Welcome Relief

To my senior friends:




Recently there was a movie review in the paper regarding the holiday movie "What A Wonderful Life" (WAWF) starring Jimmy Stewart and available on just about every network except possibly Animal Planet.



The reviewer - whom it can be assumed must be very young since she claimed she had never seen it before - was critical of its qualifications as a true "Christmas Movie" because it was sad and troubling.




I know, the irony was not lost on me either that a member of the media (even if by association) was disturbed about sad and troubling news, particularly the kind which is featured 5+ nights a week on the "Late Breaking News" lead in on ABC Evening News - while we wait 28 minutes to get to the good stuff about people 'helping' people.




Those of us who have pretty much come to grip with most changes now taking place have simply acknowledged we are living in a different time but admittedly occasionally throw up the question "And Why?" - before finishing our evening prayers
.


We do this also while shaking our heads (old poops do this a lot) as we read the headlines like the one recently about some of our most prestigious universities cancelling mid-term exams for the later part of the day. They did so because when the election results about 2 AM confirmed that their favorite Presidential candidate was defeated the disappointed students were thought to be way too devastated  and emotionally injured to sit for the exams.




Those of us who were around in 1948 when the Chicago Tribune prematurely and incorrectly posted the headline "Dewey Wins" were only now sadly realizing that we didn't receive even as much as a snow day to repair the reaction of both our parents and neighbors and by extension - ourselves.




There really is a panacea for dealing with the overabundance of recognizable and allegedly authentic
news sources "bad news" that has been heaped on us (and don't even get me started on the whole "fake news"  phenomenon). OK, I will anyway.




 I learned about fake news early in my life. My experience was while patiently awaiting my turn in the chair, and deciding to read cover to cover both "Confidential Magazine" and the "Police Gazette" favored by my local barber and neighbor Johnny Pedrotti,.


Johnny (nobody called him Mr.Pedrotti)  whose tonsorial parlor was replete not only with these "dirty magazines" but was known for it's slowly revolving red and blue cigar shaped sign  prominently displayed on Sumner Avenue where both our families resided.


This was, of course, as opposed to the blinking red one at the top of the street in the front window of Widow Shanahans house.




So, what do we do about incorrectly reported or simply fake news we're now exposed to every day?


Here's one suggestion:Find an ear torn copy of the old children's book we read as kids entitled  "Chicken Little". It's a quick read.


When you finish, take an oath that you will never again walk under an acorn tree - speak to Henny Penny if your paths cross - or watch the evening news by yourself without first taping it for appropriate editing and re-examination of it's authenticity.




It also might benefit we "old poops" if we are willing to recognize that we also made a slew of mistakes in our business and personal life before arriving at our present status. Worse yet, they made perfect sense to us at  the very time we were making them and we continued to defend them to our wives for many years after.
.


If that still doesn't work - try to catch and tape the Farmers Insurance commercials where the host  - wearing his outdated corduroy jacket and jeans assures us of the reliability of his sponsor because (paraphrasing) "We saw a lot and we did a lot" (or whatever)




 Feel free to play them whenever necessary unless you would rather opt for watching WAWL for the "eleventy-seventh" time as you reminisce about the good times and the bank failures.
.


Seriously, the now passe' advice of "chilling" is  an exercise of "welcome relief" and really much more tasteful than the application of the old formula we used in order to get here in the first place:


"Plop- Plop / Fizz - Fizz - Oh, what a relief it is."




May your holiday season be filled with nothing but good news.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY

Having been off my blog for some time and struggling to get back in for almost 2 hours I find I am speechless.


My password has been changed after several unsuccessful tries but if I shared it with you it would become painfully obvious the one I chose was done strictly out of frustration.


However, every time I go into the bathroom I should be able to remember it.


This will be my shortest blog. intwo minutes the Steelers game comes on.

DOWN, PRANCER!

The bizarre movements were so flagrant they caught my eye and forced me
  to put down the sports pages.

Me:     So,what's all the prancing around about? It's just another birthday.
           Don't expect any special creature treats!

Bella - Apparently you forgot this is my 9th birthday.

Me:    Not really. You've been leaving hints all over the house - singing "99
          bottles of beer"- complaining about cats having 9 lives - reminding
          me the Pirates opposition won again in the 9th - suggesting to me
          that 9 out of 10 times I am wrong - and arranging  your toys on the
          floor in a formation of a huge NINE. So, what's the big deal?

Bella: I told you! I'm nine years old today. That's special all by itself.

Me:    OK Pal. Tell you what I'm going to do. How bout I take off your
          brightly colored collar and you can do your prancing in
          your "birthday suit"

Bella:  You'd like that wouldn't you? You old pathetic lecher!

Me:    Trust me there is nothing about a 2.7 lb Chihuahua that turns
          me on.

Bella:  I'm assuming this means you've stopped chasing dogs then!

Me:    I may risk one eye!. Look, what's this all about - the attitude
          and stuff?

Bella:  Ahh, Why do I even try?  Do you not know what the age 9 is
           in doggie years?

Me:   Wait! I'll go find a calculator.

Bella: What? Your abacus is broke again?.

Me:    You know, I've just about had enough of your attempts to do
          your stupid   Cantinflas impression. You Hispanics just aren't
          that funny.

Bella:  So, Trump tells me,, but George Lopez isn't doing so bad as a
           Chicano in your country.

Me:    I suspect he's really Gringo and mastered the dialect through several
          lessons via Rosetta  Stone, but we're getting off the subject again.
          Why is the number 9 so important to you?

Bella:  It means I'm 63 in human years. That means I'm over the 55 year
          old requirement in this old fart co-op of yours. So, now I'm a
          shareholder and can kick you out of my home. Time  to pack,
          Chubby.

Me:    Your home ???

(Sounds of dog both running and laughing while elderly man chases
 and his wheezing almost drowns out both noises. Dog stops - takes off her
 collar herself -and is now flaunting it in his face while he leans against
 curio cabinet to catch his breath . This is  followed by the sound of broken
 glass and  a screaming woman!).

INVISIBLE OR ANONYMOUS?

"I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows. It is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me, they see only my surroundings, themselves or figments of their imagination, indeed  everything and anything except me." - Ralph Ellison- "Invisible Man".

"The time has come for a movement 'morally strong' enough to do battle against the forces of evil, bigotry, and fascism that have come to the forefront at this election cycle"

Anonymous - The hacker group.

Let the games begin.

"NOBODY DOES IT BETTER".

Why is it some of us fail to realize that if we want to stop watching the GOP debates - but are concerned with the disastrous withdrawal possibilities - possibly catching up on Jerry Springer re-runs may be an easy temporary fix?

With all the chaos the cash strapped media is highlighting and stirring up for our viewing pleasure  - via the debates - campaign ads - and more polls than you'll find in your local barber shop - or neighborhood bar - perhaps we're all missing the point. 

A guy - whom I do not know - wrote (before the recent Trump rallies) what I believe could be a sensible but seldom discussed political opinion about this amazing bombastic political spectacle we've been inundated with: 

"It's clear that the Republican insiders do not understand what is happening in America with the unprecedented success of Trump. Someone called it a 'quiet revolution'  - and I agree.

In my personal opinion, politicians need only look in the mirror to see why the American Public is so incredibly outraged.

Generous health care and retirement programs, vacations disguised as 'fact finding trips' and a torrent of lobbyist and special interest money are dumped on them regularly. In exchange for living like kings and queens on our dime, we get gridlock, stalling, waffling, inaction and long recesses.

Guess what, Washington! The people finally recognize that the king has no clothes and it's payback time.

Oh, and let's not forget term limits that hopefully are coming down the road."(end of article)

****************************************************************

 Biased? Possibly, but then again, perhaps the reason the "mirror watching numbers" are apparently so low is that the politicians didn't have to come up with the "scratch" to purchase the expensive mirror.

The point in the opinion that I found most fascinating and with which I found agreement was there clearly appears to be a pattern of avoidance by both the "political establishment" and/or the media that anything which brought us to this point is really wrong. The overwhelmingly perceived attitude is "the status quo is just fine, thank you."

Oh yeah, I'm sure we all agree we're hearing otherwise from the candidates; but that's par for the course when you're running for office.

My gripe with them is that their failure to supply us with problem solving details is uncomfortably similar to denying "Dorothy and Toto" even a glimpse as to just how powerful the wizard behind the curtain in Oz - really is.

The sad reality is that - while the political rallies get larger - the rhetoric stronger - the promises more "HUGE" - the TV and news coverage even bigger -(even the threats to make all the male GOP candidates put on O.J.'s ill fitting glove) - we seem to be spinning our wheels. 

To date despite everything that has been downloaded into our living room we continue to be witness to an unwillingness by the political establishment as well as the media to show any indication they even recognize: "we got a problem" - let alone "we got a solution."

Unfortunately, the one and only constant in this nonsense appears to be "we'll do it like we've always done!"

And, forget your partisanship. It's an all too familiar scenario promoted by the leadership of both parties. And, like the guy says, "it's happening on our dime."

For example, our current candidates have as many opinions on what to do about immigration  - something that has remained unresolved for years - as people who insist they have the one and only correct answer to the best way to enjoy an Oreo cookie.

Perhaps, collectively, we need to regain our focus -adjust the aperture - start with the basics - and simply ask ourselves, the politicians and the media the following question: 

(1)"When did enforcing the law become optional in this country?"

Let's give it a try. "Nobody does it  better".

AN UNSHAKABLE TRUISM - DUCK IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE..

Just when you're sure you have literally "had it" with all politicians and their lies - along comes a "truism" - "something so obvious or self evident as to be hardly worth mentioning except as a reminder" and comes along in the nick of time.

My truism was a headline on the front page of Friday's USA Today's News section a week or so ago: "Senate declares self clean on ethics".

Before further comment: Please keep in mind that I'm the sort of guy who puts his upper plate under his pillow each night in the fervent hope he will be rewarded by the tooth fairy.

So, yes, I'm sure some of you disbelievers may not agree at first with the "Good News" headline, but that's only because you haven't heard the supporting evidence.

 But, if you're so inclined, you may want to start your own personal  fact check with Stanley Brand - an ethics lawyer who allegedly has a history of advising "The Senate Ethics Committee"  - the authors of the proclamation about current Senate ethics.

Stan's strong support for that report included a rebuttal to those "usual suspects". You know, like the "Ethics Watchdog Groups" . He made it abundantly clear : "they (those guys) want every peccadillo to be investigated like a federal crime."

One assumes his ill chosen peccadillo reference had nothing to do with the 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate Wilbur Mills who, when confronted in the wee hours of the morning with stripper Fanne Foxe, jumped into the DC Tidal Basin as part of his escape plan. 

We know this because Wilbur (no friend of Mr. Ed) was a Representative - not a Senator.

Despite that - and as you could no doubt expect - there were those usual soreheads nosing around  - folks like the supposedly non-partisan "Campaign Legal Center" (CLC) who had the gall to criticize the committee's findings, and even suggested the committee should be renamed the "Congressional Dead Letter Office".

The CLC disagreed with the Senate ethics committee's conclusion that of the 613 allegations of  wrongdoing received since 2007, the committee was forced to dismiss more than 90% of same.

The watchdog group then pointed out that only 75 complaints have even led to "preliminary investigations" by the ethics committee and those resulted in most if not all of those investigations forcing the committee to issue  9 slap-on- the wrist -letters to Senators saying basically "you shouldn't have done that."

In fact, in examining the total of the committee's vigilant efforts during the 9 year period since 2007 - when it's first report came into existence -the CLC appeared to have been hampered in their investigative diligence due to the committee's presumed irrefutable claims:

(1) There were not enough facts to prove wrongdoing - (13 of 55 cases last  year). (2) No Senate rule governing the alleged activity - (36 of  55 cases in 2015) and (3) Five of seven cases in which the committee carried out those "preliminary  findings" had to be dismissed as inadvertent or minor technical violations.

Unfortunately,  there was no comment by the ethics committee about possible complaints of suspected insider trading involvement which subsequently enriched the Senator's benefit package.

The  Ethics Committee said the remaining few (?)cases were apparently so insignificant that none of those was made public by the committee; and they did not respond to a request by USA Today for further comment. 

But, here's the "good news" part. What the results did prove is the prescience back in 2007 of both Senate leaders at that time.

When the then Democratic Majority Leader Senator, Harry Reid assessed the pending ethics proposal change leading up to the formation of the Ethics committee, he pronounced it:

 "the most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we've had in the history of this country".

And not to be outdone, then Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, stated:

"I believe that we owe it to the voters as well as the institution to come to a fair agreement and pass this legislation". 

Of course, you remaining naysayers could argue that back in 2007, the Senate DID reject the idea of setting up an independent office to investigate the ethical breaches of members - but,  even with that minor caveat, look at the incredible progress we've made since then regarding both ethical Senatorial behavior as well as that of lobbyists. 

On a lighter note -and only if  you believe in coincidence - the very same week of the committee's report another "annual" but definitely "unplanned" report was released on national TV.

You may have missed it though; as this one appeared on the Cartoon Channel (CC)

The C.C. spokesperson being interviewed was none other than Wiley Coyote - who proudly revealed in a surprise non-scheduled question and answer session with none other than ace reporter Daisy Duck  he also had determined that in 2015 there had been no findings of anything improper going on at the chicken coops he was assigned to guard "either".

Unfortunately, he was NOT as convincing as the Senate Ethics Committee. This was due to Daisy's sharp reportorial eye that suggested to her the possible presence of both chicken feathers and gizzard remains in the corner of Wiley's enormous mouth.

At first Daisy had graciously concluded Wiley must have developed a a speech impediment due to his poor diction, just as the coyote claimed initially, but upon further close up inspection by the observant duck reporter his claim simply did not hold up and she turned him in on the spot to her viewers.

In Daisy's follow-up and expanded article she claimed Wiley was not only a liar but clearly a misogonist.

She based this latter conclusion on Wiley's subsequent national TV press conference where he attacked her credentials as a expert chicken and gizzard remains spotter and then explained it all away with his on air suggestion it may well have just been Daisy's "time of month".

Who knew?

HOW BAD CAN IT BE?

Ever wonder why it is so difficult to admit you were wrong? My wife and I have played a little "wrong" game for some time now in which the following scenario takes place in one form or another:

He: "Well yes, I did think that way before - but, I was wrong."

She: "What? You are really finally willing to admit that you can be wrong?" I thought you were  NEVER wrong!"

He: "Well there was that time back in 1955  - when I was wrong".

She: "I can't wait to hear more. What was that all about?"

He: "Well, that's a long time ago and my memory is cloudy,  but as I recall, I thought I was wrong about something , but, thankfully later that day I found out I was really right - and it was my original  conclusion that was wrong"

She: "That must have been really gratifying!"

He: "Hey, that's the kind of guy I am - always willing to fess up when the situation dictates that it's appropriate. You ought to try it."

(That was also the "first time" I had to have my upper plate repaired)

So, quickly  or as quickly as you can cover such a complex subject- here are five reasons for the problem that I've edited from a PhD- Guy Winch - who provides us with some info as to the causation for a negative trend that seems to be growing exponentially - a seemingly inability to admit we were wrong.

 His contention is that refusing to admit you were wrong is not just plain stubbornness - there may be something deeper involved.

(1) Admissions of wrong doing (or simply being "wrong") are terribly threatening to some because they have problems separating their actions from their character.

 If they did something wrong - they often conclude they must be bad people - or at the very least ignorant or stupid - a conclusion that obviously provides a threat to their self-esteem.

(2) The act of apologizing might open the door to guilt for some of us - but for the non-apologist the reaction can be much stronger - and open the door instead to both shame and embarrassment.

While a slight twist on the first reason, it's saying that while guilt makes us feel bad about our actions - shame makes some folks feel bad about their selves - who they are - and  per Winch - quite often makes shame a far more toxic emotion than guilt.

(3) Admitting that they are wrong is not seen as an opportunity by non-apologists to resolve interpersonal conflict. This is tricky.

 Instead, the fear is that their admission will now only open the floodgates to further accusations and conflict. Their concern is that the other person who has now heard one admission of wrong doing from  them will consequently pile on all the previous offenses for which they refused to apologize. ("The Hole in the Dike" theory?) 

(4) Non- apologists also fear that by admitting a mistake they will have assumed all responsibility and , (therefore) released the other person from any culpability.

For example, when arguing with a spouse they fear an apology on their part will exempt the spouse from taking any of the blame for the disagreement - despite the fact that most arguments have as a key ingredient some responsibility for each participant. (It isn't the first unkind word that causes the argument - but the response from the other person who has received it.)

(5) Finally, we have to address the possibility that some non-apologists are simply reluctant to give up their anger and apologize.

 Actually, there are some folks who are quite comfortable with their anger, irritability, and emotional distance. Unlike most of us, they often fear the experience of emotional closeness and vulnerability and find it to be extremely threatening. 

It's the classic fear while in a hot dispute that - by lowering your guard  -even slightly - you will make your psychological defenses crumble. As a result these folks fear the possibility that by opening those floodgates to a well of sadness and despair they will leave themselves  powerless to stop it.

They are convinced they will become vulnerable and if they admit those deep pent up emotions it will surely  be a disaster, particularly if the other person does not respond with the love, caring and support they so desperately need but are afraid to ask for. We all fear rejection.

I can recall a conversation with a fellow newbie therapist who confessed he made himself a good listener to his new boss for both the bosses work and personal problems - only to find that the carefully constructed boss/employee  relationship quickly crumbled when he - the therapist -  was not willing to be as outspoken or revealing about his own inner work and personal thoughts.

At that time -I also discovered it is not unusual for a new counselor who after  providing unconditional non-threatening listening for their client in those first few valuable sessions  - he/she is now expected to openly respond to a whole lot of client's questions about his/her own mishaps in life. 

If, via their inexperience, the counselor agrees to go along early on during the process he/she  most often loses that valuable transference factor that is key to providing what the client needs to make progress.

In most cases many of us recognize (unless we're in a relationship with some sort of a sadist or an equally insecure individual ) that quite often (but not always) opening up can often lead to a far deeper emotional closeness and trust toward the other person; thus deepening our relationship satisfaction depending on the severity of the infraction..

Okay, enough of the counseling protocol  - my attempt here was just to share some insight as to what may possibly be going on with that person in your life who you find so unwilling to admit they were/are wrong. 

Will an awareness of all of this improve a relationship?  Hey, it's a crap shoot!

All I know is a simple rule that I put in place to increase both honesty and bonding (for my supervisors as well as my kids) was to remind them when they  had screwed up - (just like I did before them) was: "Come to me early - you have a friend. Come to me late - you have a judge!"

 Let's face it. The benefits of confession and admitting you are/were wrong has a direct effectiveness correlation to the frequency with which it is employed and the sincerity that accompanies the admission.

There is such a thing as going to that "well' too often - but it's a start. 

C'mon - How Bad Can It Be? 

NOW YOU SEE IT - NOW YOU DON'T

It's not really because I just found out there is no tooth fairy.There aren't enough teeth left in my mouth to become concerned. Besides I have no unreasonable financial expectations when I soak my upper plate each night before retiring.

My comment also has nothing to do with dental hygiene or gene heredity. No, instead, once more it has to do with an old curmudgeon's light hearted jab at our media.

Today's target is all those political polls - the reliability of the polling  - the previous unreliable assurances given us by the media - and the "now you don't" typical explanation or rationale when we find out - once again -  that Dewey didn't really beat Truman in the 1948 presidential election.

To those of you who have been told for weeks that Trump was an Iowa "shoo-in" by the caucus method you may feel cheated in belatedly discovering that part of that methodology included the flipping of a coin to determine who really would be declared the Iowa winner - with pretty much the same result in the NFL playoffs.

No, instead you were provided with the same informational incisiveness that you received from the media when covering Y2-K in 1999/2000.

It's called "prestidigitation" folks: "Now you see it - Now you don't" - and in Trumps case it possibly may not be all that "Presidential either ."

OK, there were three points belatedly made as to why the pollsters and their work product were "WRONG" - according to an "expert" source from Notre Dame - of all places - whose first name is Darren-  and who should not be confused with a popular male character in Bewitched.

While tempting - I'll stop the analogy right there due to a need for brevity and two pending appointments. 

Darren W. Davis- a political science professor who specializes in public opinion and political behavior - has furnished us via the USA Today front page with rationale behind the alternate ending of this scary movie - called "The Iowa Caucus".

 He is  joined in the article by Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report - who belatedly explains to us that New Hampshire polls may be even more unreliable.

One suspects it's another version of : "I'm sorry - I thought you saw the bus approaching behind you - or I would have warned you." 

This opinion as well as that of Darren's may or may not  be similar to a race track tout whose expertise you may no longer want to rely on after you bet the mortgage payment on a horse that came in with an 8th place finish.

Taking the analogy further I believe at the track it's called "hedging your bet".

Amy also spoke uncharitably about Trump's "polarizing nature "as a possibly  contributing factor. It's Walter's view that this alleged character flaw "helped turn out people who don't want to see him win."

Let's go back to Darrren's 3 point rationale to justify not informing either Chicken Licken or Henny Penny (possibly devout Trump followers):" the sky is indeed falling." 

(1) This is an extremely volatile political climate driven by an angry electorate     whose voting preferences are difficult to gauge. (Obviously confirming the above suggestion the coin flip approach is indeed not any more easy to predict than if it took place in the NFL playoffs).

(2) Pollsters low-balled turnout among evangelical voters and underestimated Cruz's get-out-the vote operation. (What? You mean these guys do count for something?)

(3) The Iowa Caucuses are uniquely difficult to predict, with a quirky process and lots of last minute deciders.

(A Fourth unrelated reason for the surprise results and which possibly was too late at press time was the revelation by Darren that "I always thought that Bernie Maddeen looked suspicious.)

Let  me repeat my premise that my gripe was strictly with the media press and not the Iowa election results. I truly didn't care if Trump won or not.

Did I fail to mention that in any of my past political blogs? 

.

PICIOUS

DID I FORGET TO METNIONT HAT IN MY PREVIOUS PLOGS?

A TOUGH CALL .

Do you remember the old joke about having  mixed emotions when you saw your mother-in-law going over a cliff  - while driving your brand new Red Mustang convertible?

Okay, that's kind of how I feel when it comes to this whole Donald Trump/Megyn Kelly fiasco -as well as the media driven arguments as to which candidate is a natural born citizen - at least, as per our Founders intentions.

Perhaps someone should ask Bernie Sanders if , when attending those caucus meetings in the 1700's, he recalls what their thinking was back then.

I have to  make this one biased comment about the first issue, "If I see one more picture or film clip of Megyn in the media - I'm going to assume she's been adopted by the Kardashians.

Anyway, in my desperate search for a metaphor via the convertible story, I'm not sure either Trump or Kelly would be an adequate replacement for the Mustang. 

Now, my ex-mother-in-law - that's a whole different ballgame.

Trump's pique with both Kelly and Fox  - and his threat to skip the next debate before the Iowa Caucus - will probably have many supporters.

That the other debate participants, presumably not so supportive of Trump's crusade, will  disagree with his decision - is a foregone conclusion. 

Early allegations from his opponents at the time of this writing - and who have yet to capture the fancy of the electorate- have already begun their  childish:" Na-Na-Na-Nuh Na- Na" chant in response to "Trumps Threat".

It's Junior High School all over again.

Let's take a look at their own tough political call: "Offend the guy who is beating my pants off in the polls (my apologies to Carla Fiorina) - or risk offending a network who can destroy my political career if they have a mind to?"

Yep, that's a tough one, alright.

My opinion - if anybody's interested- is that some of our media networks as well as other news sources -both printed and digital - should be required to include in their advertisements, postings and programming as to whether or not their political reporting is so-called "gluten free". (maybe even bloggers)

At the very least, the need for a printed warning like this one appears to be clearly indicated:

 "The words and stated opinions of  candidate so-and-so - do not necessarily reflect the political bias of either the network or the moderators assigned to this debate."

And yet, we're drawn to these "news?" programs as if they were revivals of "Pee Wee Herman's Playhouse! 

My opinion of these media related folks is probably not important but it's also not dissimilar to my concerns for some of the devoted folks who endorse anything "animal friendly" but who will defend to their death their right to be treat the "human race" as - well - the abused animals they're defending.

Whoops,  that one even surprised me.

My point is simply that the various columnists who are so perplexed about any criticism of news bias should  spend more time in doing some investigative reporting to determine if it's true.

Better yet, having done so perhaps they will also have the cajones to offer a strong  opinion on this subject based on their investigative conclusion - including whether or not their own publishing company or network is duplicitous in this trend.

I grant you , to do this would possibly indicate to the very public they are trying to reach that they (the reporters are endorsing a belief that good journalism is making a come back .

 It might also spark a realization by the responsible media that now more than ever - and long since the Hearst Newspaper chain ruled the print media in the 30's, 40's and 50's - that there is a need for "a more level playing field."

But, then again, do you as a reporter really want to risk losing out on all those free press lunches or, worse yet,; be forced to give up that beautiful cabin in the pristine woodsy setting that the family, relatives, and friends view as much of a privacy haven as you do?

Hey, another tough call?

Seriously, ever ask yourself where the responsible media ombudsman now resides? Is he out on a quest for the truth with that lantern carrying Greek cynic, Diogenes? 

Does the motto "Above all, do no harm" only apply to Physicians and Educators?

Maybe the answers are sequestered deep inside one of Hillary's private emails - a subject about which even Bernie may be rethinking his own protest.. 

Seriously, if this media travesty continues I may have to grab a chilled glass of Pinot Grigio and resume watching "Two Broke Girls" starring Kathy Lee and Hoda,  in order to address my need for a news junkie fix.

Finally, in an attempt to wrap this up - the  last we checked  Trump was going to blow off the debate and instead do something involving helping Veterans - presumably those not named John McCain.

Regardless of his motivation - it can't hurt, based on everything we're hearing about the VA.  Besides, and while stomping on even more sensitive toes, I don't recall the Roman Catholic Church ever turning down those large spontaneous donations from the Italian Mafia.

That's it. I think I've antagonized everybody by now.

So, I'm going to go back to re-reading the opinion column of writer Rick Hampson. I use the phrase re-read only because I now notice he mentioned in the first paragraph one of my favorite curmudgeons,  Garrison Keiller, agreed with the theme of this writing.

If you choose to research this I refer you page 2A of the USA Today 1/24/2016 News Section. You can't miss it because USA Today opted to include it in a full half-page section where the paper asked in bold type : "IS TRUMP A DEMAGOGUE"?

(Based on several other political opinion articles I've read in that publication the USA TODAY editors probably felt it safe to use the word "Demagogue" -concluding  none of Trump's rapid sycophantic followers would know what the word meant.)

Anyway, Rick plowed on and - in a true application of employing inductive versus deductive logic he searched for all the ways Trump compared favorably with disgraced Republican Senator Joe McCarthy - and his highly criticized and unorthodox "anti-communist" crusade in the early 1950's.

So, do we have a possible Edward R Murrow replacement in our media mix?

Nah   -  NOT so tough a call.

FORKED TONGUES AND SILVER BULLETS

Not sure where I initially heard the first part of the  expression in the title above which is defined as: "deliberately saying one thing and meaning another."

Some trace it  back to the 1690's when it was used to describe the tactics of the French in dealing with the Iroquois by inviting them to a Peace Conference and then either slaughtering or capturing them.

Therefore, I've chosen as my best guesstimate and personal first exposure to the term -that hero of my youth - the"faithful indian companion" Tonto. (NLN)

Perhaps it was uttered by him in one of those rare conversations held between Tonto and The Lone Ranger that didn't end in the word "ugh!".

Maybe it was first spoken by an already hesitant Tonto when he came back from his Lone Ranger assigned visit to town - and as a direct result of which Tonto was smote about the head and shoulders as well as more intimate body locations   by the various town leaders including  Town banker, Sheriff, and  the Pastor.

These folks pursued their attack simply because - as Tonto suspected - "they didn't like "injuns' coming around asking a lot of nosy questions" . This was a result that Tonto had not only feared but which definitely conflicted with the Ranger's initial parting and reassuring words:"C'mon Tonto, how bad can it be?"

The Lone Ranger - or "Lone'' - as he was known to his few close friends - apparently conveniently forgot that it was this same "Tonto" who miraculously brought him back to life. This was when Lone  - known instead as Ranger John Reid  -was the only Texas Ranger to survive the ambush of  the "Notorious Butch Cavendish" gang and that included the death of his brother.

From that day forward - as well as many others which Tonto may have experienced in several of his "Tonto Goes to Town" episodes - the so-called  "F.I.C" learned much about the "white man's ways" and his faithfulness was supposedly reduced.

That Tonto was able to revive and heal Lone, presumably despite the absence of any of today's anti-biotics or even OTC products like "Miracle Gro" in the many shelves and barrels contained in the town General Store, was considered by a few insiders to be a miracle of Lazarus proportions. 

One suspects Tonto may possibly have moonlighted as a medicine man back in the day and applied various available herbs and spices to accomplish his heartfelt mission. 

Due to Tonto's curative efforts ,  the Ranger - now fully revived and perhaps weary of further recognition leading to more ambushes - soon demonstrated a proclivity for wearing black masks - another valid reason it was tough for the Ranger to wander into town unnoticed - except perhaps on Halloween.

My research has suggested that other, perhaps less kind and more caustic  Lone Ranger historians, have theorized that Lone always wore his tested mask disguise not for self-preservation but instead due to severe and permanent  acne he had incurred around the top half of his face. They explain this away as an obviously unintended side effect of Tonto's medicinal remedies they also posit may have included "eye of Newt".  I leave it to the readers to decide. 

The mask disguise was pretty much part of Lone's "outfit du jour" unless, due to Tonto's reluctance and occasional sudden mysterious disappearance,  he was forced to go into town  posing as the bent over old prospector and sounding  a lot like George "Gabby" Hayes with half a load on. 

"Lone"  and Tonto - with whom he had a thriving and very long relationship cleaning up those towns - disposed of many "forked tongue" villains in the process.

 In addition and as further proof  of  their growing celebrity status (as well as their reputed largess) they also distributed an incredible amount of silver bullets to the populace, which f course, added even more to their burgeoning reputation.

(In all fairness, occasionally the radio show did  take note of the possibility that the Reid family may have had a hidden silver mine accessible only through a discretely located cave , but many scholars felt it was the bounty rewards that kept them sustained without signs of gainful employment.)

It's also been said that in  later years our two heros resorted to distributing Iron Pyrites as their lovely parting gift. This was the rumored result of a gambling habit Lone acquired during too many town visits posing as "the old prospector" in addition to a fondness for cheap gin. Curiously, this fall from grace did not include reports of him climbing the stairs with the local gin mill dance hall girls, which, unfortunately brings up another unconfirmed rumor.

Reluctantly, I feel it my duty to advise you blog devotees that some of the L.R. historians also have argued that the aforementioned "Butch and The Gang "may have inadvertently established the first official male dating cite - as a direct and specific result of the noted ambush foray on the group of Texas Rangers. 

It seems Tonto and Lone were inseparable and only occasionally - maybe once or twice allowed Lone's orphaned nephew Dan Reid and his faithful steed, Victor to join their tight inner circle. Even that one visit  was only confirmed by a highly questionable source at the Denver National Inquirer who claimed it was because Dan wanted his fiance's parents to meet the male couple, which they did and for which the results of that meeting were reputedly a disaster.

(I choose not to accept  that story as it sounds like the kind of stuff only movies or perhaps off- Broadway plays are based on.)

However, to be fair, it seems the folks reaching such a conclusion might persuasively advance their position by suggesting that these two men - now extremely "close" friends (except on those occasions when Lone insisted that Tonto go into town by himself) and subsequent to the ambush and their subsequent meeting spent an enormous amount of time alone in the woods as well as sleepovers in various undiscovered caves.

Unfortunately, there was no description furnished the listeners as to their possible life making it hard to know what to believe and what not.

 For example there is little known about their personal life including  the possibility of both suffering from lactose intolerance, having poor personal hygiene habits or even information as to whether or not either flossed before retiring. 

Nor did any of us young radio fans ever hear the recorded request, "Tonto, could you wash my back just below my left clavicle?"  - or  -"Lone, I"ll be right back . I desperately need to take a whiz in the woods" (preferable no doubt to that of adding to the dampness of the cave).

As a matter of fact,  and adding a more convincing postulate, it is said the duo were never observed (or heard) by either the towns folks - or the various victims they rescued - having expressed the smallest hint of any romantic interest for the various and presumably comely females they encountered while performing their good deeds for these same residents.

Please understand , there is definitely no attempt being made by this blogger to suggest that he is in agreement with such a ridiculous inference - despite, admittedly, a brief and thoughtful exploration of the possibilities on his part before finally realizing he was long overdue in addressing the original subject matter for this extremely long blog.  

And yet, I digress one more time; but for clarification reasons only.

Despite my reluctance to dally in such absurd accusations as those mentioned above, I readily admit I personally do not recall even one episode where either of our two heroes and best friend dudes appeared to be drawn to any of the infrequent female characters in the series, laid a sloppy wet kiss on them or perhaps even later on TV appeared to enjoy a much too lengthy but definitely enthusiastic hug on what was then known as the "weaker" sex.

Furthermore, it is my belief that the affection both men displayed on their horses Silver or Scout should has no relevance here.

Finally, and despite my incredibly favorable and devoted childhood memories -  I  do not ever recall - as part of the plot line - hearing either of our heroes exclaim to the other: "Would you take a look at those hooters?!!!! "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, and as I often do - using age and a diminished attention span as my only excuse  - I again admit I have digressed from my intended target - yet one more time. 

I feel a need to emphasize that my original intended "forked tongue" target was not based on those lengthy childhood memories, but instead - once again- on the fumbling and often less than honest Republican political party of current vintage. 

MY conclusion here is based on the writing of Miami based correspondent Alan Gomez who, on January 15, revealed a clever approach taken by the GOP when rebutting the President's annual State of The Union Address.

According to Mr. Gomez -  it is for the third straight year - the rebuttals by the Republicans to the Presidents speech have differed in context on the sensitive topic of immigration. In fact, we just discovered these follow-up speeches - reflective of the flourishing  Hispanic population growth  -come in both English and Hispanic versions.

 In the English response the GOP takes a strong stance against illegal immigration as well as the need to increase the security of the southern border - but , oddly seldom makes any reference to our Canadian trade partners up north.

The English version perpetuates the old sop that argues for the protection of US citizens via enhanced protective measures and perhaps hints strongly of deportation as a possible panacea.

The Spanish version - not so much.

The message to this political group emphasizes a commitment by the GOP to our new neighbors from the south or any location deemed to be Hispanic. It states that "undocumented" immigrants living in the USA deserve a 'permanent and humane solution' so they no longer have to 'live in the shadows!

It has always escaped me as to how one determines whether an immigrant is "undocumented" or just plain " illegal" - and how a determination is made of how many of them may be floating around out there.

One assumes that the use of the word "undocumented" and coming up with a reliable number of these folks so categorized is similar to the difficulties our many Federal civil servants have incurred on other search and seizure missions out in in our Western states .

I mean these bean counters are Out there - perhaps in some of the same territories where Tonto was required to perform his research.

 These publicly employed folks are also reputed to be attempting to enforce Federal grazing land regulations based on their determined tried and true government approved method of counting the number of horses or cows grazing there "illegally" - or if you prefer  -"undocumented" and then taking legal action against their owners.  

Using the system of federal logic we've come to know and love through the years, it seems that the most favored Federal accounting approach is to stealthily and accurately visualize and count the number of bovine and/or equine legs these folks observe by various visual methods. The reputedly accomplish this task by staying close to the ground and then dividing that final sum by 4.

When attempting to determine the number of undocumented (or dare we say again  possibly illegal) residents of Spanish heritage are concerned and using the same prescribed method  as these government folks do with animals  -they choose a divisor of 2.

 What has impeded their progress is the fact  it has been particularly difficult to determine just how many immigrants are documented - how many are not -and if arriving at an odd number of legs as a detrminant just exactly how many were previously employed as bullfighters.

Folks, clearly this is the by product of  professional  politicians who are performing these many dastardly deeds , most- but not all , from Washington D.C. and just about all of them who clearly possess "forked tongues". This is particularly true  - when it pertains to undocumented human beings and the necessity of reaching a reliable number assessment.

Perhaps more reliable is the system now employed by the Governor of Maine.  It is one similar in nature that is based on his claims that the "undocumented" folks in his State are impregnating unsuspecting young white girls before leaving.

 It is now rumored and partially substantiated by folks who I dearly trust that his administration has determined the accurate mathematical divisor for arriving at the sum total  of "undocumented(s)" in his state should and has now been changed to the divisor  number of  "3".

Unfortunately, neither these Maine politicians nor the fleeing Hispanics are viewed as  heroes like our favorites -"Lone" and "Tonto". 

Additionally - and in the case of the latter ethnic male group specifically - has it ever been successfully argued - that at the conclusion of their  undeclared mission - even one individual took this opportunity to leave behind a substance even closely resembling the value of a single silver bullet.

But, I'm sure that many of the "unsuspecting " young white girls might disagree. 

 

TRANSPARENCY

TRANSPARENCY:  (2)( a) Free from pretense or deceit. Frank. (b)  Easily detected or seen through. (c): Readily understood. (Websters Collegiate -10th edition - 1994). 

It's a word or term we've been throwing around at least since 1897 with H.G. Wells sci-fi novella entitled "The Invisible Man" which - incidentally - is the same title as an excellent book from the 1950's by Ralph Ellison that plead the case for the average negro male. 

Transparency  - unlike the more recently popular and politically correct terms "undocumented" and "conscious uncoupling" that came around a little later - also apparently means many things to many different people and organizations.

The "T" word is perhaps the most overused and abused word used by the media as well as the three branches of our government. 

The last time I checked , the Supreme court still did not allow their hearings and decisions to be televised. 

 Our Congress does most of its business - not on the Congressional floor where it can be viewed from the gallery, but instead  in their designated offices or over on K-street - a favorite location for the lobbyists who actually make many of the decisions that reveal themselves in various laws that are passed - and even some that are not.

Finally, there is the Executive branch and our current "transparent" President who ran two successful Presidential campaigns based on a commitment to leading a battle for - of all things - "transparency"

Apparently, beauty is not the only thing that is in the eye of the beholder - or perhaps the vision from their eyes gets fuzzy with age and an increase in gray hair, as well.

The Republican party - and their two divisive branches - are seemingly more confused about most things than the beseeched and bemused movie characters "Lloyd Christmas" and "Harry Dunne"from the film classics: "Dumb and Dumber" and "Dumb and Dumber, Too."

But, on one philosophical front the GOP appears to be unanimous. This would be their recent agreement on a not so valiant crusade to insert in the infamous current spending bill one of those nasty riders we've all come to know and hate.

This latest example of non-transparency is also not meant to illuminate but to obfuscate - this time using more corporate chicanery as a sub-plot.

The irony however, is that it readily becomes "transparent" because once again the GOP  quest in a land not all that far, far away is to replace  transparency via sneakiness. 

The goal of the rider is to hide the identity of the corporate entities via blocking the Security and Exchange Commissions in their continuing efforts to make companies disclose political contributions.

The fact that most of these executives do so using their shareholders money and despite the shareholder  right to know what's being done with it has apparently escaped the oft sought after logical branch of the good old GOP.

Their tact this time in attempting to block anything not "Made in Republican" was to specifically "prohibit fiscal 2016 funding for the SEC to finalize or implement any rule to force political disclosure." (USA Today, P- 2B - Money - December 31, 2015) 

This new tactic by the Republicans - who also adore almost anything corporate that comes with "campaign contributions" - in a non-examined suitcase - seemed to offend the guys and gals on the other side of the aisle.

The Democrats - 94 strong  -sent a letter to the SEC accompanied by a legal opinion from a Harvard law professor that "The provision (see rider") does not bar the SEC from discussing, planning, investigating, or developing plans or proposals for a rule or regulation relating to disclosure of political contributions"

A  few of those Public interest groups I often refer to like the "The Corporate Reform Coalition",  "Center For Public Accountability" and "Public Citizen" (which is not to be confused with "Citizens United") didn't agree with the guys and gals who have the elephant mascot. and decided to go along with the donkeys.

The "C.U." above would be that of the "5 Supremes" whose politically driven 2010 decision  redefined corporations as your good neighbors who had the right to make unlimited donations to political parties or candidates.

Staying in the "Animal Farm" mode, the "watchdog" groups happened to side with the Democrats possibly because they seemed to believe that "shareholders have a right to know how company executives are spending the funds that rightfully belong to them."

You know, here we go again, that whole burdensome issue about fairness - raising it's ugly head once more. 

By the way, how are things working out with that 2010 court decision? 

Bottom line. We need to recognize and financially support these advocate groups because, like the airlines, we are not going to ever get Congress to govern themselves despite all the promises to the contrary. And yes, they are also there on our dime.

Worse yet, if we don't do something about the growing lack of transparency we're soon going to be surrounded with more and more people asking us:"What the Hell is an H.G. Wells?"

Let 's wrap this up with the above newspaper's closing summation on the subject:

 "In any case, a law passed under the cover of darkness designed to keep investors in   the dark about how executives spend company money has now been put under a      'spotlight.'"

"Spotlight": A burdensome and odd shaped electrical object of various sizes and wattage designed so as to be difficult for northern males to pack neatly in odd shaped boxes and destined to be squeezed on the coldest day of winter into either or both an attic or garage - often on homemade dusty wooden and concrete block shelves - in a forgotten but pre-determined location somewhere between the over sized beach umbrella, the Mad-Max industrial sized cooler with the extension handle and reinforced wheels , the 6 folding shore chairs, the two person beach tent in a box, the three wheel remodeled beach baby buggy carrier and stacks of those mismatched but oh- so- comfy "Chuck Taylor All Star" sneaks from their days of athletic prowess in another century - but still very adaptive  for beach walking - in the new one - of course.) (Sullivan - 2016)

Now, that's the kind of  a "transparency" definition I can live with.