Moderators' Scorecards

    By Florida Bill 

                                       The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) set up the debates, picked the moderators and then looked the other way as four of the five hand-picked assassins tore into Republican Donald Trump and allowed their favorite Democrat Hillary Clinton to click her heels.
                                        It would be hard for any viewer to deny that these supposedly neutral moderators had not ganged up on Trump.  Nevertheless, he still managed to fight his way through the painful process and, in the opinion of many, actually won two of the four debates.  In Trump's estimation, the debates were a part of the "rigged" apparatus against him, all masterminded by the dollar-driven Clinton, her boot-licking campaign chiefs and the "dishonest and corrupt" media.
                                          For the debates which were held between Sep. 3 and Oct. 19, the CPD named as moderators Matt Lauer and Lester Holt of NBC; Anderson Cooper of CNN; Martha Raddatz of ABC and Chris Wallace of Fox News.                                                                        The CPD holds itself out as an independent organization without affiliation with any political party and without preference for either candidate.  That would seem to be a reasonable assumption, except for the behavior of  four of the five moderators they selected, who behaved on the debate stage as though they were committed fans of Mrs. Clinton.
                                         The co-chairmen of the CPD are former GOP national committee chairman Frank J. Farenkopf and the Press secretary to President Clinton, Michael D. McCurry. Another 14 members comprise the commission.
                                          In reviewing the CPD roster, one key member that stands out is  Howard G. Buffett, son of Warren Buffett who has the distinction of being the third wealthiest person in the world.   Howard is a southern Illinois farmer and philanthropist, with a net worth of  $200 million, who spends his time doing good deeds throughout the world.  You can bet that Buffett follows the same drumbeat as his dad and with the Buffett name in play, his presence on the commission is powerful.  There is an old adage which states that the "apple never falls far from the tree." 
                                           Howard Buffett's father, Warren, a life- long Democrat, is a close friend and confidant of President Obama. In August, he announced that he was endorsing Hillary Clinton as his candidate to succeed Obama.  He has been a contributor of hers, overlooking her disingenuous nature and clear mishandling of classified emails, and has campaigned for her.  Buffett has also aided Clinton’s campaign by holding fundraising events for the Democratic nominee, and Politico reported in January that Buffett held a fundraiser for Clinton that charged $33,400 per person.
                                             With all of his money, the 86-year-old Buffett is powerful, beyond description.   In speeches he has castigated the Republican Trump as a businessman who has misled people about his business acumen and that he "has something to hide."  
                                            Also on the commission is former GOP Sen. John Danforth, a former Missouri senator who is an ordained Episcopalian priest. He served in the senate from 1976 to 1995, and his criticism of Trump is surprising.  Although he has not endorsed Mrs. Clinton, he has excoriated Trump in his latest book, "Reverence of Religion" for his wrongful appeal to some citizens. 
                                         "There's an audience for this self-proclaimed great man, and for the anger and hatefulness that he expresses," Danforth wrote of Trump.  
                                             The idea that the CPD is bipartisan and down the middle does not fly with me.  Just connect the dots, as some say.  Viewers of the debates, with the lone exception of the final one moderated by Chris Wallace, were led by solid backers of Mrs. Clinton.  Lauer, Cooper, Raddatz and Holt attempted to steam roll Trump with accusatory questions, interrupting him continually as he offered answers and explanations.  Sensitive areas dealing with the disingenuous nature  of Mrs. Clinton  and her mishandling of classified emails were pretty much glossed over.  Chris Wallace treated both candidates fairly in the final debate, asking each of them difficult and important questions. 
                                              NBC, CNN and ABC tend to be far to the left, and their stations' disdain for conservative and middle of the road views is often evident.  They are pulling hard for Hillary, pretty much ignoring her lifetime of telling lies, and her questionable competence as a United States senator and Secretary of State under President Obama. The pundits there and with other television networks ignore her attack upon the women who had been victimized and sexually assaulted by her husband.  Scores of books have been written about the Clintons and in a recent one by a former secret service agent who guarded the Clintons, Mrs. Clinton is depicted as a foul mouthed "dangerous woman" with an explosive temper who should never be the nation's President.  Legitimate questions about the "pay to play" rules of the Clinton Foundation continue to be ignored by the media gasbags in their role as moderators and on the tube.                     
                                              How can this commission be labeled "non partisan"?  It picked from the "pundit media bag"  people from three major news networks that are solidly in the liberal Clinton camp.  Their agenda was to come down hard on Trump, and the moderators followed the script. The idea that these hand picked "referees" could be fair was an impossible stretch.  
                                              
                                              
                                                XXX

                                           








 

                                          

                                           


  











  

Obama,The Millionaire

                        

           By Florida Bill            

                         Barack Hussein Obama II.  Love him or hate him, he has been America's president for nearly eight years.  But I cannot help wondering how he  became so prosperous in less than a decade of directing America's business. 

                                         He is a smart man, sharp when it comes to  investments, so I am told.  Just maybe he got some tips from Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee. When Mrs. Clinton was the first lady in Arkansas, she invested $1,000 in cattle futures, and had a return of $100,000 in ten months. That takes some wisdom. 

                                        Celebrity net worth analysts and other publications say that Obama's worth when he entered public life in 1997 and when he entered the Oval Office was about $1.3 million.  That figure took into account all of his assets; his home, cars, bank accounts and other possessions.  As he exits the White House next January, his net worth is estimated to be $12.2 million and climbing. 
                                         His comfort and financial security is also enhanced by his wife Michelle, who is said to have a personal worth of $11.8 million dollars. I am not sure where her fortune came from.  She is an Ivy League lawyer but it took her a couple of tries to pass the Illinois bar exam and she then worked as an undistinguished associate in a law firm for about four years.  Maybe she is like her much older dollar-driven friend, Hillary Clinton, who knows how to make lots of money.   The President's net worth and that of his spouse are independent of each other. 

                                        In the late 1990s, and in the years prior to becoming president, Obama drew compensation of $80,000 annually as an Illinois legislator and a moonlighting salary of $32,000 a year from the University of Chicago law school where he was a lecturer.  After the Illinois legislature, he was elected a United States senator in 2005 and his salary increased to $162,000 annually with generous expenses and perks.                                        

                           Upon assuming the office of President in January 2009, the 47-year-old Obama began drawing an annual salary of $400,000 and a $50,000 yearly expense account; and $20,000 for entertainment and a tax-free $100,000 for travel. Obama may have saved some of his compensation for a rainy day, but probably not much. Very likely, he made full use of his expense account and the funds for travel and entertainment.
                        In 2009 Obama was awarded the Noble prize for Peace and a cash award of $1.4 million. He was financially comfortable enough by that time to give the entire amount to various charities, according to reports.                                                                       Personally, I do not begrudge him becoming wealthy. I just wonder how he did it so quickly.  Make no mistake about it--Americans want their President to be treated  in a way which recognizes that the office of President and Commander-in-Chief is the most powerful and prestigious office in the world.  The occupant is deserving of the very best. 

                         The Lincolns, for example, were forever wrangling with Congress over the money that Mary Todd Lincoln spent on clothes and furnishings for the White House. After her husband's death, she spent much of her time importuning legislators to grant her an allowance to live on. No one wants to see our presidents or their family members pinching pennies. 

                          With his twelve millions, and his wife's, $11.2 million, Obama won't have to go begging after his retirement. Yet he still has a way to go to top or even match other presidents; and he is way short of the assets of his 2012 opponent, Gov. Mitt Romney whose wealth is said to be a quarter of a billion dollars.   He will probably never be in the same league as his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who is said to have a stash totaling $190 million dollars and who was an unsuccessful aspirant for president in 2004.  Kerry's wife Teresa, an heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune, has assets of her own at about $200 million dollars.    

                          Analysts say that Obama has invested heavily in treasury bonds and notes, but apparently the heavy money has come from royalties from his books, "Dreams from my Father" written in 1995 and republished after Obama became prominent;  and "The Audacity of Hope," for which he received a $1.9 million advance in 2004 from Random House. He is also the author of a third book, “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughter." 

                          Some analysts have reported that it is difficult to ascertain an exact overview of the President's net worth. Declarations are not as specific as it appears they should be. In some reports it was said that his net worth increased by 400 per cent in eight years while others have said that it was twice that.                                                                                                                       When Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, Hillary has said that they were just about broke.  According to some reports, they exited with purloined house china, and furniture and other booty worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. But there is no longer any need for any tag days for the couple; in the next decade or so they pulled up their bootstraps and went to work giving speeches that earned them more than $150 million dollars.  They also formed a charitable foundation which currently is said to have a principle of about a billion dollars and which apparently compensates them as trustees.  

                           Upon leaving the oval office in January, 2017, Obama has said That the family will rent a home in D.C. to allow their daughters to complete classes in schools familiar to them.  He said that the rent will be $22,000 per month. The home, a mansion, will cover 8,200 square feet and have nine bedrooms and nine bathrooms.  Later, he has said, the family will reside permanently in the Chicago area where the Obama presidential library is expected to be established.

                          Public service has always been considered a noble profession, but who knew it could be so profitable?                                  
                                          xxx

                                      

                                     

                                        

               I

                           

                                              

                                               

                                  
I                                         
            

The Third Debate

                          

 By Florida Bill 

                                  Donald  Trump and Hillary Clinton clashed mightily at the third debate, but it was Chris Wallace, the moderator, who capped off the forum with his rather peculiar question to the candidates as to whether they will accept the results of the voting on November 8.  Wallace, the savior-moderator from Fox News, has received praise and adulation for his down-the-middle interrogation of the candidates, but his question about accepting the results was in my estimation premature and meaningless.  
                                   The answer is that the results are what they are.  One candidate wins and the other loses. Who cares if the candidate "refuses to accept" the counting of ballots in the thousands of precincts in the 50 states of the United States.  He is stuck with the results and if he decides to sue under some bizarre theory, so be it.  
                                    While the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, indicated in her answer that she would of course abide by the balloting, Trump did a surprise flip and declined that position.  "I’ll will tell you at the time,” he retorted. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”  Following the debate, Trump, with a tongue-in-cheek comment, told a crowd of supporters that he would accept the results "if I win," and then still later said that he would challenge the results if they were questionable. 
                                      To many, Trump's response on the debate stage seemed sort of un-American, but it really wasn't.  Trump moves about to the beat of his own drum.  To me, it is just egotistical Donald being himself and it is not deep and nefarious, only Trump's way of drawing the spotlight onto himself, a position he craves. 
                                       During the GOP primaries, Trump generated some belief that he might run as an independent candidate if he is "treated unfairly" by the Republican party and its key members. His comment generated widespread GOP apprehension.   Later, however,  he promised to support his party's nominee, whomever it might be.  
                                      At the third debate, watched by millions, Wallace posed the meaningless question because the Republican candidate has been contending in recent days and weeks that the process is "rigged" and helped along by the disingenuous Clinton and her campaign chiefs. He declares repeatedly that the media is totally biased and completely in the Clinton pocket, enabling Mrs. Clinton to manipulate an attack upon him based upon fabricated accusations of predatory misbehavior.  In truth, Trump is correct that the media is functioning as an arm of the Clinton candidacy.  
                                     Media bias and favoritism for the Democratic candidate has been a way of life in America for decades, maybe more, but Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were successful in bringing Americans onto their side. Trump is trying to do just that,  but has been only marginally successful, as he continues to commit huge gaffes and takes stands which play out to his detriment.  
                                        So if the election is close, like within a small number of votes in a key state which can alter the electoral college count, Trump can challenge the outcome and have recounts.  That would be completely appropriate.  If Clinton dominates in winning electoral votes--needing 270 of the 538,  then there really is no wiggle room for Trump here, and she wins.  If Trump doesn’t like it, he can send his supporters to the streets or file legal action, but a court will abide by the Constitution and decide in Clinton’s favor. The fat lady will have sung.
                                         If, of course, the electoral college gives Trump at least 270 votes, "The Donald" will  become the new President.  
                                         So, at this point, Trump's refusal to "accept results" is empty rhetoric,  since the time for that decision is after all votes are counted, and the Wallace question was simply premature and unnecessary.   But even with his  jumping the gun with that question to the candidates,  Wallace is being regaled, and rightly so, as a shinning example of what a good moderator should act like.  Moderators in the earlier forums and debates like Matt Lauer, Lester Holt, Martha Raddax and Anderson Cooper could not hide their boot-licking treatment of Clinton and their obvious dislike for Trump.  
                                          Aside from the distraction of the "commit to accept the results" question, Trump was feisty in his attack on Clinton who he accuses of 30 years of lying and of accomplishing nothing while holding high government offices.  "She has very bad judgment and has had experience but it is "bad experience" he said while lashing out at the poised Clinton, neatly attired in an expensive white pants suit. 
                                           They exchanged insults through out the 90 minutes of the debate which was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, the neon mecca of gambling and glitter.                                                              Clinton winced a bit when Wallace questioned her statement in 2013 to Goldman Sachs millionaires who are supporting her that she favored "open borders."  She really had no explanation for what she had said, but pointed out in her defense that she had voted for border security as a senator from New York and that when she spoke of open borders she was referring to a sharing of energy as part of a common "grid" with Mexico.  Her answer was illogical and made little sense, but Trump failed to demand further elaboration from her.  She got away with it and managed to turn attention to her Republican opponent and his alleged predatory conduct with women.  
                                              Clinton pressed her attack on Trump charging that it was his style to grope and mistreat women, and that he actually told of his penchant for such behavior in a taped conversation.  Although some eight or nine women have come forward with claims that he hit on them, Trump responded forcefully and angrily that it was "all fabrication," part of a Clinton- arranged attack on him aided by biased media which answers to her every whim like trained dogs. 
                                               Trump repeated criticism of Clinton, whom he described as a "nasty woman," for lying to the FBI and for deleting thousands of emails after having received a federal subpoena, but that topic did not catch on as Clinton simply pivoted to new accusations against her opponent.  In one,  she claimed that Trump was acting as a puppet to Russian president Putin and has refused to release his tax returns. Trump shot back that "you are the puppet."  The mud was thrown back and forth but it seemed to just vanish like ripples in the water.  
                                               Who won the debate, and who lost the debate--that just depends upon whom you ask.  CNN and other network geniuses give it all to the smug Clinton, while the Trump crowd compliments their candidate for his best debate ever and declare that he was a clear and unquestioned winner.   Fox News says it was no contest--all Donald Trump.  And pundits there like Sean Hannity predict that Trump will win the election quite handily on Nov. 8. 
                                                While both contenders got in their licks, for me, I thought that Donald Trump was a bit stronger and made more concise points which showed Clinton to be a woman who avoids telling the truth and who has accomplished very little in her roles as a U.S senator and the Secretary of State for the Obama administration.  Trump was in need of a super strong performance if he was to move the needle in his favor on a national level and in crucial states. Currently, with less than three weeks until the election. Trump is trailing in most state and national polls, and if they are as accurate as the swamis declare, Trump will lose and Clinton will become the 45th President.  

                            
                                                 XXX

                                                         

The Cairn That Came Home

  By Florida Bill 

                                               Pia, the Cairn Terrier, is quite a magician, with a disappearing act that went on for eight years. The crowd pleasing finale, which has to beat any Las Vegas act, has her back home again--older, and hopefully wiser about strolling out open doors-- nearly a decade later.
                                 Maybe reappearing after such a long absence sets a record for a lost canine to come home.  It took months for Lassie to cut through the woods and water, and weeks for Chance and Shadow to scramble up and down hills and rocky terrain to find their way back home in the film, "Homeward Bound."  But then Pia is a Cairn!!!
                                  Pia, more formally known as Pia Zadorable, slipped out an open rear door from her south Florida home  in 2008.   Lots of full moons, winters and summers, and even a couple of elections have come and gone since then.  That is, until a few weeks ago, when a scrawny and unkempt dog was mysteriously dropped off at an animal facility in Palm Beach county in Florida.  No DNA evidence of course,  but there was the miracle microchip which ended the long absence and brought about Pia's return to her owners, Penny and Mel Howard of Boca Raton.
                                  "I was out of control and couldn't stop crying when I saw Pia," said Mrs. Howard.  "I knew her instantly, but she was in need of help from a vet.  She was "a horrible mess, scrawny, wobbly and dirty with obvious eye and ear infections.  But honestly, I could feel her love and I could see that she knew and remembered me."
                                  The story of Pia and what is known of her travails began when she left through a back door which was left ajar by a maintenance team at the residence.  The Howards were on vacation and were promptly notified that their pet, then about 4 years old, had disappeared.  The Howards rushed home and with assistance from friends and concerned animal groups, began the search.
                                  Posters were made with a photo of Pia, and they were distributed throughout the neighborhood and affixed to posts and trees.  Police were notified as were animal rescue societies. There was no holding back in our efforts, said Mrs. Howard.  "We did whatever we could think of doing" she said.   Here and there came leads, but none amounted to anything and as the days,  weeks, months and then years passed, it didn't seem likely the 20-pound white and wheaten colored dog would ever reappear. 
                                 

         In the Howard home, Pia had a companion dog named Sadie.  They were like siblings and they loved being with each other, said Mrs. Howard.  Sadly, as the years passed, we had to say goodbye to Sadie, and it is my opinion that she died of loneliness.  Believe me, dogs have feelings too, she said.
                                    We always maintained a small shrine in our home in memory of Pia Zadorable, the formal name we gave her after we adopted her in 2006. She had been known as Penelope, but we liked Pia Zadorable since Pia Zadora was a favorite celebrity and a beautiful person, and our Cairn was also a celebrity to us.   The shrine consisted of a photo of our Pia with a pink scarf draped about the frame. The shine was permanent in our house. 
                                     We never forgot Pia, but we were resigned that she was gone and would not be returning. The idea that she would one day show up after being gone for years was too bizarre to  consider.  In her absence and with the death of Sadie, the Howards adopted Hana, a terrier, and Lizzie, a Black Lab.  
                                      Then one day, the hum drum of an ordinary hot day in Florida was interrupted by a telephone call from the Tri- County Animal Rescue service informing the Howards that  a scraggy little terrier had been mysteriously dropped off at a shelter in Palm Beach, not far from the Howard home,  and that a microchip revealed Penny Howard as the owner.
                                     "I flew out the door and headed for the facility holding Pia," said Mrs. Howard.   "I was crying so hard that I could barely maneuver.  But then I saw her and I knew it was my Pia, still alive, and now she was coming home. 
                                      Immediately,  Pia was taken to the Regency Veterinary Clinic where wonderful veterinarians went to work, said Mrs. Howard. There were ear infections and eye infections; matted hair; ticks worms and even a heart murmur.  She was treated and shampooed and home she went, where she got plenty of  food and water and a soft basket, the companionship of other dogs and the love and devotion of the astounded Howards.   She is now 12 years old.
                                     So what happened?  Only Pia knows for sure, and well--she isn't telling. .   Animal lovers and shelter operators and police believe that Pia was "dognapped" and kept until the thief decided the dog was no longer wanted and abandoned her at a rescue center.  Judging from her condition she was fed enough to live but never received the care a dog requires," Mrs. Howard said. 
                                     "We are blessed beyond description," said Mrs. Howard.  'Pia is back home and home is where she shall stay."                                              


                                                                        XXX
                                                                   

The Crystal Ball of Polling

  By Florida Bill    

                                     Every day in the frantic weeks and months before a Presidential election, candidates are spending millions of dollars disseminating their messages. The pollsters are going non-stop too, basking in the economic benefits from the fruits of the commotion. One poll puts a candidate way up and another has that same candidate losing. Five polls from a single state might all be significantly different.   
                                      All of this questionable yakking about plus and minus three percentage points and who is surging and who is behind is being reported in polls and surveys which are communicated to the public. You have to wonder about it all, but then in a few weeks we will have the one poll which really matters: the election of the 45th President of the United States.  
                                      There are so many different pollsters with crystal balls that it is near impossible to list them all.  Among major ones firing out results almost daily are NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX  from the TV tube; and singular or combo polls results from the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and from a host of smaller papers and organizations.  And then there are the trusted polling granddads like Gallup, Rasmussen, Bloomberg, Emerson, Landmark, Reuters, and Quinnipiac.     
                                           What would the pundits be saying if there were no polls?   We would have only the inner thoughts of great thinkers like anchors Anderson Cooper, Martha Raddatz, Matt Lauer, Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer and Chris Wallace, and on and on and on. Their predictions would be in line with their political preferences. With NBC and the New York Times, for example, you will hear assurances that Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead and Donald Trump, with his filthy mouth and predatory attitude, will be way behind and spiraling downward.  Fox News will remind its viewers that Clinton is the world's most corrupt politician in the history of presidential elections. 
                                       Polls, polls polls and more polls tell us the opinion of the nation, all accomplished in a few hours.  But just how accurate are they? Are some more accurate than others? And does it matter when you can aways rely on the poll which suits your greatest hopes and prayers? 
                                      We are told  that a public opinion poll taps into the heads of  a "scientifically constituted" group of  maybe 400 to 1,000 persons, and that this carefully selected sample must look and act like the larger population they come from in every important way.  The sample must have almost exactly the same proportions of men and women, blacks, whites and Hispanics; Democrats and Republicans and old and young people as in the entire population. This small sampling is supposedly accurate to within plus or minus three percentage points.  Wow, quite a  feat.

                                    As if that isn't hard enough, changes in technology are complicating the leg work for pollsters: landlines are giving way to mobile phones; and users on-the-go are less patient with long drawn out questionnaires. Without a doubt, the money saving robo-calls with their computerized voices annoy many people and prompt them to hang up.

                                   So scaring up answers from the scientific aggregate, is, I sense, no simple task.  It's  even more remarkable, considering that the United States has more than 330 million persons living in some 30,000 incorporated and unincorporated cities, towns and villages; and these communities are situated inside 3,141 counties within our 50 states.  And this entire profile is spread out over about 3 million square miles of land and water.  Ain't computers grand?                     

                                  But any geek will tell you there is an underlying principle in all this data crunching: garbage in, garbage out.  Pollsters draft the questions and wording makes a lot of difference in the responses. Questions in polls are seldom yes or no, but rather open-ended types with scripted choices and often they involve favorability, ranging from very high to terrible.   If you want the numbers to rise, fall or surge for a favored one,  you can provide a carefully worded pitch, and if you happen to match it to the right geographical area: presto, new findings and new leaders.  But of course, we all know that would never happen. Right.
                                 And you have to wonder how many people lie to pollsters, either just for the heck of it, or because they have an agenda?

                                 TV viewers and political groupies have an uncanny addiction to these polls which reveal the comparative popularity and percentages of candidates vying to become their party's nominee.  Updates from polls and surveys arrive with great regularity, "like every 15 minutes," said one candidate.

                                 Is Donald Trump leading or did he slip a bit?  What about his taped remarks of 11 years ago in which he spoke of kissing and groping women taken by his celebrity.  The New York Times says that he groped women 30 years ago. Very "offensive stuff."  Trump denies it all but the pollsters' crystal ball is still at work on the response.  And Hillary Clinton.  Does anyone like her at all? 
                                 Is she as big a crook as Trump says she is.  Did she send out classified emails like they were chit chat about her garden or about taking yoga lessons. Should she be in jail for her criminal behavior?  The pollsters have all the answers and they measure the preferences of more than 330 million persons with a sample of a few hundred, taken from who knows where. And of course, the findings you hear about are consistent with the political preferences of the station or newspaper making the announcement. 
                                 Trump or Clinton, who will you vote for?  Let's see how it all plays out, but a little polling skepticism at this juncture is quite legitimate.  

                                          XXX

Cairns, We'll Meet Again.

  By Florida Bill 

                           "To sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious
                                         afternoon is to be back in Eden where doing
                                         nothing was not boring --it was peace."

                                     Recently I saw a short piece on a Cairn terrier page on Facebook about a 17-year-old special little guy named Sparky who would be leaving his home soon for places unknown and beyond.  Left behind with indescribable sadness and grief will be the human family who raised and loved him.  But is it over for certain?  Is there a chance that somehow, somewhere, there could be a reunion? Is the thought too far-fetched?
                                     There is some very good authority telling us that there will be a happy reunion with that faithful little fur head at that glorious meeting ground known as the Rainbow Bridge, gateway to Heaven.  The authority has come our way from Pope Francis who made a visit to the United States in 2015.  We heard his voice  calling for peace in the world and for love and respect for all men.  But in another  message, the Pontiff observed that our four-footed friends are not lost forever and that "Paradise is open to all of God's creatures."   Really good news for us dog people.
                                    Actually,  Francis is not the only Pope who has said that beloved pets do not make a permanent departure.   Some years ago, Pope Paul VI, while consoling a broken-hearted little boy whose pet had died, told the youngster that he would again see his dog in the "eternity of Christ."  His words were very comforting to the boy;  and yes, those words resonate in the same way with us old timers whose time on this earth is coming to an end. We are like our dogs, "short timers."  And it is good to know that religious experts confirm our long-held belief that we will be reunited with every dog we've ever had when that time comes. 
                                  The great American icon and humorist Will Rogers was a man who had a special affinity for four-footed family members.   And who knows, Will may this day be tossing the ball to his canine friend up there beyond the clouds. Before he left, he was quoted as saying that "if there are no dogs in heaven, then, when I die,  I want to go where they went."    And of course, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, author of "The Secret Life of Dogs," was asked in an interview if she believed that all dogs go to heaven. Her answer was logic at its best: "If there are no dogs there, it is not heaven."
                                   Just what is this story and legend of the Rainbow Bridge?  Neither Pope Francis or Pope Paul mentioned the legend of the bridge, but I am betting that they are subscribers to it.   Accordingly, when a pet dies, it goes to a meadow and is restored to perfect health, and spends its days running and playing with other dogs, with plenty of fresh food and water. The only thing that is not perfect is that he misses his owner left behind on earth.  When the owner dies, he approaches the meadow and it is at that moment that his pet sees him and their eyes meet.  Excited, the pet, with his little legs churning at top speed,  runs to the owner's outstretched arms  licking his face in joy, and side by side they cross the Rainbow Bridge together into heaven, never again to be separated.  I love that  story, and yes, Sparky will be among the residents having fun and waiting.
                                   My wife and I have two Cairns, Sammi Smith, 8, and Wendy 6.  We don't travel too much because we are a bit resistant to leaving "the kids" behind at a kennel.  Suffice it to say, they occupy an important spot in our household. Often I will look into those faces and wonder who is running things; we or them; and then I realize, it is "them."
                                    Years ago I was a soldier in Korea for more than a year.  Soldiers were permitted to have a dog, and I had a small four footed pal  I named 'Maggie."  She ate the leftovers from meals and hung out in my barracks, finding security in the sleeping bag on my bed.  When I walked guard duty, she was there helping to keep watch during the black of night. When my tour in Far East Asia came to a close, I left in the back of an Army truck and my final vision of the post was "Maggie" sitting by the side of the road.  Unable to take Maggie with me, I often wonder about her final days, and, as a believer in the hereafter and the legend of the bridge, am confidant that I will  see that little lady again.
                                     As to "Sparky" who provided 15 years of unconditional affection and good times for his family, he may not be checking out permanently.  'Til then Sparky.   
                                   
                                          XXX
                                     


.  

       

The Second Debate

  By Florida Bill 

                                          In my opinion, it was Republican Donald Trump at his best in the second debate with his opponent Democrat Hillary Clinton.  He may have had a knee on the canvas when the questions began, but by the end of the 90 minute town hall Q and A session, he was standing.  Did he win?  You bet. It was a Trump night.
                            In the first debate a few weeks ago, Clinton came out ahead as she pushed  buttons which infuriated Trump, leaving him scratching to make his points and defend himself against her accusations.  He had a hammer to drop, but it got caught up in her needling about insignificant things such as whether he did or did not support the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He says he didn't and she says he did.   
                             This time around, when the e-mail controversy was brought up, Clinton delivered a smug and disingenuous answer that it was a "mistake" for her to have a private server, and that she would never do that again.  To her, that took care of the matter.  Not so for Trump.  He accused her of mishandling classified emails and then lying about the entire episode.  She went so far, he charged, as to destroy thousands of emails, not before, but after having received a federal subpoena to produce them.  Others have gone to jail for doing less.  Clinton responded by saying that is "not true."
                              Trump then added the zinger.  If I am elected, he said, "I will ask the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to review your behavior in dealing with the emails." He noted that her husband, the former president, had held a private meeting with the attorney general just a couple of days before the FBI announced that there would be no prosecution of Mrs. Clinton.  Clinton attempted to shrug that off by saying that she was glad that he was not in charge of the country's judicial system.  Trump nodded and shot back, "You'd be in jail." 
                                       Throughout the evening and during heated debate with sparks flying, there was a stern, get tough-on-Trump look on the face of  ABC Television's Martha Raddatz, a co-moderator.  She appeared determined to slice up Trump, and she consistently permitted Clinton to exceed time limits for answers to questions.  The other moderator was Anderson Cooper of CNN, who is well known for his past criticism and disdain for Trump.  Trump had it right when during the debate he said that it was a one on three against him. Cooper and Raddatz did their best to carry Clinton's water bucket.   
                                        The delicate and titillating subject of Trump's 2005 taped conversations was expected to be the haymaker for Clinton and for the moderators.   Cooper posed the explosive question by saying, in that conversation "you described kissing women without consent, and grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?" The question pleased Clinton who has accused Trump of mistreating and misusing the distaff element of society
                                          Trump appeared ready for them to gang up on him and did not back away. His composure was noticeable.  As in previously televised statements,  he repeated that he was  “very embarrassed” by his vulgar comments that were recorded in 2005 when he talked about his ability to make advances on women because of his fame. “I hate it but it’s locker room talk.  ........ I’m not proud of it.  I apologized to my family. I apologized to the   American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it. But this is locker room talk,” he said. When pressed by co-moderator Anderson Cooper whether he ever did any of the actions he described in the tape, which included kissing women against their will and groping their genitalia, Trump  said he had not. 
                                              While acknowledging his embarrassment and regrets, he offered a comparison as to what authentic mistreatment of women entails.  His vulgar banter, he said, pales in comparison to the brutality and rape and sexual misdeeds of Clinton's husband who was the 42d president of the United States.   He was impeached, and he has been disbarred.  I spoke wrongly, said Trump, but it was not words, just all action by former President Clinton.  Hillary Clinton has attacked the women who were her husband's sexual victims.  She should be ashamed of herself for how she attacked these women," he asserted, and should apologize to them.                                                                                                                            Trump then pivoted to ISIS and how the group is “chopping off heads” and how “so many bad things [are] happening — this is like medieval times,” saying those are the issues which should be the focus of the debate.  "We should get on to much more important things and much bigger things," the Republican presidential nominee said.
                                                In response to questions, both candidates said that they would destroy ISIS.  But after a participant asked the candidates how they intended to deal with "Islamophobia,"  Trump opened up.  Islamophobia is unfortunate, but there is a problem which needs to be addressed. That problem, he said, is "Radical Islamic Terrorism."  Clinton, along with President Obama, has refused to even say the word---they will not identify the enemy.  You cannot defeat an enemy which you will not even identify.  Clinton responded by saying that "America  is not at war with Islam." It is a mistake (to use that term) and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to act as though we are at war with Islam, she added.  
                                  One of the Town Hallers asked about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and noted that "it is not affordable:  Premiums have gone up. Deductibles have gone up. Co-pays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up, and the coverage has gone down."  Both candidates agreed that the questioner's observations were accurate.  
                                   Trump described Obamacare as a disaster and recalled how President Obama had said that "if you like your doctor or your plan, you can keep them."    Trump said the act should be repealed and replaced with a plan in which competition is encouraged and there is an elimination of territorial lines.  Clinton said that she would fix what is broken in Obamacare, not repeal it.  Moderator Cooper noted that former President Clinton has said that the plan is the “the craziest thing in the world,” but Clinton said that the wrong interpretation is being given to what her husband said.  He supports it, she added. Trump also added that 
 she wants to go to a single payer system, which means the government basically rules everything.  Hillary Clinton has been after this for years, said Trump. 
                                     Noting that Wikileaks had made public partial texts from speeches which Clinton had delivered to Goldman Sachs in 2013 in which she said that public officials often need to assert one position in public and another in private.  With that comment, she was asked if it is okay for politicians to be two-faced?  Clinton struggled for an answer and said that having watched the movie "Lincoln," she discerned that Abe Lincoln endorsed that policy when it became necessary to achieve a greater good, such as passage of the 13th amendment.  Her answer did not sit well with Trump who interjected (to a blast of laughter) that she has lied again, "and now she is blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That’s one that I haven’t (heard)…"
                                      Asked about the comment calling all of Trump's fans "deplorables and irredeemables," she dodged and said the comment was intended only for Trump.  Trump's retort was that Clinton has "tremendous hate in her heart."                                                                                                  The third and final debate is scheduled for October 19 in the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.  Chris Wallace of Fox News has been selected by the Presidential Debate Commission as moderator. 

                                              XXX

The Magnificent Cairn Terrier

                                     "There's a time to nap 
                                          and a time to play.
                                       And its all a part of
                                          the Cairn's day." 

                                                           F.B.
                                                      
    By Florida Bill                           
       
                   Why does watching a dog be a dog fill one with so much happiness and relaxation?
                    There is an old Missouri lawyer who has observed that in this selfish world, man has one absolutely unselfish friend who never deserts. And that friend has four legs.  And of course for me, I am speaking of the famous hunter from the Scottish Isles, the Cairn Terrier.                     
                         The Cairn is a native of Scotland, and its presence can be traced back to the commonwealth for hundreds of years.  Of course, the dog itself, part of the family of wolves, is said to have been prancing about the earth for thousands of years. In the cave man era, sketches of dogs have been discerned by archaeologists and geologists on the walls of caverns. The book of Genesis tells us of the creation of man and of all life, so that for sure is when the Cairn or its forefathers made their initial appearance on Planet Earth.  
                       The Cairn is a remarkable creature, an ineffable canine, you might say.  While all dogs are special in their way, it is the inquisitive Cairn which has captured our affection and approbation above all of the other four-footed friends. It gained great status from the 1939 movie, "The Wizard of Oz."  That film  was the best picture of that year and I think it won because of a black Cairn named "Toto," with Judy Garland as a part of the supporting cast.                            
                      Generally, the Cairn weighs in at around 12-16 pounds, black, brindle or wheaten in color.   They have been used, and still are I am told, by Scottish farmers and developers to root out any mice and other small critters who are unwelcome in the Scottish mounds known as cairns.  So if a Cairn terrier smells or spots a mouse or a mole; a palmetto bug or a lizard,  or any other small critter hanging about the rock and earth piles, they are toast.   The terrier will nose about the hidden passageways in the cairns and sometimes below earth for these intruders and when they find them, it is goodbye to the unwelcome critter, and a special conquest for the happy Cairn. 
                      And of course they've carried this special skill with them through the ages.  
                      Cairns are affectionate, even cuddly on occasions, but generally are not given to backing away, even when the smart thing would be to do so.  Such is the case in Florida with the cursed Bufo toad, an ugly dude that can get as big as a dessert plate.  The toad is not uncommon as it hops about the mud and muck and grass grabbing bugs and showing up most frequently after rain and when the air is muggy.  But when a Cairn spots one, he strikes and the toad exudes a residue which is poisonous to dogs.  So, if your dog nails a Bufo,  wash his mouth out with a rag  and hustle him off to the vet for a check up and treatment if necessary. Don't use a hose on his mouth as that can push the poison down his gullet, aggravating the situation. 
                     But in any case, little critters beware.  I remember when our male Cairn, Andrew, spotted a black garter snake slithering about our yard.  He pounced immediately, grabbed that fellow with powerful teeth and shook him so frantically that the snake gave up and left this world.  Andrew pranced about with the prize in his mouth for a bit, to the horror of my wife, Christine, before finally abandoning the limp carcass.
                   Have you ever wondered just what is tumbling about in the head of your four-footed pal who shares your home with you and your family?  He does not like it if you blow in his face, but he cannot wait to get his head out the window of the family auto.  And he always seems to know when there is a storm headed our way.
                     Whether or not they think, that is a question to which I have seen no definitive answer. But then, what is the definition of "think?"  Is it knowing what time the food bowl is supposed to hit the floor? Is it developing a vocabulary of words like "outside," and "suppertime," and "ball?" Is it learning to roll over, or sit up or getting excited when the leash comes out? Dog owners know the answer to that age old question and some even swear they can see the wheels turning in their dogs' heads as they calculate the best way to retrieve a toy that rolled out of reach.
                    Beware of the canine critics who believe that the affection and respect dog lovers show for their pets is way over the top.  They are just animals, pure and simple, they say; no big deal.  No ego; no feelings; no brain and no soul.  To that I say wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. As to a soul, at least two Popes have said that they will be in heaven with us.  But then,  as others have opined, "If dogs are not in heaven--then it isn't really heaven."
                     I say there is plenty in that little furry head,  but to really know, or kinda know, you will need to become familiar with bark, tail, ear, and smell language. You may be bilingual or trilingual in man's world,  but in canine circles, it is the body language of your fur-headed friend that is important in communicating.    

                     There are numerous books dealing with the minds of our four-footed friends, who hang around our homes and who gladly put up with us as the source of their next meal and treat.  For sure, even the smallest treat will elicit appreciation and satisfaction from our pets, who, let's admit it, tend to be a bit "food-centric." Perhaps it is a hangover from their ancestors' need to survive. When we dog parents go out to eat, a doggie bag is routine, yet essential, and there is super appreciation awaiting our return home.                 
                     There is no doubt cairns--and most breeds of dog--speak plenty. Ours certainly do more than their share of dog talking, otherwise known as nonstop yapping.  But when it comes to true communication, there is no doubt in any dog lover's mind that they can get their point across. Look at police and service dogs.

                   Dogs certainly have a memory. Our  smaller lady, Sammi, is dedicated to the tennis ball, and has incredible fascination and affection for that lime green bouncer.  She sets it down when she hits the hay for the night rest, but it is her first thought in the morning, after her breakfast, and backyard business, that is.  One of our dogs would from time to time bury a bone alongside a tree in the yard.  When she decided she wanted it, even a couple of days later, she would head to the burial grounds, retrieve her treasure and begin working it over.  Memory?  For sure.  Much more than instinct here. 
                     I have been fascinated with the book, "How to Speak to a Dog" by the outstanding professor of psychology, Stanley Coren. Its great reading, and if you like your Cairn, or any dog, take a look. 
                                                  xxx  

                          









.                    
 








                            






 
                  .  
                              
            

Their Fabulous Noses

  By Florida Bill

                                       Our dogs are incredible Cairn terriers who like nothing better than to take a walk and check out the terrain.  Their noses are an incomparable machine and they go to work, sorting out the various smells and odors.  Sometimes, the fouler, the better; so foul, in fact, that rolling in it is a compulsion that only a leash can forestall.  One dog aficionado has noted that canines have a "bizarre obsession with a pile of poo."
                                             They enjoy sniffing the earth and foreign objects and I wonder what is so interesting to them?  As to us humans, we pick up a scent here and there.  Gasoline or the pleasant aroma of a bakery can catch our attention.  But the noses of our four-footed friends can really put us to shame when it comes to picking up a wafting aroma or a down-in-the-ground miasma.   Some experts put the ratio at about 100,000 to one in terms of superior canine sniffing power.  Others say a million to one is more like it.          
              

                              When dogs sniff something, they are not just registering a smell, they get an entire story.  Sometimes it is so good that they will literally tremble in excitement as they sniff every molecule. 
                             What they are smelling is pheromone (a chemical substance)  which is not only found in the urine and fecal deposits, but also on skin and fur.  From this they can tell a lot about another dog or human, including if they are male or female, what they ate, where they have been, what they have touched, if they are ready to mate, if they have recently given birth, or had a false pregnancy, and what mood they are in.
                                              Dr. Stanley Coren, a professor of psychology and a prize winning dog trainer and authority on dog intelligence, is pretty much the final word for me when it comes to scoping out what our friendly canines can do. He explains that for dogs and certainly for our Cairns, sniffing is like reading the headlines in a newspaper.  Dog urine is like a gossip column and the sniffers are able to pick up all kinds of hot info.  Could be that some young lady barker is in heat or that other virile newcomers are hanging around?                        
                                               How sensitive is that dog nose?  In one test, it has been reported that a single mouse was placed in a one-acre field and it took a few beagles less than a minute to nail the tiny rodent. Now that is smelling.  Interestingly, Coren notes that Scottish terriers are not at the top of the list when it comes to tracking, but they can certainly hold their own.
                                                Dogs can detect some odors in parts per trillion, dog scientists say. The federal government often speaks in trillions of dollars so we know that is a mighty big number. In her book, "Inside of a Dog," Alexandra Horowitz, a dog-cognition researcher, has written that where a coffee drinker might notice the addition of teaspoon of sugar to his brew, a dog could detect a teaspoon of sugar in a million gallons of water. Another dog expert has reported that the "foodaholic" canine is able to catch a whiff of one rotten apple in two million barrels.                                                                                              The really great sniffers are a familiar sight at airports.  They are  trained to spot illegal substances, including explosives, in the air, on persons or in luggage.  Loyal noses go side by side with our soldiers and with policemen sniffing and warning of danger in one way or another. And dogs have been known to identify the beginning of diseases when no equipment in the hands of a physician can find anything amiss and they are often seen at the sites of disasters helping to find corpses. How could they not have our respect and admiration--and maybe a little envy from a species unable to sniff out all but the most obvious odors?
                                                   Maybe the Cairn's nose won't match up to a Beagle or some other police dogs or trackers,  but their noses are still a quivering hot spot and they know when there is food in the air or a treat in a pocket.  Those ears go up and the tail stands tall.  The Cairn's sense of smell is not a million times better than ours, maybe only a couple hundred thousand times as good. 
                                                   So what about that Cairn nose in our house?  Naturally, a good long walk is the place where  Sammi Smith  and Wendy will glean information from the ground, hydrants, telephone poles, even a blade of grass. But inside our home, we add another sniffing opportunity:  we occasionally play the game "where is it?"  In that game we give our dogs a whiff of a treat, and then close them off while we carefully hide the treasures.  We pick the room, but don't tell them, we just leave all doors open.  When they get the command, 'Where is it" they take off and they do not stop until the treat is gobbled down.  The hunt is frantic, and usually over in just a few minutes.  
                                                 Do you think that your welcoming Cairn can detect with his nose any fear or sadness or anxiety?  Researchers say that when you are down, your four-footed buddy will know.  Such human conditions are accompanied by increased heart rate and blood flow which sends tell-tale chemicals to the skin surface.  A smile might convince some associates that you are at the top of your game, but you won't fool your best friend and his handsome black nose as he extends his greeting.    
                                                 We love to see examples of our cairns' sensitive noses, but sniffing and hunting are just part of their canine charms. They can amuse in a million ways--chasing a tennis ball to the point of exhaustion, drooling over the same old boring kibble day after day, snuggling up to us on the couch in the evening. But the best part of having a dog is the lifetime of companionship they provide. I cannot imagine a home without a dog.  For me, I'll take the Cairn Terrier with the inquisitive look and the carrot tail.  Do you agree?  

                                                 XXX