The Bear Facts

  By Florida Bill

                      Black bears have been living and foraging about in the state of Florida since long before the pilgrims landed.  And wildlife experts have calculated that their population statewide is now 3,000, spread out over 58,000 square miles, with higher concentrations in five areas.  In the same period, the people population has ballooned to 20 million.
                       Ursinologists, who study bears, report that the bear population was 300 in the 1970s and that this so called growth spurt over the last 45 years requires a thinning of  the state's bear population.  Fortunately, no mention has been made of thinning out the human population, which has grown exponentially in that same time period.  In the face of significant protest, a search and destroy hunt was held with 3,700 participants who purchased $100 licenses and "did some shootin."  It was recreational for the hunters, but in truth was a sad debacle ordered by wildlife experts.
                      The hunt was set to go on for seven days, much like deer season in Wisconsin, and the goal was the destruction of 320 bears.   But the horn blew at the close of the second day when the Wildlife commission reported that 298 had been downed and that "harvesting" of the animals went a whole lot faster than had been expected.
                       The state commission had voted for the bear hunt in June over heavy protest from animal protection groups and homeowners and sundry citizens who characterized the slaughter of these animals as cruel, unnecessary and inhumane.  The 48 hour hunt has been deemed by wildlife experts as a success amid predictions that another hunt will be held next year.
                       The commission has argued that the population of the Florida black bear has increased to the detriment of Floridians and a kill off  or "harvesting" was the only solution. The foraging bears had been sneaking into some residential neighborhoods in a quest for food, attracted by smells from garbage cans and carelessly discarded morsels. The commission designated some five areas in the state where the bear population was thickest and assigned a set number of carcasses to be taken from each of the areas.
                        In the planned hunt, 33 check stations were set up to record the number of carcasses.   Hunters were to kill only animals that weighed at least 100 pounds, and mother bears with cubs were to be excluded as a targets.  Also, no baiting was to be allowed.  Reportedly, there were some violations of these rules and citations were issued, and appropriate penalties will be assessed,  a spokesman said. One hunter was cited for killing a cub weighing less than 40 pounds.
                        Critics have charged that the commission had no solid information as to the population of bears in Florida.  In the south area around Hendry and Collier counties, the hunters shot 22 bears, a good deal short of that area's planned quota of 80.  In the eastern Panhandle, 112 bears were killed, almost triple the planned quota.  Who's kidding who---no one knows for sure how many and where  these black bears make their homes, said one observer.
                        Ron Bergeron, a businessman and sports enthusiast who is a member of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, voted against the hunt noting that the state had not completed bear population surveys in all areas and considered the stalk and destroy mission as premature.  The whole episode was "disappointing," he said.
                      The motivation for the hunt appears to be a knee-jerk response to  homeowners who were surprised by the appearance of a bear near their home, and there have been rare incidents in which people or small animals have been attacked and injured by bears.  But given the number of residents in the state, the incidents of unwelcome bears is minimal and the solution is not to have hunters roaming the state with their shotguns loaded, looking for a bear rug and bear chops,
                        Bears are animals who live to forage and forage to live.  But their presence is not necessarily a problem, or a threat, though the animals are not always that lovable teddy. Problems arise when bears have access to food sources such as garbage, barbecue grills, and pet seeds.  Some residents take to leaving food for feral cats, and it becomes a message to the hungry bear who has a magnificent sense of smell and can detect a tasty tidbit from a mile away.
                         Bears should be able to live and go about the business of being a bear.  Citizens can respect the animal and make use of bear-proof trash containers and avoid the careless disposal of any kind of food.  Plans for future hunts should await solid scientific study before considering another "harvesting."
                       I am guessing that the great majority of Florida residents have never seen a bear in the wild. Until that changes, let bloodthirsty Floridians limit their hunts to the pythons wiping out native species in the Everglades. Or maybe the problem is that a snake--even a really big one--just doesn't make a good rug.

Hillary's Benghazi

 By Florida Bill

                         Even the most fierce and scrutinizing critic of Hillary Clinton will have to admit that the former Secretary of State stood up to the task of defending herself in connection with the 2012 attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.  Her armor has no dents; at most, a scratch or two.                               
                         With the pressure-filled hearing behind her, she remains on track to win her party's nomination for next year's election.  Joe Biden won't be around to heckle her and Bernie Sanders' dream of an America modeled after Denmark isn't catching on.  The "block of granite" Lincoln Chafee has pulled out already, and Martin O'Malley is still apologizing for having said that "all lives matter." Jim Webb, the former senator who tried to talk sense about this nation's problems, has been ignored and has quietly withdrawn.  Clinton will have to commit an egregious gaffe to keep her from the nomination.
                        She wore her customary, smugly confidant visage during the 11-hour examination of her behavior and whereabouts during and after the attack on the consulate outpost in Libya by radicals who killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.  "Chris was my friend," said the former Secretary of State while testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Despite that friendly relationship, she apparently blocked any email communications with him, which required Stevens to deal with Clinton only through her aides.  To Chairman Trey Gowdy, that explanation was only a "C" minus.  From there, the conversation moved to the emails.
                        Chairman Gowdy noted that while Clinton did not accept direct emails from Ambassador Stevens, she sent and received hundreds of emails from Sidney Blumenthal, whom she also described as a friend, but hastened to emphasize "he is not my adviser."  Blumenthal passed extensive information directly to Clinton and she normally responded personally and promptly to him.  Clinton told the committee investigating the Benghazi attack that Blumenthal, who does work for the Clinton Foundation,  passed on information about Libya to her and some of it was good and and some of it wasn't.  Some she took and considered and some she tossed out, she said.  Blumenthal is a well-known political figure who has been an aide and confidant to President Clinton for years.  When it was suggested by committee members that it was unusual for Stevens to stand in line behind  Blumenthal, Clinton snapped that the ambassador knew how to contact her when he had any "grave concerns."
                         Her sworn testimony before the committee could have doomed her, but she skated through it maintaining her poise, unlike other forums where she bristled at tough questions.  Her Democratic backstops on the committee were principally Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and Rep. Adam Schiff  of California.  Both vigorously defended her as a great lady, and they castigated the committee and its chairman as Republicans who have lowered their guns on Clinton in an effort to disrupt her as the leading  presidential candidate.  Clinton smiled in satisfaction as Cummings and Schiff came to her defense.
                         There is no doubt that following the attack and murder of the ambassador, Clinton attempted to downplay its significance. In public comments, some of them made while standing alongside President Obama, she endorsed for public consumption the untruth that the siege and murder were the spontaneous outburst of religious fervor by Muslims arising from a video on the Internet which made fun of the Prophet Muhammad.  By her testimony, and with her contradictions and different explanations to different people, it was clear that she was fudging about what had actually occurred there.   It is obvious to anyone with half of a brain that Clinton offered the  "video"  explanation in order to show that terrorism under her boss President Obama was decreasing, critics observed.  A planned attack would have contradicted Democratic talking points, which President Obama was using in his reelection boasts, and faithful Democrat Clinton was not about to upset that scenario.
                           Clinton lied about the video as being the basis of the attack, and that was pretty clear.  But her supporters don't really care.  She stuck to her explanations that there was confusion in determining the precise cause of the attack on the embassy.  In a previous appearance before a committee several years ago, a less poised Clinton raised both arms in a response concerning the deaths of the four Americans and screamed, "What difference does it make," referring to the motives.
                           Throughout the hearing Clinton, at all opportune moments, charged that the entire investigation of the Benghazi matter was a political attack designed by Republicans to discredit her.  These were remarks she has been making for months.  In response to a number of questions, she spoke of "not being informed of that," or "it was not my obligation." And where she could, she repeated as she had at the recent Democratic debate, that the Benghazi matter was a fishing expedition and that the Congressional committee was an arm of the Republican party.
                            But the House of Representatives, which appointed the special Benghazi committee, had solid reason for doing so.  Requests for documents concerning the incident were being withheld from it and in fact some documents were received by the committee just 48 hours prior to the hearing.  Other investigations of the Benghazi attack and the reasons behind it had been the subject of several other investigations, but those inquiries were thin and produced insufficient information.
                            The principle investigation prior to the House committee hearing had been carried out by an Accountability Review Board (ARB) with four of its five members appointed by Secretary of State Clinton, and headed by Democratic stalwarts Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and  Adm. Michael Mullen.  House members have considered the ARB report as deficient since the pro-Clinton board never deposed Clinton, who had the responsibility for the operation of  the consulate in Libya.  Republican committee members also complained the the ARB failed to examine other important witnesses or to review the hundreds of emails drafted by Clinton and Stevens and others which pertained to the consulate in Libya.  The Secretary of State oversees the operation of all 270 of America's consulates throughout the world.
                              Clinton as well as the ARB have agreed that security at the Libyan compound was insufficient.  In emails and in other writings, Stevens complained of a need for increased security on the compound.  Clinton told the committee that security requests never reached her and unless  brought to her attention were handled by "security experts" in the State Department. She acknowledged that there was much turmoil and danger in Libya following the death of Momar Qadhafi.
                           Chairman Gowdy said that the committee will examine some 20 more witnesses before it can conclude its investigation. Nonetheless, after Clinton's televised testimony, it will take a smoking gun to slow down her juggernaut towards the nomination.

The Sanders' Hang Up

 By Florida Bill

          Donald Trump has criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders for failing to defend his mike, and notes that if Sanders cannot stand his ground in a political arena and deliver a speech, how can he defend America and take the country to war should that become necessary.  Naturally, Trump is criticized by the media for his petty insult, or whatever they are calling his opinion. 

        When you mull over Mr. Trump's comment, in light of Sanders history as an anti-war activist,  I don't think that his comment is so far-fetched.

        During the Vietnam war, when Sanders was in his 20s and a 1964 graduate of the University of Chicago, he ducked becoming a soldier for his country by filing papers as a conscientious objector.  He based his petition not on religious grounds, but because he simply opposed war.   

        He is now asking Americans to endorse his candidacy and help him become president. Asked during the recent Democratic debate how he could function as President with credentials as a conscientious objector, he said that he would defend the country if it became necessary.  He explained that he had filed as an objector because he opposed the war in Vietnam, and he added that he is not a pacifist, indicating that he has now changed his stripes.    

       Vietnam was a very unpopular war and many believed that the United States was wrong in getting involved.  But there were millions of patriotic Americans who answered the call from Uncle Sam, left their homes and loved ones and went to war.  Millions put on the uniform and tragically, 58,300 were killed and untold thousands suffered injuries and many became disabled for life.  Veterans do not hold such "conscientious objectors," and other anti-war activists who ran off to Canada to dodge the draft, in esteem. 

        As a student in the 1960's, Sanders was active in anti-war activities and was a protest organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).  While Sanders remained a non-violent protester, others from the SDS split off and formed the notorious Weathermen Underground, which was responsible for the "Days of Rage" in Chicago, at which 300 protesters were arrested and many persons were injured. The notorious Weathermen were founded by and headed by Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernardine Dorhn and the group bombed the Capitol building and the Pentagon in the nation's capital as well as other sites.  Ayres of Chicago was also an early supporter of Barack Obama in his race to become a senator from Illinois.  The FBI continues to this day to list Ayres as a domestic terrorist. Amen. 

            When Sanders filed his petition to be classified as a conscientious objector,  he did so under the section where the objector is opposed to war.  Although Jewish, Sanders did not seek exemption for religious reasons, unlike Mohammad Ali who sought objection status from service in the military because he was a follower of Islam.  Ali's petition was rejected and he was convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison, but his sentence was overturned and the country subsequently developed an affection for the "Louisville Lip" and his anti-war positions are today all but forgotten.  

             Sanders settled in Vermont in 1968 and subsequently was elected mayor of Burlington and served three terms in that office.  In 1990 he was elected as a U.S. Representative from that state. Shortly thereafter, he voted against the Gulf war, taking his position as one of a small number of Congressmen who opposed stopping Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.  Similarly, in 2002, he voted against the Iraq war although both houses of Congress overwhelmingly supported the war which had relied on U.S. intelligence and the intelligence of many other nations that Hussein had nuclear weapons and contemplated using them against the United States. 

               Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist and his philosophy parallels that of a Communist.  In fact, his  Socialism is like a first cousin to Communism, although Socialism does not foster a society without religion, as does Communism.

                This is the record of Sanders who seeks to become the leader of America with the most powerful voice in the world.  He lists "climate change" as the number one threat to America, and he dismisses without comment the terrorism of Al Qaeda and ISIS, a group which has publicly beheaded innocent Americans and others and which promises to eventually destroy America ("the big Satan") and Israel ("the little Satan.")  He endorses the deal with Iran arguing that the pact  will prevent war via discussions and agreements, yet he ignores Iran's support of  terrorists and the fact that our State Department has labeled that country a foremost "sponsor of terrorism."  Sanders has never even whispered that America has a crushing national debt of $18 trillion, yet he calls for enormous new spending plans. 

                Do I believe that the 74-year-old Sanders is unable to function and speak when a crowd opposes him?  No, I think that Sanders can handle that challenge very well.  But has he changed his stripes when it comes to war and standing up to our enemies?  Will he defend the country against all adversaries, foreign and domestic, if that  becomes necessary?  Of that, there is no assurance.  

                

               

                         

                                      

Second Democrat Debate

 By Florida Bill

                      The dust has now settled from the second Democratic debate.  There were three   contenders on a Des Moines  platform:  a liar, a pacifist and an apologist, and it gave me an uneasy feeling that the prevaricating  Hillary Clinton could actually wind up as the 45th President of the United States. And after listening to two hours of her dodging and dancing around the truth, that thought became even scarier.  However, I should be thankful that Clinton's two opponents have no chance at all. 

                       There used to be six contenders seeking to become their party's standard bearer in next year's election, but now there are just three and the debate was scheduled by the Democratic party to allow voters the opportunity to see and hear Clinton and her playmates tell how they would provide new leadership for a country which needs it very badly.   

                      Clinton, 68, former Secretary of State for four years under President Obama,  has a 40-year track record as a liar; her disingenuous statements are a matter of solid record.  Alongside Clinton were Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a pacifist and conscientious objector who dodged service for his country during the Viet Nam era; and former Governor Martin O'Malley who has been a mayor of Baltimore and then a governor in Maryland, and who has apologized for saying that "all lives matter" when he really meant to say that "all Black lives matter." 

                     The debate came just the day after the Islamic attack in Paris in which 129 persons were killed and more than 350 injured, and predictably, the debate began with questions about how this crisis might be confronted by the United States.  Is radical Islam the enemy and what strategy do you have to cope with it and the terrorist organization known as ISIS, the candidates were asked. 

                      Smug and confident, Clinton talked about organizing international coalitions with America as a leader among many, but she would not define the enemy as "radical Islam."  That, she asserted, "would be painting with too broad a brush, and that would not be helpful.  We are not at war with Islam or with all Muslims."                      

                       You might wonder, as I did, how anyone could not recognize that "radical Islamists" are the terrorists doing the killings and beheadings.  It is the extremists in the religion, certainly not all Muslims, of which there are 1.6 billion in the world, wreaking havoc on innocent citizens around the globe.  And virtually always, these mad dog killers scream Allahu Akbar (God is Great) as they condemn and kill innocent men and women and even children so that there will be no mistake about their identity.  Cannot Clinton, a lawyer and an intelligent woman, recognize that these terrorists are Muslim extremists, who in their perverted minds are followers of the religion of Islam?  Is she really that obtuse?

                        But Clinton is not the lone nutcase on the platform. Neither Sanders or O'Malley would speak of "radical Islam."  Not appropriate, they agreed.   Not important what you call it, said Sanders; and O'Malley, pausing, added with great deliberation, they are "extremist jihadists--that is what to call them."  

                        In identifying America's enemy, it is more than likely that Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley are taking their cues from President Obama, who has steadfastly refused to recognize "radical Islam."  Obama will speak of terrorists and extremists, but will never link them to Islam, the religion of his family while growing up in Indonesia. 

                       Obama's reverence for Islam is for certain an  outgrowth of his early life,  the son of a fanatical Muslim father and then stepfather, and who himself attended a  Muslim school (Madrassa).  Obama has said that he is a Christian, but his comments about the beauty of Islam and his bowing while in the presence of Mullahs suggests that his respect for the Muslim faith is more intense than his Christian beliefs.  

                        Sanders, the anti-war zealot, who has served as a Chairman of the Senate VA committee, leading that bureaucracy into the sorry condition we see today, had more to say about the ISIS threat, one-upping Clinton and O'Malley.  

                        The greatest threat to America, says Sanders, is "climate change."  Yes, absolutely, it is "climate change" he emphasized, and he added that it  is "directly related to the growth of terror" in the world.   If there were a gold medal for obfuscation, this socialist and pacifist would surely receive it with highest honors for that statement.  

                        After the ISIS talk with no sensible strategies other than coalitions offered by any of the candidates, the subject turned to the USA's lame economy. Sanders lashed out at Clinton for taking enormous contributions from a corrupt Wall Street in exchange for doing its bidding. Clinton snapped, "Are you questioning my integrity?" which of course he was. Sanders replied that banks "know what they are going to get in exchange for their campaign contributions...everyone knows that." Nonplussed, Clinton said that Wall street was appreciative of her work as a New York senator in the wake of 9-11, and supported her.

                       Although it was never mentioned, Sanders sounded a lot like his nemesis Donald Trump who has said many times that big contributors buy the candidate and down the road when they want something, it will be pay back time. Sanders had it right about Clinton.  Republicans will probably want to use those comments in their literature reviewing Clinton's integrity.                        

                        Clinton also took the opportunity to call for stricter gun laws, and she rattled off statistics concerning gun deaths.  Her position on gun control has been a bouncing ball. As one of her opponents noted, she was for gun control in 2000, but against new gun laws in 2008 when she ran for President against Obama.  Now she has "evolved" and supports President Obama's calls for stricter gun control and new laws.
                        My final take on this debate was that Clinton was all smiles; cocky and confident that nothing could prevent her from being the Democratic nominee.  And she is right; the nomination is hers.  It's in the bag.  She shows the same nimble manipulating of the truth she has displayed her entire life, especially in the Benghazi hearing. Yet her lifetime of deceit seems to endear her to loyal Democrats who applaud her often inane and contradictory comments and overall performance.
                 As to Bernie Sanders, the anti-war socialist--it would be complete lunacy to have him in the Oval Office making decisions as to how the United States is to defend itself against all enemies, domestic and abroad.  And why are we even bothering to listen to O'Malley?  More than likely, Americans will best remember him as the apologist seeking the support of African Americans, and as a governor who left communities in Maryland laden in racial tension and drowning in gun violence.  It was over for Gov.O'Malley before it ever began.

                                                      xxx

Incredible, Edible Polls

 By Florida Bill

                         Want to know who is ahead, who is behind, who is surging and who made an intentional or unwitting gaffe in the political maneuvering to become their party's standard bearer in the presidential election of 2016?  Want to know how Americans feel at any given moment about anyone in a long list of political candidates?  The crystal ball is in the hands of those swamis known as pollsters, and they are delivering big time.

                         Polling blather is nonstop even though the primaries and the election of 2016 are  a long way off.

                         How accurate are these telephone shotgun polls?  In principle,  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 300 million persons living in some 19,000 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.

            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 comment about "anchor babies"?  Very "offensive," but did it hurt?  Dr. Carson is closing the gap, but he is down on Muslims--but wait, has that actually helped him gain supporters and millions in additional donations.  Is Huckabee too Christian, or Cruz too conservative.  Is Rubio too inexperienced,  is Bush too "low energy?"  

            Is Hillary Clinton's lead among Democrats shrinking, amid her email problems and Socialist opponent Bernie Sanders'call for more "free stuff" for Americans?

             And what about the impact from the debates. Who cares what you thought after watching them; the polls say that Carly Fiorina's numbers are moving up and so are Marco Rubio's. Joe Biden's popularity is being measured and his numbers bandied about, even though he isn't running yet. And while Clinton is still hanging on, she may be lagging in those bellwether states of New Hampshire and Iowa, where Sanders is ahead, although different polls offer different numbers and margins.

             In fact, there are so many different polls conducted by so many different pollsters that they bump heads and create what Bill O'Reilly might call a real "spin zone."  It's all endlessly fascinating, but does anybody believe it, other than the pollsters themselves and the media that is so eager to disseminate the latest findings?                                      

                         I consider this endless babbling over who may or may not become their party's standard bearer with lots of, shall we say, skepticism.  For sure someone is ahead, and maybe the polls are right.  But maybe they aren't. In a past presidential polling period, I remember that polls put a screaming Howard Dean ahead of other Democrats and Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachman were riding the Republican high ground. Needless to say, none of them became presidential nominees.

            At this early stage in the election process, with primary elections still more than four months away, voters may be skeptical, but aren't decisions about donations and campaign tactics, and even the viability of a candidate, being based on these never ending polls. Is this dangerous to the Democratic process? Maybe--but then, what other criteria to do we have? The opinions of political experts and pundits? Maybe the polls aren't so bad after all.

         However, my own experience with polls has not been that impressive. I was queried recently by a telephone voice on a polling mission, but the caller spoke such poor English that declaring whether I was more likely, most likely, less likely or least likely to do this, that or the other thing was too tedious and I just hung up.

             There is good and bad in this polling frenzy.  But, hey, this is the time when political madness sweeps the nation in anticipation of a Presidential election.  It does not usually get going this early, but this year with so many candidates, hype and buzz, it seems to be in full swing.  The polls keep it all moving at a torrid  pace, and with these wizards, we know it all--until the next poll comes out. 

The Golf Whisperers

   By Florida Bill

                          As I listen to the sports channels and watch the golf tournaments, I marvel at the various anchors and pundits and color commentators.  It takes all kinds to put out the play by play from tee to green.  Some are pretty good, but there are some who believe that whispering in a dull drab way promotes the excitement of  the moment.  Other analysts are prone to stick their foot in their mouth while trying to liven up the pace. Some live to regret it.

                   Golf  produces a whole lot of excitement for those who like to play, or perhaps just watch.  Personally, I am sort of addicted to golf and for most of the past 20 years have been on the links three to four times per week, whenever that was possible. And for most of the year there are weekly tournaments to watch on both the golf channel and on network stations.  There must be 40 or more PGA tournaments with million-dollar purses held each year in the United States.  

  

                   It's a busy existence for golf analysts, reporters and color commentators.  Various ones are assigned different spots on the course and the main announcer switches to them, on the course, from time to time.  When their microphone snaps on, they have to have something interesting to say.  The good ones have this figured out, but others are caught up in whispering non sequiturs about how a putt didn't break or whether it was properly read.  It is a tough job because the camera zeroes in on a pro taking a shot and the announcer must comment on the particular club used and the distance involved. Then, in a whisper, he describes the drive or shot--it is always to the left, to the right or a beauty down the center.  The second shot often draws a barely audible: "he'll like that one," or  "he won't be happy with that one."

                   Veteran golf announcer Jimmy Demaret used to refer to the "frog's hair" around the green, but I was never sure where the frog hair was.  There's talk of a "fade"  and a "big fade" called a slice and the draws and the dreaded "duck hook."  There are good lies and horrible lies in deep rough, and bum lies will often produce the "jumper or the flyer."  For a newcomer to the world of golf, this is almost like another language.

            But some phrases become so familiar, the regular viewer can almost lip sync the announcer's words: If he makes the putt, the player "read it correctly" and if he misses it, "he misread it."  And when his putt rims out, you can expect to hear "he can't believe it." 

            And then there's that hushed delivery peculiar to the sport. Lots of whispering and deep breaths during putting.  A car insurance commercial running currently makes fun of this by showing golf broadcasters talking in whispery tones as a giant sea monster leaps out of the water at one hole and grabs the golfer in its tentacles.

                   Sometimes it seems like these broadcasters are desperate to liven up the usual monotonous chatter. Some  of their resulting light digs bring smiles, but also disapproval from golf officials.  This was the case when Roger Feherty noted that former U.S. Open champion Jim Furyk's swing was "like an octopus falling out of a tree."  That raised some eyebrows.  

     

            But Johnny Miller, a golf hall of famer, outdid him when he noted that the swing of one of the pros playing in a tournament "did not pass the puke test,"  a phrase you don't often hear in this gentlemanly sport. Miller observed that  Rocco Mediate, who was in a playoff with Tiger Woods for U.S. Open champion, "looks like the guy who cleans Tigers pool."  All good fun, most of the time, although Miller had to apologize for the Rocco remark.   

              

                      But even in fun, it is better to be careful and politically correct when talking golf.  Kelly Tighman of the Golf channel learned her lesson when chatting with former golf champion Nick Faldo, also a tournament  pundit.  Noting that Tiger Woods seemed to be a notch better than other competitors, Faldo laughingly said that the other golfers would have to gang up on Tiger.  Kelly then chimed in and said that the other players would have to "lynch him in a back alley."

                      Kelly's carelessness triggered screams of racism, because Woods is, of course,  an African American, and lynching tends to recall a rather ugly period in the historical relationship between the races.

              Although  I am sure no racial insult was intended, Tighman was suspended for two weeks without pay in order to impress upon her the need to be cautious and politically correct in schmoozing about the game of golf and the professionals who compete for the million dollar purses.

                       Veteran British-accented golf analyst, Ben Wright, a well-known and widely respected figure in golf and a long-time lover of the game, got fired from CBS when negative comments about women professionals were attributed to him in a magazine article. 

                       Although he vehemently claimed that he was being smeared, he was reported to have opined that women are "handicapped" in playing the game because their "boobs"  interfere with keeping their left arms straight. His views were given wide publicity on and off the air by other announcers, and the "boob" talk pretty much brought to a close his close association with the game.  Now in his 80s, it is only on occasion that he happens onto a golf tournament and agrees to chat with the commentators on duty.

                     You may get bored occasionally listening to golf analysts, but put yourselves in their shoes: The game is long and slow moving, it is often played by the same cast of characters--and what if it rains?

Remember Fort Hood

            By Florida Bill

                    I know that the list seems to get longer every day, but to me, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan ranks as one of the worst of all the crazed shooters who have opened fire on innocent bystanders in recent years. 
                  Currently, this "undercover terrorist" occupies a cell at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, awaiting execution for the premeditated murders of 13 fellow soldiers and the wounding of 32 others at Fort Hood, Tex. Unlike others in today's unholy alliance of  public shooters, or even the many suicide-bombing terrorists, Hasan made no attempt to kill himself at the scene, thus setting off a long and sometimes ridiculous odyssey through the military halls of justice.
                   He is on the doorstep of eternity, and I have my own opinion as to where this Islamic madman should go, and there will not be 70 virgins there waiting for him. There are times when I have questioned the necessity of capital punishment, but this is not one of them.  In fact, I don't see anything cruel or inhuman about capital punishment when it comes to Hasan.  Not an iota of doubt. I have heard tell of a death penalty critic who was absolutely intransigent in his opposition until he learned of the Hasan hate-filled slaughter on an army base.  With the facts in hand, he said, "go for it."
                 Carrying out the penalty, imposed in 2013, is mired in an appeals process, and it may be many years before it takes place and there is full closure for all involved.  Unfortunately, the case is barely moving-- even though Hasan has acknowledged that he was the shooter and the bloodshed was witnessed by scores. He expresses his desire to be a martyr and looks forward to seeing other jihadists in the afterlife.  He has also sent a letter to ISIS chief, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi letting him know that it will be his honor to join the Islamic caliphate, and a six-page letter to Pope Francis praising Islamist jihad with his acronym signature SoA (Soldier of Allah).
                     Major Hasan was born in in Virginia in 1970, the son of Palestinian parents who immigrated to the U.S from the West Bank.   A trained physician, disciplined as a psychiatrist, he was stationed at Fort Hood for counseling of soldiers and performing other responsibilities typical of a doctor.  He followed the religion of Islam as did his parents and siblings.
                       Hasan joined the army in 1988 after high school and was an enlisted man while attending college. He later earned a medical degree and completed his internship and residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He was promoted from captain to major in May, 2009, and assigned to Fort Hood the following July.
                       His praise of Allah and his support of the Islamic goal of a  world wide caliphate was recognized by others with whom he was serving. Colleagues said he expressed "anti-American" views.  His bizarre leanings were even brought to the attention of his superiors,and to the FBI, but investigators really fumbled the ball on this one.  He had regular email contact with Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose teachings he revered.  Anwar al-Awaki was an American citizen residing in Yemen, later killed in a drone attack, who dedicated his life and efforts in support of an-all Islamist planet. But the FBI apparently was satisfied that Hasan's communications and relationship with al-Awaki posed no threat--just the friendly scribblings of a couple guys who share a desire for death to all Americans. Hasan wrote papers which reflected his radical Muslim beliefs, but even his writings did not red-flag him as the jihadist he was.
                        Some time around early November, 2009, Hasan was told that he would be deploying to Iraq where his psychiatric expertise would be valuable in counseling Americans serving there. To Hasan, this meant that he would be associating and assisting in the killing of fellow Muslims.  That rang the bell for him, loud and clear, and he decided to act.
                        On Nov. 5 of that year, now more than five years ago, the major loaded his guns and joined the troops at an assembly. After the facility was filled, Hasan drew his gun screaming Allahu Akbar which means Allah is Great, and began firing.  His bullets were fatal for 13 young soldiers and caused wounds to 32 others.  He was finally stopped by gunfire from other soldiers in the hall.  The wounds to Hasan were not fatal, but required intense prolonged medical care and the wounds apparently have consigned him to a wheelchair, which necessitate indefinite physical and medical care.
                        As a major, his salary of about $7,000 per month was paid to him--several hundred thousand dollars--until he was tried and convicted in a court marshal in 2013 and sentenced to death. It is not clear what happened to his accumulated officer's pay, but it stands to reason that much of it ended up in the hands of fellow radicals.
                        The handling of Hasan's trial was disgraceful.  It was continued unnecessarily for months to consider demands by Hasan that he be permitted to wear his beard for religious reasons in the courtroom in contradiction to army regulations which require a defendant soldier, which Hasan was, to be clean shaven in a courtroom.  After many months, a judge directed that Hasan be forcefully shaved.
                         During the trial, the army and prosecution presented scores of soldiers who witnessed the carnage committed by major Hasan.   Toward the end of the hearings, Hasan represented himself and acknowledged that he was the shooter.  He was convicted by a jury panel of officers on 13 counts of premeditated murder.  The conviction and death sentence was a slam dunk although the wheels of justice turned at a snail's pace.
                      Maybe there are some who would like to thwart his plans to achieve that glorious Islamic state of martyrdom, and would prefer to just let him suffer  at Ft. Leavenworth. Of course, then the U.S. taxpayer, who has already footed the bill for this travesty, would continue to be punished as well.
                          This terrible crime which was truly a terrorist's act was classified by the Obama administration as "workplace violence."  By making this something other than the act of terrorism, wives and relatives of the victims have been denied government benefits paid to victims of terrorist acts. Along with the 13 dead and 32 wounded, the carnage left eight widows; one widower; and twelve minor children without a father.
                         Currently, there are some members of Congress seeking to fix this wrong, but their success is not yet known.


                                                                                 xxx

A Dog for All Time

             By Florida Bill

           

            In the evening when my wife and I are watching TV, our dogs, Wendy and Sammi,  join us on the couch, share in the popcorn and other snacks, and snooze.  We would hate to lose the little squirts.  Their life is way too short.  And when they go, like other of our pets in the past, we will be left with a most profound sadness.  In many ways it is similar to the grief suffered at the loss of a human friend or relative; but different since we have always believed that we will be reunited with our two-legged loved ones in the after life.

             So what is the deal with our dogs.  Is it true that all dogs go to heaven?

              Mark Twain has noted that "Heaven goes by favor; If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in."   But that only begs the question. 

              Recently, America was blessed with a visit from Pope Francis.  We heard his voice  calling for peace in the world and for love and respect for all men.  But in another earlier message, Pope Francis observed that our four-footed friends are not lost forever and that "Paradise is open to all of God's creatures."   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.     

            Will Rogers, a man who loved his furry companions, would be pleased too.   This great humorist once said that "if there are no dogs in heaven, then, when I die,  I want to go where they went."  Well with the popes and other passing on the question, it is looking pretty good.  They will be there and we'll see them so long as we make it too.   

            There are hundreds of millions of dog owners in the world and more frequently than not, a special steely bond develops between the canine and his owner.  There are those who do not or have never owned a dog, and perhaps regard the relationship as mythical rather than mystical.  But I know I am right; the relationship is special--ask any pet owner. 

            I remember when I was a soldier in Korea, I owned a small terrier-type pooch named Maggie and she was with me most hours of virtually every day of  my 16-month hitch in Korea.  When I walked guard duty with a rifle, Maggie was there and when I was in the mess hall she waited outside by the door; and at bedtime, my cot and sleeping bag were her bed too.  On our small compound in Ouijanbu, soldiers with their dogs were quite common and unrestricted by commanders in this far off part of Asia.

            Sadly, when I said good-bye to Korea, I had to say farewell also to Maggie. I can still see her to this day,  sitting by the side of a road, watching and alert as our truck pulled away.  I loved that little girl,  and I am hoping that Maggie will be around to greet me at the Pearly Gates. 
            Occasionally, I think back about our four-footed friends and their special place in life and I am reminded of the words of an old Missouri lawyer who, reflecting on our furry companions, observed that "the one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous . . . is his dog."  

             To dog aficionados, and maybe to Pope Francis himself, there is the story of the  "Rainbow Bridge."  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 runs to the owner's arms licking his face in joy, and side by side they cross the Rainbow Bridge together into heaven, never again to be separated.

          Today, living in sunny Florida, my wife, Chrissy and I have two dogs,  Cairn Terriers by breed, each weighing about 15 pounds.  They look like the dog, Toto, in the movie The Wizard of Oz.  They are non-stop yappers and never saw a bird or leaf that did not require their comment; the arrival of the pool man or the dry cleaner is enough to provoke a deafening frenzy.  Yet, we have bonded with them in a big way, and it is impossible to imagine life without them.  But a dog's life is short, and we have had other dogs before them, all of whom became special and unforgettable. We are happy about Pope Francis's views on the matter.        

            One final word on dogs and the hereafter: 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, it is not heaven."

Silence in Oregon

               By Florida Bill

                 The terrible tragedy in a Roseberg Oregon school

 has engendered calls for new gun laws and, correspondingly has triggered reaction from others that gun control is not the solution to the violence occurring in our halls of learning.  But also, arising out of the slaughter of innocent students, came a curious reaction from the local sheriff that public identification of the shooter would "glorify" him in the eyes of the nation and in the history books which record these catastrophic events.   

                  Nonetheless, the murderer has been identified as Chris Harper Mercer, a mentally disturbed loner who had actually been a student in the Umpqua Community College where he turned his gun power on other students.  He was an anti-racist, anti-religious madman who apparently had made comments on social media about his desires to kill, and of the prominence which would inevitably follow.  

                  Though perhaps well-intentioned, can anyone be as obtuse as Sheriff John Hanlin who has taken it upon himself to undertake the task of assuring that Mercer does not become widely known because of the killings.  

                   The shooting had occurred around 10:30 a.m. on a school day morning.  Police arriving exchanged gunfire with and fatally shot Mercer, who had killed nine persons and had wounded many others in and around a classroom in Snyder hall of the community college. 

          During the immediate hours following the shootings, Sheriff Hanlin declined to identify the shooter or discuss his background.  The identification leaked out in the early evening and was confirmed by a medical examiner who had the responsibility of signing the death certificate. 

                   So what has the Sheriff accomplished other than leaving the media and news reporters in the dark for way too long.  Over and over reporters begged the sheriff to fill the gap and let a nation know who had committed this horrific act, and why, and to allow the investigation and reporting of the event to play out.  You must wonder what planet Sheriff Hanin is living on.  

                   I  worked as a police reporter for many years at the Chicago Tribune.  The idea that a police official, without any reason or justification, would withhold the identity of a man who had killed nine persons is too bizarre to believe.  Yet Sheriff Hanlin did so, and even now, days later, continues to refuse to say the name of Chris Mercer as his personal way of righting a wrong. The veteran lawman's reticence is evidence of small-town inexperience with the 24-hour news world of today.   .

                    For as many years as I know, the media has withheld the names of rape victims and of juveniles who have committed crimes, even capital offenses.  There is no law on the books which would restrict a news agency from publishing the names of women who have been assaulted or of juveniles, but it has become the unwritten law to withhold these names out of ethics and for other obvious considerations.  

                   It is easily understood why the publication of the names of sexually assaulted women would be withheld. There is some debate about juveniles who have committed heinous crimes. In most cases, however, the names of the perpetrators of crimes who are under 18 are generally withheld, though not always. The theory is that immature and wrong-headed youths have a better chance at rehabilitation and living a decent life if they are not branded in the public eye.  

                   The worst result of Sheriff Hanlin's long delay in producing a positive identification is that the name of another non-guilty party was touted in social media for some hours. Likewise, when word came out that the shooter had specifically targeted Christians, many began to suspect terrorists, or yet another radical Muslim following his own personal jihad.

                    A frightened society that is left in ignorance will fill the void with dangerous and often mistaken speculation that can lead to yet more violence.