General Ramblings...

My apologies that I have not blogged recently.

Isn't the whole point of blogging to do something EVERY DAY. Oh well.

Here's something:

Just some general grousing and thoughts on the past couple days…

First, it's fun to see the GOP spin machine run backwards for once. First, you have Clinton ripping Wallace a new one on FOX and the overall opinion polls showed that Clinton handed Wallace his ass on a silver platter. But the spin machine is trying to make it look like, well, he didn't. In these articles about the confrontation there's always that paragraph, that quote, by SOMEONE who says: "It made Clinton look bad. And that's a good thing." Huh? What? Are they watching the same thing I'M watching?

Then, yesterday, the Today show had Paul Begala and James Carville on talking about their new book and the Clinton moment and they were all over it. What was GREAT about it, was that they had their facts out there and pertinent. At one point saying: "Ms. Rice was on a Fox news show 46 times during this administration and not once did they ask about why they did not retaliate for the Cole bombing." And they went on to say: "Where is she now? She won't go on any talk shows because she knows she has no argument. She knows that you're going to ask about it now." And, you know what, they're right. It's out there, like an elephant in a living room. They'll HAVE to talk about it.

Now this morning all the talk is about this "declassified" memo and Bush saying that this is being "politicized" - well DUH, how stupid do you think we are? OF COURSE IT'S BEING POLITICIZED! If it was POSITIVE for this administration it would have been leaked a long time ago. Karl Rove would have leaked it through Armitrage or Bill O'Rielly or someone else. But the fact that they've kept it under wraps since April (supposedly) and now it's coming out - this administration is accusing people of playing "politics." It's F'ING Washing D.C. during an ELECTION YEAR. What do they think? Oh, that's right, they DON'T think.

So this morning the Today show has Bill "Gambled my life away" Bennett on to interview him and he has the gall, the UNMITIGATED GALL, to say that he doesn't see how the lack of response to "Bin Laden Set to Attack the United States" has anything to do with what is being discussed. WHAT??!! That it has no relevance. Again: WHAT??!! What the hell is he talking about?

First, though, he says it's "Bad for everyone about the release of these documents." Oh, that's right, we're stupid people and shouldn't know what's going on by our own government and what conclusions our government has come up with.
Then Mr. Bennett says: "I guess the larger question is: Why do the Democrats want to go to this issue, particularly Iraq." Uh…Bill, have you SEEN the GOP spin machine for the past 3 years+ It's ALL BEEN ABOUT IRAQ AND NATIONAL SECURITY. Is this guy on drugs? So Matt says: "Why do the Republicans want to bring it up?" And Bill's answer? "They DIDN'T bring it up, this was brought up by Democrats." Oh, so we're back on the school yard pointing fingers. So it's OKAY for the GOP to push the National Security Issue and talk about how much safer we are (see Bush's interview with Lauer from a couple weeks ago) but if the DEMS possibly challenge that by a very memo that's been created BY THIS ADMINISTRATION - we're playing "politics."

Heavy sigh… But, there's a heavier sigh.

In the past week, including yesterday's speech by GWB has said, twice now: "These people want to kill other people to achieve an objective!"

Excuse me George, but what do you think War does? I would like someone more clever than myself to go and find every moment where Bush accuses Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Terrorists, etc. of killing innocent people to "achieve an objective" and then intersperse those words over the images of the many thousands (AND THOUSANDS) of innocent people killed in the cross fire. Killed for living in a country we have no right to be in. Killed by cluster bombs and "bunker busters." Killed for celebrating a wedding, or their faith, or their freedom. Killed in cold blood on a city street, or tortured to death because someone thought that they were guilty of something at some point.

Seems Bush thinks that it's wrong for Terrorists to kill with the means they have (roadside bombs, knives and sticks, and machine guns and suicide bombers) to achieve an objective we may not necessarily agree with - but it's damn sure fine for us to kill many more thousands with high-tech weaponry, bombs that cost thousands, dropped from planes that cost millions to achieve OUR objective that they may not necessarily agree with.

What do you think happens in a War, George?

You have inscrutable eyes...

I have no idea what the hell that means. But Woody Allen can get away with it.

I watched "Melinda and Melinda" over the weekend. Probably because I'm dealing so much with Melinda, my manager, in my subconcious I had to watch this movie.

It's a "slight" Woody Allen Dramedy. The thing I kept thinking about, though, was that it's really a simple story and one I kept thinking: "I could have written this!" Yes, there were some clever bits, and some "allenisms" but it was very simple. As much as I could write it, though, I know that I couldn't sell it. Not with lines like the above:

"You have inscrutable eyes...."

Woody writes it. Woody makes it. If I wrote it and tried to pitch it, I'd be laughed out of the conference room.

Watched a great Dario Argento film: "Creepers" which was AMAZING. And Jennifer Connelly, at the age of 15, went through HELL with this movie. I won't say much more than that - but find it, watch it. Kicks ass.