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, 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
By Florida Bill
Are journalists held to any code of conduct, or are they free to say anything about any person or event in the public eye? Does anyone watch the watchers?
And when journalists fabricate, intentionally or unintentionally, and use their position of trust to bullwhip candidates, office holders and politicians, is that to be accepted as the price to be paid for having a country which guarantees freedom of speech and a free press?
When the news is "fake" which it often is, and the accusations against these "public figures" in the news are clearly false, does any news person's professional reputation take a hit? Where is the accountability, the correction, the apology? The sloppiness and irresponsibility of today's media, and its incredible, bullet proof arrogance, is beyond belief. Recently, CNN and "Buzzfeed" sent out a phony story about President-elect Trump, claiming a British intelligence officer's report had revealed immoral behavior and his collusion with Russian authorities to manipulate the election. The story had no "legs," and was designed to humiliate Trump, who has become the media's arch enemy.
Fox News anchor Shepard Smith demonstrated the arrogance and resistance typical of the media in the face of obvious dishonest news gathering. "It is our observation," said Smith, " that (CNN and Buzzfeed) correspondents followed journalistic standards and that neither they nor any other journalists should be subjected to belittling or de-legitimatizing by the President elect of the United States."
The sad and short answer of course is no one holds the media accountable. Having watchers who watch public actions, riding herd on public figures, is a good thing, one of the hallmarks of our democracy. When public officials fail to live up to the public trust, it is the press that calls them out and demands action. But when the media lies, and fabricates out of personal enmity or political bias, who takes them to task? The answer is no one.
Some say there are libel and slander laws which provide appropriate sanctions. Not so. Libel and slander are fairly effective when the slandered person is an ordinary citizen outside the public arena. But these anti-defamation laws are virtually meaningless in situations involving the media and public figures such as office holders and candidates for public office.
Jim Strong a retired Chicago Tribune reporter and Labor editor, sees libel laws relative to politics as a "fraud." "They allow corrupt publishers and writers to profit from publishing or broadcasting garbage without any fear of the victims they beat up on," he said.
The unvarnished truth is that the media can say virtually anything about a candidate or a public official without fear of liability. "Absence of malice" is always the "get out of jail free" card for a reporter and the company he or she works for.
The respected and renowned Col. Robert R. McCormick, late and great publisher of the Chicago Tribune, used to say that a newspaper (the media) delivers that check upon government which no Constitution has ever been able to provide.
Very true, Colonel, but no one checks up on the checkers. Journalism professors established the
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) in 1908, which has drafted a journalist's "Code of Ethics." It encourages honesty and integrity and spells out guidelines for reporters.
Yet it is not a set of rules, opines Don Kirk, a veteran Asian correspondent for various newspapers, but only a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. But the missing element in the SPJ dicta is the prescribed enforcement mechanism of its recommended code. Consequences for sending out phony news reports attacking the character of public figures do not exist.
Defenders of the press who are so appalled by President-elect Trump's Twitter rants against the media are quick to respond with lofty statements about the tradition of honor and integrity among newsmen. There is never a suggestion that maybe, just maybe, there is a kernel of truth in what the new president is saying, and that something ought to be done about the mendacious members of the press corps, and the companies which endorse such conduct. Journalists must come together and enact codes of enforceable conduct with due process rights accorded alleged violators. It is not enough to spell out how a reporter must handle the job of covering the news in a moral and professional way. The elephant in the room is the lack of accountability for lying journalists intending to destroy a news subject whose ideology runs counter to that of the newsman's and the company he works for.
It is possible to uphold freedom of the press and still penalize reporters who dishonor it with their lies and fabrications. Sanctions should range from a reprimand to loss of press credentials. It is not and can never be government which regulates the media, only the profession itself. It is time that the media starts weeding out its own bad actors.
XXX
By Florida Bill
Megyn Kelly is now confirming that she is jumping ship from Fox News and boarding NBC's multibillion dollar cruiser. We are seeing teary-eyed emotion and pathos as she makes her TV goodbyes, and thanks Fox News and her colleagues for their professional help and friendships.
But Kelly is overlooking the big, blustering twittering monster, now America's 45th President, who really was the one who lifted her from obscurity to the mountain top. Without "The Donald" she was just another comely blonde face on the tube. He certainly deserves a robust thank you.
Can anyone ever forget how she carved him up on the debate stage, sending him into a twittering rampage? He tweeted to the world that she was an "incompetent bimbo" and "crazy" and sought to destroy her and drive her into a dark professional hole from which there was no climbing out. Now, after the dust has cleared, Trump has become the 45th president of the United States, and the strident, little-known Kelly has acquired celebrity status and a job at NBC earning an estimated $20-25 million dollars annually. Almost as good, she will have license to assess the performance of her nemesis on an even bigger stage, and to finally roll out her liberal leanings which she had endeavored to keep in a closet for the past dozen years.
From a material standpoint, the 46-year-old Kelly has hit it big. As a young lawyer, she earned a respectable living as an associate in a Chicago law firm for five years and then in 2004 made a career change landing a job on the Fox News stage. In her book, "Settle for More," she tells of her move from the law into TV where she rose in the ranks and eventually, with the backing of Big Dog Bill O'Reilly, became the host of her own talk show, "The Kelly File."
It was in spring of 2015 that the billionaire real estate mogul, without ever having held or run for public office, announced his candidacy for the biggest office in the USA, in fact in the world. His initial presence on the campaign trail did not provide any real connection with Kelly, whose show was going along with average popularity. She was just another talking head on a station with nothing but other comely, engaging talking heads.
In February of 2016, Kelly, not yet a media heavy hitter in her own right, was tapped to serve as a moderator for the opening debate among the 17 Republican candidates. Perhaps she was assigned to join moderators Bret Baier and Chris Wallace at the media table to break up the appearance of an all-boys club.
Record breaking numbers of viewers tuned into the opening debate with GOP hopefuls, who, for the most part, were politicians with strong records of political achievement. Trump was pretty much the odd man out. To many he was a TV actor and an amusing throw-away candidate who denounced illegal aliens and promised to "Make America Great Again."
The game changer, at least for Kelly's career, was when, displaying the finesse of a well-prepared prosecutor, she tore into Trump for calling women "slobs, pigs and disgusting animals." She demanded to know whether such barn yard descriptions of women were appropriate for a person seeking to become President of the United States. It was a sledgehammer of a question and it set Trump back on his heels. But Trump soon turned to his greatest weapon, Twitter, and the verbal assault on Megyn went viral.
The smoking-mad Trump tweeted that Kelly was an "incompetent bimbo" who was out to get him. In a later interview he charged she had blood coming out of her eyes and "coming out of her whatever," a reference widely construed to refer to her menstrual period. It was crude and explosive, and as the months passed, Trump repeated his Twitter attacks on Kelly. Kelly simply made no reply. Her patience was extraordinary and she drew kudos for her ability to withstand such an attack on her and on women in general.
Everyone wanted to interview her and she was a guest on late night talk shows hosted by Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon. Her picture graced the covers of magazines such as Variety, Vanity Fair and the New York Times, and her celebrity and recognition spiraled upward. Her "Kelly File" show increased in popularity and mentor Bill O'Reilly was said to be green-eyed as his protege surged in the media firmament.
After Kelly and Trump both became household names, they decided to bury the hatchet on a publicized special show on Fox News on May 16. Trump indicated he would cease his attack on Kelly, and Kelly seemed to accept this as an apology of sorts.
Along the way, Kelly reportedly received a significant advance for the authoring of her book, and then, according to insiders, began discussing and considering offers to leave Fox at termination of her contract. Her popularity at Fox now approached that of the Big Dog's and she signed autographs and gave interviews and was a even a guest on the Howard Stern radio show, with its dominating "breast talk."
In November, Trump was elected the nation's 45th President and the news of his surprise victory was conveyed to Fox viewers by Kelly on the election desk in the early morning hours. Along with being attractive and smart, Kelly's credentials now included a most unique relationship with the most powerful man in the world. Her star had reached unprecedented heights at this point.
I expect that Kelly had offers from all of the network stations, as well as CNN. Fox News was so anxious to keep Kelly that it reportedly offered her a $100 million four-year contract. That puts her in the realm of NBA stars.
NBC's package surely matched the salary, but also provided their new star with a morning presence and her continued involvement in watching and reporting on the actions of the new President.
Trump, as is his style, has frequently noted that Kelly was nothing before he got involved with her, which seems to be pretty accurate. However, a true media big-shot like Kelly is not about to ever publicly acknowledge a debt to someone in the political arena, especially someone she covers daily, so don't look for a "Thank you, Mr. President," anytime soon.
XXX
t
