...I Forgot What the Question Was.

I walked away from the debate today on CBS with a definite distaste for New York journalists. Dan Rather was actually semi-professional this morning, although his complexion had the ruddy subdurate cast of a several-days bender and the positively steroidal outward growth of his ears made this author wonder if he and Mr. Kucinich were perhaps separated at birth. That the journalists were dismissive, arrogant, confused and alternately rude was brushed off with "you're in New York now" as though their collective ignorant, rambling and naive queries were a native quirk of the New York populace as a whole. I can assure you, America, I have never used "Axis of Weasel" as a headline for a story, have not asked moronic and insulting questions when given the chance to speak to a candidate for public office and certainly don't blame any lapses in my personal conduct upon my neighbors.

Since the media and the conservatives are in the minds of most Americans synonymous, especially when they read of mega-mergers and multinational interests running the show, quite literally, I think the GOP should be fighting mad at the moderators. The GOP took a HUGE hit, and the Award for Knockout of the Morning Goes to Sharpton. Without doubt he best delivered punch of the day, it was directed at the media and their treatment of the candidates in the first 15 minutes of the debate, delivered with a snide (in essence if not verbatim): "If you want to have a two person debate, just have one. You've obviously decided who the voters get to vote for. There are more than half of the delegates LEFT and you are marginalizing us before the voters cast a vote. This guy (Edwards) has been beaten over and over, heck I beat him once myself already. The primary process is supposed to be about delegates and the voice of the people but if you want to make it into a two person race go right ahead."

Rather stammered something like "no fair, you've been talking like for 5 minutes about this" but then shut up and tried to ensure that the debate was MODERATED. So Award number two goes to Dan Rather for Best Remedial Scope of Work Definition Recall while Performing Said Work. The (ahem) lady to his right was (well I'm being kind now) a great interruption and certainly stopped the flow of ideas with aplomb. We can't have an informed debate now can we? Kudos to the guy with the glasses on the left asking the same question nine different ways, for which he receives the Human Thesaurus Award.

Kerry was, as I predicted, sartorially senatorial, presidential, calm, smiling when appropriate, leaning in with concern, hitting all the P.C. talking points with a quiet manner that ranged from indignant to flummoxed to conciliatory. I score this debate a win for Kerry simply because he has the numbers and the widespread appeal. So Winner of the NY Super Tuesday Pregame Show must go to Kerry. But he certainly has to share the X with a Most Surprising Performance from a Senator -wait, IS he just a congressman? - Dennis Kucinich.

Strident at times, but always spot on message and a clear voice of intelligence and fact, Kucinich did to the Bush Administration what Sharpton did to the Intelligentsia. Hard hitting, concise, personable, it seems that stature and an unfortunate need to be truthful stand in the way of Kucinich moving to the forefront of the Democratic Party, but his positions were admirable and his opinions were thoughtful and well stated. Perhaps he was channeling Paul Wellstone? He might consider a move to Minnesota next spring.

Edwards did, to my delight, exactly what I did NOT think he would do. As second chair, he should realize that his job is to attack the vulnerabilities of the team opponent and not the first chair. I guess the allure of the Oval Cubicle proved too tempting and Mr. You Can Trust Me decided to violate his one and only campaign promise and attack Kerry. That wins Edwards not one, but TWO awards - the first for Providing Surprising Media Soundbytes that are NOT Focused on Defeating the GOP and second for Worst Advice Taking by a presidential candidate. His staff even garnered an award for themselves: Fastest TwoFaced Appearances in a Row for coaching Edwards to deliver a benign and united appearance earlier in the week, followed by his "lil millworker junkyard dawg that could" tack this morning. Not pretty at all, John. Not Senatorial - with a few exceptions in the hour - and definitively the clarion cry for your defeat.

Notably, the Dilbert vote - this election cycle swing voters - were left hanging, no one offered middle class anything to anyone, except for Kerry whose Webmaster should be either thrilled if the bandwidth is there or peeved if they've not allocated enough for the voters to check out Kerry's budget proposal for themselves.

Best Hair - Al Sharpton. Best Smile - John Kerry. Worst Response to a Q - Edwards, whose $34+ million personal wealth places him in that "other" America, the one that's so unfair and avaricious. Worst Makeup - Dan Rather. Best Byte - Dennis Kucinich who said "WTO can't be amended it is inherent to its charter, we must scrap it and start over". Worst byte - Edwards' "can I respond to his response to my response?"

Haiti is a rumbling dragon boys 'n' girls. Watch it blow up all over the place this week.

the Curmudgeon

And the Question is?...

Before the Democratic Debate in New York begins and we see for the first time in history an elephant's feathers fly, I'm going to put on my political psychic's hat and make a few predictions. First of all, this is the warmup to the GOP convention this summer, and the audience will provide Rove and company with some all-important clues to the metropolitan climate in the Northeast.

In general, the debate will hinge on the widening of the economic classes within the US, but are most glaring in a place like NYC. This audience knows firsthand how little the minimum wage offers a city dweller to survive upon and how much waste is generated in places like Albany, Wall Street and Madison Avenue (sorry, darling) in a striking contrast to the budget mindedness of the "little people" ... now comprising something like 70% of the electorate. Expect all the players to hit the economic note, but pay attention to how the tune is played and to which base it is directed. Small business owners? Industrial and factory workers? Corporate "cogs"?

Foreign affairs are also going to resonate deeply within this electorate. Expect the now common stance on Iraq, that we should generate a coalition of nations to help stabilize the area and either pull back troops or fully commit to the mission. (I personally favor the latter but the former seems to appeal to most of the white men on the dais.) However, the Gods have smiled upon the Dems with the horrific week of terrorism and violence in Haiti. With Aristede's departure the door is wide open to call the Administration on its' glaring inconsistencies in Foreign Policy.

And finally, Al Gore's "lockbox" will be less a Saturday Night Live one-liner and more a sobering reality for the majority of Americans. With the huge losses in the markets, privatized SSI is clearly suicidal. It will be quick work to point out that placing Social Security dollars into money market accounts is the equivalent of issuing lottery tickets to retirees. Greenspan will certainly have to resign before November, and Bush might take a hit today sufficient to sink his CREEP before it even solidifies and begins to actually do its work.

Now for the debaters themselves:

The Kentucky Fried Kennedy, John Edwards, will continue to suck up to JFK2 in a seriously creepy way. The pandering will be so obvious that even his core will switch alliances and his cumulative power at the convention in Boston will actually be diminished. Expect Edwards to take up the "two America" rallying cry with great aplomb here in the city. He will be considered as giving a solid performance unless he crushes the fragile hopes of the audience that always think they can make it to the top of the heap. He has to manage to sell that the country has changes so much that their current state jeopardizes their ability to ever change things. A solid number three.

It will be nearly impossible for Al Sharpton NOT to point out that a man who was NOT elected president just allowed terrorists 45 miles from our border to run out of town an elected president. The irony will be dripping form Sharpton today. This is home turf, and his wit and his metropolitan cred gives him an edge that gives him the win that only he can lose.

JFK2 will be extremely presidential today. He will be funny, he will show emotion and he might decide to take on Bush when it comes to Social Security. Most of all, Kerry will be calm, charming and smart. A solid second with the plurality of almost all the states next Tuesday. Kerry will point out the Christ in Christian and paint the antigay/lesbian GOP amendment as unchristian, immoral and unconstitutional. The GOP has really overstepped and seems tone deaf on this issue: with 3 million jobs lost, these voters care less about same sex marriage than they do about having enough to feed their families. Americans are definitely in the mood to live and let live especially since most politicians in our current government on both sides of the aisle are divorced, which is surely more damaging to the institution of marriage than commitment between same sex partners. Finally John Kerry will pitch his responses[onses to the Dilbert independents - the corporate cubicle dwellers who define the independent swing voters and NOT the Nascar anythings. It is how safe these folks - the middle management, middle wage, middle aged and middle market consumers - feel in the current economic climate and how worried they are about their kids dying overseas or their retirement years spent in declining standards of living.

Kucinich will be almost strident in his responses. The audience response to his message will be the most closely watched: if the audience takes to his anti corporate, anti war, anti pollution clarion call the political landscape will really change and perhaps for the better.

Let the games begin. I can hear Dan Rather in the distance. We'll see how prescient I really am. And if the Bush camp wants a decent political handicapper, don't give me a call. I'd vote for Lou Gerstner before I would vote for W again.

the Curmudgeon

Alan Greenspan Might Be the AntiChrist


Sometimes I think that Alan Greenspan just might be the AntiChrist, the biblical figure who crushes the last remnants of civilization in his many headed, inhumane cabal while the world itself goes dark. The Apocalypse tells us that only God Himself can slay this greedy beast and save mankind from its' inexorable grasp. Then I realize that the only people who think that Alan Greenspan doesn't need a bit of Art Therapy and perhaps a pair of Depends at this point are Congress and the White House, and we already know that those folks are in league with Satan.

For a moment yesterday, I was very frightened that Greenspan's suggestion would be taken seriously. It has been at his suggestion that the Federal Interest Rate has dropped to a fraction of a percent at times. This is an idea, Greenspan tells us, that allows for the borrowing of money for business expansion, asset purchasing and salaries for literally pennies on the dollar. The idea, a form of trickle down economics, seems acceptable, even appropriate on its' face. However in the execution it is destructive to the middle and lower classes, which is idea best illustrated by John Kerry: "Folks, we've being trickled on, all right."

Wipe that 'economic incentive' off of your face and try to follow along with me: Although the Fed interest rate is hovering around .75%, home loans are considered a "great deal" at 4%. Credit card rates, after a quick tease, skyrocket to 12.5%, sometimes 21% and to the scales as high as 33%!! That does not include annual fees, which Carlo the Fist does NOT charge his customers, but Chase and Citibank don't have the class of the old school neighborhood loan shark. Under the auspices of Bush the Elder, the U.S. banks began to ride a tide of higher and more fees, rising interest rates and predatory credit practices. Not to worry. Only bad people get into debt. Good people save their money, they have a nest egg, which economic experts warn should equal three months to six months of expenses. H'yah. Shurrrr.

In an environment where a high yield checking account requires a $2K deposit and only pays 3 1/4% per annum, the public is smart enough to see that either they gamble and play stocks -- where they can get that 12 to 15% return their parents got, or roughly half of what their own creditors get -- or they spend in order to keep ahead of inflation. As inflation rises, that 10% you saved three years ago is now worth about 3%. Hmmmm. That seem like going backwards to most of us.

So, despite a total breakdown in the pay structure of the American workplace and a devastating stock market crash, Greenspan thinks the best course of action is not to tax those who have reaped interest despite the slashing of the Fed. He doesn't want to ask those who have benefited most from our system of commerce to give even one tenth what they were contributing to our Republic during an era when they were referred to as "Robber-Barons". Greenspan wants you and I, the almost 40 somethings, to retire 20 years later than our parents did, with less cost of living adjustments and with now fewer benefits than that. Our money, you see, isn't making 33% at Capital One. It's languishing at .75% in the Federal Reserve and Greenspan is filthy rich but our treasury is not.

This little shell game is conning more Americans than the guy playing three card Monty over by Central Park. When and if Americans get wise to the game and confront their congressmen and senators (they don't deserve capitalization any more than they already got) we are told that we are living in a "capitalistic society" as though that makes it okay. By that logic I can say my child is a little high strung whenever he lunges at people and chomps on their legs. "Hah, little ankle biter! Quite a vigorous little guy, huh? You have to expect that with him, I said he was a rascal. Hah."

I'd say Greenspan was the AntiChrist but that would mean that he wasn't mean. It would assume that he had a soul and I don't think the guy has one. He's married Andrea Mitchell who seems nice and very sweet and very smart except that she chose the Dark Prince as her lifemate. Ewww. That's a picture I try to keep out of my head at all cost, as well as Greenspan's little smirk when he informed Congress that he thought we should actually cut SSI. Actually, Al, I agree. It needs some pruning.

Let's take those loppers to the SSI budget. Anyone who was spared paying that eeeevil little "Death Tax" automatically gets no SSI. Sorry, one free ride per lifetime. And anyone living strictly on interest? Do you realize how much cash those weasels have to have for a less than 1% interest rate to generate enough to feed, clothe and play for a year?!? And kick out of Medicaid and SSI anyone who is in the top 1% of the tax bracket. Period. Oh cry my a river, richest of the rich. Now that I have actually seen how gaudy Trump's house is I am NOT paying for his colonoscopy next week just for the dubious honor of working as a cashier at Mickey D's while using a hearing aid shaped like a funnel to take orders. That's what you call being trickled on, and unlike Paris and Nikki I didn't inherit a Hilton raincoat.

The whole derned GOP seems to be tone deaf this week. With 3 million people looking for meaningful employment, why should I care if some gay couple gets married? I'm sure they aren't Jehovah's Witnesses or anything, and from what I've read their unions actually fare better than traditional ones. I think gays have something around a 70% success rate while half or more of all marriages end in the D word. The extra revenue from all the certificates might keep the art program in my kids' school this spring so knock it off already! If George Bush wants to win this election, I mean really really wants to do what it takes he will speak to the American public at 7 pm on a Thursday night and state the following:

"My fellow Americans. Effective tomorrow, all multinational corporations who have offshore offices to hide their legal share of taxes will heretofore be required to begin to pay the taxes they attempted to evade (since we've been nailing regular people for doing it, we shouldn't turn a blind eye to GE and Microsoft and the rest). If they don't come up with a payment plan within 3 months and if they don't adhere to it, we will seize their assets and the corporation will be taken over and run by former welfare recipients who need the cash much more than these laggards seem to and who pay their taxes with pride and without complaint. It's a little Pilot Program I call "Enforced Ethics" and I think it is the answer to many of our economic woes.

"Oh, and I almost forgot. It is pronounced New-clee-ur, not New-kew-ler. And they are terr-or-ists, not terr-ists. See, even I your commander in chief is able to learn. And speaking of learning curves, Alan Greenspan has just been admitted to Sunnyvale Retirement Home. Apparently after his testimony this week, he thought he was Benny Hill and began running around Washington in short pants. So disregard his idiotic Social Security idea. We're talking to this College Dean from New York about something he calls a 'lock-box'. My aides say it's a good idea, and God knows I can't read a third grade book in the upright position let alone follow all of this money talk.

"And, uhhh, well, that's it. May God continue to Bless America."

the Curmudgeon

Some Things Take Time

Yesterday was my mother and father in laws' anniversary. They have been married for over half of a decade, a span of time that stretches over a period that dates to before my birth. They have known one another and been one another's best friend longer than I have been in my body on this planet.

My husband is a very fortunate man. He was raised in the cocoon of love and respect that his parents built for he and his sisters. I am virtually an orphan, adopted by a family too deep into its' own issues to care for or welcome an outsider, even in infancy. I assumed all families -and marriages- would function in the same way. My first marriage ended when I was just 20 with the death of our infant to SIDS. My husband chose to buy himself a motorcycle and divorce me, riding out of my life with a 17 year old wife and baby on the way. I did not expect our marriage to weather a storm like the death of a child; I had married a man twice my age to try to find stability and without the ballast of responsibility our ship of matrimony sank.

I tried marriage again in my 20's, smitten by a man who seemed the epitome of tolerance and goodnaturedness. All I can say is that I found someone who completely recreated my home life as a child, we presented the perfect home just as to the outside world my childhood home was filled with love and satiety. The mask concealed the same sicknesses that drove my father and my mother and in my own way I drew them out. I will not speak of what occurred in our home except to say that to this day I have vivid dreams of waking up in my bed being upended with rage; I ride in an automobile and flinch when the driver seems agitated, steeling myself for the spiderweb of glass that my head will cause when the anger finally finds its closest target and smashes my temple to the side window. Catholic and unable to conceive of a partnership that forgave but did not grovel or submit, I -the saint! The one who never left him!- I was asked for a divorce nearly eight years later. Despite my best efforts to endure for the sake of endurance, to be able to say "yes, I have been a part of your life for as long as I can remember" for the sake of shared history, I was alone again at 30.

I didn't exactly jump into my husband's arms, but I did find him sensible and smart and funny and familiar, like a song from my infancy that I know on some kind of cellular level. We knew when we met that we shared a connection. I did not trust myself to be enough for him, and many friends were introduced to him, casually giving him pieces of my daily life to try to understand a person that life had taught me was unlovable over the long haul.

It's been almost nine years now and we are still madly in love. He still makes my heart skip when he says my name, his touch is more comforting than anything I have ever encountered. I sleep deeply and satisfyingly when I am near him and miracle of miracles! He swears that I am enough, that my ideas and my actions and the way I go about being a mom and a wife and a friend is something he admires. We have been through illness, very grave illness, and we have buried his sister, the only member of his family beyond his parents that I felt comfortable enough to telephone and speak with. We have two sons, one adopted only weeks after our nuptials from my ex-husband and another who made his way into my womb the first month of our marriage and appeared in our world in early January of 1996.

Mom and Dad -- after all, they are the first real family I've known -- are the kind of people that laugh at everything. They joke about one another, they laugh about the stock market, they reminisce about 'the hard times' with a smile, not a sigh or grimace. They made it through some terribly painful times: betrayals, poverty, illness, death, career disappointments and pressures, you name it, they really did walk through it. They managed to do it as a team, never critical of the effort or execution of one another, always seeing the good and the possible even in the worst and seemingly impossible of circumstances. I get to be a part of this family. I know of about one-fifth of their story firsthand and I am profoundly grateful that they have been as accepting, as open, as kind to me as they have.

Mom and Dad lost a lot of money in the recent stock crash. Dad is still recovering from a cancer scare a few years back. He and Mom walk every day and they notice the smallest things and celebrate every single occasion that even remotely calls for a party. They are best friends, they are one another's family, they are dancers to a magical, silent song only they hear, each step and each act building effortlessly upon the other's movements. They too lost a child, but that pain did not overturn some delicate balance they had struck or nullify a contract they had made. They reside in one another, they live in their photos and their memories and one another's care. Their pain and need is not a burden. Their laughter is never forced. They have simply chosen to look for the best --purposefully--- and simply do not focus on what they cannot change or what they disapprove of.

Fifty two years ago, a young man and woman from Brooklyn, New York decided to make a life together. They did more than that, far, far more than that. They created an oasis of charity and tolerance that they will tell you is simply easier to live in than a world of disappointment and mistrust. They have accepted me as though I was one of their own, something I cherish even more because I have never experienced it. At first I thought they must be lacking fun behind my back, but these people really exist! I am learning, after almost nine years, to trust in their example. I am becoming less fearful of the window smashing, the bed being upended, the clothes being cut to pieces. I am not afraid in my heart of hearts that my life will shatter again and I will be alone, bereft, with no one to help me pick up the pieces. This is something they could not teach me, they had to show me.

There are families that always expect greatness and never want more than your best. There are places that people can build that are havens from the competition of the workplace and the dishonesty of the culture. They are created when two people decide that, no matter what, they are bound by more than an agreement but by a guiding principle: that what does not destroy us, only makes us laugh harder.

the Curmudgeon

Watching Keith Obermann

It is with a mixture of regret and a great deal of pride that I feel obligated to let you all of America know that Keith Obermann has officially become the best political and cultural satirist in America. This spot, once occupied by George Carlin, Will Durst and Dennis Miller now belongs, rightfully, to Obermann.

As someone regularly torn between running out into the street and physically screaming the facts at the idiots happily consuming their way through life or finding the humor in the corrupt, disingenuous, torrid grab for money and power we euphemistically call "public service," I can appreciate a kindred voice in the wilderness helping me to see the dark irony of it all. I once had every Dennis Miller concert and HBO performance on VHS. I have to say, I'm a bit of a nerd and following his sub-references not only made me laugh out loud, they made me feel a teensy bit superior to the rest of the room, looking vaguely like Labradors who can't figure out where the invisible ball went when his range of knowledge surpassed what US Weekly had covered.

But Dennis eventually left HBO. Keith appeared, briefly, on a network which, like the evil Voldemort, shall not be named. This same network canned Greenfield at Large, a show that was something akin to Charlie Rose on ecstacy. In the end his show too was canned, like Keith's first politically satiric broadcast, as Greenfield's humor was a bit too Mad Magazine and not enough Doonesbury for the Powers That Be. (Believe me, the letter THEY got that week was filled with invective they probably couldn't even pronounce let alone grasp.) But, as the aforementtioned gentlemen well know, such is the executive staff of a cable network.

Then, miraculously as a 50 degree day in New York in January, a breath of fresh (well, okay irreverent leaning toward outright smartass) air in the 24/7 cable news cycle appeared. Yes, Jon Stewart has successfully eclipsed whatsisname on The Daily Show, but his mock newscast is a kinder, gentler form of satire directed more at the media itself and not the politics or culture it pretends to inform. There was no real political satire in this country after "DML" and "The Big Story" left.

So once again, Keith, you show up on television, with your Clark Kent good looks and deadpan brand of shake-the-head reportage in a format that spins from straight news items to outrageously inappropriate analysis by Mo Rocca followed by your own wry commentary on the predilections and tastes of an electorate so out of touch with its' own constitution that it mistakes mob rule as synonymous with democracy. Mr. Obermann, if you are reading this, I cannot tell you how fortunate my 13 year old son is to have you to disseminate the news for us each night. You make the news interesting and somehow a little bit important to a young man who often thinks anything without a "content rated by ESRB" label superfluous. For that, you have earned the respect and gratitude of both my spouse and myself.

So it was with no small amount of chagrin that we found the dastardly suits in programming put your "Countdown" up against "Dennis Miller" in the 12 midnight slot (hey, I admit it, some nights we catch the repeat of the 8 pm "Countdown", alright?) and we confess, we attempted to watch you both, sharing custody of the remote each evening - one night you at eight, Dennis at midnight, the next night Dennis at nine, you at midnight - but in the end the situation was frankly unworkable.

For one thing, Dennis doesn't do well by the comparison. In fact, nothing much on television does -- Of course The Daily Show is permanently qued up to the 11pm slot on our TV. And Two and a Half Men is still wildly funny, as well as Funniest Home Vidoes, though I admit I am both ashamed and puzzled at my own response to that particular show. Anyhow, aAfter two weeks of bitter, angry and smug self-righteousness, we decided to turn off Dennis Miller altogether and come back to Countdown, exclusively, our equal-opportunity newsbyte and pop culture fest. Countdown is, in a word,Your broadcast, in a word, superb. The research staff is top notch. The Oddball segments are not to be missed. The bookers should be taken to Le Cirque once a month. The throwaway lines are anything BUT, and it goes without saying that the writing is fantastic.

Yes, Countdown with Keith Obermann often has an item that is heartbreaking or emotionally involving but the tone is never maudlin; the show has yet to insult our intelligence (No cracks about AFV, we have two young boys in the house who llove to watch fat people make roofs cave in). Obermann the interviewer is a thing of wonder - he suffers fools graciously, but with a quick wink to the audience in case we are not similarly endowed. (And we're not.) Occasionally a muttered outrage at the insanity of modern life and its' cast of characters slips into the mix of daily headlines and page seventeen celebrity, judicial or simple human interest stories, but the shouted, frustrated rant is not Obermann's style. He is at once suave as Kelly Grant, self-deprecating as Twain, quick as anyone in show biz ever, incisive and wildly silly - a mix of charisma, wit and intellect simply unmatched today in the American media.

Too often people have touched my life in a way that caused me to look forward to tomorrow, and the day after, without a word of thanks or praise. Most of the time I find myself playing catch-up - writing letters after the funeral, or after the teacher retires, or when the show is given the axe and cancelled. So I wanted to take the time to really praise this effort, to thank the staff at Countdown and the star of the show, today, for its presence in our lives. It would not be an exaggeration to say that you are a highlight of our day, one of the rare times the television is a welcome and honored guest in our home. Thank you, Countdown, for such a well made product and such a short entertaining hour of modern boradcasting. Whatever they are paying you right now...well, they can't be paying you anything close to what you deserve.

the Curmudgeon

The Super Election
Imagine, for one moment, that last December Jon Bon Jovi announced that he wanted his Arena Football team to scrimmage with the Patriots and the Panthers on the morning of February first. Now, Arena Football is a noble profession, and nobody wants to malign the athletes and professionals who make the Arena Football League what it is today, but we are talking the Superbowl here --- the matchup between the AFC conference and the NFC conference of the National Football League. The Philadelphia Soul have about as much a right to compete in the Superbowl - let alone relevance to the NFL - as Janet Jackson's lingerie does. Er, did. Whatever.

However, this is far from a tidy or a just world. It isn't even a remotely logical or moral world anymore, more and more like a trip down Alice's rabbit hole as the years press on. Reality, to warp the phrase, is in the eye of the beholder. And since the presidential election of 2004 is now actually in full swing, out pops our loonies, our pundits and of course our "independent" candidates. You remember them, don't you? California was a virtual Petri dish of political ennui, filled with porn queens, truckers, State assemblymen and every size and shape of politician you could think of. Yet, conspicuously absent from the festivities was dear Uncle Ralphie Nader. I was actually wondering if Ralph was afflicted with some sort of throat cancer, since we've heard nary a word from Unk since his spoiler run in 2000. Thank goodness, perennial as black flies in the heat of August, Uncle Ralphie wants America to take him seriously as a candidate for president. Again. Awwww.

For those of you who just decided to start paying attention, Ralph Nader ran under the auspices of the Green Party last election cycle, a party with noble ideals and a volatile, very, very young political contingent behind it. I remember a then-commonplace exchange with a Green Party member while waiting in line at the Starbucks on Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon. He had a "Nader" bumper sticker affixed to his messenger bag, which did not appear to be a tool of his vocation. Rather, his dreadlocked girlfriend and he were just going to sit in the square all day, sipping lattes with no apparent jobs, no source of income --unless body piercings are part of some government study I am not aware of -- or even fresh laundry facilities. Not to be dissuaded by appearances, I asked him why he thought voting for Nader was a good idea. He replied with something along the lines of "oh, man, he is the truthful guy" or "he's not in the pockets of the big corporations" or some such sentiment. His many contractural successes in the publishing business aside (and believe me, if there is a group that is planning to secretly overtake the planet it is the publishing industry) I ignored the glaring incoherence of Nader's acquisition of a pop persona and asked if, since Nader was likely to split the vote between liberals and possibly deliver Bush a win, the fellow would still vote Green I got a resounding "H'ya sure!" My friend the the multi-ringed and studded caffeine aficionado said that, essentially, since the parties were exactly the same, the government wouldn't be any different if Bush won.

Wow. Hea--vy. Talk about your instant karma, huh, buddy? One of Bush's first acts as President was to install John Ashcroft as Attorney General. He, in turn, made it a priority to track down physicians following the will of the majority of California voters who wished medicinal marijuana to be available to suffering elderly and ailing Californians. Soon after, Ashcroft decided that the 'Death With Dignity' act passed by an overwhelming majority in Oregon was illegal as well, and has threatened to go on a witch hunt to identify and prosecute doctors who have the gall to end the suffering of their patients when they are begging for relief. Now we hear he tried to subpoena the medical records of woman to identify and quantify who had an abortion. Whoa, Dude, that's one heavy handed Attorney General! One I'm pretty sure wasn't on Gore's short list.

I bet that guy's somewhere in Gresham in his Dad's basement sleeping off the 2000 campaign and looking for a clear patch of skin to get a "Nader" tattoo this weekend at the Saturday Market. The rest of Nader's campaigners may -- if the Gods are with us and the collective IQ of the electorate has not dropped down below 79 -- decide that Uncle Ralph, for all of his invective, is hardly the intelligent choice for President. For one, he has proven he has zero political chance of changing anything except his own pocketbook. Those royalty checks don't just cash themselves, and it's been a while since he's had a moneymaking book deal.

For another, his campaign is immoral. To elevate Nader's grab for attention to the status of an actual campaign is to malign all of the other honest, intelligent and ultimately less popular contenders for the Republican and Democratic nominations. He knows that the GOP will go for a reelection, so he is doing an end run around the political process and announcing his "independent bid" this week. You remember that guy, the one who pushes his way to the front of the line at the Royal Fork on a crowded Sunday afternoon? Well, Uncle Ralphie is trying to take "cuts" in front of Gephardt, Kucinich, Lieberman, Mosley-Braun, Dean, Edwards and Kerry. It isn't his arrogance that irks me so much as his cloak of inviolate morality that he constantly drapes over himself. Where in the heck have you been, Ralph?

When I called his campaign HQ to ask, his campaign manager assured me that Ralph Nader was never silent. I asked about the 9-11 attacks, about the Iraq war, about the Florida recount stoppage. The reply was that "Ralph Nader doesn't exactly get a lot of air time." Oh, well, that's so funny because I seem to remember things a mite different there Jim-Bob. I seem to recall the media reporting that Nader was conspicuously absent from the discussion about Florida and the Supremes decision. When pressed about 9-11 he responded with hushed reverence that "Mr. Nader was in Washington when the attacks happened," as though the rest of the roughly four million inhabitants weren't in equal danger. Well, Sparky, I would think that if Uncle Ralph has such character and such a different and refreshingly original way of dealing with running our country, he might have wanted to actually make -oh- a speech, maybe donate some blood or perhaps even raise some funds, like the rest of those horrible, indecent politicians he loves to go on about as if they were dipped in effluvium.

You know what I think? I think Uncle Ralphie sat somewhere in Georgetown safe as a bug in a rug, munching on his hummus and whole wheat macrobiotic chips and sipping Poland Spring just like the rest of the political elite he claims to have nothing in common with.

Yes, boys and girls, it's election time. The crazies have crawled out from underneath their respective rocks. It isn't nearly as entertaining as the halftime show at the Superbowl, but heck, anybody with a set of shoulder pads and a helmet is allowed to play on this turf. Maybe that's why the last few elections have been such discouraging, limpid spectacles.

the Curmudgeon

Hackers and Partisans United

I'm not going to call any names or spew any invective. I'm a fairly well read person. I followed the Congressional Probe into the Fla elections and I'm continuing to watch the Congress as the scandal regarding Republican Senatorial staffers hacking into Democratic colleagues' memos, correspondence and caucus matters lags into a nothing investigation along with Halliburton's variances and SEC wrongdoings by Club Bush contributors.

To demonize George W. Bush as a liar or as a phoney or even as a political opportunist isn't really fair. I see Mr. Bush performing the functions of a figurehead, opening law libraries, dedicating buildings, etc. etc. while the real work of the Oval Office is being conducted by....? I have my private ideas, but I cannot definitively prove anything, and in this forum it seems that inviolate proof is required to besmirch anything remotely connected to the Grand Old Party.

I am, as the mother of two adolescent sons, quite worried that we are expending vast military and weapons resources while spreading our troops incredibly and (in my own opinion nearly criminally) thin. I have spoken to several Presidential candidates and each assures me that we will give our military the resources to WIN in Iraq before we leave. We will NOT repeat the debacle of Lebanon, when President (well, I say President and not Mr. since he was elected) Regan turned tail and ran. Our forces deserve more than lip service, they deserve sufficient force numbers to equate with an ability to control the supply lines and municipal electrical and water supplies.

I have one question to ask of all of the people who have spoken so derisively (that means without respect) of any who question of the motives of this administration or even the wisdom of its' military and economic choices:

Are you aware that the Vice President receives each year a "stipend" from Halliburton in excess of $100K? Doesn't that mean that our Vice President moonlights for an energy company? Have you written to his office and asked what his position is on the $70 billion dollar overages that Halliburton has collected for its' "services" in Iraq (a contract they were awarded without any competition); that further, those overcharges by Halliburton were questioned by employees and their own supervisors replied that "the government isn't going to be looking closely at this". I did and he sent me a letter requesting that I contribute to his campaign for re-election. (Apparently his staff has a major problem with the English language).

I wish that Bush had instead listened to Scott Ritter and other voices, but he didn't and he invaded Iraq. From now on, if anyone decideds to retalliate, it will be our own fault. In my mind, that makes the need for our military to be present and protecting our own borders far more important than picking fights to make millions off of government contracts.We had the support of the world after 9/11 and now the terrorists are getting stronger in Indonesia, in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in the Sudan and Rwanda, while North Korea and the Congo are in the hands of madmen. I no longer trust the word of this president, my secretary of state or anyone in intelligence or defense. What a sad sad thing to have to say out loud!

I will not support any American politician who sends Ameriocan troops off to war without 100% of the neccessary ingredients for a victory. The politicians spread us too thin in Korea, in Vietnam, and in the last Gulf War and caused far too many casualties. Voices within this administration have called for greater force numbers. The Democratic challengers agree that an insufficiently supplied force is a wasted force.

I've made up my own mind about economic theory by actually reading Keynsian models and educating myself. Anyone who thinks we can spend our way out of this recession is fooling themselves: we now are hearing about the great and wonderful benefits of deflation -- it will allow American goods and services to steeply drop in price. Golly, does anyone hear remember a little economic hiccup called The Great Depression?

Deflation is already ocurring in the tech and real estate sectors. It will continue so long as wages do not keep up with the cost of living. My husband will not allow anyone in his region to be paid a substandard wage. In fact, his employees are paid above the "market average" and he gets loyalty, high productivity and teamwork from his employees. In short, he tries to treat his workers as though they were his customers, especially since in our capitalistic system they should and can very well become his future customers! Of course, we choose to spend money at establishments that share our philosophy. My boys complain that Wal-Mart and Target have "cool stuff" but when they read about the way workers are treated and the places the products come from, they become less enthusiastic.

As for this war, I will not allow my boys to be used as cannon fodder, and I mean business. I don't for one moment think that Mr. Bush had the courage to fight for his country so it was best that he did whatever his Daddy bought him the right to do during Vietnam - the National Guard, Harvard Biz School, whatever. But I do not and I will not ever allow another administration to take a family member from me because some spoiled rich child paid to sit the conflict out. Too many good and patriotic souls were sent to fight wars that enriched the priveledged and came home maimed or killed.

When I see any of the administration now, all I can think of is the crosses, the rows and rows of crosses, in military graveyards. I pray that the families of those who have already sacrificed too much will find peace, and that God will again Bless America.

Until then, be safe and be a decent person. And try to become an educated American and cast an informed vote -- locally even more so than nationally. The local level is where the real corruption can flourish, but with care and attention democracy and the press eventually show the public who their representatives are.

the curmudgeon

Why the Right 'Aint

The President today tried to patch his sagging image by agreeing to a tete-a-tete with Tim Russert in the Oval Office. The media, dominated by centrist to neo-conservative ideologists, breathlessly spoke in whispers of how "bold" and "gutsy" such a move was.

The President can stand comfortably in any venue and the press will continue to do everything in its' power to avoid a discussion of real problems and genuine lapses in honesty and diplomacy. Russert, with a handful of acceptable queries, asked the question of the nonexistent WMDs at least half a dozen times. Our commando in chief actually grinned at the mention of casualties of war, concerns regarding his credibility at home and abroad and the dearth of seized weapons which his own CIA chief insisted in his memo would not be available until 2007 to 2009.

Undeterred by the facts or his own prior statements, Bush defended his hypocrisy and blatant obfuscations by reminding Russert that "we don't have all the facts". Often he admonished Russert to "take a step back and remember" as if the events and statements of recent history were misrepresented by the press. Apparently, Bushies will offer the same sort of defense for the President's contradictory statements and actions in the same way an abusive parent might deny the childhood memories of his or her victims as flawed when confronted.

Russert proved finally for this American that representing truth or trying to get to the heart of matters is not his agenda. In his defense, this current news cycle has devoted the scope of its' coverage of the 2004 campaign for president as horse race rather than debate of ideological and substantive positions regarding domestic and foreign policy concerns. The "race" for the executive branch is just that, with coiffed and focus-group approved commentators announcing polling data every few days, analyzing who and where each candidate might win, place or show with not a scintilla of focus on policy papers, stated initiatives or even basic ideological differences between the candidates.

If, indeed, Southerners will not vote for anyone who doesn't speak in a drawl, then I say let's allow the Rebs to secede from the Union once and for all and be done with it. If a man of character cannot be considered presidential without the benefit of a speech impediment, then I say begone and good riddance! The stupidity of such an attitude is only eclipsed by the ignorance of actually giving it credence every single Sunday morning for two years.

Russert not only threw softballs at the president, he did not even touch upon what many consider the most egregious workings of this administration. The president did not have to answer criticisms from many quarters that the military was spread dangerously thin, that our troops needed greater numbers to fight the insurgents rather than hemorrhage a casualty every day. Nor did the president did not have to answer why he was allowing his Vice president to collect a paycheck from Halliburton while in office. (Isn't that the mother of all conflicts of interest?) Nor was Bush called to account for the overages and graft Halliburton has wrung from the administration while in Iraq, the inflated cost of everything from gasoline to food and water supplies. Russert might have asked him why Halliburton was still allowed to fulfill the contract that was handed to them without any competing bids to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure.

Russert did not ask why Paul O'Neil, in his recent memoir, came away from his tour of duty in the executive branch with the idea that prior to 9/11 the Iraqi invasion was a fait d'accompli. No questions were posed regarding the intent of the administration when it announced it was a "certainty" that WMDs were present and that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

Much was made during the previous administration over the debate of what the word "is" meant. Articles of Impeachment were voted upon. Censure rained down on the Head of State for publicly declaring something to be true that in fact was not.

Now we find our nation confronting a president who, in the presence of the entire Congress, speaking to the American people, spoke of "certainties" and "imminent threats" that were, looking back, guesstimates and eventual threats.

The president showed his true colors when asked about the sacrifices that more than 3000 injured and maimed troops and over 500 fatally wounded young men and women have made in this administration's name. He smiled and said that some casualties were necessary in the fight for freedom. The irony of this mess is that the Taliban have all but been forgotten, Bin Laden is still active in the region and our precious troops have all but abandoned Al Quaida to focus instead on Baghdad. To what end? To forward Bush's wacky agenda of preemptive nation building in one of the few regions of the Middle East that was not overrun by clerics and that was -for all of its' faults- secular in nature. Now, quite plausibly, the theocrats in the region are in danger of pulling the wheels off of Halliburton's shiny new applecart.

Bush's speaking style has improved. He now seems to understand the purpose of semicolons, commas and periods. Whereas. Before he used to emphasize, the wrong phrase; in the wrong place; rendering his speeches. Incoherent. Apparently W has spent some time reading Dale Carnegie and his delivery is much smoother.

Too bad he could only repeat the same seven talking points for the better part of an hour, without really getting honest with the American people about getting the graft out of his administration, taking control of the Department of Defense and showing a greater regard for the lives of our entirely volunteer army. Faced with direct quotes from his campaign in 2000, quotes from his Sate of the Union and UN speeches, Bush chuckled and tried to cloak his decisions under the mantle of national security, as though the wink and nod were enough to grant him perpetual dispensation for his administration's gaffes, misrepresentations and profiteering.

The only way for the Republican Party to navigate this very narrow strait is to allow W. to hang himself. The best course would be to distance themselves from him, painting him as a cowboy, a loose cannon, the very image most of the world already shares. In the 80s, Reagan was able to make much of "tax-and-spend" liberal icon; in this new millennium the "gouge and spend" republican may be the newest whipping boy. And with good reason. He is rapidly becoming an iconoclast, quickly losing credibility, nearly bereft of foreign allies.

"Trust me" is no longer a phrase that will resonate anywhere except the mythical Southern States where an "aw shucks" makes all the detrius and hypocrisy unimportant. To that end, expect long and frequent vacations in Crawford, 'cause Middle America knows a phony when it sees one.


The Curmudgeon