<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=099552514-13072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>June,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099552514-13072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Moore's film is advertised to be a documentary. My dictionary
defines a documentary as: "a film or television program presenting factual
information without editorial comment" . Seems to me that this film
either explicitly or implicitly makes a huge editorial comment. If the
film was advertised as Moore's opinion piece or a celluloid letter to the
editor I would be less troubled. Rather it is presented as a
documentary. In my opinion Moore's movie is extremely biased and is a
thinly veiled attempt to achieve a certain outcome during a Presidential
election year. You mention "good information" as your litmus test for
persuasion. Does you definition of "good information" include both sides
of an issue or only the side you are predisposed towards? Please do not
take my question as a slam, just seems to me that folks predisposed to vote
Democratic commend Moore's work and Republican leaning folk dismiss
it. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099552514-13072004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Love
you all Dan O..................... </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owen-bounces@owenconnections.com
[mailto:owen-bounces@owenconnections.com]<B>On Behalf Of </B>June
Newman<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:14 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
owen@owenconnections.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [owen]
persuasion<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from text/enriched format -->
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>Moore openly produced a film which he intended to be
persuasive. I, like most of you, grew up hearing sermons, meant to be
persuasive. Moore/preacher/politician/teacher has an idea he/she thinks others
are likely to share if they will consider certain information. The information
is presented as factual. The conclusions, what to make of the information, is
biased. Some of Moore's supportive material, for example, consists of
recordings of Bush's own words. That Bush spoke those words is fact, whether
the messenger is Hollywood, or Fox News. Moore is open about his pesuasive
agenda. Fox news admits to no such slant. </DIV><BR>
<DIV>The following item came to my mailbox this morning. It offers information
which I could verify if I wanted to, about current and proposed highway/public
transit funding. Then the writer expounds on those facts to persuade me that
the administration proposal is bad. The writer has an open bias. The fact of
bias, alone, does not discredit a piece. What authenticates an attempt to
persuade me is simple: good information and logical conclusions. I think
Moore's film passes that test. If you don't agree, persuade me with some good
information and logical conclusions of your own. June </DIV><BR>
<DIV>The federal-state funding match for public transit and highway
construction is currently 80:20. But under a new proposal from the Bush
Administration, states would be required to pay <I>half </I>the cost of public
transportation projects. The 80:20 ratio for new highways, however, would stay
unchanged. </DIV><BR>
<DIV>This tilt in the funding match would inevitably push local governments to
build more highways at the expense of public transit. The Sierra Club report,
<I>Missing the Train</I>, details why supporting public transportation makes
so much more sense. </DIV><BR>
<DIV>First of all, building public transportation creates more jobs than
highway construction. A study this year by the <FONT color=#006633>Surface
Transportation Policy Project</FONT> found that for every $1.25 billion spent
on new public transportation projects, nearly 51,300 people are employed. By
contrast, only 43,200 are employed per every $1.25 billion spent on new roads
and bridges. [1] That's an important reason why labor leaders around the
country now support public transportation. </DIV><BR>
<DIV>Public transit boosts local economies as well. The Sierra Club report
cites examples from around the country -- including Washington, D.C.,
Dallas/Ft. Worth, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay -- where public transportation
projects have revitalized neighborhoods and invigorated business districts. In
many areas, business and labor leaders have teamed up to push for new
projects.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>