Bowling for Columbine - Best Documentary?

[adios]

Trying to understand the liberal perspective on issues my wife and I went to see Bowling of Columbine last night. After the film my wife stated that she never realized that Charlton Heston was such a bigot. I stated that I didn't believe he was and that one should take that film with a "big grain of salt" because there were several things in the film that I was skeptical of. One of the things that I wonder about it is how much does Michael Moore make in a year while deriding the wealthy and apparently being a strong advocate of socialism. I was also struck by his lack of an explanation as to why Flint, Michigan has declined so much and is now a downtrodden ghetto. Hint Michael it's that car industry that at one time had lots of jobs for people but don't have that many now due to high labor costs compared to the rest of the world. The other thing that struck me was that this film was no documentary. Anyway I found this link that sheds a lot more light on this film:

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE - Truth of Fiction (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

As an aside the thread about cotton exports is still on my list of things to address. I'm gathering some data regarding the elascticity of cotton prices as well as on the US agricultural industry. I'm fairly certain that the real problem with cotton produced in Africa is that the costs of production are too high to compete with other countries production of cotton whether the US subsidized it's cotton industry or not. BTW the US is not the biggest cotton producer in the world.

[Jimbo]

Yes Tom Mr. Moore took quotes from Mr. Heston's speeches out of context. He even went so far as to say they occured at one meeting when they were from another months earlier and unrelated to the subject he portrayed. Moore is a real poster boy for the far left.

[John Cole]

Tom,

Moore has already explored the declince of Flint, Michigan, in an earlier film, Roger and Me.

The author of the website you've linked takes great pains to point out the ways Moore edited his film. All documentaries are edited, of course. And "fiction" documentaries have been made before. Errol Morris's The Thin Blue Line is one example. (I mean by "fiction" here that events have been recreated; Moore, I think, probably does stretch a bit, though, but I'd hardly regard Heston as a paragon of virtue.)

On the subject of documetaries, the Academy resolutely refuses to honor great work. Note that Errol Morris, Fred Wiseman, and the Masyle brothers have never won an Oscar. In fact, a few years ago, the Academy once again showed their true colors by refusing to nominate Hoop Dreams. Occasionally, though, one great documentary does win; Ophuls's The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie is such a documentary.

Overall, though, the Academy does dreadfully with documentaries and fiction films, so at least they have consistency.

John

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

I agree with your link that this movie is not a documentary, but a tool for Moore to make himself known. It's obvious that Moore does not even understand the issues he is portraying. But, what's even worse is that people want to believe he is telling the truth about the NRA.

I've only seen a few clips from the movie once on the Charlie Rose show and I would definately not go see it. It takes a simple minded approach and twists the facts in favor of Moore's conclusions.

Mark

[John Feeney]

I was struck less by any central message of Moore's than by one question he raised: Why is the gun murder rate in Canada so much lower than in the US? I don't think Moore pretended to have an answer for that. Perhaps, though, his bias showed in one of the possibilities he ruled out. As I recall he suggested that poverty was no less an issue in Canada than in the US, yet seemed to contradict himself when he showed a low income housing project which looked much nicer than what we'd expect in the US. Anyway, I'd be interested in any facts or theories anyone has about that question.

[Jeffage]

This film is a piece of liberal propoganda plain and simple. What he did to Charlton Heston, a sick old man, is plain disgusting. JMHO, but not one more dollar of my money will ever go to Michael Moore.

Jeff

[gdaily]

For you all, both pro-Moore and against mr Moore, I recommend the book Rogue States by Noam Chomsky.

regards Ola
(who loved mr Moores book "Stupid white men")

[Ray Zee]

Geeezsh, come on guys. moore presents his side of what he sees. just because you dont agree with his side doesnt mean its any less. all movies are produced to make money and are edited to make some point. thats the way it is. facts are usually twisted to make a point. listen to the govt. or our cost of living index.
moore is way out there on the liberal side, and from a big city doesnt understand how many feel about guns. he sees guns as the problem. which unfortunately in the wrong hands does become a problem. he doesnt differentiate that in our country we have many races and cultural mixes. this adds to the fuel that may cause much of the violence that we have that some other countries dont. but look at africa, when they have guns or machetes they use them in mass. so its not the tool, its the mindset.

[gdaily]

I used to have high thoughst about you, mr Zee.

Not any longer

regards
Ola
From a country with equally many races and cultural mixes as the USA - so similar to the US that Coca-Cola uses this country as testcountry before launching new products on the US market.

But with a killing-rate WAY below US

[Cyrus]

<ul type="square">"It's not the tool, its the mindset."
--Ray Zee[/list]

There is a huge difference between the American and the Canadian cultures, generally speaking. The former is characterized by a gung-ho, expansionist, frontier mentality, while the latter is more inward looking, more stable and less beligerent. I emphasize that this post is nothing but a crude though not inaccurate generalisation.

The climate (colder in Canada) cannot be the cause, because other countries with a climate similar to Canada, eg Norway, have been the home of bloodthirsty, expansionist and quite violent warriors. So, cold doesn't necessarily make you peaceful. And it can't be the ruling social culture because both the U.S. and Canada are overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon. The food maybe? Nah.

In my opinion the American mind has been on overdrive for the last 200+ years without a rest. There's a goal to be number one as an individual, a state, a country, that's propelling Americans ever forward, upward, outward, towards a non-existent frontier, towards an unreachable goal. The collective American psyche is thus rendered more nervous, agitated, frightened, and defensive than the Canadians'. Canadians have no pressure to be number one, to perform (more accurately to outperform) or to prove themselves all the time.

This is my two cents, and you can shoot me if you disagree.

--Cyrus

[Ray Zee]

gdaily, just what did i say or you think i said in that post, that makes you lose your regards for me.

[Zeno]

"This is my two cents, and you can shoot me if you disagree."

OK, Make My Day! (http://www.the-dirtiest.com/ballisti.htm)

-Zeno /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[John Feeney]

Very well put, Cy. That may well explain a lot of the difference.

Hey, maybe it could be the water too. Just before posting this I remembered a news item I'd seen linking crime rates to some sort of substances found in municipal water supplies. It may have been the same as what's described here. (http://www.heinzawards.net/articleDetail.asp?articleID=7) I wonder if Canada has purer water. It seems like it should: Canada, the great white north, rushing mountain rivers, glaciers... extra-clean water? Well, could be, maybe. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Bill Murphy]

Another great docu stiffed by the Academy. However, they do(or don't do) comedies worse than anything. How about Election or Best In Show(fictionalized docu! /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif )?

IMO, BFC barely qualifies as a documentary. Only interesting thing in it is the Canada/US question(and its a very interesting question). Shoulda been the focus of the whole movie.

I didn't care for using the Columbine victims, although they're certainly entitled to their anger &amp; have the right to express it.

The bit w/a senile Heston was compelling in a ghastly way. I'd heard about it, and it was worse than I'd expected. Moore HAD to put something in at the end about how Heston revealed his Alzheimer's later.

I thought Roger &amp; Me was hysterical. BFC was sloppy. He's all over the place. Dick Clark was a stretch, although funny, remember Newlywed guy from R&amp;M?

Guy's been reading way too many fawning reviews from Europe &amp; Berkley, IMO.

[nicky g]

I agree that there are problems with BFC, but some of the author's complaints are absurd.

For example, he is outraged by the fact that the interview with Heston took at least 23 mins but on film only lasts 5.25. Does he know anything about film production? That's how interviews work. A friend's mother was once interviewed on Belgian TV; they came round and interviewed her for 2 hours. The subsequent piece lasted less that 2 minutes.

He also falls for the classic :it's an anti-gun film that isn't even anti-guns! Right, bozo: that's because it's not an anti-gun film. How stupid do you have to be to complain that Moore omits to mention that Switzerland has guns but low crime, and then go on to attack him for saying pointing out that Canada has guns but low crime (exact same point, different country)? BFC is a film that asks questions about gun crime in America. Moore's conclusions are about American history creating a culture of fear leading to a high level of violence.

I also like how he goes into the past of the 5 year old who killed someone at school. His family were criminals and he was the "class thug". He was five year's old, for goodness sake! What's the point: that he was an evil, deeply criminal five year old? Right; maybe the should give him the chair. He was clearly deeply disturbed by the circumstances he was growing up in, and Moore's points stands that he wouldn't have had to stay at his uncle'shouse if his mother hadn't have been forced to commute to her shitty job miles away, and that Flint's social problems are what leads to this knid of thing (as someone said, explored more profoundly in another film).

"US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. "

Only 8,000, then, eh? Compared to as much as 168 in Germany! This guy's right, clearly there's no problem at all.

[andyfox]

The drive to become and remain Number One is certainly an excellent description of the American psyche.

[Zeno]

"The drive to become and remain Number One is certainly an excellent description of the American psyche."

And it is our great strength, and biggest weakness. For an illustration of the strength: America zipped to the moon and back - an achievement that in the long run is a benefit to all humanity.

As to the weakness - well, I leave that to "outside" observers, they have a better perspective.

-Zeno: Gun Nut, Misanthrope, and No-limit player par excellence!

[John Cole]

Nicky,

I didn't go back to reread the author's look at Moore's statistical evidence, but I think he admits later that the 11,000 figure is correct since it includes people who were not killed initially but died as a result of their wounds.

John

[David Ottosen]

Life is a struggle for resources. As the USA grows, they are exceeding their ability (in some areas) to have enough resources to support the population of that area.

Canada is very underpopulated (larger than the USA, but only 10% of the population). As resource struggle isn't as big an issue, people aren't as required to take extreme measures to struggle for resources.

Its a guess anyways. Could be just that I'm that much better of a person than Clarkmeister too. (He is so FOS!)

[Cyrus]

Crumb was an outstanding documentary. Zwigoff made then of course Ghost World and I suppose you already know about the brilliant Daniel Clowes.

..The artists without an Academy Award are a pretty exclusive olympian bunch! Not getting an Oscar ever is probably the mark of true artistry. Orson Welles and I rest my case.

[John Cole]

Bill,

Here's a link to a review of one documentary the Academy would never consider for an award, but I think you may be intrigued by it:

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archives/1997/documents/00524786.htm

[Bill Murphy]

Heard about it at the time, and passed. Same as w/the docu on GG Allin &amp; the bio of Chopper. Blech. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

Then again, I loved Henry, Portrait Of A Serial Killer w/Michael Rooker. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

[Chris Alger]

I don't see how this website sheds light on anything. Most of the facts it "reveals" are spurious or speculation: Moore failed to disclose the populations of Australia, Japan and Canada are lower than ours (duh); that Lockheed-Martin doesn't actually put bombs on its missiles, just the secret military payloads for the USAF’s Space and Missile Systems Center, which might help send the bombs on their way, but since we don’t know, the website claims the missiles amount to “swords into ploughshares;” Moore used one set of annual government gun homicide statistics instead of another, both of which prove the same point; Moore edited his interview footage, but not unethically; Heston's recent comment tying violence to “mixed ethnicity” should be tempered by his support for Civil Rights 40 years ago (and for letting his target hang himself Moore is guilty of “deception?”); a savage cartoon satire from the South Park guys should be taken seriously enough to accuse it of giving a “false impression” equating the NRA with the Klan because President Grant was an NRA President 100 years ago; we didn’t give “aid” to the Taliban, but to Taliban supporters in Pakistan and NGO’s that administered it to Afghanistan under Taliban control. This to counter a broad comic exploration of fear and violence in America? Pathetic.

Rightists hate this movie for the reason they think the corporate news is subversive: they can’t handle even slight departures from their conventions and worldviews. The film purportedly isn't a "documentary" because it uses, with more wit and polish, the same propaganda techniques the right loves to see in other contexts. Like Reed Irvine's strident, conspiratorial rejoinder to the watered-down PBS series on Vietnam. Narrated, of course, by Heston.

[BTW, the only I've even seen Charlton Heston in person was when he was lying while filming a documentary. It was on my submarine, the USS Edison (SSN 610) in the Bangor Trident base in 1982, where Heston doing his bit for the Navy (apparently part of the payback for Navy cooperation in the deceitful feature film, "Gray Lady Down," where the DSRV, used exclusively for espionage and "spec ops" was portrayed as an actual "rescue" vehicle for submarines). Walking across the deck topside, he advertised the boat as carrying 16 submarine-launched ballistic missiles in the tubes "beneath these hatches." In fact, our boat was a first generation boomer from which the missiles had been permanently removed years prior. The missile tubes stored foul weather gear. We watched from the pier, rolling our eyes. A friend suggested sneaking behind the small plexiglass window in the sail immediately behind Heston and morse-coding the word "torture."]

[John Cole]

Although, like you Chris, many think PBS's series was, indeed, "watered down" or even "objective," the then head of the NEA, Bill Bennett, was suficiently riled by the series and its, according to Bennett, liberal bent, that he immediately responded by providing thirty thousand dollars for a conservative rejoinder to the series. He might have given even more, but 30k was the limit he was able to give without approval.

John

[HDPM]

Well, I saw him at a Republican function where he came to talk about gun rights. I am a pro-gun lunatic and pretty conservative on some stuff, but let's just say I might have morse coded "torture" if I knew how. Rubber chicken and a canned lunatic speech. One dude paid like $8000 for a cheap shotgun autographed by Heston in the fundraiser. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

What was really funny to see the 65-75 year old women go nuts over him. Some really thought he was Moses. A lot of the old republican biddies just wanted to know him in the biblical sense. Lucky Moore didn't have a secret camera there. Episodes like that may drive me away from politics entirely.

[John Feeney]

Good point. Now, uhm, Dave, ya think we could have some of those resources. Please? (I've asked nicely now, so don't make us get violent! /forums/images/icons/mad.gif )

[John Feeney]

"BFC is a film that asks questions about gun crime in America. Moore's conclusions are about American history creating a culture of fear leading to a high level of violence."

Yes. That's what I was trying to put my finger on. I went to the film having heard that it was sort of an anti-gun/pro-gun control documentary. Then when I saw it, I found that it didn't really push any anti-gun message, and in fact made a big deal of how "gun crazy" Canada had such a low gun murder rate. Instead its message is indeed one about a "culture of fear."

[Cyrus]

The likes of John Cole might be interested to know that Heston translates in Greek, literally, as sh*t-on-him. As God is my witness.

[Cyrus]

I haven't seen the documentary on Flanagan but I do have the Re/Search book. I know it's "an important insight into our corporeality and our mortality" but some pictures are nearly impossible to look at. I mean, forget 72o, this guy got dealt some really lousy hand.

The GG Allin documentary I have seen and it is both amusing and disturbing. The more scatological GG, the ultimate kid from the suburbs, gets in the movie, the less threatening he comes off! As to the Chopper bio, if you're referring to the Australian movie, starring Eric Bana, I would strongly recommend that you give it a chance on DVD: a fine film, not sensationalist at all. Extras in the DVD include an interview with the real Chopper who is surprisingly articulate, knowledgeable and self-mocking.

[Chris Alger]

William Wyler was concerned about the script to Ben-Hur. In Celluloid Closet, a documentary about gay themes in movies, Gore Vidal recalled that "one of the film's problems was that there was no plausible explanation for the hatred between the characters played by Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd. Vidal's suggestion: They were lovers when they were teenagers, but now Ben-Hur (Heston) denies that time, and Boyd is resentful. Wyler agreed that would provide the motivation for a key scene, but decided to tell only Boyd, not Heston, who 'wouldn't be able to handle it.'" From R. Ebert's review.

After reading this you can't watch the scene of the first meeting between Masala and Judah Ben-Hur without being struck by Boyd's homoeroticism and Heston's obliviousness to it. With a sparkle in his eye, Boyd checks out Heston's pecks and flanks, stares him in the eye while gushing "it's good to see you," and Heston responds with his signature robotic cadence "it's-good-to-see-you--too." Then they entwine their arms romantically to drink a toast to "friendship." Hilarious.

They should remake all of Heston's movies with his role flagrantly gay, as in "get your paws all over me you damned dirty ape....."

[adios]

First of all absolute numbers are a very, very poor way to evaluate data. Data should be normalized to properly interpret it's meaning. Second of all the link I posted was showing how Moore was being dishonest. I'm sorry justifiable homicide by citizens and police are not a problem with gun ownership in the USA. Third of all Moore IMO portrays your typical gun owner as some scared to death, white male, ignorant fool. He implies in my mind that these are the people needlessly killing each other. Download the FBI statistics from 2001 and see the various breakdowns of murders by ethnic groups and you'll see that this is not at all the case. The murder rates by blacks is much higher in normalized terms and even in absolute terms i.e. blacks commit more murders than whites. One might argue that the large number of unsolved murders would change the data if solved but I doubt that's the case. You can argue why that is but it's certainly not how Moore portrayed the situation in the film. And before you all accuse me of not examining the trend I challenge you all to look at the years leading up to 2001 and you'll find more of the same. Of course a key question is, who are the victems? The statistics show IMO that basically black people are killing black people. I would bet a lot of money that statistics would show that a disproportionate amount of murders are committed by those below the poverty line. So my question is how does all of this prove Moore's point regarding guns and their abuse?

I might also add that trends should be examined. Pulling individual numbers out of thin air and making conclusions is ridiculous for a documentary. If Moore wants to make up a piece of fiction that's fine and in a sense that's probably all he meant to do. But passing this film off as a documentary is just sick.

[nicky g]

"I would bet a lot of money that statistics would show that a disproportionate amount of murders are committed by those below the poverty line. "

I agree with you (I think) - I think poverty, inequality and ghettoisation area much bigger contributory factors to gun crime than Moore's conclusions. My point was that the author of the article is a. attacking BFC as an anti-gun film, when that's not really its point (and isn't attcking him on your basis); and b. pointing out trifling mistakes in statistics that ultimately make no difference to the case.

"I'm sorry justifiable homicide by citizens and police are not a problem with gun ownership in the USA."
I disagree. Those people have a right to use guns in self-defence if their lives are threatened, but clearly these figures still have a direct relation to a high level of violence: that is, their life must have been threatened in order for them to have been justified in killing someone else . A high level of justifiable homicide clearly points to a high level of violence, as there has to be violence to defend one's self against in order for the killing to be classed as self-defence. Also many would argue that a society without guns produces less violent crime and less violent responses to crime; guns up the ante, as it were.

[andyfox]

"his signature robotic cadence"

I don't think he was a great actor, but he did give a great performance in Touch of Evil. Don't know whether it was Welles' influence or something else, but I liked him a lot in that movie.

[adios]

"I agree with you (I think) - I think poverty, inequality and ghettoisation area much bigger contributory factors to gun crime than Moore's conclusions."

And this was basically what Heston was trying to state. Except Moore makes Heston out to be an ignorant bigot when his past record of supporting civil rights shows he's clearly not. Moore presents a biased non-factual film which is fine but it doesn't qualify as a documentary.

"My point was that the author of the article is a. attacking BFC as an anti-gun film, when that's not really its point (and isn't attcking him on your basis); and b. pointing out trifling mistakes in statistics that ultimately make no difference to the case."

No,no he's attacking Moore and the Academy for the portrayal of Bowling for Columbine as a documentary. In a documentary one has the expectation that it be unbiased and factual. Pointing out inaccuracies to proove his point is legitimate. Moore's film fails to qualify since it's biased and non-factual. What might be trifling mistakes to one might not be to another. In my mind a documentation is supposed to educate the viewer on the topic being portrayed.

"I disagree. Those people have a right to use guns in self-defence if their lives are threatened, but clearly these figures still have a direct relation to a high level of violence:that is, their life must have been threatened in order for them to have been justified in killing someone else ."

I believe your point is that guns increase murder and violence. Ok that seems to be true but what about Switzerland? I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily but I think there should be an explanation for Switzerland and perhaps there is very good one.

BTW did you catch the article in the Wall Street Journal about European farm subsidies? I'll try and reprint it this weekend. Lots of subsidized agricultural production in Europe. I'm not necessarily opposed to subsidies for agriculture but in light of the article, blasting the USA for subsidizing agriculture seems to be a distortion of reality.

[nicky g]

"I believe your point is that guns increase murder and violence"

No, it isn't in this case. It's about the fact that justifiable homicide is indicative of high levels of violence in itself; ie if you didn't shoot the person who was going to kill you (or rape you etc), he would have shot you; so while you shooting him is ok, and doesn't count as gun crime, the statistic is indicative of a violent crime. If a country had no firearms murders but 80,000 shootings in self-defence, it would still be a pretty violent country with serious problems to address. Therefore I don't think it is seriously misleading for Moore to have included these numbers in his general statistics, especially as they consititue a pretty smll fraction of the overall numbers.

I think Switzerland (and Canada) can be explained by having less economic inequality and less ghettoised social groups than the US.

As for farm subsidies, I believe I mentioned the EU subsidies in my post. The EU is without any doubt just as guilty on this as the US. However, in this case, France put forward a plan that would seriously look at addressing some of the problems caused by this, and it was shot down by Bush. What I find problematic is not so much the subsidies by themselves, though I think it's time for them to end; it's that Western aid and loans, be they from the US, the IMF, the EU or whoever, are usually tied these days to developing countries abolishing import taxes on Western agricultural goods and eliminating agricultural subsidies to their own farmers. Not only do these countries need such protections to raise their own producers to a level at which they can compete with Western producers, but even after they've complied, the West carries on subsidising its own farmers, which leads to the developing countries being flooded by cheap imports that destroy their economies and put their farmers out of business.

[adios]

A big G8 meeting coming up and Bush will be there. I agree that often third world countries get in a bind by borrowing money that can't be repaid. However, IMO susidizing ones ability to be self reliant in providing food seems to be quite logical. Anyway price floors tend to create surpluses. You wrote:

"Not only do these countries need such protections to raise their own producers to a level at which they can compete with Western producers, but even after they've complied, the West carries on subsidising its own farmers, which leads to the developing countries being flooded by cheap imports that destroy their economies and put their farmers out of business."

Where is the evidence that if you removed all subsidies and trade barriers that African farmers could produce agricultural products at low enough costs to compete with imported food? Ok allow African goods to be subsidized but where do these subsidies come from? Certainly if these governments could subsidize their own industries they would and they wouldn't need to borrow money. From the way I look at it if these countries can produce goods at a profit they'll find investors but I'm not convinced that their costs of production for agricultural goods are inline with Europe and the USA among others. They're in a tough spot and I'm fairly certain that "globalization" won't help their prediciment. Also from what I gather about food prices, that at a certain point the prices for agricultural products are very inelastic which means that at given production point if you will the price for marginally more production of an agricultural product does not lower the price that much.

[nicky g]

Good post.

"Also from what I gather about food prices, that at a certain point the prices for agricultural products are very inelastic which means that at given production point if you will the price for marginally more production of an agricultural product does not lower the price that much. "

An increase in production may not lower the price by itself, but surely you will agree that if some of your costs are met by the government, you will be able to undercut the price of a farmer who doesn't receive any subsidies?

"Where is the evidence that if you removed all subsidies and trade barriers that African farmers could produce agricultural products at low enough costs to compete with imported food? Ok allow African goods to be subsidized but where do these subsidies come from? Certainly if these governments could subsidize their own industries they would and they wouldn't need to borrow money"

Developing world prodcers are generally able to produce things more cheaply than the developed world because of much lower wage costs. It is true that they are (much) more inefficient than Western producers, but unless their governments are allowed to help them develop by using protective measures, that will always be the case. As for where the subsidies would come from: an interesting point, but after all, these conditions ask that the developing countries stop subsidising production, which suggests that subsidies have been in place at some point. Who knows where they get it from; perhaps they use aid to subsidise agriculture. Even if they couldn't afford to subsidise production to begin with, they could of course use import taxes both to both boost their own producers and raise cash in order to subsidise them; but this too is banned. In the short term, especially during economic or food crises, when the IMF and co usually step in, western loans and/or aid are desperately needed and governments are forced to commit to long-term disadvantageous strategies (ending subsisies etc) in order to avert out and out catastrophe.

[adios]

"An increase in production may not lower the price by itself, but surely you will agree that if some of your costs are met by the government, you will be able to undercut the price of a farmer who doesn't receive any subsidies?"

Yep the question is how much. BTW this is basically what is going on with the US cotton industry from what I can gather. The cotton is actually produced at a loss but the subsidies lower the cost of production. I hope to have more on this later because the US tried to address price supports for cotton in the 90's but the US lawmakers basically didn't envision the current economic environment.

Also regarding the inexpensive labor. My impression of the US algriculture industry (and I would certainly believe this is true with European agriculture as well) is that labor costs have been reduced dramatically through the use of modern technology. But specific knowledge of production costs would be useful at this point. I am sympathetic to the plight of third world countries. Cyrus asked me where I stood on globalization and I'm on the fence like he is, I see good and bad but I digress. Let's be optimistic about the upcoming G8 meetings. Bush signaled his willingness to negotiate with some statemanlike comments about France before he left.