Look what we're arguing about. Now, ask why

That's a pretty good formula to compare to any news story of note. Follow the ambition trail: 'Who can win, or come out on top'?

Following on your wise observation, should be, "Who stands to gain from this particular conversation.?"

Swift boats? Because Kerry, by virtue of his US Navy-endowed medals, was demonstrably more of a steely 'action-hero' than George Bush. 'Swift boats' had to happen. Kerry's anti-war testimony? Obviously, he paid his dues, and had earned his right to speak out and against an ineffective war. Therefore: he must be shouted down. [for lots of reasons - we'll cover this in a later post.]

But this does bring up a current point: $87 billion? Flip flop?

Remind yourself, those aren't arguments; not legitimate 'purchase order' statements, they're diversions from the point: Why do we have to spend this money? Why are we in this predicament?

87 billion dollars? Vote yes, then no? A joke?

A gun with no bullets is not persuasive. So I voted "yes." I voted to give George Bush bullets--with a requirement: 'Pay for them, and find a posse.' He chose not to do either. He picked the top 2% of America that are his "loyal base" and asked You--the other 98%-to pay for the bullets, with money and souls. His tax cuts to friends were more important than his commitment to serious National Security or his understanding of America in her time of need.. So I vetoed... I voted No. And I'd do it again. Twice if you dared me.

That's how I'd say it. But he's not MY candidiate.

In many cases, my job [helping companies get past short-sightedness, mis- or malfeasance] bumps into this challenge of blame-shifting or mental chess borne out of the desire to not seem so ridiculously manipulable. To not 'feel' like we were played.

The 'truth' is, we're all manipulable. We get played becase the players know we inherently want to 'Hope.' But, Hope's not a bad thing. In fact, it's a great thing, misused by those who know its power.

That's why we need cops, and journalists. It's why we need "ethics" courses and Grandma's knee, not more seminars on 'how far you can push it.'

"Who wrote it?"
"Was that an 'official' document?"
"IBM Selectric®, or not?"

Know what? If we're having this conversation, there's something seriously wrong already. Whether forgery of not, we're looking at a busted, illegitimate organisation. This week - or, 30 years ago - people don't take the time to duplicate [repeatedly] the duplicity or incongruity that they've witnessed inside a company unless there's some really creepy shit going down. True, or false, as a leader, if I've got folks consistently making shit up to undermine me, I'm categorically not "Leading.' I'm probably 'herding.' or 'scaring.'

You know the phrase, "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Let the 'Typographers' wail. Just don't make up your mind based on the laziness of a few quasi-professional interests or bored , confused journalists. Anyone can do that... See, we're experts in my office, too...



Did he or didn't he? Who knows, besides the now-dead Killian? Where's 'Harris'? Hodges? Staudt? The secretary who wrote these? The acquisitions-personel who ordered the typewriter?

Interesting questions, not about the provenance of the documents, but about their contents.

But we're talking about the materials, again, aren't we?

It works, doesn't it? What are you talking about? What are we taking about?

Notice the vacuum being created? Save Jesus! True or false, it bears reminding that we haven't had so many professionally interested, questioning people on tinterhooks since Richard Milhous Nixon was telling us "Peace was just around the corner." Or that there was "A light at the end of the tunnel."

That's a problem for a nation.

Especially for a country like America, built, as we are, on "Truth" and "Justice."

And on real ambitions, like Hope.