normally i don't talk about politics much. this is not because i don't have opinions. i just don't have very educated opinions. i am one of those people that still has ideals and principles and really wants to believe that this is what politics is about.

of course, i am kidding myself. it doesn't really matter what i believe in. whenever anything goes wrong, there is no real way of knowing who to believe and who is full of horse-pucky. chances are, everyone involved is telling some truth, but once the finger pointing starts, it all sounds like bullshit.

september 11, for example. democrats blame bush and his hard-on for saddam. republicans blame faulty intelligence and say that even if they were able to find and kill osama that the attacks still would have happened. democrats criticize bush as a puppet president who's "war on terrorism" is a farce, citing outcry against the u.s. to show how most of the rest of the world hates us. republicans laud bush for his strong leadership and his relentless pursuit of osama bin laden, citing the "coalition of the willing" as reason to believe we have many friends in the world.

how about the economy? every time a republican is in office and the economy goes into a tail spin (which is EVERY time a president is named BUSH) democrats blame the republicans. republicans blame the democrats and say "it was this way when we found it."

honestly, i more often side with the democrats than the republicans. but, it doesn't really matter. aren't they both full of bologna? who's to say why the economy is so piss poor? bush denies it, and says that the economy is rebounding. right, the economy is rebounding about as well as a parapalegic midget would vs. shaq.

on the other hand, while i would love to blame bush's iraq agenda (please don't try to tell me that bush didn't have a big ol' boner when he took office, thinking about how he could get saddam out of power), clinton has got to be blamed a lot more than he is, because the terrorists who entered this country did so while he was still president.

of course, these are my opinions. is there really anything factual that is credible that i can use to defend any of my positions? well, i guess that depends on what you define as "credible." personally, i find it hard to believe much of anything.

even dick clarke is being discredited. republicans are saying that he's just trying to sell books. if you're a republican, you believe that. if you're a democrat, you call "bullshit!" if you're neither, you let out a big sigh, flip the channel, and hope for something more entertaining on the food network or, better yet, cinemax.

what does all of this mean? it means that while too many people will sit here and analyze this crap to death over the next few months, i am saying that it makes no difference. you are going to believe what you want to believe. for instance, i believe that george w. bush is pure, concentrated evil. i don't like his connections to the oil-rich saudi royal family (you mean, you didn't know he is "best buds" with the saudi prince?). i don't like his ties to the enron corporation, which is undoubtedly why the incarceration of this country's most heinous criminals is sprinting along with all the speed of a slug sliming it's way through pancake syrup.

that's how i feel. it's a biased opinion based on what little information i know, and that's because i don't think that having more information would necessarily help me make a better decision.