Hey Fatso, we sneaked in!

[MrRepublican]

Well we went to the movies yesterday and when we got out of our movie, just out of curiosity, I poked my head into Farenheit 9/11 at the 7PM showing. The usher was on the way out just as the so-called "documentary" was starting and I asked him where everybody was on this Saturday night. He pointed to the other shows (which were all at least half full) none of which (including the one we saw) tripped my trigger, but it was family night and the vote was for a movie.

I asked the usher that if we bought some concessions if we could take a peek and he said, "go ahead," with a smirk. There were 2 people besides us there for this showing of this "landmark epic record-breaking documentary".

From start to finish it was bilge. I had to restrain my son (an Iraqi Freedom Veteran with friends still in Iraq and in Afghanistan) from raising his voice to the uninformed anti-American BS and complete and obviously deliberate misinformation woven into this counterfeit "war report".

Cries of "brave patriotism" for such a piece of political tripe constructed at the expense of the brave defenders of our freedom was initially stupifying. The icing on the cake was the intrusion into the private grief of families who have lost those near and dear to them in the war to liberate Iraq and to root out anti-American terrorism in the middle east where it was fostered to begin with. These families may someday regret what they had expressed in grief for their loss, because much that is said in grief understandably is regrettable. But it is now committed to film in a self-admitted political move by this self-absorbed walking tub of anti-American political lard, and now that Michael Moore has rung the bell publically, it cannot be unrung and will forevermore force those grieving families to live with what they said. And so now, in addition to their loss, they must live with this for the rest of their lives as well.

Furthermore, for every dissenting family of a war casualty, there are dozens who believe what their family member was wounded or died for was just...yet this "documentary" never even bothered to mention these folks much less give it a scintilla of coverage.

Beyond all this, I recall with crystal clarity the incredibly obese producer of Farenheit 9/11 making the interview circuit after the US's incursion into Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and liberate the Iraqi people. Even in the face of the Al Jazeera congratulatory videos of bin Laden, Tubby's mantra then was that Usama bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been to that extent unjustified.

Yet in this new film, the Porker himself has since apparently been persuaded that Usama Bin Laden is as guilty as h@ll. Indeed, Usama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. How politically convenient.

So let me run through the veritable trough of political contradictions at which this producer wallows and expects us to gobble up like so many Oreo cookies, Doritos, Jalepeno Bean Dip, M&Ms, Ben & Jerry's, tubs of Cool Whip, and cans of Cheez Whiz that no doubt litter his editing room...

1) The bin Laden family had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group. Then Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man tries to link the bin Laden family's exit from the US after 9/11/01 with the president. The fact that Richard Clarke (remember the guy who wrote the tell-all book?), who served as Presidents Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan's chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Usama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Of course, Butterball does not mention this at all.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States. Of course this has been the case since Jimmy Carter was President back in the 1970s, but the Chubster does not mention that either.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests. Of course the US had made vast overt efforts in Kabul during the Clinton administration's tenure to assist US businesses through the US Department of Commerce in facilitating these relationships with the Taliban government. Nevertheless, Baconbutt does not seem to have a problem with this.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaeda members to escape. Thus General Cholesterol has converted himself from anti-war fanatic to crack military strategist, and then back again.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American. The fact that Afghans are serving in Iraq seems to have escaped inclusion in this film. Perhaps the producer has the remnants of Reeses Peanut Butter cups in his eyes and ears from his latest comatose choco-binge when it comes to who is serving in Iraq and who is not.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. I gather this from the both the self-proclamation by Lardbelly that the film is anti-war but yet dedicated to the lives lost in Operation Enduring Freedom which, up to now, has not produced bin Laden. Never mind when we do apprehend bin Laden, all that matters to Mr. Instant Oral Gratification is that he is not in the bag as of the release of the film.

In a nutshell, when a producer bases his film on a big lie and a big misrepresentation, the premise of the film can only sustain itself by a rapid succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. Hence, it does not surprise me that Moore has the gall to call this a "documentary". As much caloric intake as this guy must have on a daily basis, I am sure he has plenty of gall to spare. ;D

[Patch]

so......did you like it?
I haven't seen it, and won't spend the money to watch it in a theater.

pretty much all "documentaries" are flawed with "misinformation" People tend to pick and choose facts to sway belief of others. I remember reading an article about being a vegetarian. One section I remember was the author stating that humans had molars for grinding grain etc. which is true, however, at no point was anything mentioned about the incisors (spelling??? or is it even a word) the teeth for cutting and tearing meat. So by not stating ALL the facts, one would (if they have no brains) believe that humans should be vegetarians.

[Grnbrt]

I gather you don't like Micheal Morre?

[Galvin]

You snuck in to see a movie (as in did not pay for it) you and your fellow conservatives have excoriated whether they have seen it or not and we were expecting you to like it? Duh! When I saw it in Boise, Idaho (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) at four in the afternoon the theater was full. It has done fantastically well for a satire proporting to be a documentary. Nothing in the genre has come remotely close to its success. And even discounting Moore's obvious bias, the footage is mostly from file and pretty much speaks for itself. We'll let the pundits decide whether it helped or hurt the either party's candidate come Novenber. I also note the hypocrisy in the attempts to classify it as a political ad by the more vocal in the Republican party while denying that 95% of the AM radio dial and other major (mostly Murdoch owned media outlets) are now little more than the public end of the conservative propaganda machine.

I used to listen to just about anything, whether right or left, but have had to cut down on the more extreme right output as it is becoming increasingly more hateful and disrespectful. I can take just so much of Air America for the same reason (Following the trend started by the ultra-conservative talk shows in contributing to lack of meaningful discourse in this country) but it IS funnier.

There are parts of Moore's movie I loved. Like when GWB is told about the second airplane hitting the twin towers and he sits there for seven minutes looking like he has a load in his pants. He can't quite decide what to do so he continues reading "My Pet Goat" with the second graders. Guess his earpiece fell out so he was awaiting oral orders.

Given his reaction to the worst news this country has ever received, all of which is preserved for posterity on tape, I bet he was a real hoot around the squadron when the scramble alarm went off. (None of which was taped apparently. Dang. I'd have paid to see THAT.)

[stetto]

There are parts of Moore's movie I loved. Like when GWB is told about the second airplane hitting the twin towers and he sits there for seven minutes looking like he has a load in his pants. He can't quite decide what to do so he continues reading "My Pet Goat" with the second graders. Guess his earpiece fell out so he was awaiting oral orders.

It's interesting to me to listen to people criticize others reactions to a situation they themselves couldn't even put themselves in without weeks, months or years of hindsight to guide them. Pretty easy doing when you aren't in that position of responsibility for an entire nation...

[MrRepublican]

stetto said:

It's interesting to me to listen to people criticize others reactions to a situation they themselves couldn't even put themselves in without weeks, months or years of hindsight to guide them. Pretty easy doing when you aren't in that position of responsibility for an entire nation...

Thankfully that lying tub of tallow never will be. And hopefully neither will his candidate of choice.

[Cablemender]

Galvin said:

And even discounting Moore's obvious bias..

I also note the hypocrisy in the attempts to classify it as a political ad by the more vocal in the Republican party while denying that 95% of the AM radio dial and other major (mostly Murdoch owned media outlets) are now little more than the public end of the conservative propaganda machine.

I used to listen to just about anything, whether right or left, but have had to cut down on the more extreme right output as it is becoming increasingly more hateful and disrespectful. I can take just so much of Air America for the same reason (Following the trend started by the ultra-conservative talk shows in contributing to lack of meaningful discourse in this country) but it IS funnier.

Hey, Dave, glad to see you showed up. The RUI folks were starting to form a posse. ;D

Well now let's see.. Moore has "obvious bias."

Moore announced in an interview that the "whole purpose" of his movie was to help unseat the President.

The trade paper of Hollywood, Variety, said it was "a blatant cinematic 2004 campaign pamphlet".

The Hollywood Reporter said Moore was "pioneering a reality film as an election device."

But Republican's are hypocrites for calling it what Moore himself and the Hollywood papers did. Huh??

I think the big difference between nutcases like Al Franken and those on the other side of the radio political spectrum is that Franken and his, to use Bill O'Reilly's term, "bomb throwers," never seem to come up with any real substance on issues. They rally around artificial things like Bush making a misspeak or the ever-liberal bait, the THEFT of the 2000 election.

What I hear the other side doing is being equally critical, but backing their assertions with facts. An example is Hannity playing the tape of Clinton telling the press he was offered Osama, but had no legal grounds to hold him, and that he pleaded with the Saudi's to take him but he was too much of a hot potatoe (<--Quayle spelling) for them to take. Hannity didn't start playing that until President Clinton denied having any such opportunity. Now that the tape surfaced, Clinton is saying he didn't really mean that, that he was talking about some news report and not ACTUALLY doing that, etc. Same ol' Clinton stuff.. "Now I want you to listen to me.. I did NOT have that conversation with reporters on that tape." OK, Bill.

You have Kerry telling environmentalists he doesn't own an SUV, his family does. Then the press finds out he has 4 or 5 of them, in his name. Limbaugh reports it, and he's a right-wing wacko for doing that. More often than not, the liberal-biased media won't even mention it at all. Naturally, if you can only hear this from one side, there is a tendency to "blame" it on conservative talk radio. If the NY Times DID report it, it would be okay, but when they ignore a story, as they've done countless times, all of a sudden it's talk radio's fault some lib's story won't pass scrutiny. I don't understand that concept.

Something I've heard both Hannity and Limbaugh do is criticize Bush for his policies on spending and growing government, both against conservative principles. I note a distinct lack of that on shows like PBS, Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the networks, all of whom are NOT owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The proof is in the numbers. If those guys were not hitting nerves with their audiences, they wouldn't have the top shows on radio, and in the case of FOX news, on cable. If you look at the cable viewer shares, you see FOX crushes everyone else, and that isn't an accident. It's because people know who's dishing up soft news, presenting one-sided issue analysis, and who isn't.

O'Reilly has trouble getting a liberal spokesperson sometimes because they won't go on his show because they'll get cut to shreds on the issues. That's why Moore is ducking him too, because most of his movie has been debunked, and it begs the question why doesn't he correct it? Moore is too chicken to get on there and admit he won't because he put it out as propaganda, and truth in it is irrelevent to him.

All I know is I expect some really high-pitched whining when the conservative "documentaries" start coming out. Naturally it won't be fair, they'll be driven by hatred and hypocricy, etc. But people will know who opened that toolbox and began using the hammer.

[jim]

I'm glad that you saw the movie before commenting on it. Good for you. I have cosidered sneaking in, a bit of harmless petty larceny, As a result of your post, I have thought about it some more and decided I will not do it.

Jim

[downunder]

Galvin said:

You snuck in to see a movie (as in did not pay for it)

Actually this is known as stealing (revenue from the theatre) and typically the sentence if convicted is deportation to New Zealand

[Lightning]

I don't usually rush to Mr R's defence, but as he had the permission of the usher what exactly did he do wrong here No, he didn't pay BUT he did get a go-ahead. Is that still "stealing"? Not sure if that would stand up.

[Galvin]

I think the hypocrisy comes from those news outlets that still advertise themselves as "fair and balanced" when they are obviously little more than propaganda outlets for the right. Moore has at least admitted what the purpose of his film is. In contrast, those media outlets in question continue to maintain the blatant fiction that they present both sides. They don't do so by any stretch of the imagination.

I have listened to NPR hosts interview many guests including some extremely conservative people. I have never heard voices raised or the host attempt to belittle, bait, or smear the guest.

In contrast, the format used on "fair and balanced" talk radio and TV consists of constantly interrupting the caller or guest before a point can be made and shouting the guest or caller down before they can make any point that might possibly be seen as valid. The screeners on these shows have the job of not only insuring that anyone seeming even remotely articulate but having views at odds with the host never gets on the air but of favoring the more inarticulate and radical, the better to paint the other side in an unfavorable light.

This actually has a very practical basis. This entire genre of commercial talk radio is a profit driven entertainment business and relies on the maintenance of the credibility and superiority of the "host" image to keep a faithful audience. The people listening are not there to learn or have their core beliefs changed, they are there to hear their hero validate their beliefs and fears while ripping up those people on the "other side" dumb enough to open their mouths on a venue in which the host has complete control of the "discussion", including the ability to cut the caller off arbitrarily.

Allowing any chance of a guest or caller to make the "host" look bad is not to be allowed at any cost. One might be out of a job otherwise. Scripting is also very important. There is a real danger in going up against someone with a better ability to come up with real facts and a flair for smacking down BS as soon as it surfaces. Limbaugh tried the unscreened, unscripted format a few years ago and it was a flat out disaster. Control of the discussion is everything in commercial talk radio.

I have seen this phenomenon on both the left and right leaning stations but the right leaning radio stations outnumber those on the left by about ten to one.

The public radio stations, for all their reputed left leaning bias, tend to have far more civil discussions and informative discussions and allow their guests to say their piece without interruption. Their continued existence on the air is more dependent on public donations and a percentage of federal subsidy than their ability to sensationalize a subject. For this reason they tend to be a little more mellow and less of the in-your-face d!ckhead image that most talk show hosts favor. Guess they can afford to, they will get paid (very little in comparison to the commercial hosts actually) regardless.

I have also seen some of these commercial talk show hosts in a debating situation in which someone more impartial has the moderating function. They don't usually go for this format very often because, once again, putting themselves in a position where someone not agreeing with them might perchance expose them as not being the all-seeing and all-powerful image they cultivate on their own shows is not financially smart if it causes them to lose market share.

I hear a constant litany on these commercial outlets about their being the sole source of "the truth" when I am tuned in. I don't see this same need to constantly sell the credibility of the show when I listen to the public stations nor do I hear a constant carping about "the truth". I guess I am immediately suspicious of anyone always trying to sell me something, especially as hard as they try to do so.

[MrRepublican]

Lightning said:

I don't usually rush to Mr R's defence, but as he had the permission of the usher what exactly did he do wrong here No, he didn't pay BUT he did get a go-ahead. Is that still "stealing"? Not sure if that would stand up.

Well, what I did was wrong. If the usher would have been caught by his boss, he would have got in trouble. And if Michael Moore would have actually been there and found this out, he would have undoubtedly stormed the counter and eaten the contents of the entire concession stand.

[Cablemender]

Whenever I have listened to shows like those on NPR, I hear the guest ininterrupted, but they do little more than put out some kind of talking points. They say everything BUT the issue, and tapdance to no end. This is why their market share is what it is, and why they must get federal subsidies in order to stay on the air. They are nothing more than a commercial for whoever has the microphone.

Shows like Hannity's do just the opposite. They ask a guest a question, and when they start down the merry path of talking points, they get interrupted to get them back to the question at hand. Hannity does interrupt too much generally, IMO, but he still gets the job done. In many cases he puts TWO guests on at the same time and lets them debate while he acts as a moderator to equalize time. When has that been done on NPR with any success?

Sometimes in trying to support their own extreme views to a non-extreme audience, guests manage to diminish themselves. One such example on Hannity's show was when he had Mary Cheney on with Pat Robertson and the issue was gay marriage, yes or no? Ms. Cheney made a complete ass of herself without any help from Robertson or Hannity, so it isn't always the host making liberal guests look bad.

I can't count the number of times I've heard some liberals get on when the host tells the call screener to let them all in, and don't screen any of them. Happens a lot on Hannity, occasionally on Limbaugh. Then they get on the air and rant non-stop to try and sell their version of the truth. One such caller refused to believe any part of Farenheit 9-11 was factually inaccurate; when the host tried to 'splain it to him, he kept yapping about all the points in the movie. The only way the host could get a word in was to turn the guy down in order to talk and get the diatribe back to a conversation. And it isn't just the big shows. I hear the same thing happen here on local talk radio, and it's the same pattern. Here's an example from a local show that follow's Hannity's:

Guest:"Bush screwed up the war!"
Host:"Could you explain how?"
G"Well, everyone know he did..."
H"Fine. How?"
G"He screwed it all up. You know, didn't do it right."
H"Can you be more specific?"
G"Why"
H"Because you're speaking in generalities. For example, if you went to a restaurant and thought the food was terrible, and someone asked you how so, you might say it was too overcooked, too spicy, something more descriptive than "terrible."
G"Well all war IS terrible and everyone knows.."
H"Was it overcooked? Did Bush put too much spice on it? What should he have done differently, perhaps something that he failed to do?"
G"Well some generals say he did a poor job at it."
H"You're right, they have. Should we pur more faith in them than the generals who say he did it sucessfully, and if so, why?"
G"You can't fool the American people. George Bush thinks he can fool them by whatever he says, but he can't fool them into thinking the war wasn't a complete disaster. "

And it went down hill from there.

Now imagine that guest given open mike on a talk show, without anyone to probe their thinking to see if they have some facts behind their thinking, or not?

All of O'Reilly's "Talking Points" memos are on his website with a one-show delay time. They are chock full of his reasons why he thinks as he does, and what statements and facts he draws his conclusions from. You certainly can't say he's not a Bush critic, yet his confrontational style seems to lump him in with all the others. Maybe it's just that they present such a far different viewpoint than the other media outlets who seem in lock-step ( a coincidence, right?) in presenting their "news" that they seem so far from the left field goalpost that they seem to be right-wing to some.

[Cablemender]

Cablemender said:

O'Reilly has trouble getting a liberal spokesperson sometimes because they won't go on his show because they'll get cut to shreds on the issues. That's why Moore is ducking him too, because most of his movie has been debunked, and it begs the question why doesn't he correct it? Moore is too chicken to get on there and admit he won't because he put it out as propaganda, and truth in it is irrelevent to him.

Well, I guess I get to eat the words about Moore being too chicken to go on O'Reilly's show. Just finished watching it. The truth still seems, to me, to be irrelevant to him, it's as if he has his version of it and won't be swayed by anything outside his belief set.

I also thought he has a somewhat distorted idea of what service in the military is. He seemed to dissect various missions and parts of people's tour of duty in Iraq, and use them as the sole basis for someone going over there. For example, he asked O'Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to calm Fallujah, as though in the real world such a choice could be made. I understand his point, I think, being that lives are lost in Iraq that you can't directly link to some big, "valid" reason. If that's true, than we shouldn't have a Navy because people die on ships from falling overboard, in fires, and accidents, or trying to moor your ship like the USS COLE, none of which are good or noble causes. Same for the other services. In every conflict there has been incidences of friendly-fire deaths; do we invalidate every other conflict then by asking the question, "would you sacrifice your child to friendly fire?"

What I think he misses is the team concept, that thousands of people all over the world participate to accomplish the goal of winning a war. Picking one piece that, alone, may seem irrelevant distorts what the objective was. No one was sent there solely to police Fallujah; they were sent as part of a group to remove a dictator who was a threat to our security, and Fallujah happened to be a hotbed of resistance. Maybe Mr. Moore could make his point more resounding were he to stand at the base of the Iwo Jima Memorial and tell everyone how dumb those guys were to go fight for a rock. I think most people understand it wasn't just a rock all those of uncommon valor were there for. It was a small part of defeating an enemy that attacked us without provocation.

IMO, Moore is one of those people who, deep inside, mean well, but can't seem to step into the real world to fit his piece into the puzzle. NO ONE wants to sacrifice their children or themselves for something, especially something of questionable value. But, the world doesn't always offer nice, clean-cut distinctions on these things. All the Taliban aren't in one country, hanging around military installations where they could be targeted. People like Hussein aren't going to advertise the aid they provide to terrorist groups, other than his own public bragging that he encouraged harming Americans and their citizens. So Moore offers much criticism, but no solutions to the problem. I don't think he can, because he is so disconnected from reality.

I did enjoy the interview, because I saw a different Moore than I expected. I expected an extremely partisan nutcase, but what I saw was someone who appeared to have some genuine concerns, trying to fix them in a way that won't work.

[MrRepublican]

As the parent of a soldier, I was deeply offended by his erronious premise that anyone would sacrifice their child for any reason and then wrapped it around the the 3rd Armored Cavalry, the Reservists, and the Marines in Fallujah. O'Reilly missed a perfect opportunity to pin him down...these brave young men and women made their own decisions to serve. It is not their parents place much less their right to sacrifice them.

It is jingoistic BS like Moore's erroneous premise that defines with mathematical precision the shallowness of the party of abortion, the party of homosexuality, the party of moral contradiction. Moore is a perfect posterchild for the democrat party.

[stetto]

Cablemender said:

...The truth still seems, to me, to be irrelevant to him, it's as if he has his version of it and won't be swayed by anything outside his belief set.

Wow Tom, what a statement! How many people can you apply this one to? In the world of partisan politics, as far as I can tell, the truth has no place, other than as a word used to rally others already of the same beliefs. We're all victims of it to one extent or another, but there are those so deadset on stacking the "facts" in their agenda's favor that it demeans their own intellect. And then there are those such as Moore and even some in forums like these who aren't satisfied with simply manipulating information into their own image, but are compelled to insult and deride others for either the opposite belief or even an objective viewpoint (which may or may not exist).

...Moore is the perfect example, but in our little world here (and the Flightlines archives, lost to the ether) we see plenty of it. Objectivity and politics are mutually exclusive words, and that goes for people from outside the US as well. Perhaps especially those...

There are those of us who have ocaisional "clear moments", but how do you convince someone with a political agenda that the pap fed to them by their role models is contrivance and manipulation? The reaction to the Clinton speech on Monday night would be a great example of the futility you'd be facing...But the "anyone but Bush" crowd is the scariest mindless monster yet...

[Cablemender]

Well, I learned a while back that you really can't change anyone; they have to change for their own reasons. If a quarter fell of the President's desk, there will always be someone to say he dropped it accidentally, and another one to say he threw it away intentionally, showing he's interested only in big corporate money or something like that.

If people don't like the war, there is no reason you can give them that will make them like it, or by proxy, Bush. What always amazes me though is how people who bash one candidate believe their guy will accomplish what he promised.

Did Clinton give you health care? Did the Democratic congress do anything about it in the 25 years they had control? Did the Republicans fulfill the "Contract With America?" Have the Republicans given us health care? No, to all of the above.

Today at work, in the field, I spoke with a gentleman who was very much an "anyone BUT Bush" guy. It didn't matter to him if Kerry accomplished nothing in 4 years, as long as Bush wasn't allowed to. I asked him if he got a tax break last couple years, he did, but believed it was wrong. I asked him if he sent his back, as others had done and he wouldn't answer me. When I commented how it seemed kind of hollow for someone to keep the money, then complain the policy was grossly in error seemed like there wasn't much conviction in it, he acknowledged that he could have acted on his own, but didn't. He brought up Social Security, saying the Republicans had been stealing the money, and we needed one of those lock-box things on the money. I asked what he thought they did with the money and he told me with a straight face they were making overpayments to Halliburton with it, that's why it's going to run out in 6 years. There was nothing I could have said that would have made him go examine some factual data to verify his theory. To him, Bush caused it, and it won't get fixed until a Dem is in the White House.

So, what will the Dems do to fix it, I asked him. Nothing, probably, but at least they'll leave it alone. So, there is one American voter with his mind made up, based on the selected data inputs he's chosen to believe. I didn't bother to ask why Clinton didn't just fix it if the answer is a Dem in the White House - I mean, he had 8 years to work on it.

I've had this same go-round with Republicans, too. They are convinced that ONLY Bush's economic policies will work. WHAT policies? Oh, he gives tax breaks and encourages small businesses. I asked him which small business owners he got his data from.. "well, none." He read it in a state congressman's campaign pamphlet.
Weeee-oooo the power of the pen!

[jim]

There was an account of the Crawford showing in today's Austin paper. Said to be 2,400 attendees. The article does not say explicitly, but gives the impression that the crowd was pretty evenly divided between those who booed and those who cheered. Apparently everyone was civil about it. "But mostly they just watched a movie, yelled a little and drove home." I think the reporter was disappointed. Neither Moore nor the President attended.

Jim