Respect them by not by not allowing their bodies to become a football by some ********* trying to score politcial points.

That more than any other reason? It wasn't because people were convinced of the moral rightness of the cause? Wow. People are so blinking stupid.

Read again what I said.

But World Trade Center victims, that's a different story. We can use their bodies as footballs to score political points, because they help Bush get votes, right? We want to remind the public of one pile of dead bodies, but not the other, correct? If the displaying of the dead from Iraq becomes politically useful to your side, then it's ok, isn't it? We can have WTC caskets in GOP political ads, but not GOP-generated caskets from Iraq in DNC political ads, correct? Of course, HIDING their dead bodies, is NOT done for political purposes, only SHOWING them is, correct? If it were the Democrats hiding them, then it would be done for political purposes, right? And if one of you on the right display them, it would also be ok, right? But someone on the left attempting to express the utter waste and stupidy of this war, of course, he can't do it, right? If attending the funeral of a single soldier is worth a few votes, your man will be right over, won't he? Just trying to get my thinking in order, so I can become one of you.

When did I say its okay to use WTC bodies?

I respect your ability to predict future events. Its right up there with your telepathy.

The Denver History Museum currently has an exhibit of the 20th century's Pulitizer Prize winning photographs. A compelling exhibit. I did read the words on the panels beside the pictures and often found them helpful in interpreting the pictures.

,,,and it wouldn't be especially meaningful to go through the exhibit only reading captions.

I winder what a blind person would learn from "Control Room"?

I can think of one scene in which an al Jezera (sp?) guy explains to an idealistic Marine that the occupation of holy cities by American troops flying American flags rubs a lot of Arabs the wrong way, regardless of the Americans' good intentions. You don't really need video to get the point of that scene in the movie. Reading a description of it also does a poor job of conveying the Arab perspective. My guess is that the emotionality of that particular part of the audio/video presentation is what helped convey the truth of how we are perceived abroad. BTW, if you don't care how we are perceived abroad, then you might want to skip the movie.

The reason I rented the movie was a radio interview with the idealistic Marine mentioned in the previous paragraph. He joined the Marines as a teenager and had been in the Marines for about 14 years at the time the movie was made. Part of his duties included communicating with foreign media, particularly al Jezera. He said that he was idealistic about the Iraq war, but has resigned (retired? I'm not sure what the term is) from the Marines and is discouraged about what we are doing over there. He said that when he was put in charge of media relations with al Jezera, all he knew about Islam was what he got from a book call "Islam for Dummies" that he read on the plane over there. He sounds very honest and bright, but it was ridiculous to put him in charge of communicating with the millions of muslim viewers of al Jezera. It shows utter arrogance, stupidity, and disrespect on the part of our leaders.

To imply that one form of media or communication trumps another, just by the form it comes in, is not well founded. Just as Michael Moore, Leni Riefenstahl, Bud Greenspan and anyone with a film or video camera can make a documentary, it's obvious that an Adolf Hitler, G. Gordon Liddy, Al Franken or Karl Marx can get their ideas printed. There's good and bad in all media since the first cave drawings and the invention of writing.

Then to deny oneself exposure to any form of media, including newsprint, film, blogs, and "talk radio" is just cutting off access to potential sources of vital informaton. That's not to say that any one is giving the gospel truth, it's just a source. What your experience & knowledge does with the information is truly up to you.

Good. Then lets all go watch some Nazi and some Stalinist documentaries since we all want to broaden our horizons. WTF, lets throw in some good Catholic and LDS documentaries, too.

If it says, "documentary" then it must be an important voice that we mustn't ignore. That wouldn't be fair.

nobody is putting forth a blanket rejection or affirmation of any specific type of media other than you. "If one then all" is not a valid criticism on any level.

Why sure it is, djugurba. By what reason or right would you choose to promote some and not others? Wouldn't that demonstrate the unforgivable sin of prejudice?

duh, it's not pre-judging. that's what you are doing. It's taking the input for what it is: input. Take it, scrutinize it, pick it apart, glean what is useful, discard that which you have no use for. But don't knock it before you've tried it- that is predjudice. And, since genres do not commit guilt by association, just because Michael Moore calls his films documentaries, there is no causal link making all other documentaries into the inflamatory, manipulative, intentional tripe as was his latest.

I've got old textbooks that tell all about how Chris Columbus discovered the new world. That does not make all textbooks false.

Isn't judging things on their own individual merits the best way to proceed?

Classic examples of, "It's not the the Medium, it's the Messenger's Fault" :D

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation of action to re-action,
and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to
react....he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high
schools."
-- 1920 New York Times editorial on Robert Goddard's rocket work.

"Landing and moving about on the moon offers so many serious problems for
human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them."
-- Science Digest, 1948

"The actual building of roads devoted to motor cars is not
for the near future, in spite of many rumours to that effect."
-- Harper's Weekly, 1902

"The ordinary 'horseless carriage' is at present a luxury for the wealthy;
and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of
course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
-- Literary Digest, 1899

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to
breathe, would die of asphyxia."
-- Dr. Dionysus Lardner, 1793-1859

"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives travelling twice the speed of stagecoaches?"
-- Quarterly Review, 1825

"Railroad Carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 mph by engines
which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and
snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to the crops,
scaring the livestock, and frightening women and children. The Almighty
certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck
speed."
-- Martin Van Buren

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895


"Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if
not utterly impossible."
-- Simon Newcomb, Director, U.S. Naval Observatory, 1902
　
"The director of Military Aeronautics of France has decided to discontinue
the purchase of monoplanes, their place to be filled entirely with
bi-planes. This decision practically sounds the death knell of the
monoplane as a military instrunent."
-- Scientific American, 1915

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will be
obtainable."
-- Albert Einstein, 1932

"Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys which distract our attention
from serious things. We are in great haste to construct a magnetic
telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have
nothing important to communicate."
-- Henry David Thoreau

"I must confess that my imagination, in spite even of spurring, refuses to
see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and
foundering at sea."
-- H. G. Wells, 1901
　
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
　
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
　
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with
the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that
won't last out the year."
-- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
　
"But what ... is it good for?"
-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,
commenting on the microchip

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment
Corp., 1977
　
"That the automobile has reached the limit of its development is suggested
by the fact that during the last year no improvements of a radical nature
have been introduced."
-- Scientific American, 1909
　
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981

I'll see your Duh and raise you a Duhhhhh.

By what method do you determine whether or not to reject say, a Hitler-Era Nazi produced documentary for the viewing pleasure of you and your family? Would you use those same criteria for a CBS 60 Minutes documentary or a Stalinist documentary? Or do you watch them all with an equally open mind--perhaps there is something useful to be learned by fully understanding the Aryan message that other, lesser people have missed?

When you go to Blockbuster, do you rent movies in some order or is there complete random selection?

B