Name: Phill "Hatch" Tarr
E-mail: Hairyandfunny@yahoo.com

Hey Josh, my name's Hatch, my partner Christian and I have an underground Horror magazine in Sarasota, FL. and we were wondering if we could conduct a short on-line interview with you so we may put it in our magazine. Thank you in advance for your time,

Hatch
LOP (League of Pchycos)

Sure, no problem. Send the questions.

Josh

Name: kearston
E-mail: kearstonz@yahoo.com

Augest and Josh you both can go to hell, i'm glad you dident have a part gor me in a movie or anything else, being denied was the best thing that ever happened to me so you can take your films and scripts and shove them up your ass.

Who the fuck are you? I went back through the Q&A to try and see what correspondence between August and I set you off, but I can't find anything. Who denied you a part in anything? What are you talking about? I guess you must simply be insane.

Josh

Name: Ben
E-mail: dabrowsigroup@yahoo.com

Dear Josh,

I disagree that One Hour Photo implied that single middle-aged men are all perverts. That movie could have been just as effective (or ineffective) if it was a girl, a bored married man, or a teen ager. I thought, at the very least, a one hour photo guy was an ideal way to illustrate a lonely man, someone who looks at birthday parties and such and wants to be a part of it.

Also, after witnessing the trend in modern society, I am now convinced to speak my feelings unabashedly, without pulling any punches.

One of your fans said that we have more single people than we ever have. And we're more screwed up as a society than we ever have. Not everyone has to get married. But still, there has to be some form of self-restraint, some hint of sacrifice in the minds of all of us, which there isn't. People live by their whims, thus, we have abortion, divorce, druggie kids, irreverence, disrespect, etc. People don't know how to be happy with what they have. All they know how to do is complain.

Today, we have fewer people than ever attending the Traditional Catholic church--and I suppose you'll maintain that we're doing better than ever before.

Ben

Given the thin, unmotivated writing, it would have been equally as ineffective with someone else other than a middle-aged bachelor. If the motivation and theme were disaffectation from society, which it could well have been, then that needs to be written into the script. But as it is, it's left for the audience to insert anything they'd like. If the writer has a point, which in this case I don't believe he had, then it's the writer's job to get that point across. All we get in "One Hour Photo" is a middle-aged bachelor obesessing about a family, getting fired for stupid reasons, then stalking a family. The bottom line of drama is getting the audience to believe the story you're telling, and this fails on all counts. Regarding society as a whole, I do sense an apathy and disregard for traditional values, but that's just how it is. But I don't think the utterly corrupt Catholic church is helping anything, either.

Josh

Name: August
E-mail: joxerfan@hotmail.com

Dear Josh,

I see that Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci are quite successful these days, with their work on "Alias," and now some other shows in the works. Did you interact much with them when you were directing either "Kindred Spirits" or those "Jack" episodes? If so, any memories or impressions? I gather they were pretty young when they first began working with Ren Pics - what was their background, and how'd they get involved?
(Also, I'm curious if Alex is related to Bob Kurtzman the make-up guy.)

Thanks,

August

No, I don't believe there's any relation between them. I hear that Bob just moved back to Ohio where he'll be running a digital effects company. I dealt with Alex and Bob very little in person, although quite few times on conference calls from New Zealand. They were perfectly reasonable young guys with a sense of humor and enjoyed working with them.

Josh

Name: Kevin Bacon
E-mail: kanadian_kev@hotmail.com

Dear Josh:

I planned on going to bed early but stumbled upon your (???) screenplay titled If I Had A Hammer. I was unusually hooked from the first scene until the ending. Instead of focusing on something before my time (19 years) and becoming a fossil, it remained exceptional but accurate to how life is lived today. Music, sex and drugs were not taken over the edge, and this was when I confirmed that this was a well written story of modern life. Lately, most plays I read or movies I see are tossing in way too many characters, it is great to know somebody besides me is still trying to create moving stories without all this confusing mumbo-jumbo. I was able to get into each of the characters (especially Phil of course) and feel it as they did, well done! However I felt it would have been better to have either cut or used a different way of assuring us that 'Phil' was becoming a real follower. The way he was told to say 'TUFF' instead of 'COOL' seemed to me to be something that just did not belong in the story, maybe even a cliche. Even without this little bit of dialogue we already knew what was going on. In either case, great story! I was half expecting some rediculous 'tragic death' to occur, because I didn't expect it to have a decent ending (and as we all know, a stupid death is a regular ending to a regular story). Great way to keep it real, thanks for the interesting read!

I'm very pleased you liked it. Now you should buy the video tape and see what I did with it on film. I still can't get this movie shown anywhere.

Josh

Name: john
E-mail:

Dear Josh:

i was comparing stranger than paridise to clerks and slacker just because they are both low budget
its true that kevin smith has no visual style and slacker could of been 30 min shorter

the more independent films i see the more i dislike 'hollywood' movies

i just watched about 40 min of 'i am sam' and it was bad, the camera was always moving around and zooming in and out there was not one steady shoot in 40 min. i think all the movement was to cover up the weak script and no plot...did you see this movie

i also watched the horror movie 'the ring' which is 'scarry as hell'...it was the biggest peice of shit i ever saw...i mean it was bad, did you see the ring

my point is that just about every movie 'i have to see' or is 'great' turns out to be a peice of shit, yet when i tell people to watch a certan low budget movie all i hear is 'its black and white that sucks or theres no special effects what the hell'

what im saying is that i cant tell if its the movies that are bad or if everyone is going stupid

It's undoubtedly a combination of the two. I did see the first fifteen minutes of "I am Sam," and it was dreadful, and entirely illogical. The chances of that retarded guy ending up with that baby seemed nil. And Sean Penn's performance was embarrassing. "The Ring" went in one ear and right out the other, and it certainly wasn't scary. Like I keep saying in my recent reviews, today's version of a good movie is actually just a bad movie.

Josh

Name: john
E-mail:

Dear Josh:

i just watched 'stranger than paridise' a black and white 90 min. low budget film about 2 guys who have no life [1 sceen shows the main guy sitting on his bed tapping his toes for what seemed like forever] then 1 of the guys cousion comes to visit then leaves then the guys take a road trip...and thats about it...the only time i really got into the movie was about 10 min. before it was over. whats with showing a black screen for like 5 seconds every time the sceen switches

how can say you like this movie but not like slacker or clerks well, i guess thats your call...but i just did not get the film

"Stranger Than Paradise" actually has a story, which "Slacker" and "Clerks" do not. It's actually got some visual style, too, which those other films do not. I agree that there is a certain dullness to it, as with all of Jim Jarmusch's films, but it was actually going somewhere and had characters whom I believed that interested me. I also have a problem with going to black between the scenes, but I'll deal with that happily over the shit writing and filmmaking of "Clerks," or the one-note aspect of "Slacker."

Josh

Name: Scott
E-mail:

Josh,

I agree that One Hour Photo was complete crap, and I never believed the premise of the film was interesting enough to be a feature. Also, the film never had a 3rd act, it just ends without any sense of closure. I much prefer Williams in Insomnia. His character served the story much better than the nonsensical motives of Sy. I also agree that the film did portray the fact that it is unacceptible to be middle aged and single in American society, however the reality is that there are more middle aged single people today than ever before, and the one wise desision my generation is making, is not marrying young, like our parents did. A vast majority of people are now getting married in their early to mid 30's, which I think is very smart.

Anyway, I guess your right about bad movies being accepted in current times. I miss going to theaters, but as you know there's nothing worth seeing; though I hear American Splendor is good.

Do you really think Al Gore will run again? He has said repeatedly that he wont, and I think out of respect to that dope Lieberman, he wont run. The thought of 4 more years with Bush is truly terrifying, but if the American people are pissed off enough, Bush will be history. I know many people who were too apathetic to vote in the last election,that can't wait to vote in this one in order to oust Bush. I have been following Dean since the very beginning of the race, and believe he might have a chance if he sticks to his guns.

My good friend, who is a serious comic book fan (although he hates superheroes), wasn't impressed with "American Splendor," and I have a feeling I won't be, either, and I'm not a comic book fan. Yes, "Insomnia" was a better Robin Williams-as-the-psycho vehicle. I also thought that Al Pacino was better than Stellan Skarsgaard in the original. All in all, though, the original and the remake are both pretty forgetable.

Josh

Name: Bjorn
E-mail: reddythebaron@yahoo.com

"In my humble opinion"
That is one of the last lines you wrote in your very uninsiteful, repeat what I've read, can't think for myself, never read the Tora, Bible, Koran or anything else at least attempting to offer a better way essay. Further the anger oozing from the silly words you wrote is ironic as you talk about the evil, hateful religiuos people, who save for them the word world would be full of self serving biggots sitting on thier hundred foot horses pointing fingers at all the "weak" people, biggots like yourself. One final thought. If you really believe all the crap you wrote at least offer something better, make an impact in someones life, give some money to something good instead of using your site to pass on your uneducated pride filled bravado, you may end up screwing up some kids head. I actually came here to learn something about film making, sorry I did.

That's part of why I wrote that essay/rant. If some young folks read it and see that religion is evil, then decide to think for themselves instead of buying into thousands of years old useless propaganda, I will have made a positive impact on the world. Religion is for the thoughtless, and orthodoxy is for the true morons of the planet. As Bill Maher said, religion comes from early traumatic experiences that lead to neurological disorders. You got a problem with that, or are you too busy getting down on your knees and begging favors from a dead Jew?

Josh

Name: sspnyc66@mac.com
E-mail: Scott

Josh,

I just watched the documentary "Searching for Debra Winger" on my "Showtime on Demand" last night. It was done by Roseanne Arquette who has always actually annoyed me quite a bit, but I thought the Doc was pretty good with some good interviews and since she is behind the camera most of the way, she becomes less annoying.

It revolved around the lack of roles Hollywood has for women near 40 and older as well as working actresses, relationships, and the decision of raising a family or not while still pursuing their career. There are interviews with many different famous actresses who fall into this category.

Towards the end of the film, there is an interview with Debra Winger as to why she left the career of acting before 40.

I think what is cool about the film is that like life, everyone follows different paths, and some of the responses in the interviews are great.

One of the underlying themes of the piece is how enchanted all of the actresses are (young and old) with Hollywood in this age. many of them criticize the very same things you do here on your site.

There are some great points brought up in the piece as to why this is and I thought you might like to check it out.

It is interesting that there is such a distaste for all the bad films Hollywood produces, yet nobody does anything about it.

Also, I think it is noble of you to support Gore for running again, however, I am not sure he will. He seemed pretty set on not wanting to do it. I just wish he had more balls when he was running.

I think the reason the last election was so close was because his agenda wasn't that of a Democrat and he came off more like a conservative in many ways which I believe to be the problem with most democrats nowadays.

His true colors did not really come through until he announced that he would not run for office. When I seen him on all the various talk shows in the Winter, he seemed much more relaxed, funny, and more of what I would like to have seen when he was running.


I hope he does reconsider running. Howard Dean is looking pretty strong for the democrats in NYC.

We shall see.

Scott

I did see about an hour of it, but I had to turn it off (I spoke with my sister the next day and she turned it off, too). I understand their plight, but it got highly wearisome listening to famous actresses bitching about their careers. It's like Rocky's response to Mickey, "At least you had a prime." And like you say, how about doing something about it?

Gore's biggest problem during the 2000 election, from my standpoint, was his distancing himself from Clinton and their eight very good years in office. This was assuredly due to the severe attacks on Clinton going on by the Republicans about the sex scandals. But if Gore had Clinton stumping for him, he'd have won handily. Nevertheless, he's the only Democrat that I believe can assuredly beat Bush, and that's the issue. Dean seems okay, although he lacks any big experience -- Vermont isn't really a microcosm of the rest of the country. I like Kucinck, but he's a tad too odd to win the presidency, I think. Al Sharpton amuses me, but I can't see him as president, nor would I vote for a reverend. I don't really care for Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, or Graham. I think Gore's the man, until he's absolutely out of the race.

Josh

Name: Dalty
E-mail:

Josh, can a statement really be considered a lie when no one really believes it anyway? I knew all along that there wasn't any immediate threat from Iraq. I remember that Bush was trying to get support for a war with Iraq *before* September 11 happened. At the risk of sounding insensitive, it's pretty convenient for Bush that September 11 happened. Otherwise, he never could have gotten his war with Iraq. I never believed that there was a direct connection with Hussein and Bin Laden, but in all modesty, not everyone is as smart as I am. Personally, I think Bush should have waited until he had more compelling evidence that Hussein was hiding something. We know that Hussein and his supporters weren't being completely honest with us about all the weapons they had. I'm not saying that because Hussein lied that it's okay for Bush to lie. But sooner or later someone would have slipped up and we'd find out that that person's story didn't mesh with anyone else's. Then we could have taken action with the U.N.'s support. But then again, maybe I'm just oversimplifying the case. And as for the next election, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm voting for Dave Barry. He may not be a politician, but he can't possibly screw things up worse than any of the previous presidents.

No, don't vote for Dave Barry. If Al Gore runs, and I certainly hope he does, we all have to back him to be absolutely sure that Bush and his eight trillion dollars worth of campaign funds don't succeed. Four more years of Bush and his 100% average of making bad decisions will cause this country irreparable damage. I watched the zany Democratic debates last night that kept being interrupted by Lyndon LaRuche supporters. They were all very vehement in their condemnation of Bush, and Al Sharpton was amusing, but I don't think any of them can win, and I don't think we should chance it. Gore beat Bush before and he can do it again, I'm convinced.

Josh

Name: John Hunt
E-mail: Chowkidar@aol.com

Josh,

When a local theater orders a print of a film, am I correct in assuming that there is a tremendous variation in the prices of the films? Is a Spielberg special-effects extravaganza more expensive than is a film like "Greek Wedding"? Assuming there is a difference I wonder that theaters don't stagger the prices of movie tickets. The math would say that optimizing profits would require variable levels of pricing for movies with different initial investment costs. Just wondering.

John

They don't pay anything for a print, it's an issue what percentage they're sending back. A big effects extravaganza will probably demand a 90% return for the first couple of weeks, dropping to 75% for the next couple of weeks, then settling at 50%. A regular, run-of-the-mill film will begin at 50% and stay there. I'm sure on an accounting level it makes more sense to standardize the ticket prices.

Josh

Name: Reggie
E-mail:

Dear Josh,

Thanks for answering my THOU question in such detail.

I'm going to ask you a few more questions about it, then I promise to put a moratorium on Scoopic questions. :-)

1) What kind of Scoopic did you shoot those THOU shots on? The old grey Scoopic-16, or the M or MS?

2) Are any of the models particularly better or worse than the others?
(picture quality AND ease of use)

3)I've found a "Scoopic M" for $500 that appears to be in perfectly good condition. Should I go for it? (so I can start making movies and stop bugging you:-)

4) On a different note, is Super-16 film simply just single-perf 16mm film?

Thanks,
Reggie

Sorry, but I don't know the difference between the models of Scoopics. The one I used was black. I borrowed it from a guy who ended being murdered, by the way. The problem you need to check into first is the batteries. Can you get new ones? The old ones are either dead or will die soon -- batteries don't last forever -- and I don't think new ones are available. Super-16 is simply single-perf 16mm print stock that exposes across the optical track and the where the second line of perfs should go. That's it. That way you end up with 1.85:1 screen ratio. But you don't have to shoot in 1.85:1. I shot "Running Time" with regular 16mm at 1.33:1, and I think it looks fine, and it transferred to video perfectly without a letterbox. Go ahead, ask as many questions as you'd like, and if I can answer them I will.

Josh

Name: Dalty Smilth
E-mail: wakko@icon-stl.net

Josh,

I agree that Bush was completely pulling stuff out of his @$$ when he was trying to get us to go to war with Iraq. But the thing is, I also believe that Saddam Hussein was a horrible man who needed to be taken out of power, and I don't believe that that would have happened under any peaceful means. (Unless he died of natural causes in his sleep or something.) That said, I must restate that I think that Bush was a complete moron for trying to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. He'd have had much better luck trying to link Saddam Hussein to Kevin Bacon. (Probably by going through Sean Penn.) And speaking of 9/11, I don't know about anyone else, but I plan not to watch any TV this year on the eleventh. I think September 11th has become a simulacra. The symbol of September 11th has become more important than what happened on September 11th. I hate to say it, but that's how it is. Thank you, and have a good day.

I agree that there were a number of compelling reasons to bring Saddam down: he was a murderous tyrant, he controlled a big portion of the world's oil and wouldn't do business with us, it's a logical, central spot in the middle-east for military bases, it's next to Saudi Arabia whose regime may be failing to pieces, etc. But that's not what Bush and his administration said. They said, "Iraq is threatening us with an imminent attack of weapons of mass destruction." That was their reasoning and it was false. As the British keeping saying, they "sexed up" the threat, because had they presented the actual reasons, and not bypassed congress, everyone might well have said no. As bad of a man as Saddam may be, I don't think bringing him down was worth what it's cost us, and will continue to cost us for years to come. I'm a citizen, I was lied to, and I don't like the results of what that lie has brought us.

Meanwhile, I honestly and truly believe that the only Democrat out there that can assuredly beat George W. Bush is Al Gore. Gore beat him before and I believe he can beat him again. I also think that four more years of Bush could be irreparable to this country, and it will probably take Al Gore four entire years to straighten out the shit that Bush has brought upon us. So I recommend that everyone who cares at all about the country that they live in right a letter to Al Gore and ask him to run for president (as I am). His address is:

Office of the Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Ave.
Nashville, TN 37203

Josh

Name: John Rambo
E-mail: thisisjohnrambo@yahoo.com

Dear Josh,

I must agree that Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story was a good film. It had a lot of energy you know, and spirit like you said, and looked great. I think some biographical stuff was changed or exaggerated though. Anyway, did you know that two martial arts trainers that worked with Jason Scott Lee for the film also worked with Kevin Sorbo for Hercules and Kull? I think that was really interesting. Plus I think the role changed Jason Scott Lee's life, I heard he's actually a jeet kune do instructor now.

Anyway, onto another question. You know I was sitting around with a few of my buds the other day and we were talking about Westerns, and how they don't make them like they used to. Why do you do you think that is? When did good Westerns start dying out and why? Was it because of the times changing or because of John Wayne's passing? Or maybe Clint Eastwood got too old to make them. I guess you can't have any Westerns without Western stars right.

Well, I hope you can shed some light on this for those of us that are curious.

I hope you're doing well.

Thanks,

John

I don't think people realize today just how many times westerns have come and gone in popularity. Westerns were very popular in the teens and twenties, then went somewhat out of vogue in the thirties (John Ford made one western in the 1930s, "Stagecoach" in 1939), they came back a bit during WWII, then went entirely out of popularity in the forties, then came back again in the fifties, mainly due to Anthony Mann and James Stewart, then sort of hung around growing less popular through the sixties. 1969 was considered by many to be the last good year for westerns, with "The Wild Bunch," "True Grit" and "Butch Cassidy." Westerns grew less and less popular throughout the seventies, and the basically stopped making them in the eighties. There was a little resurgence in the early nineties with "Dances With Wolves," followed the next year by "Unforgiven," but then Hollywood followed that with about ten shitty westerns that pretty much killed the genre again. And a film like "Open Range" certainly won't help. The thing with westerns is, in my opinion, when they're good, they're really good, and when they're bad, they're the worst.

Josh

Name: Gena Barnabee
E-mail: gbarnabe@uga.edu

Mr. Becker,

I read your script "The Happiest Guy in Town" and I really liked the concept. I spent the summer in Los Angeles and I often wondered how people came to the point in their lives with no where to live and no one to turn to. I would like to use your script for a project in a producing class I am taking at the University of Georgia. The course focuses on the functions and duties of the producer as she shepards an idea through the life cycle of a "project": development, financing, pre-production, production, marketing, distribution, and exhibition. Like I said before, I really like the concept and the script. I was wondering why you decided to have Todd be found in the end. When I read your script and when I think about the reality of the situation, I feel as if the ending almost doesn't fit. I envision the film as having an almost "Requiem for a Dream" feeling of the harshness of the reality that the characters face. If that film had ended with a happy ending and all the characters being fine in the end the film wouldn't have had the impact it had to audiences all over the world. So my question to you is did you ever think about ending the film differently and if so what would the ending be or if not why you feel it is so necessary to the story that it end happily. Thank you for your time.

Gena Barnabee

That was the ending I had in mind from the very beginning. I don't think it has much of a dramatic arc without it. I personally find it entirely unacceptable to have a dramatic arc that goes straight down, like say, "Requiem for a Dream," which I completely hated. But you see that unrelenting downward structure used all the time these days, where things start to go wrong, then just keep going wrong. That's not good drama. I certainly don't demand or expect that all stories have happy endings, but in the case of this script, if I left him in the gutter I'd only have two acts. I think that you perhaps missed the point of the story, which is about community and belonging.

Josh

Name: Doug
E-mail:

Dear Josh:

What do you think of the filmmaking wannabe 'climate' out there these days? It just seems like there's so many 'filmmakers' nowadays. Was it always this bad? How is it different from let's say the 70's? Were there as many seminars, gurus and consultants? Not to mention festivals and film schools? Don't you think it's pretty obnoxious of these 'gurus' (or even film schools) to be out there claiming to everyone that 'you too can do it!' (when in fact they themselves haven't done it)'? What was it like when you started as a filmmaker? Were things worse, better or about the same?

Back in the 1970s when my buds and I began making films, there was a greater sense of hope that you could make a low-budget film, get it released and it would be seen. There was also the feeling that it was possible to make truly great, personal films, and that all good ideas would not be crushed by the studios. Film still seemed like an art form, as well as a form of personal expression, nor did it seem utterly corrupt. There were the same film schools, as well as many books on screenwriting. But it all didn't seem like a pie-in-the-sky lost cause, not when you could go to the theater and see a new John Casavattes movie, or "Five Easy Pieces" or "The Last Detail." Hollywood was still a giant mountain to climb, but it did seem scalable, and it didn't feel like you'd have to sell your soul to the corporate devil to get there.

Josh

Name: Forrest Gabitsch
E-mail: f_gabitsch@yahoo.com

Dear Josh:

I haven't checked out this site in years, probably since "Running Time" came out on DVD. After reading a Bruce Campbell interview at Film Threat that mentions Josh Becker, I clicked over here to see what the director was up to.

I read a few rants, and all I can say is hell yeah. The religion one is completely spot on, as is the one about Resident Bush.

My question to Josh Becker: Is there a political satire, a Becker-esque "Dr. Strangelove" or "Brazil," waiting to be written, produced and released? I hope so. I'll be coming back here more regularly, either way.

I have written one political comedy, "The President's Brain is Missing," which is available here. I didn't particularly like "Brazil." I've thought a lot about "Dr. Strangelove," though, and the idea of making fun of the most serious issue of the day, but I don't have an idea or a story.

Josh

Name: PILALIDIS GEORGIOS
E-mail: AGAMEMMNON@MSN.COM

Hey Josh.You are okay.I have see, you have play rock musik to.i have like and other bands, Jethro tull,judas priest,van halen,the band amerika, you remember the song a horse with no name,or Asia with jon Weton,Palmer,Stewe Howe A SUPER GITARIST ,and this NECTAR was very good,and for me the rock musik in the year 1980 have go in two directions,bands like Aerosmith, or bon jovi,brian adams,and more others, i don't remember now,is the pop/rock MTV SHIT. And the other direction, is more neear to as, the jounk people call it heavy metal,(not black+dethA metal),bands like Iron
Miden,Hammerfall,Stratovarius,Edguy,Heelowwen,from U:S:A Dream Theater,Savatage,Megadeth,and of course VIRGIN STELE this album HOUSE OF ATREUS part 1.2,3 it's perfect, a rock opera album.if you have time hear this album HOUSE OF ATREUS you gona like't.GIORGOS

I liked early heavy metal, like Black Sabbath with Ozzy, and early Ted Nugent, like "Stranglehold," and "Radar Love" by Golden Earring. I still listen to those songs, too.

Josh

Name: Reggie
E-mail:

Dearest Josh,

Could you tell us which scenes in THOU were shot with your Scoopic?

Thanks,
Reggie

Both scenes at the A&W, the wide shots are with the Arri-BL, but the two-shots and close-ups of Stryker and Sally in the car were shot with the Scoopic. All of the shots inside the shed of various items getting blown to pieces. You can particularly notice the difference in the shots of Stryker being carried out of the Vietnamese village, the medium close-up of Stryker throwing the grenade, as well as the shot of the grenade sailing through the blue sky (one of my favorite shots). Also the close-up of an Asian guy with a bullet hole in his forhead and his head dropping back on the ground. There are shots all the way through the movie shot with the Scoopic, actually. Both of the time-lapse sunrise and sunset shots, which I did with a cable release and a watch. Also, when Whiskey is in the woods and sniffs out the severed arm, the POV shot and the insert of the leash hooked on a root were with the Scoopic. That's a bunch of them, anyway.

Josh

Name: PILALIDIS GEORGIOS
E-mail: AGAMEMMNON@MSN.COM

yes,yes i'am king CONAN THE BARBAR???GIORGOS

No, no, Babar is a an elephant.

Josh

Name: Bob
E-mail: bob@thebobweb.com

Hey Josh, most of the posts you get look more like a Michael Moore site than a filmmaker site. That in mind, I just wanna ask if you have ever looked into the "truthout.org" newsletters. They seem to justify every move they make with irrefutable facts, and I know you love to refute (what I like about you). I'm an ESL teacher and yes, screenwriter (script doctor), living in Joymany. Looks like you've made some good films. Any chance you went to LACC? All the best, Bob Graham

I did go to LACC for one semester in 1977. The science fiction writer and sci-fi movie novelization writer, Alan Dean Foster, was my screenwriting teacher, but he knew so little about screenwriting I dropped his class. A few questions: a). Where is Joymany? (is that ebonics for Germany?), b). You actually doctor Hollywood scripts? If so, which ones? My feeling about Hollywood scripts is that they are no longer doctored, they're embalmed by morticians. Many of those scripts may very well have begun with something interesting in them, and some slight shred of integrity, but that is all quickly deleted along with all characterization, leaving only unbearable cliches, and shallow, plot-dominated nonsense. What are your feelings on this?

Josh

Name: Jaxon Bridge
E-mail: jxbjxbjxb@yahoo.com

Dear Josh:

I saw you used a Scoopic quite a bit. I have one of these too and have done shorts with it, transferring the film to video before editing. It looks nice. But now I am thinking of making a 35mm blow-up film with this camera. Have you seen blow-ups from your footage shot on a Scoopic? I have heard the camera registration is not so excellent on this camera, which introduces image problems in a blow-up ("muddiness" or maybe image jitter). Then lens is great and I trust it, but the camera was obviously not designed with the big screen in mind. Any comments on your experience with doing this, if any? Obviously, since the Scoopic shoots standard 16, not super-16, the image is going to be low-res and high grain, but I can tolerate this...it's the registration issue that concerns me.

thanks,
Jaxon

I found the Scoopic to have pretty good registration. I shot quite a few special effects with it and they looked fine. I shot a few scenes of my feature "Thou Shalt Not Kill . . . Except" with it, which was blown up to 35mm, and though I can see the difference between the footage shot with the Arri-BL and the Scoopic (the Arri footage looks better), it's not a huge difference. As far as resolution and grain, that depends on what film stock you use and how much lighting equipment you have. Shooting with super-16 won't improve resolution or grain, it just gives you a wider image because it exposes over where the optical sound goes. Super-16 also forces you to blow up since you can't finish in 16mm anymore. Good luck.

Josh

Name: bryan
E-mail: maxim@netcbc.com

Dear Josh:

I enjoyed reading your article on the 99 cents stores.

Please let me where can I buy products to sell for 99cents at my store? At least a container in variety at a time? I would appriciated an email back.
thank you
bryan

The best place to buy wholesale products for a 99-cent store would be at a 49-cent store.

Josh

Name: PILALIDIS GEORGIOS
E-mail: AGAMEMMNON@MSN.COM

Othere times, other wars,mister Graham i think we have larn from or mistak's??? Neverthelast Sandam was, Tyran,and A DIKTATOR must fall, but this act from George (I THINK I CANCE MY NAME)Buss and Tony Blear brink as 4000 years back.Today mister Graham we have the UNO, to take disisions, or do you think U. S. A is one exepsion?? and can do what she wan't, okay u.s.a have this problem with teror act's and we all feel sory for this what hapen in 11 september, on this day, i have think i lost my hart because i'm a optimist and think the world is going with the time better and better, and we larn from the past,but no there is comink mister Buss and say...lat there by ,action and the bombs fallink and the cildren die'n who is comink next pleese?????i have inu'f weapons for any one.GEORGE,AH I FORGAT, I MUST CANCE MY NAME

You have fallen into the realm of gibberish.

Josh

Name: David Graham
E-mail: beeker@cwo.com

Hi Mr. Becker,

I agree with everything you said about Bush's deadly boondoggle in Iraq, but I have to disagree with your assessment that it's the worst misuse of presidential power in U.S. history. I think you're overlooking some real
doosies:

* Lincoln's fascist behavior during the Civil War
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo26.html)

* Truman sending U.S. troops to Korea for a "police action"

* Johnson sending U.S. troops to Vietnam for a "police action"

* Truman dropping atomic bombs on Japan -- a blatant act of terrorism in the true sense of the word.

* FDR provoking the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and holding Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

* McKinley's invasion of the Philippines and Cuba around the turn of the century, which, like Bush's invasion of Iraq, was built on a lie ("Remember the Maine!").

Aren't these misuses of presidental power, and aren't they just as bad or worse than Iraq? At any rate, I enjoyed your rant. I must confess that I'm not aware of what films you've directed (my friend sent me the link to your essay), but if my discriminating friend is a fan, you must have something going for you.

Take care,
Dave

Thank you for the historical disputes. I will attempt to address them one by one. Let's begin with Truman okaying the use of the atmic bombs on Japan. I absolutely disagree with your assessments that it was either a misuse of presidential power or that it was a "blatant act of terrorism." Dropping the atomic bombs undoubtedly saved the lives of about a million American soldiers, and possibly as high as three millions Japanese. The Japanese military had taken over the government and they were not going to surrender under any circumstances. The invasion of Japan, which was being mounted in Okinawa, was looking like the biggest, most deadly assault of the entire war, and nobody wanted to do it. But the Japanese would not surrender, and certainly wouldn't even consider an unconditional surrender. They were busy arming all of the school kids to defend the homeland, and I have no doubt they would have fought to the very last person (look how they defended all of the islands in the Pacific, like the Phillipines). The Japanese wouldn't even surrender after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, nor did they surreder immediately after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The only reason they did surrender is because they didn't know whether or not we had more atomic bombs. Dropping the bombs probably ended the war a year earlier and saved millions of lives, so I think you're flatly wrong on that one. Your contention that Abraham Lincoln was a fascist is complete nonsense, not that some of the facts aren't true, but that screed about him was undoubtedly written by one more of the pissed-off southern losers who still continue to hold a grudge that they can't sit in the shade sipping a mint julep while the "darkies" do all the work. The Civil War was ABSOLUTELY about slavery, and the war began because Lincoln, who was anti-slavery, and had been for at least ten years or more, was elected president. No he didn't immediately emancipate the slaves, mainly because he didn't know how it would affect the war and the north (having hundreds of thousands of jobless people streaming into the north). But in fact he did emancipate the slaves, which was a huge deal in the history of the world. Lincoln was not a fascist, but the southerners are still sore losers. Lyndon Johnson didn't send the troops into Vietnam, John Kennedy did. Kennedy is the one that took our involvement in Vietnam from a few hundred advisors up to thousands of troops fighting a war. Johnson simply escalated and escalated it until it was several hundred thousand troops. Truman sending troops into Korea was our first major move against communist aggression after WWII, and though we ended up having to sneak out, it was still a very important statement at the time, that we would oppose communist expansion, which truly needed to be stated at the time. And saying that FDR "provoked" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor is insane. Japan was an Axis power on the side of Germany and Hitler who were committing atrocities all over Manchuria, so we blockaded them. They certainly didn't have to attack us, and we were absolutely right in declaring war because of it. And even though we still don't know who or how the Maine blew up, the entire Spanish-American war lasted 30 days (more U.S. soldiers died from eating their own badly canned corned beef than from Spanish bullets). I think you are one of these revisionist history people that applies today's standards to yesterday's conflicts. It's like the opening narration of "Spartacus" (bringing this back to movies for a moment), where it says that Rome was stricken with the disease of slavery. Well, so was the entire rest of the world, and would be for another 1,850 years. But in the cases of Korea, Vietnam, and even Iraq invading Kuwait, there were solid reasons for our intervention. In this case of invading Iraq, we were the aggressor nation, we did not have the backing of the U.N., nor the rest of the world, nobody was being invaded by anyone else, and the reasons were all false. Nevertheless, thank you for responding intelligently to my rant, I appreciate it.

Josh

Name: james
E-mail:

Dear Josh:

can places like sundance project movies that are on vhs tape instead of film

I believe they can, although I've never been there. Most festivals have digital projection systems now, but they prefer to project on film in the bigger auditoriums, or pretty much any other video tape format, like Digital-Beta, Beta-SP, or DVD. VHS just doesn't look or sound very good.

Josh

Name: Blake Eckard
E-mail:

Josh,

Just happened to read something you mentioned below about your disdain for logging in the NW...My grandfather was a logger back in the 1940's and I've lived in Oregon for several spells myself. The recession going on in the Pacific Northwest right now isn't entirely, but greatly due in part to the crazed, left wingers who essentially came in and helped shut down logging in the early 90's. Currently, the state is broke and is only getting further in debt. A terrible place to live, and yet, nobody can figure out why. What anyone in the NW was thinking when they put all the restrictions on their own land is beyond anyone with any bussiness sense whatsoever. Good grief, to the NW logging was a lively hood, as farming is to the midwest. Trees are their crop. Taken away and what is there to do in a place that gets 80-100 inches of rain a year and is covered with mountains? A few ranchers work in the eastern areas but that's about it. Even the Forest Service departments have been greatly reduced due to lack of timber sales. You can't support a state like OR or WA on tourism. Logging is what brought everything and everyone to the Northwest. Logging was a good thing for the Northwest and there's absolutely no denying it.

Infact, clear cuts do not hurt the enviornment, all kinds of animals live in clear cuts once they've been made, and they also serve as forest fire preventors. Of course, nobody wants to see a clear cut directly beside HWY 101 (which actually happened about ten years ago and helped bring in anther nail to the Logging coffin lid), but personally, I'd rather see jobs than protected re-growth...Almsot 90 percent of the great Nothwest has already been cut and re-grown...Yup, environmentalists are protecting tree's planted by loggers who put them there after logging. There's very little cutting of old-growth timber, and I'm pretty sure nobody's cutting down the Redwoods in the Redwood Nat. Forest. I don't know what you're referring to, but I'd honestly like to know.

Anyhow, just thought I'd put in my two cents on a political topic since everyone else is. Is this a film site anymore?

Have a good one.

Blake

I do try to bring it back to movies whenever possible, but I'm perfectly happy to discuss politics or anything else as long as it's interesting. Quite frankly, I think you're being naive about logging. After having lived for a year in an area whose main industry is logging, I've got a lot of issues with the lumber industry. First of all, clear cuts are HORRIBLE for the environment, and whoever told you they're anything but horrible is lying to you. Without the trees to hold down the soil, the soil washes away into the streams and rivers and kills the fish, as it has most of the fish in the Pacific northwest. Once the soil has washed away almost nothing can live there. Second, any rules about logging and replanting only apply to public lands, either BLM or National Forests (where they do log all the time). 90% of the logging going on in America is on private land owned by giant conglomerates like United Fruit and Boise-Cascade, where there are no rules and they treat the land like it's shit and it's to be nothing but abused. There are many logical schemes regarding how to log sensibly, but none of them are being put to use. And as a little side-note, without those trees there's no oxygen for us to breath. Just because someone's grandfather was a logger, and their father was a logger, doesn't necessarily mean they too get to be a logger if it's no longer suitable for such industry.

Josh

Name: Alan
E-mail:

Dear Josh:

In the UK the expression "as rough as a badger's arse" generally refers to women who, whilst not necessarily ugly, are an embarrassment not only to themselves but to others (especially us menfolk) by excessively drinking, smoking heavily and swearing like troopers in loud and raucous voices.Their dress sense too may be called into question.
Whilst this may seem a pretty fair description nowadays of the majority of British women there are also some actresses that I can think of who could be described in such a fashion. I am too much of a gentleman to name any myself but I am sure that an outspoken individual such as yourself would not be deterred from naming names.
So come on Josh, which actresses do you think are as rough as a badger's
arse?

Are you referring to how the actresses comport themselves in the real world? I don't know any of them. And in the movies they're playing characters written for them by someone else. So, I'm not up on this one. Oddly, in the book I'm presently reading about Teddy Roosevelt, "Theodore Rex," I read today about a trip he took out west in 1903, and some kids gave him a badger, which he described as looking like "a mattress with four legs on the corners."

Josh

Name: Tim Shadler
E-mail: tjs27@drexel.edu

Josh,

As a moderate Republican, I must confess, that I have been at minimum a little confused as of late. I for one have serious doubts as to the evidence President Bush presented in his arguments as to why it was necessary for us to invade Iraq. Also as a fiscal conservative I'm outraged by the increased spending and the expansion of the size of the federal government which has occurred under this administration.

However, when faced with making decision in the upcoming presidential election I fear that I might have to make a difficult decision. While I'm sure the Bush Administration and the conservative supporters of it will continue on their current policy path, I'm also scared as to what message the far left will be brining to the table.

I'd like to offer a few quotes from your comments on this site to help illustrate my forthcoming argument.

"then you deserve to have Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, or George Bush, Jr. as your fascist dictator."

"I think I'd rather have Reichsfuhrer Goering than Bush again"

"As Bruce Campbell said to me recently, "I'm not one for hyperbole or overstatement, but George Bush, Jr. is the anti-Christ." If this asshole gets reelected I may seriously look into moving to Toronto"

"and he didn't fuck this country up nearly as bad as his idiot child has."

"He certainly seems more like a president than Chimpy McCokespoon."

Now I have a question. What is the purpose of these comments? If you honestly believe George W. Bush is horrible for this country, which I believe you do, then I assume you would want him to lose in the upcoming election.

Given that, I would think that you might want to convince the small but important group swing voters, conservative democrats and moderate republicans, that Bush needs to go.

Why then would you use such inflammatory language? Suggesting that Bush Jr. is just as bad as a man as terrible as Goering does not seem effective, and using it in an argument against Bush might make those swing voters reading it to ignore or reject other valid points within your comments. My bottom line, wouldn't informing be a more effective method then inciting. Some of the responses on this site suggest that some other people may think that Bush is worse then the man who created the Gestapo and the first concentration camps (the responsibility was shifted to himmler shortly thereafter), but from the pratical perspective of our electoral system I wonder how effective they might be against those of different political dispositions.

As always, I enjoy reading your website and wish you the best of luck.

Tim Shadler

I am in the film business, so I'm prone to hyperbole. A film isn't just good, it's A Triumph! And things aren't just bad, they're The Worst Ever! Nevertheless, as I said in my little essay/rant, I don't believe I'm reverting to hyperbole when I say that this Iraq fiasco is the single worst misuse of presidential power in 227 years. One could also add to my list of previous presidential absues (to get a Democrat in there) the Bay of Pigs invasion, but that wasn't even Kennedy's plan, Ike and Allen Dulles dreamed it up, JFK just okayed it, then screwed it by chickening out. Anyway, you're probably right that comparing George W. Bush to Hermann Goering is ridiculous (Bush is a middleweight and Goering was a heavyweight), but someone else had quoted him and I was just running with it. And Chimpy McCokespoon just amuses me in a childish way. And four more years of this administration could well induce me to flee to Canada.

Josh

Name: Reggie
E-mail:

Josh,

Sorry if this is a silly question, but on blimped cameras like the Arri 16BL, why does the blimp cover the lens housing and not the motor?

Reggie

You usually need to wrap a blanket or a blimp around a camera to muffle the camera noise, but the motor noise will still come out the lens because you can't cover that or you won't see anything. So if you have a blimped lens housing, you can then make the entire camera quiet, and you generally need to when shooting interiors. The blimped lens housing, by the way, won't cover the zoom lens, just the prime lenses.

Josh

Name: Scott
E-mail: sspnyc66@mac.com

Josh,

Regarding the Hermann Goering, here is a link to a page about the quote from a good site which debunks a lot of urban myths and many of the annoying chain e-mails which get passed around relating to quotes by various famous and imfamous people including all the new one's in relation to the war.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

This particular page about Goering's quote goes into further detail about where the quote came from and it also references Ceasar who also had made a similar statement which spans generations.

I like this site quite a lot and it is worth referencing, since they do a good job at researching many urban legends and (mis) quotes.

Scott

Regarding urban myths, there's also the books by Jan Harold Grunvand (I think I got that right), "The Vanishing Hitchhiker" and "The Mexican Pet," which are both fascinating books.

Josh

Name: Caroline
E-mail: richardmuszcher@aol.com

Dear Josh:

Was amazed to note that "Waiting for Guffman" was not on your fav. movies list. And yet, "This is Spinal Tap" was. To most of us who are fans of this troupe and this genre, Guffman outshines the others.

Not to me it doesn't. I like "Spinal Tap" very much, but I didn't like "Guffman" or "Best in Show" at all. I can't stand films that make average people out to be idiots, and I'm completely sick and tired of the "mockumentary" form, which is ultimately anti-cinema. What "Guffman and "Best in Show" tell me is that Rob Reiner was crucially important to the success of "Spinal Tap," and without him Christopher Guest is lost.

Josh

Name: Brian C.
E-mail: canadab@ghostshipfilms.com

Hey Josh,

Well, I suppose it's my turn to step on the third rail - so to speak. I actually like G.W. Bush. Damn, that sounds like an intro at an AA meeting. "Hi. I'm Brian...(sheepishly) and I'm a Bushie." When Bruce and his wife started working on their documentary, I sent him an email offering the perspective of a Federal Biologist (day jobber)of BLM and the roadless initiative. I didn't manage to make it through his filter or he didn't feel like dealing with some schmuck soliciting his opinions. I agree that there are some regulatory roll backs that are shifting too far toward industry, but the understory thinning is not one of them. The proposed rule would allow the clearing of understory brush and dead standing timber to limit the effects of an inevitable fire. Mature trees can survive a normal fire and and recover by the following season. A fire, fueled by excessive new growth and dead falls, is much hotter and scorch the soil, killing mature roots, and rendering old growth forest a smoldering ashtray. The thinning may result in some profit for loggers, a necessary evil if you are going to get on board to help maintain the forest. There may also be some unscrupulous people who illegally 'take' an old growth tree. Some people are just like that. But in the long term, the forest would be healthier and more sustainable with a well managed thinning program (minus prescribed burns which I disagree with).

Of course, that has nothing to do with Bush. He's no Nero. He won't be fiddling while America burns. He's just the guy that is calling the shots for now. In 8 years, conservatives will still be talking about Reagan, and both Bushs and Clinton will be coffee table fodder while we scream about the new guy.

Just my thoughts.

Brian

I understand, I just lived up the street from Bruce in southern Oregon for a year. I was there during the Quartz Fire, which came up our street and within a few blocks of my house. I helped neighbors clear underbrush when the fire was coming right behind their houses. In fact, George W. Bush came to the end of our street for his photo op, where he could take one step out of his presidential SUV and get a shot of him and blackened scorched earth in the background. I agree that thinning is absolutely necessary if we don't want forest fires. Nevertheless, the lumber companies are rapacious, and when they go in and log they log the living shit of the area. For Christ sakes, they're still cutting down Redwoods, and those babies take a thousand years to mature. But George Bush is so pro-industry, anti-enviornment, I have no doubt that any restrictions he's eliminating will all be taken too far.

Josh

Name: Mike
E-mail: scarymike@prontomail.com

Heya Josh,

Just read your latest offering regarding our not-so-esteemed (mis)leader. It did a good job of getting me all pissed off again, which is actually a good thing! Seems like the only people who haven't seen through his shit are Americans. I don't think he has many fans in the actual civilized nations. It looks more and more like Blair could be taken to the cleaners for lying through his teeth about Iraq - Bush deserves *at least* as much.

There's a quote that I think bears repeating here - I haven't seen anyone else bring it up, so I'll throw it out there:

Naturally the common people dont want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and its always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

The speaker is none other than Hermann Goering, commander in cheif of the Luftwaffe and President of the Reichstag of the Third Reich. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the example Dubya and his owners are taking. Does this horrify anyone else? The notion of Sadam being like Hitler, as Bush's Daddy used to imply, is patently ridiculous. Hitler is a Connecticut yankee masquerading as a Texan masquerading as a President. If Bush takes the Whitehouse again in 2004 we are all fucked - what's left of America will be dead and done. I'm not a big fan of some of the Democrats' policies, but it's my feeling, and seems to be yours as well, that we are in deep shit if Bush makes it in again. As such I don't care if the Democrats put up Satan, with the Teletubbies for veep - I'm voting straight Democrat!
There's a pretty decent organization that does some good grassroots mobilization, sets up protest marches etc - it's moveon.org. I guess they have some ties to the Quaker community, but as far as I can tell it's a purely political organization. Besides, you mentioned that Quakers weren't on your spiritual shit list ;^)
Anyway, just wanted to voice my support for your rant against Il Presidente. Rave on!

Mike

Excellent quote. I think I'd rather have Reichsfuhrer Goering than Bush again. At least he was a legitimate war hero (the second most-decorated German pilot during WWI next to Baron Von Richtofen). Speaking of Nazis, I just watched the film "Max," which was recommended by a few people, and I'm glad I saw it, but it's certainly not a good film. The direction is lethargic and pretentious, the pacing was poor, and every other scene was complete crap, but the scenes in between were interesting. The premise that had Adolf Hitler been a successful artist he might not have become who he was, and that he had a strong, almost mentor-like relationship with the Jewish art dealer, Max Rothman, is interesting. This was the first time anyone ever had the guts to show a human side of Hitler, although they seem to quickly regret it and by the second half make him into the standard raving lunatic as he's always depicted. It always has one of the worst senses of it's period of any film I've ever seen. It absolutely did not seem like 1918-1920.

Josh

Name: Dalty Smilth
E-mail: wakko@icon-stl.net

Josh,

I think you have an excellent point about Mel Gibson's Jesus movie. I too, have thought that someone should cast a jewish man as Jesus. But I'm sure that would cause controversy from millions of uninformed Christians. For me, though, when I think of Jesus, I will always see the face of Robert Powell. Which brings me to an almost completely unrelated topic. Whenever you're thinking of classic characters from literature, do you tend to picture them with the face of a famous actor? For instance, when I think of Odysseus, I tend to think of Armand Assante. (And believe me, I don't want to think of Armand Assante.) Or when I think of Hercules, Kevin Sorbo's face pops into my mind. And, strangest of all, when I think of King Arthur, I picture him looking like Graham Chapman. It gets worse, when I heard they were making a movie of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; I immediately thought that Alan Cumming would be perfect for the role of Mr. Tumnus. I picture the Giver from the book of the same name looking like Paul Newman. Kate Winslet would play the main female character from A Brave New World. Do you have the same tendency? Why do we do this?

It's odd, I guess, but I don't envision actors when I'm thinking about historical characters, reading a book, or a screenplay. I have name actors in my dreams sometimes, though.

Josh

Name: Lee
E-mail:

Hey Josh

This is a side issue to the unelected president's imperialist adventure debate, but it highlights the kind of administration in power right now.

Did you know that Rumsfeld is responsible for foisting aspartame on us? That sweetner that's in millions of food products around the world and well, can kinda give you all kinds of weird side affects including, well, cancer.

There's loads of stuff on the web about Rumslfed's conflict of interests. Basically, Rumsfeld was president of the Serle Corp, maker of aspartame and, as part of Reagan's team, got aspartame legalised by appointing a defence dept. contractor as head of the FDA.

And now aspartame is everywhere. And it's gonna stay in our food because it's bigger than the tobacco industry. The potential for damages is astronomical. We're stuck with it.

So not only is Rumsfeld a war-hawk but he's directly responsible for poisoning us... our children...

You can see that glint in his eye - Satan's little fucking helper!

Lee

As Bruce Campbell said to me recently, "I'm not one for hyperbole or overstatement, but George Bush, Jr. is the anti-Christ." If this asshole gets reelected I may seriously look into moving to Toronto.

Josh

Name: PILALIDIS GEORGIOS
E-mail: AGAMEMMNON@MSN.COM

HALLO JOSH.I AND MANY GREEKS HIER WE HOPE THAT THIS BUS OR ANY ELSE WHO IS BEHINDE HIM NOT BE AGAIN FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS PRESIDEND OF (U S A) HE DESTROY OR ZIVILATION.I HOPE THE AMERIKAN PEOPLE DON'T MAKE THIS MISTAKE AGAIN.GEORGE

Well, George Bush, Sr. lost the election for his second term, and he didn't fuck this country up nearly as bad as his idiot child has. At least he got us out of Iraq with some alacrity. Of course, they're both scumbags.

Josh