THE LUNCHBOX

By now, most of you are aware of my addiction to entertainment that took place in a previous century.

My writing as to an admiration for vocalists, instrumental artists, radio shows and authors from that period would seem to confirm this. I long for the Hardy Boys series of books from my youth.

Reading has provided me with many years of pleasure.

My tastes varied at times. I'm talking about my Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer smut novels with the folded page corners. But, I was younger then. What did I know?

There is one constant - my love for Westerns - be they from radio, movies or TV shows.

I suspect my admiration for the latter came from my earlier love affair with the old Saturday matinee kind.

My attendance at the Rivoli or Frederick theaters was usually followed by me returning home and running down the unpaved cinder laden alley leading from Atlantic Ave toward Spinelli's market.

I did this, while smacking myself on my right butt cheek as if I were riding a horse.

But, that was only on those weekends when I was home from college.

The Lone Ranger, Durango Kid, Red Ryder, Gene Autry, Roy Rodgers, Lance LaRue, Rocky Lane, The Cisco Kid, Tim & Jack Holt, Joel McCrae, Buster Crabbe, Hopalong Cassidy, etc were my heroes.

Hoppy was one of my favorites. I watched "Dangerous Venture" several times simply because I couldn't remember if I had seen it before. I miss my autographed lunch box.

A few good Randolph Scott or Rod Cameron flicks were usually enjoyable as well. The later rumors as to Randy's sexual proclivity did little to dampen my enthusiasm for the guy with the fast draw, easy smile, and square jaw with the deep cleft.

Today it's re-released episodes of The Rifleman, Have Gun Will Travel, Big Valley, Marshall Dillon, Gunsmoke, and my favorite - The Virginian- that keep me going.

I enjoy them today even more than I did my old W.C. Fields movie collections including the dialogue excerpts available on 33 1/3 albums.

I outgrew my days of admiration for William Claude, much to the relief of friends and family who had grown weary of my amateur attempts to adopt his vocal style - usually about every other sentence.

I never outgrew my taste for Westerns.

Did I tell you I miss my Hopalong Cassidy lunchbox? Did I also tell you I cried recently when I found out how much one in good shape would bring on the market today?

Why a love for Westerns? I was often criticized by my then girlfriend's father who insisted on referring to them as "Hors----t & Bullets" when he discovered his daughter and me avidly watching them in the parlor.

The answer is simple. Like soap operas, it's a break from some of the heavier things in our lives that includes a media who is so anxious to keep us well informed.

In my Westerns - unlike soap operas - the good guy almost always wins -despite moral challenges- and that's the real kicker. They truly are more than the "H & B" previously alluded to.

They are morality plays. Sometimes it's Matt Dillon from Dodge City combining simple psychological hooks and an amazing quick draw skill w/o any demonstration of a in-depth legal knowledge.

On the Virginian it's Judge Garth in Medicine Bow employing both.

Just about every episode emphasizes a simple morality lesson - one that our kids and grandkids could probably easily grasp.

Watching a morality play - with a little shooting - and a lot of good lessons being taught - might be a good respite for a young guy or gal with sore fingers and thumbs from pushing puttons.

Oops, gotta run and tell Trampas that the blond dancehall gal is no good for him.

"Trampas, it'll never work! Find a good schoolmarm"

I really miss my lunchbox.

BALANCE

My birth sign is Libra - the sign is also one of balanced scales.

If the image of one born under that sign is that of continually striving to achieve balance - my actions in both my personal life and my blog writings may leave something to be desired.

Then again, I might have been born under the sign of Delaney's Morning Star Inn - a allegedly historical local bar & hotel situate very close to my last Forest Hills, Pa. residence.

And perhaps next year at this time I may adopt the recent theory that our birthsigns are inaccurately assigned, become a Scorpio, and tell you what I really feel.

The Occupy movement has been one that continues to present varied degrees of contrasts such as enthusiasm, disgust, and potential.

Because it represents something - even if we're not sure what - it may not always collect the normal amount of balance between praise and criticism we Libra's might opt for.

Some folks are appalled by the disheveled participants who appear to have disdained soap for soap boxes. Others have a vicarious reaction to the movement. They are hoping it will help.

However, many are either unable or unwilling to physically join the protesting masses as they, you see, have jobs to go to and incomes to make in order to support their loved ones.

Some find the movement distasteful. Some empathize but their idea of ideological 'camping out' differs.

For many, it has to include a Embassy Suites well stocked wet bar, large flat screen TV, room service and a place to connect their laptop.

Then, and only then, may they opt to concern themselves with the adequacy of the showering system and the size of the soap.

Empathy perhaps - but only if accompanied by comfort.

Therefore, a recent piece on the op-ed page of the USA Today by Jon Picoult, founder of a Connecticut- based business advisory firm -was one that this Libra guy found interesting.

Picoult's theme initially appeared to be one that was critical of the lack of consistancy with those identified places of wealth in front of which the members of Occupy have chosen to protest.

It questions why some places were apparently overlooked by the
99% protesters" whose opposition seems to be "companies and their moguls - for what's perceived as their never-ending avarice, their disregard for the middle class and their extravagant lifestyles".

Among those listed by Picoult were apparently overlooked targets such as the NBA offices located on 5th Avenue extremely close to their known Wall Street sit-ins.

Other targets listed as oversights were Hollywood, Yankee Stadium, and Kim Kardashian's house.

He asks, "Where is the outrage toward those 1%-ers who sport hourly wages that can make some bank CEO's look like welfare cases?"

Unlike most editorial or opinion writers, Picoult answers his own question and seems to strike a 'balance' in doing so.

His analysis is that "The value we assign to things is influenced as much by emotional considerations (how it makes us feel) as it is by rational ones (whether it's a fair price)".

He repeats his real message that, if we feel entertained, inspired, or moved we're less likely to be critical of the fortunes companies amass.

His inclusion of companies as varied as Apple, Google, Disney, and Johnson & Johnson as positive recipients of acceptance, seems to enhance his argument.

It is true that his "feel good" analysis speaks mightily about how we react to people as well as businesses.

We can often overlook the over intoxicated idiot in a bar, and his tasteless jokes if we get a laugh when retelling these same jokes at the office.

To quote Picoult, "People's perception of the value you deliver, and their tolerance for the rewards you reap,is inevitably colored by how you make them feel."

Hmmm, many may think, "Sounds a lot like marriage."

Picoult concludes by using a modified version of my theme, "What is it they don't get?" - by implying this is a phenomena that should be reviewed and adopted by Wall Street.

Southwest Airlines "no bag fees" policy, while raising fares for their jam packed planes, suggests some agreement.

Yet, it still is possible that Bank Of America's recent barrage of advertisements telling us they are continually responding to the financial needs of small business may not yet be ready to pass a litmus test.

The USA Today article is enjoyable because it would appear Picault is willing to articulate examples of simple human nature behavior without any apparent axe to grind.

Okay, there is that tiny thing about what people in his chosen profession do for a living.

But, then again we don't want to get carried away in our pursuit of this whole "balance" thing.

Blogs and Fans.

Columnist Gene Collier of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a funny and erudite writer.

Therefore, it is reassuring for me to read something he has written, as I did today, that seems to follow a similar track to my own observations about life and sports.

Admittedly, I'm a rank amateur and was apparently sick a lot when grammar and punctuation instructions were available to me at all levels of the teaching of English composition.

Not sure just how important that is now, as blog writing provides a great release for me, regardless of the size of the audience - other than offering it up as a mea culpa.

Gene's recent column promotes the idea that Penn State should consider dropping college football.

That should keep Central Pa. undertakers busy for the next decade.

Fifteen years of residency in that area confirmed a continuous life and death struggle by the residents that is almost entirely based upon the won/loss results of the Penn State football team.

There also appears to be a lack of recognition on the part of those citizens that there is much more to life than the idolatry displayed for their team.

However,if you ever lived there you'd understand there isn't a lot more available to capture their passion.

My first exposure to the area,after residing in Pittsburgh for 50+ years, was a walking tour in 1986 of Bloomsburg, Pa after being "promoted" to managing an office there.

My most memorable sighting was that of "Eudora's Corset Shoppe", located on the main thoroughfare.

The folks I met did not possess the same eagerness to share their thoughts with a stranger or even start a conversation as did those Pittsburgh residents I left behind.

That is, until you had the insight to question them about their favorite college team. Few responded by commenting on the football program of Bloomsburg University.

Penn State is an institution up there. So is their football team.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the questionable, if not the seemingly unfathomable adulation of the residents, hasn't been seen elsewhere since, possibly, the unknown citizenry's lack of reaction to the "Emperor's New Clothes". And, we're not referring to the Penguin.

No attempt is being made to ridicule their fan support anymore than should be made for the mysterious affection of Pittsburghers for their kielbasa. Oh, and the "Pirates" - of course.

It would be interesting for me to know how those Central Pa. folks are now dealing with the recent news concerning the lack of compassion and responsibility demonstrated by the administration of their beloved university when faced with a real opponent -Truth!

How would they react if a child victim who was allegedly abused was a member of their own family? I recently asked a similar question of a friend who was expressing his extreme support of Herman Cain.

It scares me to think that both responses might have been similar.

What kind of rationality will be employed by the citizens? Will it be one of denial?

Or, could it simply be the current preferable and trendy processing following accusations of wrongdoing by folks who simply respond, "Well, they're all doing it - aren't they?"

I'll probably never know and might not even deserve an answer.

You have to remember, there are more than a few of us Sullivans - including myself - who refuse to accept the gruesome reality about our beloved Pirates.

But, then again, we have our "Stillers" - and even " Penguins" - to get us through the consistently poor baseball results of our incomparable favorite baseball team.

Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said for those poor fans in the middle of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Should Penn State University announce a decision to drop football at a time you were considering a visit to the area - any alternate travel plans you might have - should not rule out Iran.

WHAT IS IT PENN STATE DOESN'T GET?

There has been enough knee jerk reaction to the situation at Penn State to make all the Chiropractors & Orthodedic surgeons in the world richer than they ever dreamed.

Having said that, I'm still confused by the recent moves of Penn State University.

Joe Paterno was fired by the Penn State Board of trustees. I couldn't help wonder then, as I do now, how far up the ladder the alleged knowledge of wrongdoing at Penn State extended.

Trust me. I'm neither looking for nor desire to extend the popular conspiracy theories now rife in the media as to who up at the university had prior knowledge of the alledged wrongdoings by former coach Jerry Sandusky and failed to act responsibly prior to the grand jury's findings.

But, would it be unrealistic to wonder whether or not some members of the Penn State Board of Trustees were members and/or disciples of the "don't ask -don't tell mentality club" up in Happy Valley?

That thought reoccurred when Penn State announced recently that Dave Joyner, a highly respected orthopedic physician and scholar/athlete has been selected as Penn State acting athletic director.

Don't get me wrong. Anybody with even the slightest knowledge of crisis management knows that the best action is one that is concise and immediate. Both are strategic tactics which Penn State officials have previously failed miserably.

The interim appointment captures the described desired strategies - almost.

Joyner was a two sport athlete at Penn State as well as the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions for his many contributions to sports: college, professional, and the U.S Olympics.

He received his bachelor's and medical degrees from the university. He also served, until taking this new appointment, as a member of Penn State's Board of Trustees.

On the surface, the latter role might not disqualify him for his new position as acting athletic director. But, does it?

Reasonable people might conclude that, at this juncture of what many highly respected individuals are referring to as the worst University snafu of all times, a little hesitation might have been in order.

Please let me try to clarify via this recent news item:

Per the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "State Education Secretary Ronald Tomalis would not rule out the possibility that Penn State University trustees would face scrutiny from a campus investigative panel seeking to ascertain what campus leaders knew about child abuse allegations and if they responded properly"

When asked in a phone interview by the Post-Gazette writer if the possibility that current or former board members knew of the the assault allegations had or would be explored, he responded "that's one of the things the committee will be looking at."

Tomalis is a Penn State trustee and vice chair of the committee.

The article goes on to say: "Penn State has not identified the full list of members who will sit on the special investigative committee, but officials have suggested in recent days that the panel will be limited to those with university ties."

Yeah, that should satisfy watchdog groups, ethicists, and the media.

It would appear to this blogger,only those House members serving on the House Ethics committee - with no expressed authority to punish wrongdoers - could possibly see this as good logic.

There is no intention to disparage Dr. Joyner here. His reputation appears to be as impeccable as few other leading citizens and has demonstrated nothing to contradict this.

It's just the timing of his appointment that is sure to raise eyebrows. If the man is to be "acting" athletics director, was there nobody without university ties who would have been equally qualified to serve in a temporary capacity?

It's also apparent that, given the man's sterling reputation and intelligence, he may have made the decision to accept this "acting"
post primarily as an example of the compassion he has demonstrated in his other capacities of providing service to his country.

Assuredly, no attempt is being made here to compare him with another highly respected Penn State figure who fell from grace recently.

However, you gotta wonder. Was there no other person the board may have considered who either did not attend college there, reside in University Park, or who was a former stellar athlete/scholar at Penn State?

Is there some University requirement that only someone with any vague tangential knowledge of the geographical area in which Penn State is located is possibly qualified to serve as investigator of this incredible embarassing screw-up?

Sorry, but that appears to be a strange way for a major university to operate during a crisis that has gained worldwide attention.

If Dave Joyner is as qualified as suspected, why not have him in a position of "Athletic Director in Waiting"?

That would be similar to what many schools do when posturing themselves with a "Head Coach in Waiting" as a replacement for some head coach whom administrators believe may soon be retiring or seeking employment elsewhere.

Let's assume there exists a community wide belief up in Happy Valley that concludes familiarity with a business, or possession of an extensive expertise as to the problem needing addressing, is a pre-requisite.

If so, one has to wonder if any of the leading banks in the State College area had in the past ever considered hiring famed bank robber Willie Sutton as their Director of Security?

Surely, there must be some scholar or professor at Penn State who could have explained to the Board of Trustees,Plutarch's writings which later became known as the concept of "purer than Caesar's wife"

You have to conclude that Penn State still doesn't get it.

JOURNALISM OR EXPLOITATION?

It was professional - according to media standards.

But when does journalism end - and exploitation begin?

It's a line that more and more has become hazy.

My wife commented to me today," Why does it seem that the alleged acts of a former defensive coordinator now take second place to the faulty logic and apparently horrible decison making of Joe Paterno?"

Good journalism has been replaced with misleading sound bites and questionable interviews that make the reporting source, an overly invasive reporter, or a network often under fire, more marketable.

It has also been replaced by lousy judgment and a spin cycle response that says everything that is thought to be reportable is OK.

I seem to remember the same defense being offered by the owners of Confidential Magazine - way back in the 50's.

Time and time again we see the parent of a child questioned on camera as to his/her actions in raising their child - as though they have not yet sustained enough grief or soul searching.

Other times the child is a victim of a horrible act and the parents are questioned on camera as to how they feel about the loss of their child.

Today, at the end of the Penn State/Nebraska game, we saw "The Return of The Body Snatchers" acted out in high definition for an audience of millions.

I'm speaking about the ESPN journalist and his interviews, at the completion of the game. And, let nobody argue; his approach had the desired effect -to the extent that the interview later received repeated national exposure.

The questioning of Tom Bradley,the interim head coach of Penn State, was somewhat less invasive - as it should have been. Here's a guy who was going on limited sleep in the past four days due to all that has taken place - and had taken on a huge responsibility - temporarily replacing a legend.

Yet, despite that, including his new responsibilites and sudden media exposure, his reaction to the final outcome of the game - included referencing an incredible response by his first place Big Ten team during the second half, was not made a subject of interest.

Unfortunately, both the questioning and his response were merely a prelude to what was to follow.

The coaches' team had almost turned the game around after a first half that clearly reflected their response to the pressure placed upon them due to the well known publicised circumstances involving "Happy Valley."

You had to wonder as a viewer of the game what was the cause of the teams failure to execute in the first half, as they have done in a mixed fashion leading up to their success as exemplified by a 6 and 1 record? What was the cause - ineptitude - jitters - or just a great opponent from Nebraska?

But no, that apparently wasn't the subject you might have expected to have been explored in depth,and pursued by ESPN of any college coach as a logical attempt to accurately determine his assessment of what went right and what went wrong. It was even more incomprehensible as Penn State had fallen from the ranks of the unbeaten in their conference.

Folks, the coach's response to a loss does not make ratings when you have a much more accessible agenda for your questions - particularly those that are deemed to be ones that will ostensibly increase your ratings.

ESPN eschewed the normal after the game in depth questions - at least in a follow-up format - while tangibly framing all questions involving the game with a focus that instead was their repeated reference to the devastating accusations and revelations involving Penn State.

We were subjected to a performance by the reporter that more closely resembled those of Deputy Chief Brenda Johnson in the popular show "The Closer", particularly as she sucks in the suspects with apparently benign inquiries before going for the jugular vein.

Penn State's interim head coach responded well - with little "coach speak" other than his expressed admiration for the spirit of the team and their group effort in the second half.

But, what the coach didn't know was that he was only the opening act - a setup for the individual whom the network apparently determined was the main event.

ESPN decided that focus would be Jay Paterno - the deposed coaches son - who served in a much less responsible role for the outcome of this game - at least more insignicant than the replacement coach - although admittedly both were exploring new territory as coaches.

Again, no questions as to strategy were posed.

The ESPN interviewer was slick - recognizing that his approach in his opening question had to disguise his intent in the interview.

Had Brenda been watching - she would have been proud.

The ESPN "reporter" first tried to put his "interview" subject - who probably had not done more than a few interviews - if any - on national television - at ease. So far - so good- one might respond.

His lead-in to the obviously distraught former coaches son was to assure him that his initial question was the same that he had asked of the interim head coach.

Good move. Jay Paterno appeared to relax and his response seemed to echo that of his new boss.

And then came the follow-up questions during the highly seminally regarded TV ratings period.

The ESPN reporter made reference to having an advanced knowledge of a letter that the son had sent to his parents following the recent events.

I don't know about you - but I had no knowledge of this letter.

Again, Jay Paterno appeared to relax and a small smile came across his face - probably in anticipation there was recognition that he was a good kid who truly loved his parents.

When questioned further as to the content of the letter, young Paterno summarized the content by relating that the theme of his communication was to assure his Mom & Dad that he was proud of them.

Recognizing the nature of the sentimental response, the reporter opted not to close the interview - but to dig further - until Jay Paterno started to cry on national TV.

The son and coach then- mercifully for all of us watching - ended the interview by saying, "That's all" as he turned from the interviewer. He then - walked away, hunched over, his shoulders turned forward and inward- with tears continuing to stream down his recently snookered countenance.

The interviewer made no attempt to comfort him - nor conclude the interview when the tears were slowly commencing.

The witch hunt had ended.

Chief Brenda Johnsons adroit questioning is the crux of the success of the popular highly rated TV show. It is fictional. She is attempting to solve a crime.

My wife and I were left during and after the interview to try to determine what crime this poor guy had committed - other than being the cooperative son of a disgraced father.

My question: Is that journalism - or exploitation?

EARLY AMERICAN HUMOR

Having just completed a blog on radio humor of the 40's, an e-mail was received listing the humor of Will Rogers, the subject of previous blogs.

Here are some of my favorite Will Rogers quotes:

There are two theories to arguing with a woman - neither works.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

The quickest way to double your money is to fold it and put it back in your pocket.

Never miss a chance to shut up.

There are three kinds of men:

The ones who learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them who have to pee on the electric fence
and find out for themselves.

Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

If you're riding ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.

Senior Humor:

When you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth - think of Algebra.

Being young is beautiful, but being old is comfortable.

I don't know how I got 'over the hill' without getting to the top.

And, one of my favorites:

Long ago, when men cursed and beat the ground with sticks, it was called witchcraft. Now, it's called golf.

A closing thought - especially appropriate for this old blogger:

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull - keep your mouth shut.

Stay well.