Briefly digressing on ANWR. I think its a near absolute certainty. It may not make any sense even in the short term (it won't in the long term. We need as many relatively stable ecosystems as we can get, not to mention that burning more oil is always bad), but we're addicts. I can only hope that the movie will not be too hollywood--for example like "The Day After Tomorrow." While I've not actually seen it, my impression is that it depicts some very improbable events (timescale wise, not necessarily  magnitude). Had it focused instead on the reality of what a stopped gulf stream would do over the course of say a YEAR or DECADE that might've been more realistic or at least less easily dismissable. We need something like a modern day "Grapes of Wrath." But I guess that can only really truthfully written after the fact.

But my point is that I think it is very hard for any MSM movies to adequately address any kind of serious problems. The hope for Syriana and others of its ilk is that they are not MSM movies (although it seems to be that way), and instead tackle issues head on, and deal with profitability second.

Re: Re: Michael Moore's film

People in the USA (and all around the world actually) are not electing politicians based on whether they are corrupt or not - they generally take this part for granted. People are electing those that they think will make their lives better; in the case of US - those that promise to continue their pretty unsustainable way of life at least a little longer.

This is the sour truth and at least according to my observations there is a huge group that on the surface is expressing their rage against the Iraq fiasco, oil dependance etc., but when they get home or get on their SUVs, they start thinking in other terms and finally vote for Bush. And will vote for him even after their world starts crashing down before their eyes.