Jimmy’s First Flight

My grandson, Jimmy, had never flown. It was 1995. Jimmy was nine years old. The two of us were going to the first-ever Pierron Family Reunion in Pierron, Illinois, arranged for the most part by my sister, Joan (pronounced JOH-ANN) Murphy, of Denver.

Among those to attend were Jean Charles Pierron, of Essey (suburban Nancy, France), our fourth cousin (!!!) and my son Bill from New York. My other sons attended in more recent reunion years.

Jimmy was all in favor of going with me. He was excited about the whole trip, but especially the flights. It was TWA Philadelphia to St. Louis (St. Louis being about 40 miles west of Pierron, IL). This was several years before TWA folded (December, 2001).

I got a window seat for Jimmy. This boy was so excited; it was part of the fun of the whole trip. But I also could tell he was trying to be manly-sophisticated and “adult” and cool and casual.

Looking out the window as we left the gate fascinated him. A new world was opening up to him. He watched intently during the takeoff and the ascent. I laughed to myself watching his eyes get bigger and bigger, but he still outwardly maintained his calm, as though he was an experienced flyer.

It was about a two-hour flight to St. Louis, and for the first hour, Jimmy carried on, periodically, a conversation but not about the flight. After all, he wanted to be “cool”.

However, after a long silence, about an hour into the flight, he turned to me and became a child again.

In a child’s matter-of-fact tone: “Ya know…. I’m surprised.”

“What are you surprised about?” I asked.

“Well, you know.” And he hesitated. “You know, nothing’s happened!”

His concern about the perceived dangers of air travel was implicit and coming to the surface.

I asked: “What DID you E X P E C T to happen?”

“Nothing !!!!!” he practically yelled.

Wow! It’s Going to be Colder Tomorrow!!!

Unfortunately for the viewing public everywhere, not just in the Philadelphia area, weather “news” has overwhelmed the typical TV newscasts today more than ever.

Back in the 1960′s, this writer was a member of the Channel 3 “Eyewitness News” team.   We were the first of the “Eyewitness News” shops.  News Director Al Primo is credited with launching it.

As part of the new Eyewitness News, Channel 3 built a new studio/newsroom set.  It likely was the first time a television newsroom actually was in the studio.  More about this below.  If you are a senior citizen, you probably saw this studio in your youth.  This was where Ernie Kovacs did his network show.

Last night, on the 11 p.m. news (I usually watch my former station, Channel 3), the news had not been on for long when the “weather girl” was introduced.  Forgive the sexism but the “weather girl” has been a TV news staple since Trudy Haynes did the weather on TV news in Detroit.   Trudy moved to Channel 3, Philadelphia, not as a weather girl, but rather a reporter.

The television bosses don’t want to read items like this,  but rest assured or at least informed:  they want the babes doing the weather.   It is assumed you know why.   This is not a sexist statement but I think you also have noticed there are a lot more news bunnies today.  Some people will say that’s a good thing.  I would prefer that if they must be of the feminine gender, they ought to be able to show the professionalism of, say, Marge Pala, of Channel 3.   I think the high number of females in TV news has enabled the continuing softening of “hard news”, and I believe the station executives prefer it that way.   Some day I will have a lot more to say about this on thishere blog as this is nothing directly personal ”against” the women of today in TV news.   In large part, they are unable to fulfill a full commitment to journalism not due to their gender, but rather the policies of their bosses.   But this yarn is about….. lessee….oh yeah….the local weather!!

Last night, what was the reason the weather bunny was on almost at the start of the newscast?   It was to get 20 degrees colder “tomorrow”, i.e.,  Sunday (today, as I write this).  My, my, as I write this in the early afternoon, the temperature is 31 degrees.  The low today was 23.  The weather lady more or less suggested by her tone and commentary that weather terror was just ahead (“tomorrow”).   It may go below 20 tonight.  My, has that ever happened before???

It should be pointed out here that it would be the same reporting and emphasis situation if all the weather reporters on TV were men:   their bosses still would use weather as a major news item, even with a sprinkle of rain.  This is because most broadcasting executives are not journalists and want to stay as far away from journalism as they can. 

This also is because TV stations have conducted research of news viewers like you.  They have asked, in effect, why do you turn on the news?  To my chagrin, a most prominent response is to get the weather.   I would have preferred that you tuned in to find out the latest news.  But nowadays, it seems they mostly cover the “safe” stuff like fires and murders.  Their investigative pieces not infrequently are stings… or setups… such as the recent Channel 10 series catching pedophiles.   There are alot of murders in Philadelphia, and Mayor Street says he is concerned about that. 

But anyway, about that newsroom in a studio.  Back in the 1960s’, the Channel 3 sportscaster was Jim Leaming, who sat right behind me in the four tiers of news desks.  Jim was in the last row, I in the third tier.

Whenever I was doing a “cut in” on the six o’clock news, I would be seated at my desk, with Jim behind me.  We were part of the wide shots’ ambience during the newscast. 

Down below us, Bill Kuster would be doing the weather in the weather set portion of the floor level where the newscasters stood in front of a high table (where the late Ernie Kovacs once performed).

It was Jim’s almost nightly routine to whisper to me while Bill Kuster was on.   “Hey John!”

“Hey John!”.   I would turn around and Jim would say:  “Call WE 6-1212″.   And we would laugh.

The first time he had done this, I had asked him why.   

He replied:  “You can find out what he’s (Bill Kuster) talking about in 30 seconds.” WE 6-1212 was the phone number to get the weather forecast.
Now the phone company charges for this service.  I would not be surprised if the reason for the charges in part was because TV and radio people complained that the phone company was competing with them.

It would frustrate Jim that so much time was devoted to the weather, and so little to his sports.   You couldn’t cover the sports in 30 seconds, but frankly, you could take care of the weather with the 30-second forecast. 

When he first started at Channel 3, he was working two blocks down the street at Radio Station WIP where he did the late afternoon sports amidst a disc jockey show.  After his last radio broadcast, he would walk to KYW-TV and do the sports at 6:25 p.m., just before the Huntley-Brinkley Report.

After doing the radio sports in the afternoon, he had most of the sports news in his head, so he didn’t require alot of preparation for his little two-minute bit on TV. 

But this is my point:  most times, the newsroom’s assignment editor would not give Jim a crew so as to film a sports story earlier in the day.  

In other words, even in the 1960′s, the emphasis was to give nearly 10 minutes to the weather, two minutes for sports.  They didn’t want to give sports more time so why waste time and money on film stories that would mean you would have to take time away from the weathercaster.  

  
In a major sports town with major and minor pro sports and five major colleges, two minutes was ridiculous.  (Alas, sometimes even today the sports on the local TV news is a blip.)

Subsequently, Jim Leaming fought for more air time and sometimes got it.  He even got film crews.  One day, he asked me to “sub” for him and go down to the Spectrum (this was 1969)  and interview the new kid on the Flyers who, the night before, had scored his first NHL goal.   I never forgot that interview with Bobby Clarke.  I came back to the studio with the film and Jim came in and asked:  how long is the interview?  I replied it’s one minute and 23 seconds; three questions.   Said Jim:  I’ll use it all.  And he did.

That evening, Jim told the Channel 3 viewers this 19-year-old kid is going to be a big star.

Of course, Jim was right.

I was sad to hear of Jim’s death a few years ago.  I do not have to tell anybody who knew him:   Jim was a gem. 

His material, if he had been given the time, would have been better than one of those Bermuda highs.

As a postscript to all of this, all three local (network-affiliated) stations with early evening Sunday news led with the weather this evening.   I submit this is pathetic.   DANGEROUSLY COLD said Channel 3.   Channel 6 used the wind chill factor to say that it feels like 11 degrees.

Lemme see, now.   Doesn’t it get cold in the winter?

Nowadays, weather has become the lead story on many occasions, both summer and winter and even spring and autumn.  Hot and cold.  It is at the expense of good television journalism.

I submit to you that you are living a dull life if you pay attention to those Bermuda highs.

 

Arabs Having Ownership at Six American Ports

Let’s see.  The story is that a company known as Dubai Ports World had just about completed a deal,  a $6.8 billion acquisition of a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.  Dubai Ports World, of the United Arab Emirates.  That one.  This is where Tiger Woods wins golf tournaments  (Dubai). Oh yes, the same one that made it into the 9/11 Commission Report when the United Arab Emirates biggees were playing footsy (going hunting?) with Osama Bin Ladin.

Yesterday, the news secretary for President Bush, Scott McClellan, said:  ”In hindsight, when you look at this and the coverage that it’s received and the false impression that is left with some, we probably should have briefed members of Congress about it sooner.”

As the great, learned Harvey Diltitcher once said, PERCEPTION IS REALITY.  The deal looks dead.

Is it dead?   At least many people think so.   Don’t hang on every word here:   there may be something more to the whole story, and we may never hear of all of the devils in the detail.

Many people are dumping on the deal.   Unfortunately, and this is the only obvious conclusion that can be drawn thus far:   the Bush administration did not umbrella the deal properly for public consumption.

It depends on what damage control develops, and whether the possible underlying aim of the deal, if any, is impossible to achieve now.

So now we have to wait two or three years for somebody to write a book exposing what was happening here.

The problem is basic.  It is the taint.   The perception.  President Bush says the United Arab Emirates is a good ally of the U. S. especially in the fight against terrorism.  The U. S. was doing the deal under the radar, it seems, because incorporated in it was an agreement for DP World to reveal records on demand about “foreign operational direction” of its business at  six U. S. ports  (Philadelphia,  New York,  Baltimore,  Miami, New Jersey and New Orleans). 

It is confusing that the White House says President Bush did not know about the deal until recently.   You have to proceed with the conclusion that Scott McClellan does not dispense lies in any situation.  This would seem to indicate nothing about terrorism was below the surface. 

Probably nobody except one of those CIA whistleblower guys (traitors, maybe) will reveal whether the deal included a method of the U. S. to infiltrate more of the Middle East.   At least this time, no whistleblower apparently surfaced this deal, but that’s beside the point.

Because Homeland Security was the lead agency in shepherding the deal, it seems to me there was more here than the perception of Arabs running six U. S. ports. 

On his radio talk show this morning, Michael Smerconish (Radio Station WPHT, Philadelphia) spent most of his three hours going over Pages 137-138 of the 9/11 Commission Report.  There, you can read the account of how Richard Clarke somehow queered a plan to bomb Osama Bin Ladin in 1999.   

The account tells about the planned attack on a hunting camp where Bin Ladin was in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan.  The attack was called off, according to the Commission report, because a United Arab Emirates prince also was there, along with others from the UAE.   A UAE airplane had brought the hunters to the desert camp.   The CIA not only did not want to kill a UAE prince, they were not convinced they could be sure of getting Bin Ladin.  It doesn’t take one of them there rocket scientists to conclude that some Arabs from the UAE were enjoying some leisure time with the world’s Number One terrorist.

We are in a war.   It is a peculiar war because our enemies do not wear uniforms.   However, we may have to keep reading between the lines on the port story.   It does not seem very logical that the U. S. government would be doing a deal with Arabs during a war  unless there is something there under the radar we don’t know about.   

After all, we do not want our U. S. government to broadcast the location, date and time of our next “attacks” against terrorism.

Maybe a method of fighting terrorism has been killed.   If so, it is unfortunate, and another casualty of war.  But obviously, the President’s news secretary was right yesterday:    they didn’t do it correctly …. because

 ……….   Now most people think it was wrong. 

James D. Murphy, Jr.

My brother-in-law in Lakewood, Colorado, died New Year’s Day… January 1, 2006. Jimmy was a good man. A military funeral was conducted last Friday at Fort Logan. And there was a memorial service at Church of the Hills in Evergreen, Colorado, Saturday afternoon. Both Lakewood and Evergreen are suburbs of Denver; Evergreen is about 15 miles up into the mountains west of Denver. Lakewood is next door to Denver.

At the military funeral, family members observed the flag presentation protocol. A United States flag drapes the casket of a deceased veteran to honor his/her service to the country. The ceremonial folding and presentation of that flag is a moving tribute of lasting import to the veteran’s family.

The flag is placed so the union blue field is at the head and over the left shoulder of the veteran. After the playing of Taps, the flag is carefully folded into the symbolic tri-cornered shape. It then is presented as a keepsake to the next of kin or an appropriate family member.

At Jim Murphy’s military funeral, two soldiers folded the flag, and a third officer presented it to my sister, Joan (pronounced joh-ann). The protocol provided that the presenter stood facing the recipient (Joan) and held the folded flag waist high with the straight edge facing her.

In the ceremony, the officer leans toward the recipient and solemnly presents the flag. Each branch of service uses a slightly different wording for the flag presentation.

On January 6, 2006, the officer said to Joan: “This flag is presented on behalf of a grateful nation and the United States Army as a token of appreciation for your loved one’s honorable and faithful service.”

If the next of kin has expressed a religious preference or belief, as Joan had, the soldier adds: “God Bless You and this family, and God Bless the United States of America.”

The flag is now encased at Joan’s home in Lakewood.

At Fort Logan that day, an estimated 30 funerals were scheduled at the rate of two per hour. Normally, taps is heard from a bugle recording inside the bugle; most times, those attending the funeral are unaware that the soldier with the bugle is not playing. In the case of Jim Murphy, the bugler played Taps “live”; it was not a recording. After the service, Jim’s daughter Jan asked the bugler if, in fact, he had performed a recorded version. No, said the soldier, I came today to play. He said his mother had died two weeks before, and he was performing “live” as an additional special memorial to his mother.

There was another incident, too. As the family walked to their cars, Joan was stopped before getting into her car. She was told the soldiers would like to have the flag back. The soldiers were not satisfied with their fold, and wanted to re-complete it. This they did.

At the memorial service Saturday, The Reverend Phil Price offered the following comments in the category entitled “Reflections on a Christian Life”.

Jim was born in St. Louis, the eldest of five children.

In high school, Jim took part in Track and with the Debate Team. He was an Honor Roll student. He was chosen to serve as the “City Attorney” when the high school seniors were invited to fill the St. Louis city offices for a day. Jim’s mother became ill when he was 13. She died when Jim was 18. At the time Jim was attending St. Louis University, working toward degrees in Accounting and Law. Due to the family situation, his father asked him to seek a full-time job to help raise the other four children. This he did. And World War II was looming on the horizon. During this time he met Joan Pierron (MY SISTER) at Epworth League at the Maple Avenue Methodist Church. They were married in 1940. Jim was working as an Insurance Underwriter then. His aunt and uncle encouraged him to put his name in for a position with the U. S. Post Office.

Later, when he was in France in a foxhole on the bank of the Moselle River, he was notified that he had been promoted to Regular Clerk in a letter delivered by the (military) company clerk who crawled up to him. Jim was a Master Sergeant in the 1117th Combat Engineer Group. He served in the service three years.

Jim worked for the U. S. Postal Service for 30 years, holding positions from Clerk to Acting Assistant Supervisor of Personnel to Station Manager. He retired after serving as Manager of the Highlands Station Post Office in Denver.

What brought him from St. Louis to Denver? In 1957, he and Joan had a major decision to make. They moved to Denver and later to Mount Evans Lane in Idledale, about seven miles “below” Evergreen in the mountains west of Denver. The move was precipitated by health reasons for himself and oldest child, son Randy, who suffered from hayfever in the St. Louis climate. Moving to the mountains proved a great help. In fact, the hayfever never again was a problem.

While in Idledale, Jim served as Chairman of the Water Board, and after that he always was interested in water issues. Jim enjoyed trains and studied railroad management and advancement. He was an avid newspaper reader and paid close attention to local and world news.

At Church of the Hills, Jim was an Elder, and he and his wife, Joan, were active in the Presbyterian Mariner organization, holding the office of President (Skipper) several times from 1960 to 1990. Mariners was a great enrichment to Jim’s life.

Jim and Joan have three children: Randy, Jan and Jacques, and four grandchildren: Colin, Patrick, Austin and Sean, and four great-grandchildren: Stephanie, Ben, Katie and Nicole. Jim and Joan joined Church of the Hills in 1958. Their son Jacques was baptized at Church of the Hills in 1959 as were two of their grandsons, Colin, in 1968, and Sean, in 1990.

Jim enjoyed recently (just before Christmas, 2005) seeing his daughter Jan interviewed on TV about the book which was just published: OUTLAW TALES OF COLORADO.

Jim had an 87-year-long successful life as a citizen and a servant of the Lord.

This was the end of the Reflections by The Reverend Phil Price.

The memorial service included a service-opening violin solo by grandson 15-year-old Sean Murphy and a marimba solo by his 18-year-old brother Austin. Both are sons of Jacques Murphy, who now live in Atlanta.

My sister had a wonderful husband. All of us already miss him.

Alan Halpern

The Philadelphia Daily News yesterday (Wednesday, December 14, 2005) reported the death of Alan Halpern, the long-time editor of PHILADELPHIA MAGAZINE. The obituary on Page 32, in a featured article, said Alan died Tuesday after a lengthy illness. He was 79.

The article ran two columns, full page. It noted how nothing was sacred or off limits to the magazine. He served from 1951 to 1980, taking the magazine from a Chamber of Commerce mouthpiece to a publication that grabbed many local institutions by the scruff of the neck and gave them a good shaking.

Said the Daily News: “It (PHILADELPHIA MAGAZINE) practically shut down the Pearl Buck Foundation for mismanagement and sent Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Harry Karafin to prison for extortion.”

The latter story was so remarkable, my station, KYW-TV, assigned me to cover the Harry Karafin trial, which ran for two full weeks. It was my assignment (from station management) to report the day’s court developments for TWO FULL MINUTES on the six o’clock news every night.

I met Alan Halpern once. In April, 1970, we were both selected to be two of five representatives from Philadelphia to fly on the so-called inaugural flight of Pan American’s FIRST 747. Yes, the big jumbo jet. Alan and I and one other Pan Am invitee were taken by big long limousine from Philadelphia to JFK International, Jamaica, NY. We were treated royally.

We were seated together on the plane. Row 6. And this is the main reason I am noting his passing. The qualities described in his obituary were evident to me in that one night with him. The obituary quoted from an Inquirer description of him as “shy and soft-spoken”, a cigarette addict who seemed to hide in a cloud of smoke”.

I do not recall that he smoked. What I remember is how frightened he was. He was terrified of the thought that this was the first flight of a 747. In addition, he did not like it one bit that he could not see the right wing of the plane. We were seated so far forward, we couldn’t see the wings.

Because it was obvious he was in a panic, I told him I would check things out for him. I left my seat for a minute, walked back in the plane until I could see the right wing.

I returned to my seat and told Alan the wing is about one-third back on the fuselage, but very definitely there. He seemed to appreciate the important tidbit.

Later, he became concerned because we didn’t leave on time. So, because the pre-flight time was quite casual (no security in those days!), we walked to the area just behind the pilots, whose cockpit door was open. The pilots seemed to be quite busy checking their instruments, and Alan was especially concerned that the departure time already had passed. One of the pilots turned around and smiled.

This made Alan feel alot better.

He asked a crew person (possibly the same stewardess, I do not recall) if this really is to be the first 747 flight.

“Oh, yes,” he was told. “The first WITH PASSENGERS. This crew already has flown back and forth to Paris about 20 times.”

Alan returned with me to Row 6. The plane backed away from the gate 45 minutes late. Alan Halpern enjoyed the flight, especially the landing in Paris. It felt as though a feather had touched the runway.

What a great airplane! What a nice man.

Weather Weary

Last Monday (December 5, 2005), the company phone rang at 5:36 a.m. (We handle day and overnight bus tours, among various trips, including cruises.) The caller was group leader for a casino bus trip departing at 11:30 a.m. She wanted to cancel the trip. In recent days, the TV weather forecasters were predicting the winter’s first major storm. Her trip did not leave Philadelphia until 11:30 a.m., but presumably people already were calling her regarding the ominous warnings. She said she had heard it already was snowing heavily in Atlantic City (the report was untrue). She agreed to wait until 9:00 a.m. when a final decision to cancel could be made. And at that time, she canceled the trip.

Another Atlantic City trip that morning, from a Philadelphia suburb, did proceed. Its group leader said he was not overly-concerned by the forecast, but he asked that the departure from the casino be moved up one hour (in other words, he wanted to leave Atlantic City at 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00). The casino agreed. The rest of this particular part of the story is that the trip proceeded without incident.

But that first trip was postponed until mid-January.

The main cause of the above developments was not the weather. It was the weather foretellers. The TV weather guys. During the past decade, they have succeeded in scaring the hell out of many people, and the damage likely has amounted to millions of dollars. And yet nobody will be able to develop an appropriate money loss total, and nobody at the TV stations cares.

So many times, the forecast has been ominous; the eventual result: not nearly as severe. This is not a direct slap at meteorologists. They are more accurate than the TV weather prognosticators (some of whom also are meteorologists). Weather reporting on the TV newscasts seems to involve personnel who relish dwelling on the most severe possibilities. And the viewing public has been sold a bill of goods. The obvious theory here is that the TV weathercasters want to boost the ratings.

And it all comes at a considerable cost.

In my business, a postponement or cancellation always costs money. If it is a postponement, the bus driver (based on the rugged rules of being a charter/tour motorcoach operator) loses a day’s pay. It is the rub of the green. The purpose of the trip may not be replaceable. If you are going to New York to see the Rockettes in the “Christmas Spectacular” at Radio City Music Hall, you are out of luck. Only once in its 75 years has the weather resulted in a show cancellation.

In extraordinary cases, Radio City would seek to offer another show date, but because the Rockettes and their annual show are so popular (they do about 200 performances at Christmastime), it may be impossible to provide a makegood.

If you cannot “make good” on the trip, you have to open your wallet, one way or another.

Yes, there are times when the storm is severe enough to cause a group to cancel. But these situations are in the minority. Even so, because of the scare tactics on the TV weather reports during newscasts, the public has become panic-stricken. Surely there are times when passengers cannot get out of their driveways to get to the trip pickup point, but in a majority of situations, the people are just too scared to venture out. And the snow may be an inch, or such as last Monday, less. When the forecast is updated by weather events, the people do not listen; they go by the prior scare and stay home.

In other words, the “storm of the century” mentality has become so rampant, people are quick to cancel. Last winter, one major storm did shut down trips for a few days, causing one group leader to cancel his trip scheduled nearly one week after the snowstorm.  By the time of the trip day, the church parking lot had been completely cleared, and of course the streets and highways were open. But the people canceled, anyway.

There is some justification for being scared to death, but it is completely overblown. And the implications of the TV weather reports affect many industries, not just the bus business. It seems that practically everybody anticipates coming disastrous results if you don’t stay home.

John Bolaris, former weathercaster at Channel 10, Philadelphia, probably will be for years ahead the most infamous TV weather scarer. A couple of years ago, he was so convinced a major storm was poised to strike Philadelphia some days later, he succeeded in convincing his station to allow him to announce during the evening entertainment fare (before the 11 o’clock news) that he would have a report on “the storm of the century” at 11 o’clock.

This prompted other stations to provide similar ominous forecasts, and people were canceling things all over the place.

Isn’t it time to stop this stuff ??

November 22 42 years ago

In April, 1945, when I was 11 years old, I recall being shocked by the news of the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I was delivering newspapers for a neighborhood newspaper about six blocks from my home. It was warm enough that people were outside their homes as I walked from house to apartment house to house. Several people along my route told me of the news, apparently figuring an 11-year-old could understand.

Just about everybody you talk with, if they were old enough in 1963, can tell you where they were and what they were doing when they first heard news of the assassination of President John Kennedy.

I had the unique experience of reporting it on the radio.

I was a reporter-newscaster for WRCV in Philadelphia, an NBC-owned station (it is now KYW NewsRadio). In those days, I did the morning news starting at 5:30 a.m. so I was near the end of my work day in the newsroom, along with John Schubeck, who at the time did the morning cut-ins during the TODAY SHOW. The Copy Boy in the small room where the teletype machines were located heard highly unusual loud bell sounds coming from one of the machines.

The Copy Boy gave me the copy, something to the effect that “shots rang out at the Kennedy motorcade in Dallas”. Soon thereafter, the follow-up said President Kennedy had been shot. I told John Schubeck of the brief item, and he said at once: “You take it on radio, I’ll take it to the announce booth (television).”

John had been employed there before I joined the station just three months prior to November 22. So I was not about to question his judgment. He “beat” the NBC network to the news on Channel 3, where Chet Huntley and David Brinkley soon took over non-stop coverage.

I had seen first-hand how popular President Kennedy was. For the TV news side (Channel 3), I was assigned to politics, and took one of the station’s crews to Convention Hall one night in October when the main speaker at the Democratic City Committee Annual Dinner was John Kennedy. I never will forget the thunderous ovation he received when he walked into the hall and over to the head table. He was a very, very handsome man. And his smile was unbelievable. The place just came apart, there was such adoration.

About a month after that, I walked into the radio studio where a disc jockey was playing music. I told him President Kennedy had been shot, and I needed the air at once. The disk jockey introduced me with a brief mention that I had a major news bulletin. By the time I was on the air, the teletype machine account had given additional details, which I read on the air. The disc jockey had the unfortunate predicament of following the bulletin with a comment, and he said, I thought quite nervously, that WRCV would provide further details as soon as we had them. I know both of us were in a kind of shock.

I left the studio and went back to the newsroom, and walked into the teletype room and watched in further shock, by myself, as a teletype writer, somewhere, manually and very slowly and carefully typed that the President had been shot, “PERHAPS FATALLY”, or words to that effect.

NBC-TV had not yet taken the air on our television station, Channel 3. NBC Radio also had not been heard from. I took the additional information including “PERHAPS FATALLY” back into the studio, and asked for the air again. The disc jockey interrupted the music, and introduced me again. This was only two or three minutes after the first bulletin.

I read all the additional information including the PERHAPS FATALLY, explaining that we were updating immediately so as to provide all we knew.

When I finished, the disc jockey said something like “Well, we certainly hope that’s not true.”

What else could he say??

House of Representatives

The Iraq war, of course, is a controversial issue nowadays. Supposedly, the polls have it that two-thirds of Americans oppose the war. If the polling were more structured (i.e., objective and truthful), we would find that two-thirds of Americans oppose the killing of American servicemen…and the other one-third oppose the killing while at the same time recognize that military deaths are a given in time of war. The death toll was 25 times higher in Vietnam than present-day Iraq. This does not justify the Iraqi death toll, but critics do not admit the obvious: we are at war. Last night, the House of Representatives voted on a “non-binding” proposal to call for an immediate pullout of American forces from Iraq. After heated, sometimes juvenile debate, the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated. Only three Democrats voted in favor. We send our representatives to Washington to represent us. After the smoke cleared, they did so last night. But we wouldn’t have seen such a debate had not the liberals advanced their causes: there were no WMD’s in Iraq; there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, ad nauseum. Let us suppose the House APPROVED that resolution. First, of course, President Bush would have ignored it, as he properly should do. Secondly, somebody would ask the U-S Senate to conduct a similar vote. And President Bush would ignore any Senate approval of such a ridiculous proposal. Congressman John Murtha, an ex-Marine from my state (PA), Thursday called for the pullout “at the earliest practicable time”. That triggered last night’s debacle. “At the earliest practicable time” could be 10 years. Or 15 years. What we are doing in Iraq is fighting a war on terror. The suicide bombers strike daily. They kill people every day. Most of the dead are Iraqis. The ongoing assault by American et al forces against the so-called insurgents is designed to pick them off day by day. It is a struggle. People asked for a “plan” regarding Iraq. It is right before you. No government can put down on paper chapter and verse as to how to eliminate terrorism. The liberals not only demand a “plan” but they also call for a pullout date. The fact that this is crazy does not deter the liberals from constantly presenting this drivel. Terrorism is a war unlike any we ever have seen. Our enemy does not even wear uniforms. Where is the ACLU or somebody to complain that the enemy is in violation of the Geneva Convention in not wearing uniforms? Where is the ACLU or somebody to complain that it is barbaric to cut somebody’s head off? Where is the news media in pointing this out? Where are the polls asking IF YOU OPPOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ, AND THE AMERICANS PULL OUT, are you prepared for daily suicide bombings in the United States? We do not have a specific plan. That is correct. We are ad-libbing to a great extent. We are fighting a war against terrorism. It will take time to win. But win we must.

Polls

The so-called MAINSTREAM MEDIA seek to make a lot of news from polls they or somebody else conduct. Why is it that we never get to see the questions that are asked? The subjective nature of questions certainly can sway the answers.

It seems to me we should not pay attention to, much less trust, any of these polls unless the questions are fully disclosed. Yet the lovely MAINSTREAM MEDIA pounce on polls offered almost as breaking news. We also never know whether the poll is NOT REPORTED if the media source doesn’t like the results.

Dan Rather thinks there is no liberal bias in the news media. Dan Rather himself is part of the problem. The media has a bias. It is left wing. Dan Rather is a typical left-winger. The reader may not agree, but it always seemed, during his newscaster years at CBS, that he enjoyed providing poll information allegedly harmful to the conservative side. He says he is not reporting with a bias. Although his anchoring days are past, in speeches and other commentary, he speaks with a bias. And he knows it. Surely he does, doesn’t he?

Dan Rather and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA love polls when they warp to the left.

Polls should be accurate. Polls should avoid any biases. Polls should tell us the truth. The subject may come up again on thishere blog because we also must question the method of selecting the people who are polled. Ever watch Jay Leno doing a MAN ON THE STREET, or Sean Hannity on the radio. One might think the American public as a generality are…. dumb. Let’s just say they perhaps are less than INFORMED sufficiently to ANSWER a poll and polling questions.

A U. S. President recently authorized a poll to tell him where to take his next vacation. This craziness is self-explanatory.

Thank God we have a President today who does NOT make his decisions on what the polls say.

My First Blog Fri 11/18/05

My son David “installed” this blog for me. Took him only a few minutes last night. He has had his own blog for two years: davidpierron.com He just talks on there from time to time . . . . . about computers or whatever else comes to his attention. He makes a grammatical error here and there but I think it is mostly because he is in a hurry. David, you should proof your copy before you send it to China! But maybe they wouldn’t be paying attention in China, anyway. And what do they know? They still are ruled by Communists, who basically do not like our country.

And why did I get on the subject of China?? Oh yeah… because David used incorrect grammar once or twice. So, why did I ask him to install a blog for me ??? Well, there are two reasons: one is that I don’t know where this will lead, and the other is that I want to put in writing some things that have happened over the years that otherwise would go unreported forever. That may not be the least bit tragic for the history of the world, but I would ask the reader to decide if proper use is being made of this blog.