What Did Bush Know on 9/11?

I've been poking around the JFK website and found this wonderful gem. I consider it required viewing for anyone who was NOT watching ABC on the West Coast after 8am PST (11am EST).

Here's the link:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html


Thank God I was watching Peter Jennings. He was NOT impressed that the Commander-in-Cheif was unavailable for hour upon hour. This short media presentation goes even further to document the morning of 9/11/2001.

the curmudgeon

Kill the Messenger? Nah. Kill the Stenographer who WRITES the message!

Recently I read an essay by Oscar G. DePineres, Ph.D. outlining "Maslou's triangle" (sic) of human expectations and motivations, and related the outsourcing of jobs to Americans' rising standards for wages and benefits. He states, "corporations are telling the American worker without disclosing this fact is that our high labor cost has become noncompetitive in the present world." He goes on to say that "we are no longer able to produce quality and inexpensive goods at the high wages we have been accustomed to. Remove this layer of comfort we have become accustomed to, and you really have in your hands a cry-foul upraise of American workers. Politicians must face the music and be honest telling the naked truth to the American worker. There is no other way in Maslou’s theory, for corporations to stay competitive in the world and at home than job outsourcing. "

Hmmmm.

Now, I am no PhD. I'm merely a homekeeper and artist who tries to stay fairly well informed with a variety of sources, ranging from the liberal to the conservative. (BBC to WSJ and The Weekly Standard)

I think the Dr. is speaking of Abraham Maslow, whose work I am quite familliar with. I used the theory myself in motivating and keeping productive relatively low-paid workers, while reporting to well to do and up to highly paid owners. I worked with upper middle class portfolio managers while selling high-end apartments as a Resident Manager. I sold leases 20 to 40% over the market rate and stayed at 98% occupancy while my neighbors lost money though they were priced lower and had an 80% occupancy rate. How?

In a word, Maslow. Maslow speaks to how each person is motivated. His "Heirarchy of Need" is a study in human nature and NOT wage or price controls. Yes, his scale is a pyramid, because so many are stuck at a lower level of need. According to his theory, you cannot be motivated by a higher need UNLESS AND UNTIL the lower needs are met FIRST. ANYONE is prone to theft and low productivity if they are not compensated enough to meet what they consider their needs. Hence both blue and white collar crime.

Maslow helped to define why rich people cheat and why some of the most severely underemployed are self actualized people. His Heirarchy of Need explains why Hollywood is filled with fame seekers and why obscure artists can reach incredible levels of fluency and deftness. His scale has more to do with PERCIEVED needs than it does with actual possessions or circumstances.

For the curious or ill informed - one can only hope Dr. DePineres is familliar with the Curmudgeon's work - here is Dr. Abraham Maslow's Heirarchy of Need in a nutshell:

Base level: "basic physiological needs" such as food, shelter and water are the priority to people on this level. These are basic survival needs, and often people on this level are motivated by near desperation. There is a direct connection between income/resources and happiness and fulfillment.

Second level: safety and security are important. A better neighborhood, a decent diet, a dependable source of income are the priorities on this level. These people also experience a direct connection between their circumstances/resources and their happiness and sense of fulfillment.

Third level: belonging and social needs are what motivates people on this level. Praise, comeraderie, emotional connectivity and personal recognition are vital to these people. Interpersonal conflict, lack of teamwork and rigidity or dismissal of personal needs (i.e. sickness, family, etc) frustrates these people. Employers who can develop a sense of connection to their workers and who deal effectively with diffusing conflicts have happy, fulfilled workers at this level. It is difficult to quantify this need, it is far less able to be quantified than the first two and yet it is vital to meet this level and feel fulfilled in this area or you cannot reach the next level.

Fourth level: esteem and status motivate people on the fourth level. These people crave memberships to exclusive clubs, parties or receptions at places that enhance social status, awards, celebrity, fame, recognition in the papers - all these things can fill the desires of these people for external esteem and status.

Fifth level: self actualization. These people need no external cues to determine their worth or to meet their needs for happiness and fulfillment. They are able to find fulfillment from within.


An important caveat to remember: a person who has no external esteem extended to them at all cannot -by definition- be self actualized. People at the highest levels (four and five) have their needs for connection, safety and survival met coherently enough to focus on loftier goals.

To suggest that Maslow's work be used to convince Americans that their standard of living is too high is a major co-option of his work. Further, America is the ONLY industrialized nation that allows the gap between the executives and wage earners to be a difference of 500% or more!!

When a corporation outsources 30,000 jobs the same year it metes out bonuses to executives equal to 500,000 wage earners' jobs (or more!!) the problem has NOTHING to do with Maslow and America's standard of living and wages. It has more to do with the greed of our boardrooms than it does the avarice of our populace.

Respectfully, I cannot follow Dr. DePineres' logic. Maslow's Heirarchy is clear: the needs progress, not only from the physical to increasingly cerebral and emotional needs, but in less desperate, less instinctual ways. To demand that American workers go against their nature and embrace corporate shenanigans that embody displaced ethics and unbalanced rewards sytsems is silly. There are uncommon people I have met who manage to give 150% despite their working conditions, and [I]all [/I] of these people are American workers.

When these workers see that they will never be compensated fairly, they leave their employer, as any sensible person would. To encourage US workers to turn a blind eye to the lopsided values of Enron, et al, is to encourage a kind of psychic and economic schizophrenia.

the curmudgeon

Endorsement of the Week

Last night a true epiphany occurred while I was watching "Countdown with Keith Obermann" last night (8 and 12 pm EST on MsNBC). One of the stories he followed was the response of John McCain to the idea -- a suggestion floated right here several weeks ago -- that he accept a hypothetical request from John Kerry to run as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate.

Now, John McCain is a fellow that puts the candid in candidate. He is a maverick, a passionate advocate for changing what he sees as a corrupt system of Government. He is also -unlike John F. Kerry- a Republican Senator from Arizona.

The repercussions of McCain's endorsement of Kerry and his tacit repudiation of Bush (running on the other party's ticket?) can only feed the growing movement to delve deeper into the W. Presidency. From questioning the Administration's stance on the 9/11 commission, the Energy meetings, Halliburton's Iraqi contract and growing overcharges, the oil interests role in the middle East, the House of Saud's influence, and Bin Laden's continued freedom as well as a host of ethical lapses from misrepresentation and spying in the UN and US Senate, the continued rental of the Lincoln bedroom and the unseemly cronyism between Ken Lay, Antonyn Scalia and Dick Cheney, the blush is off the W. rose. McCain's interview only strengthened those concerns.

In addition, John McCain is a hero in every sense of the word to most Americans. His appeal crosses party lines, and McCain knows it. He has demonstrated that he is capable of calling out Bush and Cheney on their hypocrisy in the past, but his announcement that, "although he found the idea improbable" he would be thrilled to serve with Kerry was a revelation to most independents.

Independents cast a vote based on the individual and not the party. McCain has the chops of a statesman, standing up to his party when he feeless it necessary. He defended Jim Jeffords; he ensured that McCain-Feingold passed; the way he deports himself in general on nearly every subject is a virtual primer on ethics and accountability in government service.

Now, many Democrats are ranting and raving about the idea of a Republican on the ticket, and understandably so. The current climate of gotcha politics is sickening, and the double standard applied to the last two presidents is obvious and wrong. But on the Democratic side there are some truly awful choices for Veep. Among these are the 'yellow dog' Democrats who have dubbed themselves Democrats, criticizing Democratic party ideals, liberalism and parity for wage earners and executives and using state Democratic party workers and monetary support to get themselves re-elected, sucking at the special interest trough alongside GOP insiders and predictably supporting GOP initiatives.

"Democrats" like LeBreaux, who vote in lock-step with the GOP on minimum wage and tax issues are okay because they wear the Democratic "team" label? I would never vote to allow a "yellow dog" to occupy any part of the White House again in this lifetime, though I do tend to favor "hawks" more than "doves" ever since the Scoop Jackson campaign years and years ago.

McCain appeals to me as a person, not as a Republican, I'll admit that. I happen to think that there have been greedy, corrupt individuals on BOTH sides of the aisles in Washington but there are also decent and caring people who truly seek the good of our country and not the personal enrichment of themselves. As a lifelong democrat I am offended at the idea all Republicans are evil. I do not like Joe Lieberman because I think he is too indebted to special interests; I feel the same about Edwards and Gephardt. There are more good than bad in the Democratic party in my estimation and that is why I support them, but I have voted Republican before and will again.

Bi-Partisanship is part of the process our Republic's very structure demands. If we cannot work with both sides of the aisle and if we can't show the average voter that gridlock will not be the general rule in a Kerry Administration, we are sunk. That is how Bush defeated Gore in 2000 (well, how he managed to come close enough to steal it), by painting himself as a centrist that would allow for the Congress and the Judiciary to gain some momentum and allow our country to run smoother - in actual terms it allowed poorly devised policy to be slammed through Congress with a ramrod. Terrible government was the result, because Bush is not a centrist, but the swing voters instinctively want to elect someone who is bipartisan.

The way our government works, we either have to have control centered in a single party as it is now - Senate, House, Judiciary and Executive branches all GOP - which will serve the electorate it represents or we have to elect statesmen and women who will work together to draft legislation that reflects the best good of the entire nation based on many voices and perspectives.

Personally, I would love to see former Secretary of State Madeline Albright in the VP slot. She is charismatic, intelligent, a master of foreign policy and has a long and well-documented history of speaking her mind even when it did not dovetail with her superiors. She is also one of the few Secretaries of State not to be indicted, caught in a lie publicly or behaving unethically (Note to Powell lovers everywhere: your guy is OUT). I believe Albright is an outstanding VP choice, but I doubt the Democrats will draft her.

Similarly, Gore Vidal would be wildly popular with independents. Like Kerry after his return from Vietnam Vidal is outspoken, eloquent and most importantly beholden to none. Kerry went on to serve in the Senate while Vidal has made his life's work keeping the media and the American government honest. Vidal is the icon of governmental oversight. His record in the Congress --and since-- speaks for itself, which is why the rank and file Democratic pols will never even allow Vidal near enough to Senator Kerry to discuss his short list.

In a perfect world an eloquent and intelligent man like Congressman Barney Frank would be an amazing choice for V.P, a skilled debater and yet a solid consensus builder. Frank is bright, energetic, has a good political ear and is a staunch advocate for the working poor, civil rights and the rights of women. Think of the good a ticket like that would and could do!!

The REALITY is that Frank and many other choices on the Democratic side are not palatable to the general public due to predjudices, biases and distortions.

It is unlikely indeed that McCain will be Kerry's VP, unless the polls are so close before the GOP election that the Kerry campaign feels it has to somehow reach the people that are staunchly supporting Bush. I've spoken with people who actually voted for him because "Oprah liked Bush's hug and she thought Gore didn't seem to like her". Now, where do you start with someone who votes based on a talk show hosts' bruised ego?!?

However, John McCain is very nearly the Oprah of the Senate right now, with his populist appeal and charisma. McCain has demonstrated over the years that he's an independent thinker, beholden to no party and to no special interests. His recent statements to the press that he would CONSIDER being Kerry's Number Two Man are a deft and thinly veiled endorsement of the Democratic challenger. McCain has once again shown his stature as a statesman by trying to help unseat a corrupt and divisively ideological administration -- and he has displayed considerable political acumen in the process, having endorsed Kerry in a way that cannot be attacked by the GOP rank-and-file.

It's interesting that partisanship has become so divisive. I remember when ideolougues didn't rule the country. Government is not a football game to me, but I also participate in local and regional races, and I tend to look at positions and truly bipartisan action as bellwethers to good government.

Do I support the minimum wage being raised? Do I want the business and environmental rollbacks, the lopsided tax policies (income isn't taxed but now wages are?!?), the disastrous foreign policy gaffes and broken treaties reversed? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes! That has nothing to do with what the open speculation about a possible McCain run with Kerry has produced.

The point was and is that McCain had the opportunity to state whether or not he would be willing to be Kerry's Democratic running mate against George W. Bush. That he would help defeat Bush sent a message to the more progressive GOP voter that I believe will resonate, far more than labels or insults will.

Partisanship is a wedge that divides our country in half. McCain, and the "Endorsement of the Year" might prove to be the undoing of the "us and them" mentality that has lead to waste and gridlock in our Congress for so long.

The Curmudgeon

Questionable Convictions

Well a lot has happened in week, hasn't it folks? I swing between nausea and frustration with an occasional sense of tragedy and a fleeting sense that the world might yet come out all right.

The weekend began with a nauseating wave of Bushie flag waving (over coffins and smoking ruins, no less) and Martha bashing. The former is no more (in fact far less) than I expected. Bushies will push the only button that looks remotely successful in the voting bloc and that's the fear button. If these ads don't begin to get people sufficiently anxious and scared enough, I am fully prepared for a "terror alert" to postpone the vote itself if Bush's polling numbers aren't close enough to Kerry to engineer a literal win if he can't generate one lawfully.

Oh, you laugh; maybe not, if you've been paying attention. I'm not joking in any way shape or form. Of course I'm a blogger so I obviously have no life, I get all my news from Slate and Drudge and have a porn website on the side (or resell everything I have ever owned on eBay). I know simply writing online relegates my opinion to the scrap heap of the conspiracists and neo-everythings, but I'm just one of the only people who seems to be paying attention, or perhaps the rest of the press just doesn't have the energy or sufficient outrage to try to do something about it, if only expose it for what it is. November is coming, though a lot can happen in 8 months. I shudder to think what chaos a panicked Vice master can generate.

Now to Martha, sweet Martha. The pundits have been picking your carcass cleaner than the turkey the day after Thanksgiving. I don't quite understand the glee that so many are taking in your demise. I think it's likely they are either too stupid to understand the circular logic of your conviction or they are too blinded by the sense of inferiority that your mission to inform the world of all things genteel generated within themselves.

I, for one, embraced your at home finishing school via magazine and then TV. You made vellum paper, balsamic vinegar and heirloom seed cultivation accessible to those of us who may as well have been raised by wolves. You taught me to make a killer buttercream. You turned me on to Victorian paper angels. You showed us how to tat, how to tin pierce, how to refinish old furniture and how to do it "well" - not just as a gradation of execution but a state of being. "Wellness" took on new heights with you, you taught a generation that a single fresh flower in a simple glass vase was certainly preferable to dried potpourri from K-Mart. When we saw the elegant ease of gentility and began to embrace the label maker and the sans serif font in every demographic, you brought your downscaled version of elegance to the quintessentially non-genteel market of the blue light special itself, K-Mart.

It must not be much satisfaction to you to know that the people too stupid to get that you have been railroaded will certainly reap a government that regularly imposes martial law and imprisons people for being rightfully paranoid they will overstep their bounds. The lady was convicted of covering up a crime that the judge said she did not commit. WHAT?!? The only thing remotely reassuring about this charade is that I can work my tail off to unseat this idiot from the bench, being so close to the city. I don't think I could stand this if I wasn't a New Yorker and didn't have a voice in who gets to continue to sentence and mete out...er, was that supposed to be "justice"?

To those of you out there who, like me, are waiting for Rod Serling to walk out of the periphery and "submit for your approval, a woman who..." It aint gonna happen any time soon, baby. Ashcroft, as frighteningly menacing as he is, is as real as the computer you are sitting in front of. This administration is crossing so many lines, I think that even God himself might picket 1700 pretty soon.

The two events articulate perfectly the hypocrisy and the double standards that pervade our culture. Bush drapes himself in a flag and evokes the "courage of the moment" he displayed during 9/11. Yet, the guy was so completely hidden that ABC's news anchor dryly observed the afternoon of 9/11 that the President could "not remain incommunicado forever" and sure enough that evening W. addressed us from an "undisclosed location" via closed circuit.

That the only favorables Bush can generate relate directly to 9/11 bodes ill for either the President or the citizens he pretends to represent. The green light that "terror" elicits for George and Dick may have to turn orange in order to capitalize fully on the dread and fear that Al-Qaida and their ilk handed to the GOP on a silver platter. If the public doesn't think through this (in the same way they cannot seem to think through and see the insanity of the logic of Martha's conviction) then the GOP will probably connect the dots by first inferring that a Kerry administration is a target of Al-Qaida; then leaking that the First Puppet and his President of Vices are personally targets of Al;-Qaida; think of the hand wringing, the references to the "unavoidable confusion" that resulted in 9/11 - as though every incoming administration is as diffident to its citizens safety or as so resolutely nationalist in its approach at the outset that it refused to look beyond its own borders at any foreign policy matters.

This morning GOP operatives are all over the airwaves whining about Move-On and Kerry's overheard statements to folks on the dais that the people he was running against are as crooked and rotten dirty as they come, do you think he was referring to the refusal of Cheney and Bush to cooperate with investigations as important as the terror attacks or Cheney's energy meetings just before the trebling of energy prices in the west ion 2000?

Could the "dirty rotten" ethics be fabricating evidence to the UN and American public about nonexistent weapons and chemical arms factories to justify attacking a nation that posed no threat to anyone but its own citizens? Could the "crooked" antics of Halliburton securing a hefty contract to rebuild Iraq after we destroyed it on purpose, then its blatant overcharges and the administration's refusal to pull the contract or mete out some sort of consequence to borderline war profiteers?

Could the fact that Martha and Ebbers have hit the chopping block but yet Kenny Lay (Bush's #1 contributor in the 2000 election) walks free unindicted while his company and everyone, from retirees to stockholders to employees were defrauded? Yes, wring your hands all you like about Clinton dispensing ONE questionable executive order, but then have your anger raised equilvalent to the level of patronage in W's administration.

Remember the Congressional inquiries over a few travel agent jobs in the White House? Yet this Congress has no compunctions about allowing Supreme Court Justices to rule on cases where they have an evident conflict of interest? The level of corruption self evident in the GOP that extends to the Oval office and Vice Presidential bunker is so egregious it defies logic. Crooked and rotten are gentle criticisms -- I call the Republican ethics of the last decade felonious, hypocritical, cowardly, xenophobic, greedy and pathological in its half truths, outright distortions and its blind insistence that it is morally superior despite all evidence to the contrary. Bush (et al) and their public personae have nothing in common with their actions. Their supposed positions, moral and otherwise are rendered moot by the very absence of any sense of conscience or guiding ethos; in the same way America and Martha Stewart received a sentence but no real justice.

I say it now: if all else fails, an orange alert will appear timed just before the elections. If the resulting sympathy/fear bump isn't enough to give W a full 6 point poll lead then the "O alert' will extend through November postponing elections.

You heard it way back in the stirrings of spring, America. When September brings an evil wind, don't say I didn't warn you.

the Curmudgeon

Running Mates

Open Memo to: John Kerry & Campaign Staff
For Your Consideration: possible Vice Presidential nominees


I've heard a lot of mumbling around the press the last few days regarding (besides your presumptive win of the Democratic Nomination) your choice of running mate. I believe that a few simple guidlelines regarding public response should guide your choices, or at the very least your "short list".

First and foremost, if you are considering "adding" to your likeablity numbers (as if your wins in every region do not denote your widespread appeal) for goodness sakes, stop listening to the pundits!!! They are idiots, as if you hadn't figured that one out by now, and worse, they love to meddle and offer advice designed to fix what isn't broken in the first place! If you really are concerned about your favorables, appear with your very charismatic daughter (I believe she's going for an MD?) and let yourself tell a joke once in a while -- especially when you can direct it at yourself. Telephone Clinton or even Bob Dole for pointers in this regard, but ignore the Regans -- I never thought that Mr. Regan thought he was the bumbling old geezer he pretended to be, whereas I honestly think that Bill and Bob have learned the public speaker's greatest talent, that of self deprecation. They know what it is about them that makes other people misjudge them, and they play that up.

For what it is worth, I don't think your image needs anything. You are an amazing speaker, a man of great gravitas when you talk about subjects that are vital to your sense of fairness and equity. No wonder you served as a prosecutor for a while! I would truly be honored to call you friend, Senator and President. Don't forget that the people booked for an obscure 12 minute interview on some cable channel about your image are unable to pay the bills unless they do those obscure 12 minute interviews. You're already a successful public servant, loved and admired by hundreds of thousands. Let the rest of America get to know you and they will love and be impressed with you too.

Sir, I don't know what your advisors have discovered, but in my experience -and I speak with hundreds of people from all walks of life, all over the US, so I have some idea of what America is thinking- your swing voting bloc this fall isn't a soccer mom or a Nascar dad, it is the Dilbert voter. Cubicle dwelling, middle income, median neighborhood, middle aged, middle management corporate cog, the people who wanted to save their IRS childtax credit advance this summer but had too many bills, too much debt, too many worries to not pay down or whittle away or just take off for a week. These voters are worried, they are working at or below their potential, they are soured by the disparity between executive pay and worker pay, they are nervous about real eastate values, inflation, deflation, stocks, Social Security and any terror alerts that the media trumpets make them so jittery they keep their kids home the first day it's announced. THAT is your swing bloc, sir, the "Dilbert Voter", and it is growing larger with every economic downturn, every local tax increase and every massive layoff that they witness. How to get these voters is cruicial to winning in November.

I know it's tempting, but don't pick some obsure governor as your VP choice. It will certainly backfire if you are hoping to grab their region on basis of hometown boy coattails alone. If you don't think so, look at Kucinich's polling in his district -- the longer he stays on the national stage, the worse his numbers get. Don't hurt the Governors of New Mexico or Washington after such long, hard fought victories against a fairly strong state GOP machine. Instead, garner their support in other ways, on the stump and behind the scenes. And whatever you do, DON'T court Bob Graham from Florida!

I like Bob, I think he is smart and very much a gentleman and that is exactly why he should not get into this particular bar fight. Your closest advisors have warned you that this will be a barfight, haven't they? Because I cannot count the number of black eyes that I, myself, have witnessed being delivered over arguments about the last election. Graham cannot risk his stature in Florida by sharing the ticket with you or anyone. Now, would he be an amazing choice for your nominating speech? Gads, yes! Unless of course Teddy Kennedy has already agreed, and then Graham can play cleanup and start off the last evening of the convention.

So, you have left former Senators, Governors and Officeholders and you have current Senators, Governors and Officeholders. Unless cryogenics has taken a huge leap forward since my last issues of Omni and Pop Science were delivered.

Now, of the latter, I think the obvious choice, Senator Edwards, has to be considered. I know, he's very young and he actually surpasses any other politician I have met in recent memory with the depth of his arrogance. But he will gain humility, the real kind, not the closing argument variety. So he would certainly bring nothing to the table that you want that you don't already have. He can be personable, until you get into his former vocation -- upon hearing he was a trial contingency fee lawyer, my 13 year old said "Yuck." Indeed.

I know you are considering Gephardt, I have heard his name and I cannot tell you in strong enough terms, bring Dick into your administration . Your years in oversight have shown you how valuable his integrity and values would be to any Executive Branch. But NOT on the ticket -- Please!!! On a scale from 1 to 10 he is a solid 3 1/2. He seems vaguely desperate and alternately concieted - all simply based upon impressions, but sir, make no bones about this, the Presidential Race is all about a popularity contest. The voters who read about the issues and who care about specifics have cast their votes in the primaries and we have chosen YOU.

As far as actual current government members, I can tell you that they should be charming, funny, articulate, strong. If possible s/he should be your age or younger -- heck, even an Eliot Spitzer would be great. I can not think of many men or women who fit that description, though if you could swing it Senator McCain would be the perfect addition, a dream ticket for me. And of course, Senator Clinton is a consideration, though she might become a lightning rod and possibly derail your efforts by turning the debate between you and Bush into a debate about her performance as First Lady.

As to the former group, President Clinton surely is on your short list. He also has the same shortcomings his wife brings, but he is far more popular for whatever reason (and the VP debate would be kick-ass and selfishly I would love to see Cheney trounced). Consider Sam Nunn long and well, sir, his resume and his demeanor bring almost the same cachet that McCain would. I would also court people like Madeline Albright, David Gergen, Donna Brazille, Robert Reich, heck even James Carville, who would bring the kind of sass and energy you really need.

Finally sir, I would like to remind you of one thing: Mr. Bush claims he is the epitome of courage under fire, though he was in hiding for several hours after the terrorist attacks, changing for the first time the conduct of those in holding the Oval Office while under attack; even Dolly Madison was publicly in the White House until they charged through one door and she ran out the other with several priceless artifacts for the good of the country. Now contrast that with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheny, who were missing for hours and hours. Mr. Bush claims that he has the ability to be "steady" in times of war, while his conduct, and that of his V.P. was to hide in secret while demanding the rest of America -- Dilbert voters and all -- go back to work as if all was normal.

Sir, you are the very definition of Steadiness Under Fire; while under fire, you saved lives, earned multiple decorations and most importantly the respect of your men. Answer this attempt at a smear by reminding the American people that you are steady when under fire, you are the only man (excepting of course should you choose a combat vet as running mate) or woman on either ticket who has BEEN under fire, and you have performed so well you earned medals for your efforts.

As to your "steadiness": the ability to change one's mind is the hallmark of a mature human being. To spend one's life never changing your position or perspective about anything is to live firmly in a locked, closed world. I would not want such a mind in charge of my country. The world we inhabit and the challenges Americans face require intelligence, creativity and integrity. The next President must show patience, humor, and great resolve and he must have the ability to be creative about some very protracted problems our society is facing: civil rights, health care, jobs creation, Social Security, trade agreements, none of these can be viewed the same way they were viewed even three years ago.

We cannot -we must not- allow this Administration to use the tragedy of the attacks on our country as some sort of divine imprimateur granting them status as commander-soldiers. To have run when under fire would have been considered an act of desertion if these men had truly been soldiers or warriors - this President walks a very very thin line when he claims courage and valor and the record shows he was incommunicado for so long. Certainly Mr. Cheney's position is clear: to have constructed a lavish personal bunker from which he plays puppetmaster while our supposed President dedicates State college libraries? When does Bush do the work of running our nation? I digress. Please sir, Bring It On !!!!

Sir, choose anyone whom you feel genuine respect for and who connects with those Dilbert Voters and middle Americans in ways you feel you cannot. I will tell you, in my opinion I think your best choice is Howard Dean. He is considered an outsider, yet he knows government. He is smart, yet he speaks plainly and with enthusiasm. He is proNRA and yet was Governor of the first state to allow gay marriage. He has a huge political grassroots organization and I think you would be hard pressed to find a better choice of running mate. Unless of course Sam Nunn or Bill Clinton wants to go back into public service; still I would have to play eeny meeny miney moe with the three of them. I do not envy your choice sir, but I am profoundly grateful to you for all you have done for this country, my country, and for changing the political climate in the United States. Thank You for running, I am by your side and behind your candidacy no matter who you pick.

You are one class act Mr. Kerry. And I have been saying that since January .

the curmudgeon

Feet of Clay

I heard a buzz earlier today about possible running mates for the Democratic and GOP tickets. I wasn't surprised to hear the list of governors, retired Senators and various officeholders that might add to the cachet of a John Kerry ticket.

What did shock me was the tacit admission that Dick Cheney was not a lock for a second term; in fact, that pundits were discussing possible running mates for W this fall means that the media was given the green light to ruminate publicly. I'm amazed that Cheney would allow himself to be marginalized, but since he now has lifetime retirement, medical and perpetual quasi-royal status as a former Veep, the reasons to stay on the ticket seem fewer and fewer.

The list of negatives Chey has brought to W's administration is a long and impressive one, even by Washington standards. Cheney has refused to turn over documents in three separate investigations involving his office. He has continued to receive annual payments from Halliburton while serving in office, a decision that taints his association with his former company and the Oval Office; Halliburton's contract in Iraq was given without so much as a single competitor and now the overcurious run into the billions and still Halliburton is on the job in the Middle East. Cheney insisted in the gravest language that Iraq was a threat which has proved to be false. There is his dubious leadership and almost criminal disregard for West Coast consumers whose states were nearly bankrupted by the trebling of electric rates in 2000 by energy wholesalers like Enron, who bought and traded energy illegally to artificially drive up the prices. There is the worrisome connection to Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice who has shown by word and deed that he considers himself above reproach, common decency, the appearance of basic fairness or even in some cases the law itself. There is the Supreme Court decision to stop the counting of votes in Florida, which if allowed to continue would have resulkted in a majority of votes for Albert Gore, which in effect meant that Scalia and co installed Dick and W into the Oval Office. There is Cheney's deplorable character, a man who went into hiding after 9-11 while insisting that postal workers show up to work during a biological attack administered through the postal service. There is Cheney's disdain for the American people themselves, emerging from his undisclosed location only to speak to those audiences monied enough to thoroughly grease his fat white palms and refusing press questions and interviews he cannot completely control. Cheney has been alternately sneering to the press corps and simply absent. His associates, from Perle to Rummy, have become synonymous with obfuscation and double speak, an almost unbelievable turn of events when you consider that Perle and Rummy were seen as reassuring blunt talkers who gave the American people the whole story without concern for politics.

In fact, the GOP looks more and more like the GOP of the late 70s, filled with operatives willing to cut any corner to advance the agenda of the priviledge few. The Senate Justice committee has uncovered a scandal involving the hacking into Democratic committee members' computers - something like 3,000 documents were found to have been stolen, according to the sergeant at arms of the Senate. The White House and the Republican leadership of both bodies of Congress are unconcerned about the thefts, secure in the knowledge that only Congress can deem conduct, even felonious conduct elsewhere, as illegal or even punishable.

There is the disturbing news that the U.N. has also been violated at the highest levels, where GOP staffers have been caught hacking into UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's office to gain information about the posture of other nations surrepticious. There is the Energy Meetings of 2000, conducted in secret, and which the White House refuses to give even the most basic information about - who was there, the topics of discussion - even though Enron and other energy traders have been proven to have manipulated consumers in the months following the meetings and whose conduct it can be argued ultimately cost the governor of California his job.

There is not a figure in the White House considered honest by any plurality of Americans, no matter the party or the income or the region. We know we cannot trust the President, nor his Vice President, nor his Secretaries of State, Labor, Defense or Environmental Affairs. Most troubling, Colin Powell is being floated about as a viable second man on the GOP ticket. Powell may have a future in ambassadors with nations who don't have a native distrust in the US, but his days as a statesman are over.

Powell, in his UN performance leading up to the Iraqi invasion, was the key in persuading Americans and the "coalition of the willing" that invading a country who was secular, had virtually no religious zealots in power and who was essentially a republican country in a sea of royalists and religious xenophobes with a hatred for anything outside of the Muslim paradigm. Powell convinced enough of us that Iraq was definitively a threat, and that secret and classified evidence would eventually come out that would prove to the world how worthy and necessary the sacrifices and casualties of our actions. Time has indeed brought the facts to light, and they cast a sallow shadow upon Powell and the quality of the intelligence he quoted.

This weekend Aristede's bizarre resignation and then mysterious whereabouts were suddenly and wrenchingly challenged early Monday by those able to speak with Areistede. By nightfall Monday evening, Aristede was allowed a few interviews, in whgich he decried the shabby treatment by the armed cadre of American soldiers, the trickery, threats and half-truths which he claims enabled the US to engineer a coup d'etat less than 50 miles from our borders. Powell indignantly claimed in careful words that Aristede had willingly gone with the soldiers and that we had saved his life.

Like many who spoke with the press after being allowed limited access to Aristede and his family, Americans cannot trust anything this administration says or does. In the light of day and after the dust settles, invariably there are strange connections, blind eyes turned to conflicts of interest, leaks, blame-placing and semantic discussions rather than admissions of false statements, misleading intel and the direct misuse of media to distract the populace from unsavory facts making their way into the press.

Powell is not a viable candidate for office any longer. He is, like so many men who have given unquestioned loyalty and obedience to this administration, forever branded a man of questionable ethics, a consummate performer who has proven he can convincingly argue a point he knows is not accurate. Worse, he is willing to sentence entire nations to thousands of casualties in the name of... What? Loyalty to the administration? A seat on the Board of Halliburton once he retires? It is one of the strangest episodes I have ever seen in my lifetime, a man of distinguished service and a man who seemed imminently trustworthy who has chosen to speak half truths, to spin facts to the extent that mnost would call lying, a man who has knowingly allowed the killing of both American and Iraqi casualties for questionable purposes.

Powell has not demanded as a once military commander, that Hallibuton's contract be frozen or given to another company who would, one would hope, not use the cover of battle to overcharge the American people and inadvertently put the lives of soldiers at risk. He has said nothing except the scripted pieces the administration has given him to say, always in full military dress, to the carefully selected corps pf press reporters who are sympathetic to the administration or at least willing to play by W's rules.

It is a sad thing when a man is shown to be fallible. After all of the hand wringing about one lie to cover up a workplace affair, you would think that the GOP would see that the American people are not likely to blindly trust someone after they have been proven a liar. Even the intelligence community has been shown as corrupt, with artifacts from Iraq being sold on eBay, and the looting of the mass graves at WTC in New York for the priviledged in the FBI and CIA to keep as "mementoes".

Cheny, Perle and even Colin Powell have lead what appears to be perfectly honorable married lives. I am unaware of any accusation that any of the man of the current administration are womanizers, or gamblers or even drinkers. But these are men that have proven to Americans they are untrustworthy when dealing with facts, or the military, or when it comes to personal connections affecting public and civic exchanges of money and personal enrichment. President Clinton may have been a man who was impeached by a very evenly divided Democratic Senate and Republican House, but he did not lie or use war to steal or deliberately trick world leaders.

The White House is filled with men who are walking on feet of clay. I do not know of anyone with the integrity or the personal strength to stand up and fight against the corruption of the Executive branch who would even be willing to work among such an array of characters. It cannot be anyone who is currently within the White House, or among the GOP leadership. Maybe Jim Jeffords can bring enough decency to the ticket that Americans might be willing to chance another four years of this administration. One thing is certain: W may not be able to find a man willing to sit on the ticket and replace Cheney; the benefits of serving in the White House, though certainly lavish and lifelong, may not be enough to justify the wholesale destruction of a man's good name and honor. To some people, character is more than a talking point, it is a legacy and a personal priority. It will be interesting to see if and when such a Republican emerges and if the risks of association are not a deterrent to public office.

the Curmudgeon

Super Tuesday

I'm off to run a few errands, kiddies, and have only a few minutes to remind you that in 10 states across our nation we get to do what people in other countries are, literally, dying to do: We get to participate in how we are governed. Nothing is to insignificant, not library hours, nor too large, like the possibly illegal coup d'etat that was allegedly carried out over the weekend. We get to decide how and who is on charge.

I am not being glib when I say that I will proudly vote in my local elections tonight. More than the Democratic Presidential Candidate are at stake in my hometown. I am both grateful and terribly, terribly burdened tonight. I cannot help but think of the most recent 500 plus soldiers who gave their lives for my chance to fill out my ballot. I am more than sobered, I am in tears when I think of how humbling their contribution to our democracy and how little relatively small my vote tonight will be. And yet, at best more than half of my town will sit home too caught up in -- what excuse does one give themselves when the blood of others buys your right to voice your opinion and you feel that reruns of Seinfeld more important?

Then we are off to have a bit of testing done. I am told a quick poke into my veins and soon the dye will spread and the MRI to see why my hands and arms do not obey my commands with regularity will be completed. Again, my contribution is so small, to lie still and allow the learned professionals to work their art.

I hope you leave your nest long enough do your sigle civic duty. And smell the flowers and the spring breeze while you are at it. Life is far too short and there are so many important things left to do. Going out this evening is a small price to pay.

the C