I just came back from seeing Michael Moore's latest film, a documentary about President Bush's involvement (or lack thereof) in events surrounding 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. I rate the film 6/10 on a IMDB scale. While the film certainly did solidify my resolve to get Bush out of office, I found myself annoyed at many of Moore's attacks. For example, he presumptuously tried to guess at Bush's thoughts when Bush, sitting in a classroom with children, was first told of the 9/11 attacks. I also felt that I didn't get enough information and context for many of the connections made between wrong doing and Bush, though I don't doubt the validity of Moore's research. Some of the interviews were uncomfortably long, and should have been edited better. The organization, for lack of a better word, of the documentary was fantastic. When describing the 9/11 attacks, he left the screen completely black for a few seconds while the sounds of destruction and terror, that we're all familiar with, filled the theatre's void. This was a very interesting effect, allowing for us to use our much more powerful imagination. I found these few seconds emotionally unbearable. Overall a good movie, worth the trip to see. I still can't figure out why it is rated R.

United Press International: Senate: Iraq intelligence was faulty



I remember walking along the beach in Santa Barbara with my dad, talking about how much of a threat Iraq was - before the war. I claimed that I hadn't heard enough evidence to warrent war, and he thought that the risk of WMD was sufficient. I wish that my senators had asked more questions, done more research!