"Know when to hold - and when to fold"

'YOU GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO HOLD - AND WHEN TO FOLD".

Great song by Kenny Rogers. But how do we know when that is?

Always a puzzle for me to solve when the question involves personal investments. Let's just say
I wouldn't be all that anxious to tally up my score on Facebook.

However, based on the ever increasing almost daily swings before the bell rings at closing time, it would appear I'm not alone. Many folks have struggled with the conumdrum  posed by Kenny.

Failing to fold at the right time is not limited to the market either. Folks have won and lost fortunes after debating their final choice at the betting window. Quite often they've backed the wrong horse  and spent a lot of time searching for someone else's tickets strewing the grandstand floor.

Decisions - Decisions- Decisions.

Some of these challenges we pass on to our thoughtful kids, especially when Hallmark or personal calendars suggest to them it's time to buy Dad that "just right" gift for the appropriate (?) occasion.

.The thing is that - at a certain age for most of us middle class guys - we basically have all the creature comforts necessary to enjoy retirement, and thus present  a tough target to hit..

My answer is either, "don't need anything but much appreciate the thought", "put it on your kid's student loans" etc.

One response that appears to be workable for both parties is:"Hey, I can always use a gift certificate for  Amazon."

The thinking here is that although there is nothing on my gift bucket list, maybe that will change.

Perhaps down the road while sitting in the recliner and attempting unsuccessfully to turn on CNN and NOT get a commercial immediately, I may spot something there I can't possibly do without.

Could be I'll feel a sudden and possibly irrational desire to get one of those robot sweepers that picks up marbles before docking itself and awaits you to mosey over with an outstretched hand and stroke the head of the sweeper in a well deserved display of gratitude.

Then, possibly, as a feel good confirming follow-up, I'll mutter something totally indiscernible like:  "Looks like our work is done here, Tonto.".

So, let's sum this up and possibly reach a conclusion to our search - one that in my case is usually accompanied by gazing deeply into the bathroom mirror for a heart to heart talk with myself:.

"Let's see - you're semi-comfortable financially, you've learned your lessons on picking stocks that
immediately fell off the grid, your floors are relatively clean, you've satisfied a comfy need for both you and your kids, and you're turning into a Liberal after over 60 years of voting Republican?"

Hmmm, maybe you Have mastered that whole "hold and fold" thing.

Thank you Donald.

MORE RAMBLINGS

JUST WONDERING:

HOW DID ALL OF THOSE LONELY RUSSIAN WOMEN GET MY EMAIL ADDRESS?

LOT'S OF QUESTIONS FOR THIS OLD OCTOGENARIAN TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF TODAY'S MORES.

WHAT IS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (IN YEARS) FOR OUR FOOLISH JUVENILE
BEHAVIOR?  (OR, DOES WEARING BLACK FACE HAVE NONE?)

A CONFESSION: I  ONCE PARTICIPATED IN A MINSTREL SHOW.

NOW, I DIDN'T WEAR BLACK FACE ONLY BECAUSE I WAS MR. INTERLOCUTER- THE SINGING WHITE MASTER OF CEREMONIES FOR THE REST OF THE WHITE CUB SCOUTS WHO DID WEAR BLACKFACE. THIS LATTER CHOICE WAS OBVIOUSLY DUE TO THE  INSISTANCE OF OUR BIGOTTED WHITE DEN MOTHER MRS. BASH.

(SHE NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR HER ACTIONS  - WHICH I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS VERY WHITE OF HER)

WILL MY MOURNFUL CHILD SOPRANO RENDITION OF THE SONG "CHLOE" COME BACK TO HAUNT ME?

IS CHIEF WAHOO ROLLING AROUND IN HIS GRAVE NOW THAT HIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SOCIALLY BANNED? SEEMS LIKE A CRUDE TRICK TO DO TO SOMEONE WHO WARMED MY HEART AS A CHILD POURING OVER THE OLD STEVE ROPER COMIC STRIP WHERE THE TWO INTERACTED - UNAWARE OF THEIR BOORISH BEHAVIOR.

 DID THE LONE RANGER REALLY SEND TONTO INTO TOWN TO GATHER NEEDED INFORMATION DESPITE HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT MEANT TONTO WOULD SURELY GET BEAT UP BY THE TOWN FOLKS?

WHY  DID HE  REFUSES TO TAKE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND GREET THE LOCALS? WAS IT DUE TO HIS AWARENESS OF POSSIBLY EXPOSING HIMSELF TO THE IDENTICAL FATE?

ACCORDING TO BILL COSBY THAT BEHAVIOR CONTINUED UNTIL TONTO FINALLY  SAID "ENOUGH - KEMO SABE!" - FORCING "KEMO" TO ADOPT THE OLD PROSPECTOR DISGUISE AND DO THE DIRTY DEED HIMSELF.

AND WHO IS GOING TO REFUSE TO BELIEVE COSBY?

(AND, OF COURSE, I ASSUME THAT MEANS  I AM ALSO A BIGOT.)

WELL, SO MUCH FOR TONTO SAVING THE RANGERS LIFE AS THE SOLE SURVIVOR AFTER THE AMBUSH BY THE EVIL BUTCH CAVENDISH GANG. TALK ABOUT A LACK OF WHITE MAN'S GRATITUDE..

AND WHY DID "LONE"' GET TO RIDE A BEAUTIFUL WHITE STALLION WHILE TONTO WAS STUCK WITH SOME MIXED BREED CALLED "PAINT?

WASN'T THAT ENOUGH TO CAUSE US TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF CREATOR FRAN STRYKER'S TRUE HIDDEN BIAS?.

MAKES YOU WONDER. RATHER THAN CHASING WHITE WOMEN - DID THE DUO SIT ALONE AROUND THE CAMPFIRE AT NIGHT DISCUSSING THE CURRENT STATUS OF RACIAL BEHAVIOR IN THE OLD WEST - OR PLAYING  A VERSION OF "OLD MAID"
FOR STAKES OF SILVER BULLETS?

WHILE I MIGHT ALSO QUESTION THE DATING HABITS OF THE TWO  -THAT OPENS ANOTHER WHOLE BAG OF INSENSITIVITY. SO LET'S GO ON.

WERE GENERAL CUSTER AND HIS TROOPS MASSACRED SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS PERCEIVED BY THE "INJUNS" TO BE A DETESTED BIGOT?

WERE THE OWNERS OF THE SPORT TEAMS IN CHICAGO, CLEVELAND  ATLANTA, WASHINGTON DC , BOSTON, ETC CLEVERLY HIDING THEIR RACIAL BIAS BY NAMING THEIR OFTEN DEFICIENT MAJOR LEAGUE SPORTS TEAMS AFTER OUR NATIVE AMERICANS?

WILL WE NOW BE P.C SENSITIVE  BY NO LONGER CONTINUING TO REFER TO ALL THOSE SECOND SALE TICKET FOLKS OUT THERE AS "SCALPERS".  

AND AFTER LISTENING AT THE FOOT OF OUR HUGE PHILCO FLOOR RADIO, EAGERLY ANTICIPATING EACH ADVENTURE WITH A MIX OF CHILDISH ENTHUSIASM AND CURIOSITY  - WAS I RIGHT TO WONDER WHY NEITHER OF MY HEROS EVER HAD TO GO TO THE BATHROOM?

SHOULD WE EXHUME MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER MISS DUERR FROM HER GRAVE BECAUSE ONE OF THE  PREFERRED READING CHOICES AT ATLANTIC AVENUE ELEMENTARY WAS THE STORY OF "LITTLE BLACK SAMBO" (REPLETE WITH ILLUSTRATIVE DRAWINGS THAT INCLUDED A VAT OF BUTTER?)

WHAT DID AMOS, ANDY, AND THE KINGFISH REALLY THINK ABOUT AL JOLSON?

ALAS, SO MANY QUESTIONS - SO LITTLE TIME.

(the use of all caps was for the purpose of emphasizing the gravity of the subject matter.)

DIS N DAT

THE GREAT AWAKENING

Did you hear about "the awakening"? It's been in all the papers.

The message is in part: "no longer are women to be treated as serfs!"

Some refer to it as "the women's movement" - as if, prior to this time, they were "stuck" to the kitchen floor - but now are allowed to relocate themselves to the one in the bathroom..

What has escaped many folks - particularly we men - is that women no longer are limited to menstruation, conjugation, procreation, and subjugation

Obviously this new freedom no longer is limited to previous descripted polysyllabic terms, but reflects a combination of awakening and opportunity..

The new studies proclaim women now have a brain and are even free and encouraged to run for office. While one might conclude that is an oxymoron - most of us choose to look at it as progress.

This is not the first time that strong women have demonstrated their combined strength.

There are some out there who, to this day, claim that the "straw that broke the Irish males back" in sectional divided  Ireland - was the Irish mothers and wives who were simply tired of all of the dying and took a stand that resulted in resolution ( apparently a bipartisan effort - seldom seen)

Simply put, the new awakening is long overdue and may have been resuscitated in an effort to emphasize the truisms contained in  Maltuse's Theory on food supply and population

A decision was made by some/many to increase (and improve?)  the "food supply'' to compensate for the increased population in this country - both legal and illegal..

This satisfies this old blogger and resolves my age old curiosity as to why back in high school the women (no longer girls) - by group measurement - had the highest grades but were less likely to pursue higher education than the males. They were also limited post-high school to their choice of acceptable professions. That enigma thankfully has been reversed dramatically.

Our modern day suffrage is back and not unlike the old Hollywood headline post WWII - "Gable's back and Garson's got him"  - there is a hint that "possession" is now officially 9/10's  of the law for women as well as men...
:
 WARNING: No longer are we men to use terms such as "the weaker sex" - the "distaff side" or my favorite "The little woman" (apologies to Louisa May Alcott).

We all know that most plants comes from a tiny seed.

Therefore, one can realistically posit that perhaps the women's movement started long ago, back when I first received the following anonymous piece written to a woman who was going through her own personal "awakening:

 " After a while, you learn the subtle difference between holding a hand and chaining a soul.
   And you learn that love doesn't mean leaning and company doesn't mean security. And you
    begin to understand that kisses aren't contracts and presents aren't promises. And you begin to
    accept your defeats with your head held high and your eyes wide open, with the grace of a
    woman and not the grief of a child. You learn to build your roads on today, because
    tomorrow's ground is too uncertain and futures have a way of falling down in mid-flight.
    After a while you learn that sunshine burns if you get too much. So you plant your own
    garden and decorate your own soul, instead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers.
    And you learn that you really can ENDURE, that you really are STRONG. And that you really
    do  have WORTH and that you keep learning. With every goodbye - you LEARN.

Now we're all learning.

RAMBLINGS

Was re-reading some of my old blogs recently.

 My goal- was to see where my mind was back then - but, also to see just how far it has slipped since 2008, when the personal blogs began..

So, what was learned? Quite a bit, I'd say and  - a reminder that it wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer 10 or 11 years ago either..

Then, why keep writing them?  Not that hard to answer.

We're a mobile society - particularly if we desire promotions, more money, a larger home and a real awareness of  whether we really wanted to attend all of those future high school reunions.

The mobility experience has often been conducive in conquering some of the desired perks; but it's not without it's potential impact on family relationships.

It's one thing to see your new born grandchild on Skype. It's a whole different experience to be close by and that day hold them against your face while taking in that unique new baby smell. (the good one - that is)

Some might suggest that keeping family close is a real plus. Others, not so much

One memory from a good friend, who unfortunately passed away much too young, was his frequent retelling of how his parents journey in life, including their home locations, consistently reflected the geographical destination that accompanied his latest promotion..

Sort of a "Groundhog Day" image of  "Everybody Loves Raymond".

Now retired, my highlight film would have to include being with family while vacationing for 4 to 6 six months a year in Pennsylvania , avoiding that Florida summer heat and pollen count and enjoying the comfort of a furnished apartment located three hours away from their Pennsylvania residences.

A photo of me right now would accompany my memory of the many happy family gatherings witnessed in person  as well as the smile that is splattered over this retirees craggy Irish face.

So, why write blogs?

It's a connection - (with perhaps an occasional thought about legacy thrown into the mix.)

.

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.

IT JUST BLEW UP - THAT'S ALL!

It's almost impossible to skip over a headline on your computer that "pops up" unexpectedly and reads: "Man dies while trying to blow up condom machine, police say" - as I did this morning, (Monday) only to find out it took place in Germany where condoms are either in large demand - very expensive - or rather porous.

My first reaction was that the incident must have occurred in Baltimore - where everything else was blowing up for the Pittsburgh Steelers football team yesterday.

If you haven't been keeping track - once more (as they had done in the last three years ) the Steelers have allowed a badly mismatched opponent, in this case the Baltimore Ravens, with a 4 and 10 won/loss record to catch them either unaware or victims of completely unsuspected chicanery. 

 Baltimore posed a legitimate stumbling block that most fans were aware of based upon previous three point game outcomes - and their capability to interrupt a pretty good quest by this years Steeler team who were seeking legitimate playoff status.

Apparently Coach Tomlin did not as he opted to pass on the first three point field goal made available to him.

Unfortunately,  losing under these circumstances is not an infrequent occurrence for the Steelers, but attempting to determine it's causation is like trying to get someone to come forward and identify the kid with the illegal gun who murdered an innocent child in a gang related shooting.

 It's also apparently like a "hot potato" for the local Pittsburgh sports media) and seniors like me who are old enough to remember the old parlor game as a legitimate macho option for "spin the bottle" and "post-office."

It  -"Causation" -  begs for an in-depth journalistic investigation involving  interviews with past and present Steeler players - opposing coaches who may wish to remain anonymous (and deservedly so) - and actual feedback from the Steelers present GM, coaches, owners, as well as  people directly involved with the Steelers prior misfortunes. If that doesn't work let's hire a good sports psychologist.

If it needs to be "off the record" so be it. We definitely need to find an answer if we ever hope to gain the status that made the town so rightfully proud of it's football team and their ethics.

A failure to investigate causation  by the Pittsburgh sportswriters and editors may have finally caused the fans to ask the legitimate questions: "Has Mike Tomlin become another 'bank" that is too big to fail"? and:

"Do we have to wait for ESPN or Sports Illustrated to supply the answer?"

Listening to Steeler personnel who after yesterday's game were supposedly baffled by this continuing turn of events and gave us responses like: "We just didn't play our game." or the thoughts of a future prospective NFL HOF quarterback who was quoted as saying:"I  just couldn't find my rhythm" is equally troublesome.

While suggesting the possibility of a large family this last response simply doesn't make it in a world where "folks want to know" regardless of the importance of the subject matter.

Tomlin's record against good teams - those winning ten or more games - is truly impressive, but this same fact baffles even the most casual sports observer when comparing his success level there with his apparent inability to get his team up for games they should have won. It's scary.

Unfortunately, there appears to be sufficient representation by other professional sports teams in Pittsburgh who apparently believe that the sole goal for their organization is to get into the post season, also.

It would seem that the Pittsburgh fans definitely can't let one more local team not only continue to practice that philosophy, but who may - worse yet - adopt an attitude even more puzzling by failing to the extent that they may not even reach that post-season honor for three out of the past four years.

Failure is not the end of the earth - but failure with no apparent follow-up as to why you failed - as well as a lack of dedication to the gathering and sharing of information that may make it possible for a new game plan to be developed is usually the only "true failure."

With apologies to those involved: "A couple who is desperately trying to have a baby - and spend a considerable amount of time and money for in-vitro treatments or whatever else may be available to them, receive little solace in determining they  "almost  became pregnant".

 But, usually hope springs eternal, and rightfully so.

In most instances the medical experts can hopefully explain what went wrong, suggest other possible solutions  and the couple can continue to try with God's blessings.

The Steelers woes are definitely not in that life giving category and God may have quit Pittsburgh when he left his angels in Forbes Field's outfield back in the 50's.

The Steeler problems are not nearly as serious! It's about a game folks - not a living organism - and I've failed to figure out just what God's involvement might be in the game of football - if at all - despite all the chest crossing and fingers pointed toward the sky.

But despite that surprise revelation by me to the serious Steelers fanatics - where the Steelers ARE concerned in all of this is that it is becoming abundantly apparent that the bottom line is that "nobody in a position of responsibility - either team wise - or involved with the local media", really seems to care enough about this puzzling major sports wart to seek a valid explanation - let alone work on achieving future success in that regard. (OK, readers - catch your breath)

 Seriously, does it take well educated experienced football folks this long to come up with a logical conclusion? Poor planning? Poor coaching?

I know! I know! The fans are filling up the seats - the waiting lists increase in size - the seat license payments are up to date, this coach guy has an admirable winning record - and the guys sitting at the sports desks are not seriously concerned about being moved over to "obits."

Unfortunately,  it's the old Brooklyn Dodgers cry: "Wait till next year." which begs the question, "So, how did that all turn out for you?"

Okay, one more "I know".  I'm aware the new business philosophy is now "it's all about the money, dude", but I, perhaps foolishly, am stuck with believing in the oft repeated motto I learned years ago: "It's not the Steelers way".

In addition and adding to the puzzle is the fact that no sane individual could possibly understand the disconnect between winning the division, the conference, and the Super Bowl and accomplishing today's ever present God of "Making Money".

However, I guess there is one consolation.

That is, if you're a thin skinned professional football coach who may be without a team at the end of the year  - Pittsburgh is definitely the type of coach friendly environment where you may want to plant new roots should the present one vamoose.

Just saying, Chip & Lovie.

IT'S CHRISTMAS FOR SULLY

IT'S CHRISTMAS: Time to celebrate the day- and reflect on the Christmas's of old.

They start with my earliest memories as the oldest of three Sullivan boys residing at 120 Sumner Avenue in Forest Hills; a suburb east of Pittsburgh and which we called home. This was only after dipping our toes in the water at 119 Sumner and  23 Sumner - also rentals.

We Sullivan's were obviously Irish Nomad's - but apparently also extremely cautious due to our innate fear of  becoming  lost by straying too far away from the 87 Ardmore streetcar line that ran on Route 30 at the foot of Sumner. 

It was the 40's . My brother Jim was born when I was 4 and we lived at 23 Sumner . Tom, the youngest was born about 3 1/2 years later, following our pilgrimage all the way up to 120 Sumner from 23 - when I was about 5 or 6 years old.

Our home at 120 was the source of my first Christmas memories, me nestled  in an upstairs bedroom on Christmas Eve trying to fall asleep, but kept awake by muffled shouts below leading to my puzzlement as I attempted  to determine why Santa Claus was cussing.

Unfortunately, I was hampered in my research by my solemn promise to my mother not to leave my bed for any reason including the imagined sound of hoofbeats on our roof.

I soon learned as the years went by that the words I heard were not coming from Santa but another guy whose name started with an "S" - my dad  - affectionately referred to by friends, neighbors, and co-workers as "Sully."

"Sully", a very strong but compact Irishman, was not  blessed mechanically and attempting to keep an old 27 gauge Lionel - 5 car train on the track surrounding the Christmas tree - was a real challenge for him. "O" gauge would have definitely put him over the edge.

His lack of ardor for the task may have also been influenced by his "possible" intake of a few shots of "Three Feathers Rye" which he kept hidden in the high kitchen cupboards. The rye was normally private stock for his own fathers' occasional forays from the railroad style flats in uptown Wilmerding, Pa to graciously babysit his grandkids - when Marge (my mom) and Sully went out on the town.. 

As I became older and now in my late teens ,Mom had deemed me mature enough to accept the assigned but thankless task of assisting Sully, at our annual Pre-Christmas ceremony of "the holding the brads" for Sully. In brief, I had graduated to becoming "The Sorcerors Apprentice."

Each previous year Dad tried in vain  - by himself -  and despite  Marge's specific directions from the warmth of the living room ,  behind the safety of the rugged heavy glass storm door. to complete our outside Christmas decorations.

This had required my Dad  to convince  his unyielding stubby semi-frozen hands to hold the brads while he also "operated" the hammer.

His assigned task was to be completed  in order to accomplish Mom's annual goal of affixing the thick colored Christmas light cords into the weathered yellowish door frame in a symmetrical pattern - whose predestined shape was revealed and known only by her.

But, change was a coming.

Now, while Sully, under the tiny and bent overhead metal awning outside the doorway of our only owned Forest Hills home on Avenue F- was puffing on his ever present pipe - and still filled with greatly misguided determination - he yielded the ax (hammer) in the general direction of the brads, and I (with my eyes tightly closed) carefully placed one or two sacrificial fingers around the chosen brad.

I was able to do this by keeping my mind occupied - as I attempted to determine which I liked the best: becoming a new participant in our holiday lighting preparation or studying for my  final exams.

Needless to say, Sully  - a good man -would rather have outsourced both of the physical tasks involved in Mom's "annual decorating scheme."

Judging by his own continuing "annual non-Santa like" choice of words to describe his state of unhappiness to my Mom; it soon became obvious to one and all that Sully was not going to receive  the Christmas present he sought this Christmas either. 

As I got older, and had kids of my own - I became happy that Sully never had to deal with the challenge of inserting the razor sharp  tab "A" into slot "B" of my daughter Beth's metal stove, refrigerator, and whatever; particularly following her dad's "obligatory" celebratory Christmas Eve attendance a mile down the road at our popular neighborhood bar, MARTINI'S. 

One year, the Christmas Eve celebration there lasted so long that my best friend, another Irishman, John Tubbs and myself had to break away from our neighbors and friends - leaving both complimentary drinks and change on the bar - in a hasty but unsteady pursuit of a Christmas tree for yours truly - whose mission it was several hours before to accomplish this apparently daunting task all by my lonesome self.

John and I ended up "stealing" a tall but lop sided fir tree from a now empty and apparently closed Christmas Tree lot (only because the attendant had gone home and carelessly left no cash deposit box for latecomers.)

Actually, the tree looked not only straight - but perfectly proportioned at the time, as the two of us, reveling in our good fortune in finding one so close to home, were appropriately curious as to why it had been passed over.

Selecting it was only half of the battle. The real challenge was wrestling it on top of my company car as we both held it down on the roof by clinging to it's straggly branches through the open front door windows. 

Meantime,  I slowly headed home, despite the lack of traffic -carefully watching the road, but still working on my lengthy explanation for Beth's mother as to why it took so long for me and my pal to locate and select that "perfect tree." 

(I checked the following day, Christmas - on my way to our local "Stop-N-Go" convenience store - with a couple of  my kids along for protection - in order to make sure our new "perfect" tree had not previously been occupying a neighbor's front lawn. 

 But,  I soon realized neither John nor I  had taken along any sharp implements on our mission, and therefore I could drive back home and enjoy Christmas with a clear conscience.) 

My current Christmas Eve celebrating has been reduced to about a half- glass of Pinot Grigio - if that- and it no longer includes experimenting to determine that "just right"  combination of egg nog, rum and whipped cream, that I'm convinced I had perfected when I was much younger.

Time, age, and maturity tend to change a lot of old habits..

However, the spirit of Sully - lives on - as I still have scars on my fingers from those #$%^ metal tabs as well as "those hanging brads" - most of which are probably still stuck in the wooden door frame or red bricks surrounding that front door on Avenue F.

Merry Christmas.

A DIFFERENT APPROACH

Rather than concentrating our anger with repetitive frustration regarding Washington politics - let's say something positive (at least for a while):

This is the time of year when folks stop and demonstrate a recognition that what they see as their lot in life pales - when compared with other folks - some of whom they do not know and are hurt and suffering - and are definitely worse off than themselves.

When the "nutsos" in the world are busy scribbling graffitti on mosques as a demonstration of their misplaced ire with ISIS, ISIL  etc - there are others blessed with the ability to walk and chew gum simultaneously and who are actually able to see the whole picture.

Now, before I go any further I feel a need to share this political cartoon:

OFFICIAL REVISED OBAMA TERROR ALERT SYSTEM

Level 1 : Isis is the JAYVEE team.

Level 2 - ISIS is Contained

Level 3 - Isis is not an existential Threat

Level 4. OH , #@%^&

Thank you. Now I can continue.

I used to argue that if Muslims truly do not want be associated with whatever the term is that our President cannot bring himself to repeat - they need to publicly disassociate themselves from this horror that has been unleashed upon us and argue against it.

Then I realized, perhaps this also means that in rural America those who do not support beastiality have an obligation to make it clear they do not condone such behavior  and publically condemn what they know is happening on their neighbor's farm, as well.

Now, I will admit that excludes those folks who have first hand knowledge of  the accuracy of  the punchline in the once  popular joke that ends with one of the jurors whispering to another juror at a beastiality trial :"You know if you get a good one - they'll do that sometimes". 

I'm now living in the South and believe it or not  have made friends with folks who admit they once had neighbors or friends down here who were burning crosses on  lawns -typically located on Martin Luther King highways etc but they also did not feel compelled to identify them when the "Feddies" came around poking their nose into what obviously was none of their business.

My point is that even though you would not conduct yourself as your neighbors are willing to do - nor share their philosophy - this does not force you to defend your own beliefs even when they differ from those of the "nutsos"who claim they share your religion and are maiming and killing folks at random.

Now, if the "good guys" regardless of their personal philosophy see a couple of "nutsos" pulling up to their driveway in a half ton pickup with a truck load of materials suggesting they may be hoarding the raw material necessary to make a zillion pipe bombs  - that's a whole different matter  -and you might understandably change your approach.

After all, even those who are not among the sharpest knives in the drawer may recognize  there's a possibility that something may go wrong in their neighbor's basement  -and they could end up blowing up your house too.

What is it that causes good teachers to protect bad teachers, good attorney's who are unwilling to turn the bad ones into the bar associations - politicians or hedge fund managers who refuse to expose the bad apples in their associations or organizations - and doctors who are unwilling to report the "hackers" who take up the time of seniors serving as jurors at a malpractice trial? 

I suspect it's a case of "this really doesn't involve me - I'm the good guy and "I'm" certainly not doing that."

But, if so, then what the hell causes people to take days off from work to rebuild churches for which they are not members , take up collections to replace a whole truckload of presents for young  kids who are indigent and whose possibly "only" Christmas gift was carted away with the truck, those still fleet of foot who are still willing to chase down thieves who ripped off an elderly woman's purse and perhaps even the guys and gals who are willing  help the folks in the mosque scrub off the graffiti - despite the fact they do not agree with the religious tenets of  folks who may not see life the same way they do - even if they're not sure?

And let's not even get into those still sending a check to a Children's Hospital even when they misspell your name on those convenient return address stickers and tiny tablets. 

Even if you're the guy who folds up the $1 bill so as to cover the denomination before placing it in the Salvation Army kettle - - - and won't put that same amount in the tip jar of the restaurant until they bring you the $75 takeout food order and can then provide first hand witness to your generosity: 

" I still view this as a 'Different Approach' regardless of what the rest of the world is doing" - and maybe - just maybe - something that we need more of as we're trying to make sense of the less important  mundane topics like politics.

Have a Merry Christmas.

PUZZLES AND MIRACLE WORKERS

I find it hard to understand how  political decisions are made by either of our two political parties.

It seems to me to be rather apparent that barring some unforseen development Hillary will be moving back in to the White House, Donald will have had his fun and ego stroked , Ben will have discovered it's easier to work on brains than appeal to them, and little will have changed within the Republican Party or the way our Congressional politicians do business other than some Republican geezers  in Congress will be pretty PO'd by the fact that Cruz was willing to sell out attack them out of his desperation to get nominated.

There is a reason that only 58% of eligible voters made it to the polls in November 2012 and it had nothing to do with an early Christmas sales conflict. They see nothing positive happening in our electoral , legislative,  judicial, or executive system and I'm slowly starting to join their ranks because I'm concluding.

-- the tax code will not be revised.

- the pharmaceutical companies will still be jabbing us by selling drugs whose    patents have expired to other drug companies who will raise the price of these same drugs by 400% or more.

-Some  politician from Michigan who heads up the Congressional safety committee by dint of his being around for a while - and obeying without questioning the dictates of the more influential members of his party - will continue to hold automotive safety hearings - but do nothing to force the American auto manufacturers to make their vehicles more safe - apparently and simply because he does not want to take the risk of not being re-elected to office - by voters whose incomes are dependent on their automotive employers.

- those Trump supporting voters who feel they have been  bruised and abused by former GOP policies and candidates will some day return to their recliners and try to sell the merits of watching Fox New for 6 or more hours a day to their neighbors and family.

- the NCAA and NFL will continue to be trampling the civil liberties of their employees while being dictated or influenced in their decision making by anything that resembles paper currency and is accepted by large financial institutions - most of whom who - like them - have been deemed "to big to fail"

- we will continue to pay our federal prosecutors a miniscule compensation to battle corporate defense attorneys who are making almost as much as the size of the golden parachutes their lying, thieving clients are receiving in exchange for making unethical business decisions without the impediment of having to fear they will ever serve any time in the pokey or offend anyone on their corporate boards. 

Look, I understand the need for someone to shake us out of this lemming like conspiracy called "political correctness" - and that someone may have to be an individual like Trump who has established a large enough financial security grubstake that he need not follow the dictates of the special interest groups. 

These would be the same interested parties who have determined by simply blackmailing our elected officials by a refusal to support their re-election aspirations regarding their lobbying causes that make no sense to anyone who has ever read a book about anyone besides Harry Potter, these special interest guys and gals can achieve financial gains of 4000% more than their lobbying costs to achieve those gains. 

"Until" we see some signs of a defined effort to make some positive changes in the way we do business - conduct our banking decisions - price our drugs - approach and make sensible decisions with immigration challenges - or demonstrate an awareness and willingness by our politicians to recall that the goal of those 42 percenters  willing to go to the polls was that their only intentions in doing so were to elect folks who might finally demonstrate a willingness and plan to put the interests of their voters above their own  - I can assure those who are spiritually motivated that we could elect one of the 12 apostles and see little change.

(Hey, religious people with beards are not "necessarily" bad; but not all of them are necessarily miracle workers either.)

 I'd settle for some incremental but consistent progress in bringing us back to the days of morally and financially responsible business and political leaders. and a measurable action plan with specific timelines we could all monitor.  

How about you? 

  

   

"THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW"? - SO HOW'S THAT ALL WORKING OUT?

Years ago, there was a two panel comic strip entitled "There Ought To Be A Law" from cartoonists Al Fagaly and  possibly Harry Shorten, who were also involved with the "Archie" comics.  The strip ran from 1944 until the 1980s - after being taken over by others who survived Fagaly.

In the "Law" strip the cartoonist(s) would use the two panels to show the contrasts between what a person said at one moment - and what they actually did or said in the second panel. (Personally, I think it "oughta" be revived.)

Here are a few comic examples: A baby won't stop crying in the first panel - so the exhausted and concerned parents call a doctor. In the second panel the doctor is holding the baby who has stopped crying by that point - and he turns to the couple and says, "That'll be $10." - (which was a lot when this strip was running in our papers.)

Another one depicted a guy who was so upset by shoveling snow in the north that he proclaims: "That's it. We're moving to Florida!" The second panel shows him on a beach - this time busy shovelling sand to construct a castle or bury someone under the hot Florida sun." 

A third  - and final example - shows a guy who has just moved into a new development. In a display of friendship, and wanting to belong, he is seen as a new resident gleefully signing a petition offered to him by a neighbor.

 In this first panel  the "newbee" declares "This is my civic duty" However, the second panel shows him so completely outraged when the city fathers notify him of several building code violations that he quickly changes his original position.

"There oughta be a law" was a common exclamation back when I was a kid.

It was  usually heard when someone was upset regarding an unexpected misfortune that befell them; and for which they were SURE another was responsible. 

One source regarding  the comic which I found in my research  was  a "Postino" which/who suggested the correct title for the comic should have been called, "There ought 'Notta' be a law"; because many laws that we have on the book are ridiculous and need to be removed. 

 I agree with "Postino" but not just because there are entirely too many laws and regulations on the books that make no sense.

The real problem ,as I see it, is that there are not only too many of them, but that the nexus of our concern should be that our politicians appear to be reluctant to enforce them ( or do so only selectively).

One such belabored - but obviously timely example was the law - or series of l thoughtful and well researched laws - we passed long ago - but in the past few years decided not  to enforce. This failure resulted in an guesstimated 11 million people presently occupying this country illegally.

My prediction is that any of your protests of this failure to govern event made to your local politician was met with their studied defense mechanism of  politicians everywhere employing the oft heard promise: "Trust me, We're taking a long look at this and I promise you we will be taking action very soon".  (Sound familiar?)

Politicians seem to believe (and maybe accurately) that this approach will stave off the groundswell of opinion that many (but sadly - possibly not most) folks in power still fear.

Their final "new" revised approach (if we're lucky) is due to a reluctant realization that "something drastically needs to be done" - if they are to continue to occupy Capitol office space and party in Georgetown or Avenue K. 

On a smaller scale, this process is not entirely dissimilar to one we often use as parents and/or grandparents. 

We've found it works so well as a technique that we've repeated it for years with our kids and grand kids.

We swing into gear with this one when those many issues of our progeny seek a concession from us that we really don't want to grant; particularly if it is an exception to our well worn  - but unpublished  "house rules".

Our usual response to these demands  - if not one of outright refusal - is usually the classic parental defense mechanism: "WE'LL SEE!" 

To which, only the most assertive "rug-rat" will reply with something like: "Drat - or double Drat! We all know what "we'll see" means!" 

It's also at a time when the most or the more intimidated or vulnerable adults among us hastily reply, "No, we Really Will think about it."

The most practiced pro-active move we can make at home, and which usually leads to a modicum of success is - upon the kids arrival at Gramma and Paps - we-pro-actively  establish:  "These Are The Rules and there WILL NOT  be any exceptions".

The more  practical of us (who are so inclined) then immediately go into the garage and enjoy a "private moment" shot or two of "Old Overcoat" that we've carefully stashed away from Gramma's purview. 

Using this admittedly questionable cheesy comparison - I argue our problem is not dissimilar to the one on our country's books now -  regarding our problems with immigration reform.

There is a distant possibility that -as part of the act of "thinking about it"-  Congress may at some time  pass yet another law - that I continue to  fear also may or may not be enforced - based on past examples. 

This miracle will no doubt also happen at a time while our President, Congress, and the Chamber Of Commerce conveniently ignore the really valid question from many of us: "What was wrong with the old one Congress passed?" (But, that's a matter for another blog). 

Passing a law or regulation is something our governing bodies do with impunity - "Without Punishment"; as they say and followed by, "It's the way it's always been done."

Usually, this unexpected departure from Rip VanWinkle's historic slumber by our politicians is only because there was such an outcry from potential voters (them is us!) or organized groups, that their reluctant decision to finally face the music and do something is seen as the lesser of evils that may impact their future political futures. 

This unexpected non self-starter was usually preceded by what used to be a smoke filled room conclusion that to do so will not result in the loss of a significant number of votes. 

It is a temporary remedy to all of their own "We'll sees" - that now have rightly caught up with them and should have long ago except for our own procrastination. 

Our problem as citizens of this great nation is it appears that this is a well practiced routine by our politicos and only works  because we, as voters, do not insist on a three step approach to the passage of  major laws similar to those practiced by and established during the formation of  business decisions. 

In most instances (think "classic coke") when established businesses go through the preferred 4 step problem-solving module and arrive at a well thought out solution, they then add a fifth step - "monitor the results".

 It would be nice some day if no law could be passed without an accompanying plan attached to those proposed laws that requires the mandatory monitoring of  the results on a scheduled basis. This should also include the selection by us as to the identity of someone who is appointed to report the results of that monitoring in a timely fashion.

 We as concerned citizens then "goose it up" if neither the law or regulation is found  effective nor practiced by anyone .

Unlike the questionably effective "Sunset Laws"  - politicians reluctantly put on the books occasionally - we need to discover a way - a leverage - (maybe via our votes regarding a second term) - to "demand" of our politicians that no laws can be passed without these accompanying steps being followed.

It is admittedly a "pie in the sky" approach, but change has to start somewhere - so why not by us? If we're seriously thinking of electing a Trump to our highest office - why rule anything out? Times are "a changing".

If you believe this is not a viable proposal  or lacks specificity, (which it purposely does) think back to the times that financially under supported consumer groups have cried out for our action on some drastic foolish and unethical act they have uncovered and we've turned our backs on them.

 Instead of supporting their efforts, we've chosen to rely on our media to step up and drive it home - even those periodicals who are more interested in the size of Kim Kardashians butt.  

Still not convinced?  In about  90 days it's going to be time to shift our attention from Ryan Secrest and the New Years Eve bunch, and turn it toward the more sober act of  "filing our taxes".

if you're doing it yourself - make sure you pick up a copy of the 2016 filing regulations - all 3,458 pages - twice the size of the Bible - and examine the rules for same - before spending hours of consternation and nail biting.

This would be, of course,  prior to sending your forms into the State and the IRS who due to non-funding staffing problems - as a result of  a GOP political pique -  will result in a delay in processing your refunds when applicable - and a massive loss of revenue due to tax cheats - but, whose remaining personnel will still definitely schedule you for a audit. 

Then before seeking out the "Old Overcoat"once more,  please ask yourself:

"So, how's that all working out?"