(CNN) -- Guatemala's government has declared a state of siege and sent hundreds of troops to a northern province where officials say a Mexican drug gang is overtaking towns and threatening residents. President Alvaro Colom announced the 30-day emergency rule in Alta Verapaz on Sunday. The rule allows the military to order anyone suspected of conspiring against the government to be arrested and imprisoned without a warrant, the state-run AGN news agency said. "Starting today, combined forces will retake the streets of Alta Verapaz," a government statement released Sunday morning said. Government data shows cells of the drug gang known as Los Zetas are in the area to protect drug trafficking paths between Honduras and Mexico, "intimidating the population with their heavy weapons and threatening farmers to give up their land for criminal activities," AGN reported. The state of siege also allows the government to place greater restrictions on public gatherings, travel visas and gun licenses, among other things, according to AGN. "The population should be calm. What we are doing is not intended to persecute honest, working people," Interior Minister Carlos Menocal told reporters. Menocal said operations in the coming days would aim to boost regional security, regain control of territory, identify criminal gangs and capture their members. In an interview with CNN en Espanol last month, Menocal said his country needed more help from the United States to combat cartels, which were increasingly carving out new drug transport paths. "In the end, the large majority of drugs travel through Central America, and the assignment of resources or the financial support of the United States government is not the same as Colombia and Mexico receive," he said. Menocal said clashes between authorities and Los Zetas had notably increased.

Question: "Guatemalan officials believe the United States should allocate more resources to combat their growing drug cartel problem, instead of only focusing on which two countries?"

Answer: "Argentina"

Response: no

Registration fees for Illinois lawyers could jump as much as $49 a year if lawmakers adopt two separate measures to bolster pro-bono services and support for lawyers with drug and alcohol problems. The Illinois Supreme Court is pushing for legislation that would allow it to dedicate money raised through the fee hikes to legal services to the poor. The justices are floating a $42 increase to shore up financing for pro-bono work, as the normal funding mechanism for legal services has fallen short in recent years. Currently, support for non-profit legal aid groups comes from interest generated on the Lawyers' Trust Fund, which pools clients' money that attorneys hold for such matters as escrow funds. But low interest rates and a sagging economy mean there is less money being generated. After hours of discussion, the high court agreed that raising the registration fees would be the best way to address the declining revenues, Chief Justice Moses W. Harrison II said. The judges were reluctant to raise those fees but eventually decided that supporting probono services was important enough "and lawyers had a responsibility to contribute" to the cause, Harrison said. Last year, the high court raised the base fee for active attorneys to $180 from $140. Lawyers in their first three years of practice or who are inactive pay $90, and retired lawyers pay nothing. Legislation circulated by the high court's lobbyist specifies that the hike would apply to attorneys "paying full annual registration fees." In 2001, there were 57,392 active attorneys in Illinois and 74,311 on the full roll, according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The hike would raise roughly $2.4 million. Last year, interest on the trust fund totaled $4.5 million, but service and handling fees consumed $538,000 of that amount. This year's returns are projected to be anywhere between $700,000 and $1 million short of that mark, said Ruth Ann Schmitt, the executive director of Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois. Harrison said the fee hikes are designed only to counter the shortfall in interest income, not add to the total amount available. "Our legal services are already stretched to the breaking point," Schmitt said. "We have a tough time raising enough money to properly fund services that our clients need." Neither the Illinois State Bar Association nor The Chicago Bar Association has taken a stance on the proposed hikes.

Question: "How much are the year's returns projected to cover for the income in interest?"

Answer: "$1.5 million and $2 million short"

Response: no

Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons: a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published? b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing. c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense. Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".

Question: "What text gave viewers the wrong impression"

Answer: "Text where the zooming is rather fast"

Response:
yes