image
Gurney's Inn
SpaSoireeTOP
bulletNight Moves
spacer spacer
spacer
image
spacer spacer
spacer
image
spacer spacer
spacer
image
spacer spacer
spacer
image
spacer spacer
spacer
image
spacer spacer

WLNG
Reader Feedback
print email Source: Editorial: A STAR IS ABOUT TO BE BORN
lessons
January 11, 2017 | 07:36 PM

Not sure my parents paid that much for my guitar lessons. By the way i was never considered for any performance.

Michael Travis
print email Source: Editorial: A STAR IS ABOUT TO BE BORN
"My dick's bigger than your dick!
January 11, 2017 | 10:15 AM


When people care about who's the entertainment at a Presidential inauguration it shows how shallow we all are.

Mike

mike koulermos
print email Source: Editorial: A STAR IS ABOUT TO BE BORN
putz
January 10, 2017 | 07:27 PM

sooooooooo funny jerry...love this.

tesch
print email Source: Editorial: Cathy Cahill Appeal Moves Forward
Cahill judgement
January 09, 2017 | 05:16 PM

Cato these people who foget their friends having depended on you for years should be ashamed of themselves.

Chin up

stephen miele
print email Source: Editorial: The Death Of Dorothy Kilgallen
"her friend Florence Smith"
January 06, 2017 | 06:52 AM

Mr. Murphy's book review is accurate with the following exception:

"She often bounced ideas off her friend Florence Smith who also served as a proofreader and a confidant. Smith was found dead two days later."

These falsehoods originated from 1960s JFK conspiracy theorist Penn Jones, also known as William Penn Jones Jr. He published a minor newspaper in Texas. It was called the Midlothian Mirror.

Mr. Jones referred to Dorothy's friend as "Mrs. Earl T. Smith." Other book authors have cited her maiden name: Florence Pritchett.

Mr. Jones never contacted anyone in New York who had known Florence Smith. I contacted her son Earl Jr. in the 1990s. He told me his mother (Florence) had died at home following a long battle with leukemia. She was in no position, while she was so sick, to listen to Dorothy Kilgallen's ideas about JFK's death or to proofread any of Dorothy's writing.

Penn Jones claimed in the 1960s that the New York City medical examiner never had been able to determine the cause of Mrs. Smith's death. Wrong. Her death certificate was signed by her personal physician, not a medical examiner. You don't have to obtain a copy of her death certificate to determine that.

You can visit the main branch of the New York Public Library, 5th Avenue and West 42nd Street, where an index book that includes the year 1965 lists which deaths were medical examiner cases and which weren't. All five boroughs are covered by the book. The death of "Florence Smith" in Manhattan wasn't a medical examiner case. Her date of death was November 9, 1965.

Also, Penn Jones claimed in the 1960s that Florence had died two days after Dorothy. Wrong. Dorothy died on a Monday. Florence died the next day: Tuesday, November 9.

The truth: Dorothy Kilgallen could have been murdered. Florence Pritchett Smith couldn't have been.

Florence's son Earl Smith Jr. is the president of a corporation located in Boston, Massachusetts. You can use the following web page to find more than one snail mail address for him.

http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=043250032

Earl's wife's first name is Tatiana, but please contact him at one or more of the addresses on that web page before google leads you to her mother's 2009 obituary.

Mr. Smith can tell you that his mother and Dorothy Kilgallen were friends, but they did not interact toward the end of his mother's life while she was at home dying of leukemia. They weren't neighbors, as some bloggers have claimed. Florence, her husband and son lived on Fifth Avenue. She died there. Dorothy lived on East 68th Street between Madison Avenue and Park Avenue.

Kathryn Fauble
print email Source: Editorial: SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY
January 03, 2017 | 01:50 AM

Excellent, Jerry.

JT Fangio
print email Source: Editorial: Sweet Charities
Denim and Diamonds
January 01, 2017 | 12:07 PM

Denim and Diamonds has been postponed. A future date will be announced shortly.

Thank you,
Julie Ratner

Julie Ratner
print email Source: Editorial: SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY
Great Memories Jerry
December 29, 2016 | 01:00 PM

See you can write in a heartfelt way too, not just humorous, I enjoyed your stories.

Karl
print email Source: Editorial: Cold Case: Renewed Hunt For Double Murder
Factual errors
December 21, 2016 | 03:39 PM

This article features numerous errors. Southampton Town PD had nothing to do with the case. Also, according to people that opened the trunk, there was no "stench". quit embellishing. Just report the facts. this is why people are losing their faith in the "news".

Cutman
print email Source: Editorial
How much will my metal knee cost?
December 19, 2016 | 11:34 AM

How much will my metal knee cost?

One of us is considering a total knee replacement. A titanium knee! So we did some research on cost (the below considerations are applicable to any surgical or medical treatment).

The average overall cost for a knee replacement in the US is $30,000 to $45,000. The cost is about $40,000 at a hospital in New York City.
http://www.kneereplacementcosts.com/.

More than 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries had knee or hip replacement surgery in 2014, the Department of Health & Human Services reported.

Medicare Part A and Part B (also known as Original Medicare) cover different portions of this procedure and the associated aftercare. How much is covered by Medicare? And what does the patient have to pay?

To keep costs down for the government, Medicare has contracted with the hospital in NYC. Medicare pays a set price for the inpatient hospital portion, let's estimate $8,000, leaving you to pay a pre-set deductible of $2000, either from your savings or using a secondary health insurance, if you have one. This covers the Part A portion of Medicare; Part B will pay for physician services.

What about the hospital and the surgeon? Can they charge above the negotiated prices? They have little choice: they can absorb the losses or flatly refuse to take Medicare/Medicaid patients. When Medicare fixes their prices for a given procedure the hospital/surgeon may not charge the difference between the posted charges and the Medicare reimbursement amount, and the physician accepts "˜assignment'. The Medicare program developed these payment systems because they realized that hospital charges rarely reflect the true cost of providing services.

The good news is that we found a hospital and a surgeon that will take on the case even though the patient is on Medicare.

Assuming Obamacare is repealed and Medicare is "privatized" in 2017, how is this going to change coverage for the planned surgery? The government is no longer a player. It is now just the provider (hospital/surgeon) vs. private insurance companies in a free market system. Insurance companies will want to minimize their costs. They will a) bargain with providers, b) increase the deductible, co-pay and co-insurance, paid by the patient, and c) increase the monthly patient premium insurance rates. There will be no incentive for providers to cut their costs and be less wasteful. Obamacare provided those incentives known as (1) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) designed to coordinate care and (2) transitioning from a fee-for-service model (paying on volume) to a bundled payment model (paying on disease episode). At the new bargaining table are only insurance companies and the hospital/surgeon. The patient has no representative at the table, since the government has pulled out. Like every lawyer will tell you, without legal representation you are screwed.

The worst case scenario is insurance companies increasing premium rates for everyone because covering an elderly and sicker patient population without help from the government will greatly impact their risk pool.

It is difficult to model a payment scenario under a newly voucherized system where consumers are given a pre-set premium amount and told to go find the insurance that best suits their needs. We do know the following, though:

1) With Obamacare care repealed, insurance companies would no longer be obligated to use 80% of premium payments toward patient coverage.
2) With Obamacare care repealed, lifetime limits may apply
3) With Obamacare repealed pre-existing exclusions may come back
4) With Medicare privatized, deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays will no longer be set by Medicare, but by the needs of the insurance company.

Let's make some assumptions. The hospital still offers the procedure for $40,000, and they have contracted with your selected privatized Medicare insurance to do it for $20,000. However, that $20,000 will include a much higher deductible, co-pays and co-insurance that will be the patient's responsibility. So, whereas under traditional Medicare, in our example, the patient responsibility will be about $2,000, payments under a new privatized plan, unfortunately, will skyrocket, perhaps to $4,000 "" 8,000?

David N Posnett MD
Emeritus Prof. of Medicine
Weill Cornell Medicine

Mike Anthony
Sr Associate Executive Director, North Brooklyn Health Network



David Posnett MD
print email Source: Editorial: CHRISTMAS EVE IN BROOKLYN
everything
December 17, 2016 | 01:55 PM

I got my schwinn on Xmas 1950. it was the Cadillac of the neighborhood. I never knew how to spell "Sfullyadell" , now i know. Thanks for Dat. I lived behind the tanks on 80th st. and Grand Ave. It was a wonderful life. My father was John and they did not want me to be "junior" so they nicknamed me Barry after my Grandfather Antonio who was known as "Barracone" (the man that lived near the barracks). Thag was my Grandmother's strong influence. I will always bask in the sunshine of my Italian heritage.

John Fornuto
print email Source: Editorial: Fire Tears Through Main Street, Sag Harbor
Fire
December 17, 2016 | 11:20 AM

My heart goes out to my friends in Sag Harbor. I will miss the great undernoticed films at that theatre

ELLIOTT FEINMAN
print email Source: Editorial: CHRISTMAS EVE IN BROOKLYN
Merry Christmas Jerry and Happy Hanukah
December 15, 2016 | 07:49 PM

You guys always got more presents, but hey we had the chocolate coins in gold foil and beautiful multi colored candles. Dreidel Dreidel Dreidel... I made it out of clay.

Karl
print email Source: Editorial: CHRISTMAS EVE IN BROOKLYN
December 15, 2016 | 03:16 PM

Buon Natale a tutti!!!

al

Al
print email Source: Editorial: WHY YOU MUST NEVER RETIRE
RETIREMENT
December 10, 2016 | 11:11 AM

This is still hilarious and so on the mark!

Betty Averna
print email Source: Editorial: Cold Case: Renewed Hunt For Double Murder
Your online message setup
December 09, 2016 | 12:19 PM

DON'T KNOW IF THIS MESSAGE WILL EVER REACH YOU. YOUR SITE KEEPS TELLING ME I ANSWERED THE VERIFICATION QUESTION INCORRECTLY. WELL, THAT'S ONE WAY OF KEEPING THE MESSAGES DOWN.

Steve Schatt
print email Source: Editorial: Cold Case: Renewed Hunt For Double Murder
Rick Murphy: Your anti-Times column
December 09, 2016 | 12:15 PM

Hey, Rick: Welcome to the world of fake news.
Your column that rips the NY Times for bias clearly demonstrates your own. As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
First, the NY Times did not apologize for biased reporting, a canard you repeated in a previous column. You've apparently latched onto your buddy Trump's technique of stating untruths without bothering to do any vetting.
The Times statement specifically said it reported on both sides fairly, but regretted that it failed to appreciate Trump's broad appeal. That's not an apology for bias against Trump but an apology for not reporting on the electorate as thoroughly as it should have. You can disagree with the conclusion that they were fair to both sides, but don't put your words on them.
More Murphy pap: "!the shocking news that The Times made a conscious decision to sabotage Donald Trump's presidential campaign by coloring its coverage of the election." Where did that "news" come from? Your favorite fly on the wall? (More likely from a previous column of yours, wherein you said the Times "acknowledged editors and publishers made a conscious decision to cast Trump in a bad light." Where'd you find that acknowledgement? In a Trump tweet?)
Then you jump on the Trump bandwagon by claiming the Times lost subscribers "in droves" during the campaign. I guess that came from your drunken spy inside the Times circulation department. In fact (remember facts?) the Times reported that they had far more starts than stops during the campaign. And in the week following the election, the paper added 41,000 print and digital subscribers, four times their normal average. In the third (fall) quarter, they added 116,000 digital subscribers.
Now, you can say that those are Times facts, not the real facts. That would be more Trumpspeak. Just deny all, and attribute those "facts" to the lying press.
As for the basic reporting on Trump, the Times consistently did what any good journalist is supposed to do when a candidate says outrageous things (lies and distortions) and doubles down on them: They reported what he said, then reported the truth about his statements.
Did they concentrate on his business and other past dealings? Of course. When a candidate refuses to reveal his taxes, and has no public record to present, what did you expect them to do? Take his word that's he's always been a good boy and a good businessman? Is that your idea of good journalism?
By the way, a couple of weeks ago, Times public editor Liz Spayd wrote noted that ". . . the Times' treatment of Clinton has been the topic of an ongoing media debate, as a wide array of writers have detailed what they viewed as the paper's patently unfair treatment of the Democratic nominee. Even the Times's former executive editor, Jill Abramson, agreed that the newspaper gives Clinton "˜an unfair' level of scrutiny." She was hardly alone this campaign, as numerous media observers and readers alike criticized the paper's treatment of the Democratic nominee . . . "
So while you and your Trump buddies have dumped on the Times for anti-Trump bias, others have dumped on the times for anti-Clinton bias. Usually that sort of thing means the paper is doing something right.
But I digress. Let's get back to your own biased conclusions. So sorry uncomfortable facts keep popping up about your assertions. That innocent call from the Taiwan president? Turns out that it wasn't just a casual thing ("Hello, who is this?") but a setup by Bob Dole, lobbyist for Taiwan -- an activity that Trump would supposedly bar if he had his way. But no problem now.
I was going to end it here, but there are so many unsubstantiated items in your column that I might as well throw in one or two more. Re Dean Baquet: "!Maybe Baquet was more pliable." Oh, yes. And maybe Donald Trump kills puppies. "Baquet should have resigned when this disgraceful episode began. He is finished in this business." So you leap to an inaccurate conclusion about the Times's "apology," and then you fire for life a Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist and former DC bureau chief who just might know a bit more about the news biz than you do. By the way, the guy resigned from his job as editor of the LA Times because he refused an order to cut staff.
And what have you contributed to the journalism biz, besides backing your "rude and obnoxious" guy (your words) for the most powerful position in the world? You worked at the Times, as an East End reporter. I'd love to know what major awards you won, what scandals you exposed. And you gave up working at the "gold standard" of the industry because of the bias you found? And you now love working at a newspaper with a conservative bias, whose owner made his millions with clever slogans and product exaggerations in the wonderful world of advertising. A perfect model for your brand of journalism.
Yes, there's a general belief that most newspapers have a liberal bias. It might be true, if you're talking about the political bent of reporters and editors. That doesn't necessarily translate into slanting the news, but that perception has certainly been exacerbated by Fox and other conservative operations (with their own biases) pounding away at it. Say "liberal bias" often enough and even liberals start to believe it. Sort of like Donald Trump talking about the lying media again and again and undermining a general belief in the essential role of the press. Ask any Trump supporter what he thinks of you and the rest of the press and you'll likely see a raised fist -- as we've all seen at his rallies when Trump points to the reporters.
Every newspaper reporter and editor has biases. If there are more liberal news people out there than conservatives, it might be because the left-leaning are more likely to be interested in the problems of the disenfranchised or the sins of officials -- two of the bedrock concerns of the free press. The nature of journalism is a quest for info about the negatives as well as the positives of society. Do young conservatives have the drive to pursue that goal at the lowest levels of the newspaper chain? I don't know. But how else do you explain so many "liberal" reporters at papers in the heartland of the country?
In any case, the good reporters and editors can put their biases aside in their reporting and presentation. No one is perfect, but top papers like the Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times hit the mark far more often than not. Where else would you, the campaigns and even much of the cable and internet media get your initial news from? Incidentally, most newspapers across the country are owned by Republicans or conservatives, despite the perceived liberal bias. And a half-dozen conglomerates (certainly not liberal) own the bulk of other media outlets.
You may be a newspaper nut, but it's clear why you're now a big fish in the little pond of a Hamptons weekly. It gives you free rein to spout your views, but your own biases have overshadowed your appreciation for facts. A good columnist, even for a local weekly, bases his or her opinions on vetted info. Try that sometime.

(P.S.This is a personal message, not a "letter to the editor." Not interested in enlightening anyone but you.)

Steve Schatt (sschatt@aol.com)
print email Source: Editorial: Cold Case: Renewed Hunt For Double Murder
Your anti-Times column
December 09, 2016 | 12:09 PM

Hey, Rick: Welcome to the world of fake news.
Your column that rips the NY Times for bias clearly demonstrates your own. As the old saying goes, you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
First, the NY Times did not apologize for biased reporting, a canard you repeated in a previous column. You've apparently latched onto your buddy Trump's technique of stating untruths without bothering to do any vetting.
The Times statement specifically said it reported on both sides fairly, but regretted that it failed to appreciate Trump's broad appeal. That's not an apology for bias against Trump but an apology for not reporting on the electorate as thoroughly as it should have. You can disagree with the conclusion that they were fair to both sides, but don't put your words on them.
More Murphy pap: "!the shocking news that The Times made a conscious decision to sabotage Donald Trump's presidential campaign by coloring its coverage of the election." Where did that "news" come from? Your favorite fly on the wall? (More likely from a previous column of yours, wherein you said the Times "acknowledged editors and publishers made a conscious decision to cast Trump in a bad light." Where'd you find that acknowledgement? In a Trump tweet?)
Then you jump on the Trump bandwagon by claiming the Times lost subscribers "in droves" during the campaign. I guess that came from your drunken spy inside the Times circulation department. In fact (remember facts?) the Times reported that they had far more starts than stops during the campaign. And in the week following the election, the paper added 41,000 print and digital subscribers, four times their normal average. In the third (fall) quarter, they added 116,000 digital subscribers.
Now, you can say that those are Times facts, not the real facts. That would be more Trumpspeak. Just deny all, and attribute those "facts" to the lying press.
As for the basic reporting on Trump, the Times consistently did what any good journalist is supposed to do when a candidate says outrageous things (lies and distortions) and doubles down on them: They reported what he said, then reported the truth about his statements.
Did they concentrate on his business and other past dealings? Of course. When a candidate refuses to reveal his taxes, and has no public record to present, what did you expect them to do? Take his word that's he's always been a good boy and a good businessman? Is that your idea of good journalism?
By the way, a couple of weeks ago, Times public editor Liz Spayd wrote noted that ". . . the Times' treatment of Clinton has been the topic of an ongoing media debate, as a wide array of writers have detailed what they viewed as the paper's patently unfair treatment of the Democratic nominee. Even the Times's former executive editor, Jill Abramson, agreed that the newspaper gives Clinton "˜an unfair' level of scrutiny." She was hardly alone this campaign, as numerous media observers and readers alike criticized the paper's treatment of the Democratic nominee . . . "
So while you and your Trump buddies have dumped on the Times for anti-Trump bias, others have dumped on the times for anti-Clinton bias. Usually that sort of thing means the paper is doing something right.
But I digress. Let's get back to your own biased conclusions. So sorry uncomfortable facts keep popping up about your assertions. That innocent call from the Taiwan president? Turns out that it wasn't just a casual thing ("Hello, who is this?") but a setup by Bob Dole, lobbyist for Taiwan -- an activity that Trump would supposedly bar if he had his way. But no problem now.
I was going to end it here, but there are so many unsubstantiated items in your column that I might as well throw in one or two more. Re Dean Baquet: "!Maybe Baquet was more pliable." Oh, yes. And maybe Donald Trump kills puppies. "Baquet should have resigned when this disgraceful episode began. He is finished in this business." So you leap to an inaccurate conclusion about the Times's "apology," and then you fire for life a Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist and former DC bureau chief who just might know a bit more about the news biz than you do. By the way, the guy resigned from his job as editor of the LA Times because he refused an order to cut staff.
And what have you contributed to the journalism biz, besides backing your "rude and obnoxious" guy (your words) for the most powerful position in the world? You worked at the Times, as an East End reporter. I'd love to know what major awards you won, what scandals you exposed. And you gave up working at the "gold standard" of the industry because of the bias you found? And you now love working at a newspaper with a conservative bias, whose owner made his millions with clever slogans and product exaggerations in the wonderful world of advertising. A perfect model for your brand of journalism.
Yes, there's a general belief that most newspapers have a liberal bias. It might be true, if you're talking about the political bent of reporters and editors. That doesn't necessarily translate into slanting the news, but that perception has certainly been exacerbated by Fox and other conservative operations (with their own biases) pounding away at it. Say "liberal bias" often enough and even liberals start to believe it. Sort of like Donald Trump talking about the lying media again and again and undermining a general belief in the essential role of the press. Ask any Trump supporter what he thinks of you and the rest of the press and you'll likely see a raised fist -- as we've all seen at his rallies when Trump points to the reporters.
Every newspaper reporter and editor has biases. If there are more liberal news people out there than conservatives, it might be because the left-leaning are more likely to be interested in the problems of the disenfranchised or the sins of officials -- two of the bedrock concerns of the free press. The nature of journalism is a quest for info about the negatives as well as the positives of society. Do young conservatives have the drive to pursue that goal at the lowest levels of the newspaper chain? I don't know. But how else do you explain so many "liberal" reporters at papers in the heartland of the country?
In any case, the good reporters and editors can put their biases aside in their reporting and presentation. No one is perfect, but top papers like the Times, the Washington Post, and the LA Times hit the mark far more often than not. Where else would you, the campaigns and even much of the cable and internet media get your initial news from? Incidentally, most newspapers across the country are owned by Republicans or conservatives, despite the perceived liberal bias. And a half-dozen conglomerates (certainly not liberal) own the bulk of other media outlets.
You may be a newspaper nut, but it's clear why you're now a big fish in the little pond of a Hamptons weekly. It gives you free rein to spout your views, but your own biases have overshadowed your appreciation for facts. A good columnist, even for a local weekly, bases his or her opinions on vetted info. Try that sometime.

(P.S. This is a personal message, not a "letter to the editor." Not interested in enlightening anyone but you.

Steve Schatt (sschatt@aol.com)
print email Source: Editorial: A LITTLE OF THIS AND A LITTLE OF THAT
Clothes Make the Man
December 07, 2016 | 08:32 AM

I totally agree with Garrison Keillor .. Trump needs a more Presidential "do". Might add that he also should get some new and more Presidential "threads" at Paul Stewart.

Bill Crandall
print email Source: Editorial: Mobile Home Owners Fighting Back
holiday travel park holiday fl.
December 05, 2016 | 07:19 PM

all of these comments cant be far off base, if kingsley corp I truly hope they do not buy holiday travel, the people here need protection not more drug problems. how can they deny the case in co. he entire park, here knows the history of the kingsley/ galland co. there are buyers lined up for this park, think twice if even a third of this is true, we don't need you, our legal system here, works much faster, the retired people run, fl. watching!!!!!

cathy clark
print email Source: Editorial: Shaping The Heart Of Hampton Bays
letter to the editor
December 04, 2016 | 01:56 PM

I just tried to submit a letter to the editor but have received a Notice from The Independent's Delivery System that Delivery appears to have failed.

Is The Independent having a system problem?
Susan Cerwinski

sccerwins@gmail.com
print email Source: Editorial: MISS RHEINGOLD . . . YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS
December 03, 2016 | 01:29 PM

Jerry,
Beautifully remembered!
It was a different time. Life was different. In 1948 my father was about to sell his '31 Model A Ford. He bought it in '41 when it was 10 years old. He had his eye on a 1938 Pontiac...dark green...it, too, was 10 years old. Public transportation was a trolley car...went right up the middle of Jackson Avenue all the way to Hoboken for a nickle. On every single block there was a candy store. That's where the neighborhood folks bet on "the numbers" and the horses. The dimes and quarters were picked up a couple times a day by a skinny nervous guy called Benny the Bookie. He wasn't the bookie. He was just the "runner" The bookie was a guy called Chester who was partners with Harry, a family friend whose son became a doctor. Meanwhile, time is getting shorter...and so am I.

al
print email Source: Editorial: MISS RHEINGOLD . . . YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS
True Confessions
November 30, 2016 | 02:03 AM

Jerry ! The best line in this whole story is at the end when Father Cafero asked you, "Which one?' Took me right back to when I was 14; standing on the confessional line with 20 other people from my neighborhood at St. Joseph's Church in Hewlett (as my Mother made me do every Saturday afternoon); and trying to think stuff up while waiting on line that I could confess. Was never easy because I was only a kid, so I made up the usual kid stuff ! Lied 6 times to my Mother; took The Lord's "Name in Vain" 10 times; had impure thoughts about 20 times (and all in one week). And then for my penance ! Say 5 "Our Fathers", 10 "Hail Mary's", and light a candle (10 cents) for the "Conversion of Russia". Easy peasy!
But then one Saturday, and the last time I EVER went to confession, I told Father Halperin that I felt-up Mary Jane (VERY well-developed at 14 herself) in the Church basement. My first shot at "2nd base". Next thing I knew ! a hand reached into the sanctuary of my private little curtained booth and yanked me out in front of EVERYONE waiting on line. It was Father Halperin (every kid's worst nightmare in the Parish.) Who immediately began to yell, berate, and embarrass the living shit out of me. I laugh about it now, but that was the very day I quit the R.C. Church - .and all organized and branded religions. And it's been great fun ever since. LOL ! Bill


Bill Crandall
print email Source: Editorial: BE THANKFUL. IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.
November 24, 2016 | 03:39 PM

Dear Jerry,

Don't worry...everything will be okay!

I look forward to seeing you on Cavuto.
Go to confession first.

al

Al
print email Source: Editorial: BE THANKFUL. IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.
Pick Your Poison
November 23, 2016 | 10:44 PM

Dear commentator Louanne Lang ... Hard for people to know the "truth" if they don't even bother to look for it. Only watch FOX and you get their version; only watch MSNBC and you get their's. And maybe, if you're lucky, maybe some "hard" facts and news instead of opinions in between (let's say CNN.) Or, for those who actually read, maybe the NYT, WSJ, Washington Post or Times, et al. Pick your poison!

Bill Crandall
print email Source: Editorial: BE THANKFUL. IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.
Comment
November 23, 2016 | 07:03 PM

Democracy - it really is great. However retiring Supreme Court Judge Sutur said that it's best when our electorate is informed. It is not. And, Jerry - I think that is the problem with our country today. We are not "truthfully" informed.
Just sayin'

Louanne Lang
print email Source: Editorial: TEARS AND JEERS
Things Are Looking Up
November 15, 2016 | 10:45 PM

Even having supported Clinton and being greatly disappointed in her loss, I am now, somehow, cautiously optimistic about Trump since announcing Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff. Yet, Trump choosing Steve Bannon as his Senior Strategic Advisor is somewhat bewildering. And rumors of Bolton for Secretary of State simply scare the shit out of me. But let's wait and see what The Donald does before discounting his POTUS victory. Ryan just got re-elected as House Speaker; Sessions is up for some major Cabinet post (maybe Attorney General or Secretary of State); and Schumer will become Senate Minority leader. All major minds and experienced "Establishment" politicos, who put "America First" and Party second; and want to get things done for all people. That is very encouraging! At the same time, there is also talk of Giuliani for something. Director of Homeland Security makes good sense to me, but that's about it. After that and LOL, perhaps Ambassador to Burundi. That said and however things unfold, the truly good news about Trump is that he picked Mike Pence as his Veep and new head of the transition team. A highly experienced Governor and true voice-of-reason. And finally, for the all-important post of U.S. Secretary of Defense, Trump should keep Ash Carter ! because this no time for "rookies" regarding National defense and global military initiatives.

Bill Crandall
print email Source: Editorial: FATHER OF THE BRIDE
November 11, 2016 | 05:44 PM

Jerry...

It's going to be better than writing a column.

Congratulations to you and Judy!

All good things!!!

And, yes Judy...I shudda hired you 40 years ago!

al

Al
print email Source: Editorial: FATHER OF THE BRIDE
Blessings on your Daughter's wedding day
November 10, 2016 | 10:49 PM

Don Della Femina Blessings on your daughter's wedding. May her first child be a masculine child, I am going to leave you now, Don Della Femina because I know you are busy, but I want to thank you for letting me honor this very important day, your daughter's wedding day.

Karl (Carlo Brazzi )
print email Source: Editorial: FATHER OF THE BRIDE
Father of the Bride
November 08, 2016 | 07:07 PM

First and foremost Jerry ! Congrats to you and Jessie on her wedding this Saturday. And no worries about shedding any tears "" you'll be just fine. Not your first trip walking a daughter down the aisle. The hard part, of course, will be when you and Jessie dance the classic father/daughter dance together; hold each other; look right into each other's eyes, and share some private words together. That's where I broke down a bit when my girls, Jessica and Sara, were married. So keep two clean handkerchiefs in your pocket. One for you and one for Jessie. And best to all for a happy, wonderful, and fun day.

Meanwhile, thanks for the great Boot, Friedman, and WSJ posts on today's election. Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Bill


Bill Crandall

WLNG
Hardy Plumbing
SpaSoireeTOP