his letter to Canadian voters. At least we've got the benefit that this election granted $1.75 per vote if the vote for a party was greater than 2% of the total votes cast. (Hooray for the Greens! over 4%!). But Ralph didn't say a single stinking word about the greens, or the other "other" parties. Maybe he's learned a lesson from his last presidential run, but I'd have hoped he wouldn't end up as cynical as all that. ... although it is good to be reminded of the evils of the Fraser Institute... I always forget... the fact that they're in BC makes me think they're a friendly lovable animal, and then someone shouts at me about their vehemently pro-capitalism stance and I start to remember...

Well, anyway, maybe he was just trying to raise some alarmist ire amongst Canadians, to warn us of where we could end up (always good to hear somebody say), and to suggest we smarten up (or maybe he should've said Think Twice, Vote Once for all it was worth... probably made more people vote Liberal, or just stay home...).

oh, speaking of elections, did anyone else experience the ease of voting that I did with those handy little cards they sent in the mail? No checking of ID or anything. Do you realize how easy it would be to defraud that system? Sure, the ballots are all pencil marks in circles, but if you stole a bunch of those voter cards and only had to present that, no ID, you could travel to EVERY polling station in the city and cast a vote... I think Al Capone said it best: vote early and vote often; perhaps the new mantra of the federal election... Even if mail theft is a federal offense, it'd be damn hard to track... all one day, all piles of paper, you'd just have to make sure your "victims" weren't going to vote anyway...

doesn't anyone do work at their jobs anymore? at least this link is related to my job...

yeah shit Alison!! Moore totally should made more mention of comparing the United States with Japan! i just totally said the same thing to my brother on the weekend. Moore's justification for this was that Canadian and American culture are similar JUST enough that the one control variable, attitudes towards guns, was the only real difference between the two. Thing is though the gun stats don't compare properly- who's to say that if Canada had the same number of big cities with similar problems of racial segregation that our numbers of gun deaths wouldn't be comparable? if he wanted a more fair comparison, why didn't he just compare two major cities- my segestion Buffalo and Toronto. then we'll see who really locks their doors.

ooo things are getting political on the board. time to pull out the Me-esque styles- kidding, thanks Tom

Moore. Beckers, i think i sorta know what you mean when you say "everything in that movie is 100% factual" as in, all the events and characters are real and not fictional.
Yes, he has a whole legal squad triple checking his work- the facts of the film specifically and as far as i know he's never been sued for presenting incorrect facts. but as Alison and gang pointed out you have to remember that Moore does take liberties (you can call them chances too) with the way he edits the film (and i agree with Tom, film's got to be entertaining at least). for example in Bowling for Columbine Charlton Heston is seen raving about "prying the gun from his cold dead hands" while Moore narrates over top that the NRA showed up in Columbine ten days after the shooting- now Moore doesn't actually say THIS footage was taken of that NRA meeting 10 days after the shooting- in fact it was taken a year afterwards- but the former is the impression that Most people got. Moore doesn't actually deliver incorrect or False facts, but he does use real ones to his own advantage (also Heston's speech was SORTA taken out of context- i emplore you to check out the original transcript) Lots of people kinda felt cheating by this kind of editing- but that's where you have to make up your own mind. though its assembly is question i frankly think there's nothing particularly wrong with it- so fuckin' what if Heston didn't say what he said 10 days after the shooting- he said it anyways. he might say that shit at every meeting. i for one agree with Moore that the NRA has become the mouthpiece of a gun crazed nation, instead of the remotely respectable organization it once was (remember Moore grew up and still is a member of the NRA)

The thing that Moore would probably disagree with you Beckers is, if you remember Moore's interview from the Corporation, is the fact that the film WOULD have survived this long and gotten the same distribution Even if it had more questionable inconsistencies because ultimately it's about the bottom line, and plenty of people are going to see it. It's all just about the money. Miramax doesn't give a shit that this film could ruin the tax breaks for parent Disney in Florida- they're just looking at the returns for shareholders and profitability. and this is all well and good for Moore, because well fuck, maybe it will do some good in ousting Bush- which is ultimately the real intent of the film. to return to Tom's sentiment i think this discussion should not devolve into painting Moore simply as a propagandist- Moore's giving you his (granted, slanted) point of view, and AT LEAST you know what that point of view is. his recent films have been openning points for discussion which is more than can be said for every other film maker right now (fuck you Goddard), so i think that's a major difference from being a propagandist.

Tony: oh yeah shit. Count me down for your party. it's gonna rock.
back to Moore. so the film gets really graphic? shit- see this is a trademark for Moore that i sorta take issue with. Bowling's execution scenes, the rabbits in Roger & Me - he always just fuckin' throws that shit in there.. i think of these scenes in the same way Finkleman thought of Saving Private Ryan- the violence is pornographic. i guess there's greater justification for the Roger & Me scene, but yeah i thought some of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine was questionable.

Moore related: What the fuck is up with Ralph Nader?! was that actually a real letter from the man himself? Four years ago Michael Moore tried to convince Nader to urge his voters to vote Gore (a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush), but Nader held his ground saying that in a system of democracy persons should not sway from voting for the candidate they believe in. i think that was the right move, and i don't see how it would have made much difference in the end either way. but what's this i see: "Don't indirectly vote for the Fraser Institute and its positions of anti-law and order for corporations -- policies threatening to become your future government's policies." What the fuck? so now it's all good to go try out some strategic voting? i HATE strategic voting because it's the elimination of your real choice by most often single factors. if one party (or even one candidate running for PM) can disrupt your choice, where does your choice really stand?

Lastly, Bullshit filters, Subjectivity and trust of Self. i won't go into it very much since it would take much too long, but the Post-structualist would argue that you Cannot even trust yourself. if the Self is born and developed within culture and a system of knowledge, how can the Self be any more reliable than an outside source (science, religion) ? i think it's an important question because when people think of what they know they don't normally consider that they're actually instilling faith in themselves. i mean after all, how is it that one decides Where the boundaries of their Bullshit stand? and how can we trust ourselves that these are the right places to keep them