PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Reading the Friday papers can be a real trip - particularly if what you're
reading is on the op-ed section of the editorial pages.

After finishing each op ed piece yesterday, I wondered what the writer's
connection might  be to the party or people they're defending and what prejudice
they may be bringing to the table in the name of  financial gain.

It's not a question we ask ourselves often enough.

Does Michael Wear, the writer who criticized the police unions, have
any connection to "Black Lives Matter?" Is he really surprised that most
Fraternal Order of Police unions are defending ALL of their brethren -
regardless of whether or not they were accused of being guilty of
the "Murder" of a suspect?

Does he see any distinction between what the FOP is doing from that
of the doctors who will refuse to turn in another doctor who forgot the
part of the oath that states; "Above all else - do no harm"?

What about the bar association members or elected judges and
politicians who look the other way despite the obvious malfeasance
of members of their chosen profession and having signed an oath of
office requiring them to do so?

How about the thousands of the execs at GM who had to know what
was going on with the faulty ignition switches that killed and maimed
so many,but chose to sit back and accepted their profit incentive laden
bonuses each year?

What about all those so-called white activists in the entertainment industry
who are pleading for our contributions to defeat the genocide in a place
called Darfur,but who apparently had neither concern nor knowledge as to
what one of their highest respected black peers was doing to helpless
women right here in their own country?

Is op-ed contributor Wear also critical of  those teachers unions who
support their teachers despite the fact they concentrate their instructional
efforts primarily on educating their students as to how they can pass
national exams, solely in order to keep from being fired for incompetence?

Would he include in his magnifying glass all the neighbors,eye witnesses,
and/or community civil rights leaders who know who killed whom in their
neighborhood - but refuse to come forward?

Does he recognize that to take responsibility for doing the right thing
would require someone with a mission to make a positive change that
others have deferred for years but who is a person willing to take a risk in
order to make a difference?

Does he also know that to be that person requires no prior political
experience  -as opposed to what another writer, Windsor Mann, strenously
argued while pontificating on the same page as Mr.Wear?

That brings us to our second subject. - the CNN debates - which
was also an op-ed piece.

Does it bother anybody, that with 11 candidates at the debates - all
available for questions  and one of whom could possibly end up leading
this nation that the CNN panel refused to dig in with the really tough but
meaningful questions?

What prompts national personalities on the CNN panel to ignore the
opportunity to really demonstrate their journalistic skills by refusing to
continue asking follow-up questions until they were satisfied they had
received an honest and definitive answer from all the candidates.

One excellent choice would have been whether or not the GOP was
going to shut down our government in the near future over a matter
that has not yet been proven to be accurate?

What were they afraid of?

How many journalists can really fit in the Lincoln Bedroom on any
given night or any given year simply by going the route of asking
softball questions of the potential White House occupants?

The only candidate facing them who appeared to be able to go 7 innings
without having a mitt was cancer survivor, non politician - Carly
 Fiorina.

While watching with your spouse, significant other or family, tell me you
weren't really curious as to whether some well placed follow-up hardball
questions couldn't have shed more light on Trump's positions:

Had Trump really never filed for bankruptcy? Had he never made a 50K
gubernatorial contribution to Bush in the hope of getting gambling
introduced in that state?

The approach chosen by the interviewers to insist the candidates ask their
opponents stupid questions of each other, suggests CNN clearly needs
a new editor in the "Situation Room".

These questions reminded me so much of being a young kid playing
football on the playground. After either delivering or receiving a hard hit
during a pickup game one of us was invariably egged on by some kid with
zero athletic ability, to start a retaliatory fight with the other guy - who
often was our best friend.

And, like the feckless immature children we were - we did! You're free
to draw your own analogies here.

Seriously, if CNN had made a decision to put the entire 3 hour debates
on a Blu-Ray disc for distribution - and you were desperately interested
in acquiring one  - my best shopping tip would be for you to look for it
in the "Easy Listening"or "Entertainment"section; because you sure as
hell wouldn't find it filed under "Self Help".

It was nice to hear everybody singing the praises of Ronald Reagan.

It would have been even "nicer" when all were so busy praising his
negotiating tactics with House Speaker Tip O-Neil if one  -or all - of
the candidates had been asked if they believed the "Gipper" would  have
ever signed the Grover Norquist "No Tax Increase" pledge,.

This was clearly a tactic demanded by someone who none of us ever
voted into office, that was clearly designed to preclude any meaningful
compromise on the important issues of today, in the spirit of
bipartisanship..

Final question: Why is it that - only in courtrooms - are folks who have
taken an  oath - required to provide yes or no answers to the really
significant questions - other than politicians, of course?