It's just this hard when I try to answer the question: Why do older Oklahomans need lawyers? The answers are important enough that they will be a discussion topic of this year's Senior Day at 9 a.m. March 25 in the House Chamber at the Capitol. The following is a preview of some of the answers for review: We can all agree that older Oklahomans need medical care. But even the best care is worthless if an older patient can't drive to the doctor for ongoing treatment because his or her car has been wrongfully seized in a debt dispute. Therefore, lawyers are part of the prescription for regular medical care for many of the 600,000 Oklahomans age 60 and older. Another example: if a doctor treats an elderly patient for a lung ailment, the doctor's treatment will be undone and he will see the patient again and again, if the patient is sent home to an unheated apartment. Lawyers know how to make landlords heat apartments so the medical treatment can stick. (By the way, a May 16, 2001, article in The New York Times reports on a program at Boston Medical Center providing a walk-in legal clinic in the hospital to help fight their patients' legal and administrative battles.) We also can agree that older Oklahomans - like all citizens - have rights to control their health care until they become incapacitated or these rights are transferred to another by legal document or process. "Old" is not a legal classification that results in automatic loss of these rights. Moreover, having an old parent does not automatically confer on children the right to make the parents' health care choices. It follows that an important role lawyers provide for aging Oklahomans is not only to create rights - transferring documents such as durable powers of attorney and guardianship orders, but also to monitor their use. In family situations, for example, lawyers must ensure that powers of attorney and guardianships are used to serve only the person transferring or losing rights. They are not to be used to help a family "manage" their mother or help a doctor or nursing home get permission for a pill or procedure they feel is in the best interest of a patient. Good news: Oklahoma now has a Public Guardianship Program, albeit unfunded, that will supply lawyers to perform this rights-monitoring process Oklahoma grandparents should be able to enjoy their grandchildren, not raise them. But owing to the social problems of divorce and drug use, grandparents are increasingly being called on to raise their grandchildren because of missing parents. Adding to the physical, emotional and financial burden they take on, grandparents face legal problems. All the decisions parents made without a second thought now require evidence of legal authority when made by grandparents.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: When are they having Senior day In Oklahoma?

You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective. Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?" Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Which standard filmmaking technique is used as a basis to construct conspiracies?

Taliban and American aid. After the September 11 attacks, it was necessary for conservatives to somehow explain away the fact that the US government gave 245 million dollars to the new evildoers du jour. Never mind the fact that authors such as Robert Scheer warned of aiding the Taliban as early as in May 2001. Never mind that they did so not out of some humanitarian motivation, but because of the Taliban's violent enforcement of the ban on opium poppies. Never mind that in a regime that is controlled by warlords, it does not matter who is authorized to distribute the aid -- the ruling regional warlords will seize control of it and use it to their own advantage. Never mind that this very argument has been used by hawks in opposition to sending humanitarian aid to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Never mind that the Taliban continued selling opium in spite of the deal. Never mind that this is all documented on Michael Moore's website about the film. Gun homicides. Statistics are Moore's weakest point, and it is surprising that his critics don't dwell on them longer. That's because they know all too well that Moore is correct: The United States have a far greater homicide rate (both gun- and non-gun) than most other first world countries. His main mistake is that he does not use population corrected data, his second mistake is that he does not cite his sources (and, as you correctly point out, he probably uses different reporting methods for the different countries). A good comparison of international homicide rates can be found on the relatively neutral guncite.com website.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer:
For what topic does Michael Moore fail to cite his sources?