Mr & Mrs Smith was the first film I saw. The audience consisted of young males with their gameboys and manga and "senior" women. Not too hard to figure out why they were there. And the film? It was fun, mindless fun. Mindless, action-filled fun. With Angelina and Brad. And they did have a chemistry that worked. Even better was that the film ended with a nice premise for a sequel, namely to get back at their bosses who wanted them both dead. I'd give the film a B+ for fun and Angelina.

Land of the Dead was the second film I saw and I enjoyed it too. I've likd all of George Romero's zombie films because he doesn't try to scare you out of your seat. Yes, there's tremendous gore but the scare, especially in the earlier films, is that the zombies just keep coming. With this film, he's setting up the ideas that the zombies aren't goin away so you better start to learn to live with them and that the zombies are able to learn. So I'm wondering if the next zombie film will focus on a world where the living and the dead have kind of figured out how to co-habitate. WIll the living use the dead as free labor? What about zombie rights? There could be a camp classic in the making here. I give this film a B. No Angelina, no +.

The final film, one I finished seeing about 15 minutes ago, was Spielberg's War of the Worlds. I'll say this: Tom Cruise has improved as an actor. Dakota Fanning did a great job as the screaming terrified kid. The effects were tremendous and after 20 minutes or so in to the film, you begin to fear the aliens. This film scared me more than Land of the Dead. If there were problems with the film one was the predictable ending - happy, happy - and that the destruction of the aliens wasn't due to Tom Cruise's character. You're just along for the ride. Cruise is a hero but not THE hero, not a Stallone saves the world hero. Still I give this film a solid B+ and if I never see those tripods again...

More Bushit
The past three weeks has had me in awe, amazement, and helplessness with what's going on with our government.

First, more and more evidence piles up clearly showing that Bush and the neocons wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and used lies and distortions to do so. More, amazing is that we heard this early on from people resigning from the Administration. They said consistently that Bush and the Boyz were manipulating facts to justify an invasion. The Downing memos are only the latest. Consider this: there is more proof - testimony and memos - that Bush and the neocons lied about the facts surrounding the invasion of Iraq than there is proof about Iraq's WMDs and support for al Qaeda. Last night, bush went on TV and pretty much told us that we're in for more of the same: same lies repeated as justifications, same policy about there being no withdrawal policy but that we're spreading Democracy so THAT justifies the dead and investments. But what really irks me about the Neocons is their whole philosophy about spreading Demeocracy is precisely the same philosophy for spreading any kind of government.


Remember: Bush and the neocons said that we were invading Iraq becuase Hussein had WMDs and was threatening America. Wait, they changed the reasons to: spreading Democracy in the MIddle East and protection from terrorism. But these justifications can be used by any government against any other government. Canada could attack us saying that we were a threat to them and that they were spreading their brand of gorvernment. Democracy is a good form of government but it's not perfect. The American form is - right now - far from perfect. It's been corrupted by business and religion.


As for Iraq, what a waste. What a pity.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled about eminent domain, that cities can take your home if it's for economic growth of the city. Translation: individuals and individual rights are less important than the business welfare of communities. What next - take your home for the religious welfare of communities?

Third, the Supreme Court send back to lower courts the clash between peer-to-peer software makers (Grokster) and the Entertainment Industry. The sent the case back down with the strong suggestion that they side with business, that Grokster (and other P2P makers) are liable if people download copyrighted material using these programs. By this logic, gun, ammunition, knife, alcohol, and automobile manufactureres should also be held liable because people can easily break laws using their products.

Fourth, the Supreme Court decided to waffle on the separation between church and state by saying that religious displays can be put on governmental property if the intention is to show the legal heritage of America. Huh? And who will decide these things? Will there be warnings saying that these religious statues are there for non-religious reasons?

The Supreme Court has shown itself as corrupt and cowardly. They had a chance to strengthen the separation between church and state but instead opened the door for abuse. Justice Suitor said something real smart like "we have God in the Pledge so..." as justification for destroying the Wall. What most people don't understand about the separation between church and state is that the separation doesn't mean the state supports Atheism, Pagaism, Communism, or any other -ism as a result. It means simply that the Government doesn't endorse ANY religion - period! It keeps out! The only people who have a problem with that are those that seek to use the Government for their own religious purposes and THAT is NOT American!!!

Finally, I'm sick of Bush and the Neocons making the following words synonymous: Terrorists, Insurgents, Democrats, Liberals. This is their way. They said it early on and they've said it repeatedly: You're either with them or against them.

If you're against them, you might want to clean off your arm for your ID tattoo...