I just realized that I haven't written anything in over two months. Sheesh. Who's a lazy bitch now.

Anyway, it's my birthday, not that anyone has remembered. I may go buy myself a present.

Woke up this AM to the news that the US has turned over control of Iraq to Iraqi authorities two days early. And it took Dan Rather 45 seconds to question whether or not the new Prime Minisiter was really in charge or just a puppet of this country. Now, look at your watch (it's 7:27 EST as I write this), I am predicting now that is anything goes wrong Kerry and his bunch will say that the Bush administration rushed to judgement and abandoned the Iraqi people.

Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" is apparently doing very well. #1 at the box office this weekend. I was reading the local rag, the Morning Call, and they had two seperate articles and it was heavily slanted towards the anti-Bush viewer. In two articles, only one person was quoted as thinking the movie was crap, while the rest came out saying it proved to them that Bush was an selling us down the river. Now, I haven't seen it and I am debating going to see it. I probably will but not sure when. For the record, I loved "Roger and ME", but my biggest problem with Morre is as a documentarian. Based on "Bowling For Columbine", Moore is a sloppy filmmaker. He often takes two unrelated statements, as in the case of Charleton Heston, and slaps them together to make his point. That's sloppy and self-serving. If the proof is there, let the footage tell the story, not the creative editing. I make films and documentaries myself. I've been an filmmaker and editor for almost 15 years, and I realize the power of editing. If I have enough footage, I can make anyone look and sound like whatever I want them to. It's easy but sloppy filmmaking. The more honest and accurate thing to do is let the piece tell the story. The story is the subject, not the film-maker. Now I will give Moore the benefit of the doubt and make judgement after I've seen it. It ought to be an experience.

As it is already stated in my previous posts, I have a more conservative leaning and am a registered Libertarian. Just to identify my potential bias. It just wrinkles my scrot when people's first complaint about Bush is that he's an idiot. C'mon people use your head for more than a hatrack and don't buy the news-media cough syrup!!! Think about this situation. There are many reasons to be concerned about the Bush administration. Our southern border problems and the Patriot act among others, but the 1st thing out of people's mouths is that Bush is dumb. In one breath they claim he's an idiot, but in the next that he's capable of these incredibly complicated conspracies. Which is it? Or is it just about debasing the man in the upcoming election? Do all these people have problems with Kerry's record of voting on both sides of an issue in order to claim he voted for the side of a topic that is held in public favor?

I have many friends who can't stand Bush, but in most cases I can respect their opinions because they have thought the process thru for themselves. Politicians suck. With rare exception they're about keeping their jobs at all costs, not serving the public good. Congress has become so polarized in the last 15 years, that congressmen of oppossing parties don't even speak to each other outside the halls of Congress. It's become all about bashing the other side, not serving the country. Both sides can roll out the media to their issues, but what have they done for us?

The point is think these issues thru for yourself and not drink the party cool-aid just because they say you ought to. You can't believe eveything you see, read, or hear if there was an editor involved. I'd love to see Washington try and operate without spin doctors, lobbyists, speechwriters, editors, pollsters, and make-up artists. Let these bastards really have to work it everyday by themselves, and see how well they hold up to the people they work for.

Back to your normally scheduled psychosis.