Well I've been wondering what to expect from Spurlock's 2nd big documentary. It sounds like a mish-mash. Too bad. I think he should have considered making it all a travelogue that shows a spectrum of Middle Eastern/Islamic opinions about Western Culture, terrorism, politics and the like. That would be enough, if he did it with some charm and insight.

I found your "Osama isn't important" comments interesting. I think some will debate that, since he does have symbolic meaning to a lot of Americans, and he was used as a major rhetorical device for the current wars. Personally I think the actual question of where Osama is, and what level of influence he has, is extremely important, since there are still so many questions about his role in 9/11 and whether he is alive or still has any leadership role in terrorist networks. Every time a new "Osama tape" comes out, I think it's crazy that the media automatically assumes it's authentic.

Worse yet, the various Associated Press articles are presented with an image of Osama in an archival video that is juxtaposed in a way that the casual observer will think the "new Osama tape" actually shows video of him still alive. It's very misleading and almsot feels like propaganda to keep the public scared of the Islamic menace.

Anyway, I hope that Spurlock's doc doesn't get relegated to the ghetto of DAFURS as you say. Though I do question one thing about that acronym/idea: Are these documentaries really so buried? "Taxi to the Dark Side" won the Oscar and I think it will enjoy a successful life in DVD rentals. I have watched/listened to "No End in Sight" twice via Netflix watch-it-now viewings (I can't recommend that one enough). Same with Annie Sundberg's "The Devil Came on Horseback," which is a somewhat limited documentary, but still important.