To the Editor:

Either through stories or direct experience, most of us know something about the problems of living with an addict. Let us consider, as an example, the father of a household addicted to alcohol or gambling. Perhaps the greatest pain and confusion for his wife and children comes in not knowing when to believe him. After all, he's the dad who deserves our loyalty and respect, who loves us, who has shown us good times, and whose integrity we aspire to. When he heads out the door one more time with the grocery money, promising that everything will be OK, we so want to believe him. But though a good man who means well, alone he cannot overcome the power of his illness, and is therefore unable to be honest with himself or anyone else.

Finally his family comes to realize that they must separate the man from his addiction and stand firm against the latter to refuse, however painful it may be in the moment, to accept further lies. Beyond that, they pray and hope that their loved one will accept help and one day be returned to them intact.

Now I ask you to substitute different players into this scenario -- for the addiction, money; for the family, the citizenry of the United States; for the addict, the current administration in Washington. The grocery money is our social security, the quality of our environment, the education and welfare of our children, and an arrogance in foreign policy which will serve as a boon to terrorist recruitment for the next generation.

Even if only half the charges leveled against them in "Fahrenheit 911" were true, what these men routinely get away with makes Nixon's Watergate look like petty theft. And if you follow economist Paul Krugman's columns in the New York Times, you'll know there are further instances of "white collar" crime by these, our leaders, that the movie never even touches upon.

Why is the "mainstream media" not leading the charge in exposing the war profiteering, routine deception of the public, the nod given to fraudulent and destructive practices of any corporation that has made a large enough contribution to the Republican Party, the personal wealth accrued by the Bush family from Saudi oil, the "de-objectification" of the Federal Reserve, or the apparent hijacking of the 2000 presidential election? Look at who owns Fox, for starters.

In the aforementioned movie, we see President Bush addressing a dinner gathering: "Here I am with the haves and the have-mores," he quips. "There are those who call you the elite, but I call you my base." (Applause.)

Regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat, if you don't have a seat at one of those opulent tables, President Bush has little interest in you. Whatever he may say to the contrary, you can't believe it any more than you can believe reassurances from the father described above.

One of the comparisons made between Democratic candidate John Kerry and President Bush is that the former changes his mind while the latter holds steady. While it is true that Kerry has waffled, probably even at times for the sake of political expediency, I feel much safer with a flexible president than with one who sticks stubbornly to an uninformed course.

It will take a long time to mend the damage we have wrought overseas, but I don't see that process even beginning until a Kerry administration is in place.

Jeffry Steele

Washington Street, Gloucester