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.