"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?" 

THE "WHAT IF" - AROUND THE CORNER

The other day I was perusing the Money section of  USA Today and I found an article that provided confirmation of something I've previously shared with my patient readers.

Now, for those of you who really know me and wondered "what the hell is he doing reading the Money section?", I'll explain.  First of all it wasn't a "bad news" article like so many that I refer to. 

Actually, it was an article that promoted the idea:"We might just be turning the 'corner' in the field of education". 

A bloke, from Scotland named Angus Deaton - whom I've never met - and whose 2010  publication I'll probably not get around to reading any time soon - won the most recent Nobel Prize in Economics. 

It's not the fact that he won. It's that, until he found out from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science why he won - he wasn't quite sure what he did to win because, as he put it: "I've never really had a field"

Upon hearing their explanation his thoughtful response was, "Oh, that's what I have been doing!"

You gotta love this guy.

Angus is 69, an Economics  Professor at Princeton, who, obtained his Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate degrees from The University Of Cambridge and was a professor of econometrics at the University of Bristol before  joining Princeton in 1983. 

I can't believe I never ran into him!

So, besides the all expense paid trip to Sweden and the increased cash flow - what else makes our Angus so unique?

Happy to explain. You see what caught my eye and that of the RSAOS  was that he dared to think out of the box.

A mathemetician at the start, he claims he sort of drifted into the field of Economics. "It shows" due to his unusual approach to statistical studies and economic theory.

Most treatises on the study and predictions of economics involve either the classical theory or the Keynesian.

 The latter is  better known to us now as 'trickle up" economics as opposed to the "trickle down" theories of the "one percenters" - which has become very popular as well as worthless in today's economy.

But, this is not about either subject, nor politics - both of which leave much to be desired if you're a statistical purist. 

In addition, I should confess, what I recall about economic theory from the three or four Economics courses I took, so far - could probably be jammed into the open end of the classic thimble.

No, what August Deaton did was to link his study of macroeconomics with a study of detailed individual choices

In addition to all of the theories out there, Deaton wanted to frame those economic models with human behavior, ie, how consumers distribute their spending, how much is saved vs spent, and ways to measure both welfare and poverty.

He insisted that the "big picture can't be framed without first understanding individual behavior and the differences among people." To do this he developed detailed surveys to compile data on households, including  poverty-stricken sections of India.

He arrived at some fascinating conclusions such as in 2010 when he determined  "Americans need a salary of $75,000 a year to be happy, but amounts above that do nothing to improve well being."

He also concluded that taller people are happier - but the excellent USA Today article by Paul Davidson did not indicate if August was just referring to the NBA players who may have even been able to track that $75,000 threshold clear back to their college days; when supposedly the dreams of sugar plumbs first danced in their heads.

Deaton also did a study on the relationship between income and calorie consumption, which, while it may have been connected in some way to the perceived smaller bags and increased price for a bag of Fritos we currently confront in our local grocery, the article unfortunately did not go into more detail. 

To wrap this up, and as has been stated many times in previous blogs, the statistical studies and their conclusions we are being expected to blindly abide by - quite often fail to go that extra mile - and validate the results using the habits of real people - not computer generated projections that are also often seduced by inductive logic - not deductive.

I have long been convinced - and have also welcomed the confirmation of a teacher whom I much respect - that the question which should be asked most often of our students - from grade school up through graduate studies - is the simple: "What If?"

Trust me, that will draw out more different thought provoking discussions and tools for life than the Romantic Lit professor's class requested spoken interpretation of the poems of  Keats, Shelly, and Lord Byron. Unfortunately, "W.I.?" has often been discouraged by the limitations of a lesson plan and syllabus which can be audited at will.

I believe that simple "WHAT IF?" is what led August Deaton to capture the Nobel prize for Economics.

Now, let's see just how big that "corner" really is.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!

The ink was hardly dry on my last blog when another media source, AOL News, enlightened me with a no doubt well researched political story.

Hillary Clinton , presumed by many to be able to overcome her email problems * and become the leading democratic candidate for President, has per AOL ,"recently joined the long list of people that have been targeted by Donald Trump, and she's finally firing back."

In a preview of an interview with MSNBC to be released on Sunday, Secretary Clinton was asked to give her thoughts on GOP presidential rival Trump.

Again, per AOL "She didn't hold back." 

She said to the interviewer, "You know, he has been stoking prejudice and paranoia (after making a noise of disgust).

He's been really appealing to the worst instincts of human nature. I think it is dangerous, his demagoguery is no longer amusing."

The interviewer then allegedly "stoked the fire" by reminding  Clinton, that Trump had previously called her "shrill", to which Hillary responded, "He's called me a lot of things now that he's running against me"

"Before, he called me a great Senator and a great Secretary of State. That's what a demagogue does. They say whatever they need to say in order to stir up the passions of the people."

In Trump's (questionable) defense, one cannot help but wonder whether or not Trump had experienced yet another epiphany, this time about  Hillary's qualifications as the Democratic candidate. 

This would be as opposed to the one he had that occurred when he revealed to us during the second Republican debate he was now pronouncing Carla Fiorina as  "beautiful."

Regardless, I did not take the time to preview the actual video of the instant interview, but one presumes that her MSNBC interviewer, the Reverend Al Sharpton  (who she referred to as Reverend Al) completely understood and was most empathetic of Clinton's complaint. 

Presumably,  he no doubt was shaking his head in agreement with her perspicacity as the interview progressed.

Like, I said. . . . .

* The piece on the interview also contained this allegation: "2 Hillary emails confirmed to be top secret"

MEDIA MISHAPS/ STARTING FROM SCRATCH

I took a "logic"class in college one day back in the late 50s and the professor was defining what a "faulty syllogism" was. Until that day I might have concluded the term had something to do with the incomplete expulsion of flatus.

 But, his example was fascinating:

 Joesph Stalin is a high ranking politician.
 Winston Churchill is a high ranking politician.
 Joseph Stalin smokes cigars
 Winston Churchill smokes cigars
 Joseph Stalin is a Communist.
 Therefore, Winston Churchill must be a Communist.

 I thought about this recently when witnessing the latest "Media Mishap". And yes, I know I'm repeating myself . As I grow older - and obviously much more profound - I liken my thinking to an overplayed  Ginny Sims 78 rpm record - with much too many scratches.

 So, let's start this "scratch" with the latest media "discussion" involving  Dr.Ben Carson, the Republican candidate.

 "Poor Ben's Almanac"  reveals in  the media's latest  accounting of same  - Ben  committed the unthinkable political faux pas of responding to a interviewer's question by simply replying, "I don't know."

 What? Is he nuts?

Apparently, that's not just unthinkable but possibly was perceived by this reporter as being comparatively worse than receiving an "incomplete" grade in college.- when your parents are paying  tuition plus room and board.

Remember the kids Sunday School  song that included the tagline : "The Bible Told Me So". Well,. it appears we've replaced that line with one that now goes;  "How do I know?  -The Media told me so" - and we appear to have bought into it.

 But not Ben - nor Donald . However, Carly still requires more study. She is showing some promise by refusing to allow the interviewer   to "over talk" her response to a question when they feel they may not like where it's heading..

The Ben question was weather related: "If you were President what would you do if a hurricane like the current anticipated one was scheduled to hit the mainland?" (this apparently was as opposed to, "What do you really think of Kim Kardashian? - or, "Do you prefer boxers to tighty whiteys?}

Following his response - or lack of same -the reporter then quickly ran back home to Daddy - David Muir..

Upon appearing in the ABC 6:30 newscast the reporter pointed out to the ABC 6:30 news host  David,, that he had asked the same question of Jeb Bush and Bush immediately provided him with a detailed procedural analysis.

To his credit, the reporter was kind enough to add that during Bush's terms in office as Governor of Florida about 5 or 6 of these "suckers" threatened the Florida population - so as to give him some possible insight

 Question: "If he knew this, why was he so upset with "Brother Ben" and his "I don't know" response?"

Instead, his apparent  outrage was based on the fact  that Carson, who appeared to be in a hurry, was not sufficiently gracious or obsequious  to explain his response.  Perhaps, if Carson had issued as his follow- up: "I'd like to talk more this pertinent inquiry but I really have to take a whiz",  that would have been more acceptable to both the reporter and ABC.

Look, all that I'm seeking here is a level playing field,. My concern is that if we're going to do the same thing with political analysis as we do with our personal communication - and interpret "sound bites" as truly informative in the information gathering process, we've got a real problem going into these remaining 14 pre-election months..

Why is it so difficult for some of the media to wrap their arms around the fact that, when they want and expect  the non- office holder candidates to respond with all the same rote replies of previous election campaigns, it may not happen?

And, the people all said  -"Amen!"

Apparently, the Trumps, Fiorinas, and Carsons of this 2016 election cycle don't want to play the: "Have you stopped beating your Mother?" usual question and answer  game that the "4th  estate" (nee 5th estate) is so fond of..

 My sarcastic thought was that "Dr. Ben" probably should have taken the Bush 9/11 protocol approach and announced to the reporter he'd climb on Air Force One" and get the hell out of there., - but, then again, the reporter probably would have insisted on "ride along" privileges..

 I have become a real fan of these so-called political polls , much like night time comedians, Fallon & Myers, and possibly for the same reason. These polls occasionally appear to be an off -broadway revival of Dante''s "The Divine Comedy'" - without all the needless Italian reasoning contained therein..

Anyway, a recent "scientific" poll  suggested that about 48% of those polled claim they could live with a Muslim President,

As luck would have it, the poll failed to go into any depth and therefore did not delineate that, contained within the 52% complement, there are apparently many who have the same reservations as did Dr. Carson, when he also was asked this question.

Carson later clarified his response to "he might be able to support one who denounced sharia and agreed to preside as per the Constitution - of our country".However, that clarification was apparently not as popular with the media. - nor his impressionistic political opponents.

One might also presume from the lack of specificity that some of the liberal 48% (above)  - may have been thinking they could support the male or female Muslim only if the title was "President of New Jersey" - with either New York or Rhode Island a close second. - anything but a state west of the Mississippi..

Now, if the reporter had thought of asking Dr, Carson whether or not he thought it was a good idea to share hypodermic syringes, something with which his training and experience may have made a contribution to his response, one assumes the producer or editor would have shot that one down in the pre-release meeting room.

Clearly, Carson has to get his game face on .

And maybe, so do we.

BRAND LOYALTY AND INVESTMENT BANKING

A guy wrote recently about the loyalty of the  New England Patriot fans when it applies to accusations of cheating. He claims that similar to a parent and their kids - if someone accused your favorite team or kid of cheating or cutting corners  - it's just like them accusing you.

His reasoning was that once you buy the game tickets, the ridiculously high priced garments depicting your team favorites,  the signs for decorating your vehicles, lawn , and basement, you are invested in your team both figuratively and literally.

His analysis suggests "We will not be convicted by a jury of ourselves that our team has cheated."

I see this occur down here in sunny Florida where even in our 408 home development, folks from the New England area refuse to accept that their team would do anything wrong. Clearly, they are in denial.
The theory is that if you are a true fan - you support your team through thick and thin. 

So, then why is it that as a Pittsburgh Pirates fan of over 70 years I can't allow myself to get excited about the fact that for the third year in a row our Bucs  will make the playoffs?

Is it perhaps because I'm more convinced this excellent 2015 squad will need only one change of clothes with them when they head to their winter home after the game?

Where is MY "brand loyalty?"

I guess I'm just a lousy Pirate fan who has used a lot of reverse logic through his years of fandom.

Like the guys in the beer commercials on TV who remind us to never change our seating position during a tight NFL game, my contribution to baseball superstition is to never get too optimistic about the outcome of either a game or the season as a whole. 

It's sort of a "not counting your chickens before they hatch" approach, but it's even more than that.

It's as if I believe, like the fans in the commercials, I also have been given the power to change the favorable outcome of a game by my actions - or absence thereof. 

You see, in my fantasy world it is not my physical power - but my mental prowess.

I do not speak favorably about the projected outcome of a contest involving my Pirates lest the baseball Gods come down and punish all of us, including me, with a resultant bad outcome.

So, perhaps this is why I'm forced to be pessimistic about how many games my Pirates will participate in this year.

This is despite the fact, that on another level, even I will admit it would take an idiot not to recognize and applaud the records the Pittsburgh team has set this year  both offensively and even via "some" fielding plays in the outfield, that become weekly highlights on ESPN.

Despite that, I remind myself as your favorite pessimist that the operative word here is "some" and one doesn't know what the fielding team will do in a Wild CARD GAME. 

I will to continue to exercise my freedom to be pessimistic as to the number of errors my team has committed or will while in the field. Last time I checked, the Pirates were leading both leagues in the number of miscues recorded by them.

The team is exciting in many ways: Batting, Pitching, and Pedro.

Like Dick Stuart before him, even Vegas can't predict how he'll conjure up an error during the the next play  when the ball heads his way from a variety of sources. His saving grace - like Stuart - is Pedro hits a lot of home runs - (26 and counting) - some even when there are players on base.

My concern now is that the young and coming Pirate outfielder Polanco is too close to him position-wise and has apparently concluded that "to error is human" if you play on the right side of the field.

A Pirate right fielder scooping the ball ON THE RUN is an acceptable and efficient way to field and possibly throw someone out - if your Hispanic last name is Clemente.

However, with Roberto this feat  first required having a reasonable "in the ball park" knowledge of the location of the walls as well as the struck ball,  when you began "the scoop" and were therefore free to look at the runners locations on the field.

He'll get better - as will the Pirates as a whole.

They are an exciting team and breaking the good records in the process too. Looking for the results of the previous nights game in my online version of the Post-Gazette, first thing in the morning, sets my mood for the day - and I've been a pretty satisfied senior as a result. .

I have mostly enjoyed this baseball season, particularly if I compare it with the 20 years of under.500 baseball my favorite team gave us prior to recent years.

But, until the leagues decide to make the wildcard game a "best out of three" series, I fear my Buccos will  continue to frustrate the fans and themselves; unless they can come up in a one game series with a pitcher who is odds-on to beat the other guy.

This particularly holds true this year as it did last year - when it's pretty clear the opposing wildcard pitcher in 2015 will be the the same guy who one-hit them the other night, and got a couple of hits in the process.

Barring catastrophic injury to him (and even as a Pirate fan, we hope not) or we received the Pope's blessing between masses in Philly, or some other religious experience happened to us, like in the movie "Angels In The Outfield" - this match-up is sure to send the Pirates home early, one more  time.

Despite the Pirates excellent year, winning and losing percentages apparently impress the owners, only if you are his investment banker.

WHO DECIDED WHAT YOU WANTED?

NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT.

The media - and even some of his Republican opponents- were upset recently because Trump didn't correct some guy at his political rally who stated he didn't like Muslims and he also believed President Obama was not a citizen.

Some of the polls I've followed would suggest this "Trumphite" is not alone in his beliefs, but that's besides the point. The guy was no more a threat than a cartoonist in France - until the media told us otherwise.

Those of you who are enjoying "The Trump Show" had to also enjoy the irony the media used to prove Trump was wrong by not defending Obama. 

They opted to run over and over an old clip of McCain taking a different tact when he faced a person during the last campaign - making the same allegation -and he Did defend Obama.

So, "How did that work out," I wondered. 

Trumps paraphrased response to the criticism was "Hey, if folks are critical of me, do you think Obama is going to defend Me?" 

Made sense to me, even though his retort was again clearly "thinking out of the box.' 

However, it went well with his response to CBS's Scott Pelley who later raised the question once more and insisted to Trump that he had an obligation to respond and  Trump's reply was: "You Don't Know That!" 

Why shouldn't Trump say what he really felt? He's a maverick. We've seen a few of them in our day.

 How long did it take before you stopped allowing your mom to pick out your clothes - you maverick - you.

As I recall , it also took me a while to get used to Clint Eastwood's portrayal of "Dirty Harry", as a definitely non-stereotypical detective. Somehow I survived the shock and realization that all detectives didn't act like Charlie Chan or Miss Marple.

Despite my positive reaction - albeit possibly temporary - to celebrate someone willing to take on the media BS, it would appear there are many more who disagree. 

It seems to boil down to the uncomfortable conclusion for some that Trump is outrageous and he refuses to act like what we've come to  expect from politicians.

For years we've  been told and were willing to accept what political commentators told us was acceptable, expected, and necessary, if  a candidate was to  have any real hopes for election success in this country.

That irony also fails to escape me.  Seriously, is "more of the same" what America really wants served up on the politics plate? (It's a yes or no question.)

Even the Pope is speaking up about our political gridlock.

Isn't it about time for us to file under Q - "questionable"  - or "quaint "- what we've been told is right all these years?

Or, are you willing to keep in those same mental folders all the old saws we learned as a child?

 How bout the alleged truism: No swimming after eating because you'll drown ?

So we didn't. But, miraculously, in it's place, we discovered how to almost achieve the same result  by insisting on drinking eight glasses of water, 365 days a year, because we were assured by somebody, whose name has long been forgotten, that this was the only way for us to be properly hydrated?

Would you not agree that we've allowed the media and scientific experts to dictate to us "what's important, what's not",  as well as, "what's appropriate and what's not?"

These so-called experts seem to have become self-appointed resource replacements for a triage of  Emily Post, Miss Manners, and Mr. Wizard. 

Personally, I wished they had stopped with their advice and warnings right after they informed us which side of the plate to place the soup spoon. 

I also believe it's not just the politicians who need a shake up.

I think we should  consider locating one of those "go fund me" sources and raise enough money to purchase an hour or so of air time, then find a really tenacious interviewer as well as an excellent research source.

The purpose of this exercise would be to question some of our most obnoxious media members using  both personal and political hardball questions - not the ones they are asked to answer on Sunday morning in a controlled and friendly environment?

Such an approach might have answered the question why did it take the actions of  veterans whose plane may have really been under attack to expose Brian Williams  - instead of the media?

I believe it was Pataki who recently questioned one debate interviewer as to why all the questions he had asked the former New York Governor were about Trump - and not about him. 

It was a question I've asked myself several times. and I believe we need to ask more of them of the media, even though it didn't appear to do much for Pataki.

I'm convinced it's not just disenchanted voters who are elevating Trump's poll numbers. They've had help from a love-hate relationship the media has with Trump

The media may hate  his obstinance and failure to abide by their rules, but they love what he's doing for their finances.

Fortunately, when they're through pushing this Trump story, similar to how they foisted Sarah Palin and Michele Backman on us in the past, they will inevitably  find another topic or person with whom they are more enamored, and we can go back to watching Seinfeld re-runs - instead of the 6:30 national news. 

Hey, it's the American Way!

The media's sincerity is only matched by that of the political rhetoric of those who employ them or the folks who have learned how best curry their favor by granting exclusive interviews. 

The problem for our society presently is that for too long ,and for the most part, we've become acclimated to politicians who are so careful what they say so as to not risk offending either the media or any potential voter, via a slip up and interviewers who are content to let them slide.

As a result, by the time Election Day is almost near, both the candidates AND the media will have managed to make brussel sprouts look exciting by comparison, as we try to decide who has the leadership qualities we seek to support.

It's just something that every four years we've come to expect  similar to knowing what day we can expect the Social Security deposit will appear in our bank balance -(assuming, those same politicians will allow this hard earned benefit to continue.) 

Politicians really have only two goals. The first is to be elected. The second is to be re-elected.

Meantime , like the courtroom artist at Brady's hearings, we continue to rely on the media to tell us which candidates are the right ones and then allow the rest to look like bad guys by carefully selecting the photo on the front page that best exemplifes and supports the text in the two or three columns below the picture.

Who knew Hillary, or Cosby for that matter could look so different depending on what point of view or opinion the media wanted to make about them?

Perhaps we're better served by relying on the late night show hosts for their political expertise. 

You laugh but  Bill Maher has been getting away with it for years - and nobody makes fun of HIS hair - or, as far as I know - demands that He has successfully run for office in order to obtain the requisite expertise he claims to have.

Dare to break the stereotypes! It's not my optimistic belief that anything much is going to change unless we do.

But, in the meantime, I believe we all have an obligation to start thinking for ourselves and use the good brain God gave us, before making such an important decision.

In 2012, 42.5% of us chose not to exercise that option. Who's willing to argue that a .400 hitter can't help the team?

Oh, what a difference we might have made 4 years ago by deciding "on our own" who was the best choice and and then following up at the polls with our vote. 

All of the above is why I love the special license plate that asked the question:

"Since Most People Don't Agree With What's P.C. - Who Actually Decided That It's Correct?"  

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What were they afraid of?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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