Beyond Barbed Wire

Posted on February 23, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Beyond Barbed Wire, Kit Parker Films production, is a thought-provoking, emotional look at one of the most controversial events in American history. The film takes a personal look at the Japanese-Americans affected by the American government’s short-sighted, knee jerk reaction to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and other targets in the Pacific that kicked off America’s direct involvement in World War II. The message is amplified by the primary focus of the documentary, those Japanese-American men who – despite the humiliation foisted upon their families – still felt duty and honor bound to fight for their country.

This is one of those incidents in American history that has always intrigued me. And so, it was another foray to the Horsham Library looking for cheap music (Read: Free!) and something interesting to watch. The interment of Japanese- Americans holds a fascination for me for the following reasons:

Only Japanese-Americans were ever interred in large numbers during World War II. This despite the early war whispers of atrocities being committed by Germans on Jews and other “undesirables”. Never were German- or Italian-Americans interred nor were they prohibited from fighting against their ethnic homelands.
As the above would suggest, the racial implications are quite telling at a time when most Americans did not even know where Pearl Harbor was located. Oriental cultures and their people were unfamiliar to most Americans. Even in areas along the Pacific Coast where Americans of Japanese descent had been living for decades, they were often misunderstood or outright distrusted due solely to their racial and cultural differences.
These events occurred during the Democratic administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, arguably the most socially conscious, socially activist and – some might say – socialist Presidents. In every other facet of the war’s management, execution and victory, Roosevelt is rightfully praised; which makes it all the more confounding how this suspension of liberty for a people both innocent and in many cases generations removed from direct contact with their ethnic homeland was allowed to occur.

Beyond Barbed Wire focuses on the Nisei (Japanese descendents born in the U.S.) who fought in Europe and in the Pacific theatres of war. Both the 442nd Infantry Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Infantry Battalion served with distinction in France and Italy respectively. Their actions overcame initial resistance expressed by American military leaders to trust Japanese-Americans to fight during the war. In fact, Japanese-Americans were prohibited from fighting in the Pacific against hostile Japanese forces (unlike the the welcomed participation of German and Italian-Americans in Europe). Many other Japanese men, fluent in their native tongue, were recruited or ordered to serve in the Military Intelligence Service (MIS) as spies and translators.

Many of these men came from families that were stripped of homes, businesses and all the comforts of normal American life. The distinction made between Japanese living on the Mainland as opposed to those living in Hawaii is a story unto itself. Hawaiian Japanese were treated differently than those on the Mainland. Many Hawaiian Japanese had no idea what was happening to their Mainland cousins. One of the interesting segments of the film deals with the visit of a group of Hawaiian Japanese to a Mainland interment camp. The contrast is powerful.

It is very easy to become misty-eyed over the emotional stories being told and written by the slowly disappearing Greatest Generation. Those men and women who set aside personal lives, goals and the safety of civilian life to rescue Europe and the peoples of the Pacific. The stories of war’s horrors, of friends lost, of emotional traumas so difficult to imagine – for those of us who have never had to face war – are magnified by the realization that many of these aging Japanese warriors volunteered despite the way their country treated them and those they loved.

I continue to find this moment in history both troubling and extremely gratifying. Beyond Barbed Wire is well worth the investment of one’s time to gain an appreciation for a vastly under-appreciated segment of America’s Greatest Generation!

Franklin and Winston

Posted on January 4, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship by Jon Meacham, an accomplished author, media executive and social/political commentator, is a great read on the close, personal relationship of the primary protagonists – Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill – behind the Western Hemisphere’s defeat of German fascism and Japanese hegemony during World War II.

I became a fan of Meacham’s approach to historical figures and concepts through my weekday habit of catching segments of MSNBC’s Morning Joe while getting dressed for work. Meacham has always struck me as a down-to-earth commentator on political and social issues. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his treatment of Andrew Jackson in American Lion (not reviewed here); and his book on religion’s influence on the American experiment in American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation is an excellent guide to discussions on the spiritual foundation of American governance.

Meacham’s approach in Franklin and Winston is similar to the other works mentioned above. He takes an overview approach to the subjects, and provides plenty of source notes and references for the serious scholar who wishes to dig deeper. It is this approach that makes his books enjoyable reads regardless of your reasons for picking up a Meacham historical study.

In Franklin and Winston Meacham focuses on the personalities of FDR and Churchill, including their family lives and how their personal backgrounds, ambitions and political situations played into the Allied war effort and the friendship that developed between the two during the war.

Both men were the products of rich American mothers; Churchill’s mother marrying Lord Randolph Churchill, Member of Parliament, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Leader of the House of Commons (1886). Their parental relationships – or lack thereof – influenced both men in their very public lives.

Churchill’s parents were almost entirely absent; his father did not like him; and his upbringing and education was left to his nanny and the prescribed boarding schools for England’s power elite. As a result, Churchill was driven to be the center of attention. He was vigorous in all things he did, but was also impulsive and stubborn. Churchill needed to be liked by those he highly regarded. This would become a continuing theme in the Roosevelt-Churchill relationship, as Churchill found himself constantly chasing the more aloof, confident Roosevelt.

FDR’s upbringing was quite the opposite. He was doted on constantly by his mother. Very little is mentioned of his father. His mother’s coddling became even more prevalent when Roosevelt was diagnosed with polio in 1921 at the age of 39. What FDR found at home as a child and even as an adult was everything Churchill’s early home life lacked. As a result FDR did not feel compelled to seek anyone’s approval, even Churchill’s. FDR greatly admired Churchill’s strength and leadership however, especially his skills at oratory during the dark days of 1940-41 (Battle of Britain).

The friendship that these men forged in the year-and-a-half leading up to America’s entering the war and throughout the conflict resulted in a vision and strategy that freed Europe from the Nazis and chased the Japanese back to their home islands. In this regard, Churchill did not have much choice but to follow the lead of Roosevelt on most matters of strategy. Britain desperately needed the resources and manpower of the United States for their ultimate survival. Only the thinnest of margins kept the Germans from attempting a cross-Channel invasion in 1940-41.

Roosevelt – on the other hand – had to deal with an American electorate that for the most part wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe. Yet he understood that the United States had to eventually enter the war or Europe would be lost to fascism. He characterized his plight as ” … no leader should get too far ahead of his followers.” FDR’s political strength permitted him to push such programs as Lend-Lease, which allowed for the sale of supplies and munitions to England (and eventually to all Allies) on a cash-and-carry basis. Earlier under the Destroyers for Bases Agreement Roosevelt was able to send 50 aging destroyers to England for basing rights in the Caribbean. Britain’s loss of those bases – though painful – provided FDR with necessary political cover, allowing the country to fulfill Roosevelt’s vision as “the arsenal of democracy”.

Despite Churchill’s standing as #2 in his relationship to FDR and to a greater extent England’s relationship to the U.S., he was a loyal and sensitive confidante to Roosevelt. He protected FDR’s image in light of his crippling disease when the two met for the first time as world leaders at sea aboard the U.S.S. Augusta. And he admired Roosevelt’s ability to transcend his disability and to accept the dependence on others that it required. The description of the two leaders enjoying the view atop La Saardia in Marrakech in January 1943 is one of a caring Churchill overseeing the spiritual well-being of a cherished friend.

Like all friends, they also had their disagreements and slights that resulted in hurt feelings. Churchill was upset when Roosevelt neglected to acknowledge Churchill’s cable of congratulations following FDR’s successful election in 1940. And Roosevelt was miffed when Churchill sought a meeting of minds with Wendell Wilkie, FDR’s opponent in the 1944 election. To make matter worse, Churchill ends up with Roosevelt on the phone due to a miscommunication and fails to recognize Roosevelt’s rather unique voice when the call goes through to the wrong man. As the war winds down, Roosevelt realizes that stability in the post-war world requires greater interaction between the U.S. and Soviets as opposed to the British; and Churchill is – for a time – left out in the cold.

At the core of what would normally be an arm’s-length diplomatic relationship, the two most important men at such a critical juncture of history shared much. Both had children serving in theatres of war. Something not seen much these days aside from Britain’s royal family. They leaned on each other at times of darkness, be it Dunkirk or Pearl Harbor. They not only cooperated strategically and politically during the most trying of times, but genuinely liked each other and were lifted in spirit whenever they had the chance to get together.

And at times like those, what else are friends for?

You can read it in the Sunday papers …

Posted on December 6, 2011 by Mike Shortall

Many Sunday mornings I slog through the newspaper with eyes barely opened, going through the motions almost with a sense of duty to keep up with what’s going on in the world. Other days I seem to find a number of interesting columns, opinions or features that seem to beg for comment or discussion.

All of these stories were carried in the December 4 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Should fidelity matter? Karen Heller of The Philadelphia Inquirer is one columnist I always read, regardless of my opposition to most of her political views. Despite our differences, she sometimes hits a chord that deserves consideration. This Sunday her column on Should fidelity matter?, has an interesting angle on national candidates who cheat on their wives. It’s a timely topic, given the recent travails of Herman Cain and the history of Newt Gingrich.

Heller’s central theme is that adultery should not in itself eliminate a candidate from receiving your vote. She couches her view with recognition that politicians have huge egos, tend to maintain a casual relationship with the truth, experience spouse-free campaign trips and plenty of fawning women. Certainly there have been a number of presidents – some lauded for their service – who have had “zipper problems”. And for sure, there have been some pretty bad presidents who have never strayed from their spouses.

So should fidelity be THE determining factor? Heller states, “Politicians don’t need to act better, only to be wiser and lead.” Her point-of-view is interesting, especially when it comes to primary politics. Too many potential candidates get jettisoned way too early in the process for a host of reasons, wife-cheating being just one of the many.

I have always had a problem with good candidates – particularly for President – that get eliminated from serious consideration because they don’t meet the dreaded “litmus tests” often applied by the extremes on either side of the political spectrum. Regardless of whether the litmus test is voting for the Iraq War, support for the NRA, believing in a woman’s right to choose, or taxing millionaires, no national candidate is likely to satisfy every voter’s position on every issue. Discarding a candidate because they are “Conservative, but not conservative enough” or “Liberal but not liberal enough” is counterproductive – in my opinion – to finding the best candidate across all issues.

But character issues are a different story altogether. If a politician is a liar or a cheat, it says something about their basic human makeup. It points to a lack of strength, an inability to live up to one’s commitments. It flags a weakness that can be exploited by people and entities looking for backdoor access to policy decisions or to funding streams. If a politician cannot keep the simplest, most fundamental promise to a spouse, what does it say about their ability to lead, their fortitude on policy positions that might not be politically expedient, or their ability to resist temptations that could be personally profitable?

One reason I was so hard on Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair was the knowledge that had I acted as he did in my federal workplace, I would have been fired. As Chief Executive, the President sets an example – if not the standard – for behavior by all those serving under their leadership. “Do as I say, not as I do.” is not an effective leadership style.

Some candidates have overcome this flaw to become effective leaders. Some have even been elected despite knowledge of their peccadilloes along the campaign trail. But on the whole, you cannot disregard the issue of infidelity as it relates to one’s character.

Should fidelity be the only issue? No. But it’s one of the big ones.

Women drivers It’s official. The problems encountered with driving – (almost) all of them – are caused by women. This is a theme many male drivers in this country have held for decades. Now the Saudis have confirmed that yet another problem with driving can be eliminated entirely by removing the fairer sex from the equation.

A high-level advisory group in Saudi Arabia claims that allowing women to drive could encourage premarital sex! The report from a well-known academic was submitted to the – all-male of course – Shura Council which advises the Saudi monarchy stating that to allow women to drive will threaten the country’s traditions of virgin brides. The claim is that allowing females to drive will allow greater mixing of the genders and could therefore promote sex.

As any red-blooded American male from my generation can attest, driving most definitely allows greater mixing of the sexes; and a nice car certainly facilitates if not “promotes” sex. But frankly, my experience was that although I could definitely “mix” more readily with the object(s) of my desire if I drove, no car – no matter how nice – promoted much more than the mixing. Maybe it was me …

Unfortunately for this well-known Saudi academic and his ground-breaking premise, there was never any shortage of premarital misbehavior when I first started driving and just about ALL the drivers back then were MALE!

Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign pushes on!

“Who?”, you ask.

Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, is running for president … not that anyone would notice. Seems Johnson is one of the minor candidates viewing the GOP presidential sweepstakes from the outside, looking in. Johnson is a libertarian candidate with a true libertarian’s view on issues like drug decriminalization, taxes and federal spending.

Seems though that Johnson just can’t seem to break through to play with the big boys because his polling numbers (3%) do not warrant attention from voters or the media. He is one of a number of candidates that get few if any invites to the GOP primary debates.

Although I have no predictions as to the long-term viability of Johnson’s campaign or those other minor candidates seeking attention, the way the Republican Party – with the help of a more-than-willing media – is going through top runners, one would think having as many candidates as possible involved in the process at this point would be a good thing. If for no other reason, perhaps having additional – even desperate – candidates in the field might force the major candidates to defend questionable policies and decisions or to consider unconventional solutions to our problems.

Sagamore Hill They are preparing to restore President Teddy Roosevelt‘s mansion at Sagamore Hill in Oyster Bay, NY. I have always been a fan of Teddy, and would love to tour his Sagamore Hill home someday. The story covers the challenges of removing, cataloguing and storing the thousands of artifacts, books and furniture contained in the house. Suffice it to say, no one from PETA will ever enjoy many of the exhibits found from Teddy’s life as a progressive and a hunter.

From Pearl Harbor to Japan the hard way Last but certainly not least, we have the story of World War II veteran Salvino Paul Tobia. It’s an amazing tale of a U.S. sailor whose WWII experience began as he worked in a hangar at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. He survived that fateful day, then as a crewman on a PBY (flying boat) he narrowly escaped being shot down over the island of Tulagi in the Pacific after landing to evacuate wounded Marines. But on September 11, 1942 his PBY is crippled by Japanese Zeros as they prepared to attack an enemy destroyer. He ends up captured, working at a steel mill in the north of Japan replacing wheel bearings on ore cars; eats mountain grasses to survive; and is shelled by the Sixth Fleet while in captivity on the Japanese coast.

It’s a remarkable story that every American should read (if not this story than as many as you can of the thousands of other stories out there) to gain for the first time or to add to your appreciation for the sacrifices made for us by a soon to be gone generation.

Mr. Tobia passed away in October 2000.

Discomfort and disbelief with 9/11 coverage

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Mike Shortall

I had considered writing a personal 9-11 perspective for this past weekend’s remembrances, but felt it would have been an inappropriate self-indulgence. So many others were more directly and frightfully affected by the events of that day, to add my own personal noise to the remembrances of survivors and those who lost friends and family members seemed superfluous.

However, after reading much of what was published Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer, I became sufficiently motivated to address what I consider the wayward perspectives on what has happened since that day in this country and in its responses to those attacks.

The Inqy’s coverage of such an emotional event was quite detailed, complete, and somber. It’s certainly not easy to strike the right balance when trying to accurately portray such a huge, complicated picture. This is especially true when trying to put into perspective the hard data (costs in blood and treasure) along with the social, psychological, and emotional toll of such an event. Maybe the smart thing would have been to treat this data separately, perhaps at another time even. And yet – I’m sure – many people would have complained had not “the other half” of this story been presented on such a momentous anniversary.

For instance, The Inqy ran two charts in its paper edition on Sunday, describing both The Human Toll and The Financial Toll since the 9/11 attacks. I thought it an unfortunate juxtaposition, having both of these displayed together. (I would link them here, if I could find them on the philly.com site. After two days of searching, I have given up.)

Several data points caught my attention.

The Financial Toll of 9/11 was split between War Costs and Security Costs. Among the latter category (Totaling $819 billion) was included $100 billion for the “Cost of delay to passengers for airport screening”!

After seeing that, I was interested in how that was calculated and searched for the source from which the numbers came. What I found was a study performed for an financial-based risk-assessment/benefit analysis by two professors analyzing the costs of preventing terrorist attacks vs. the actual risk of loss from such attacks. The authors attempt to equate the value or benefit of prevention to a number of successful attacks needed to reach a so-called break-even point.

I was – almost immediately – sorry I dove into the deep end of this pool. My problem being that one must be able to put a price tag on the value of a life. And although this is something that’s certainly done in instances such as the cost and design of highway/auto safety features or in analyzing the costs of environmental protection measures; it’s still a nasty concept with which to deal.

In this case, it’s a lose-lose situation, even if you’re able to get past the human element of the equation. The psychological effects of massive casualty events puts an equation-type approach in evaluating responses to such attacks well beyond the realm of acceptability.

For example, one conclusion made by the authors was that it would require 1667 Times Square-type attacks (i.e. like the one thwarted by poor design this past New Years Eve) to reach the break-even point of security measures needed to prevent any such attacks. I doubt we could get to the point – psychologically – where, if one such attack was successful, that even two such events would be acceptable.

You just have to wonder whether the likes of an Osama bin Laden understood that concept to the extent that it did not matter – to him anyway – what might happen to himself or to his organization. They would win either way.

It’s not a comforting thought. But it’s not like we, as a nation that cherishes its domestic freedoms, would have the choice to consider the alternatives of such cost-benefit analyses either.

(I never did find an explanation of how they calculated the cost a traveler incurs waiting for a security screening, as opposed to the coast of being vaporized as a passenger on an 175 ton missile. I guess I’d have to buy the book to find out, but that’s not going to happen.)

The Human Toll of 9/11 included U.S. and Iraqi military casualties, the civilian losses on 9/11, and a section on Iraqi civilian deaths, estimated to be 125,000. The fine print attributed the Iraqi casualty estimate to a professor working on the Costs of War project at Boston University. It attributed an estimated 15% of those Iraqi deaths to American and Iraqi military operations; the rest to sectarian violence, insurgent assassinations, and other criminal acts.

It was as early as 2006 that Iraqi War protestors were claiming upwards of 600,000 civilian Iraqi deaths as the result of the war. Supposedly, these estimates were gleaned by surveys conducted on less than 2,000 Iraqi households and were then extrapolated for the entire war-ravaged country.

I never bought that methodology. It was just too difficult to balance the claims of such widespread and willful violence and death in an almost lawless environment with what I imagined were census-type surveyors going door-to-door in Baghdad. Even the margin-of-error (426,369 to 793,663 deaths) was over three times the figure now claimed in The Inqy chart!

I also found it odd that there was no information provided on estimated Afghanistan civilian deaths. If your intent is to present “the whole picture”, it’s difficult to get past this glaring omission.

In another area of Sunday Inqy Karen Heller, a regular contributor, provided her perspective on that day in Forgetting isn’t possible. One segment drew my attention.

Everything about that morning, and almost all that came after, was characterized by speed: the planes crashing, the buildings falling, the deaths mounting, the rush to a wrongheaded costly war.

Now Ms. Heller and I rarely agree. She being quite to left of me in her opinions and writings. And my first take on this statement was that she was speaking about Iraq, not Afghanistan. On the other hand, her piece was presented as a reflection on the events of 9-11 and the developments that resulted from the events of that day. Yet she never once mentions Afghanistan; but does make mention of Saddam Hussein and even Niger yellowcake.

So I’m left to wonder whether the “rush to a wrongheaded war” is an oblique reference to Afghanistan that coyly attempts to seek cover from the later – more deliberate – decision to overthrow Hussein. Or was she unwilling to concede that Afghanistan was a “rightheaded war”, and so glosses over that episode in order to stick to the Liberal storyline.

I suspect that latter, since I cannot fathom one suggesting after 9-11 that invading Afghanistan wasn’t “rightheaded”. Then again, there is that storyline …

Finally on Sunday, a Letter to the Editor in the Currents section (no link still available) relates how the writer called his mother on 9-11 to check on her, and in their conversation compares the events of the day to Pearl Harbor. Mom rather pointedly declares that the attacks were nothing like the 1941 attack that kicked off World War II. She claims the 9-11 attacks were the result of America’s years of bullying other countries. He concludes after ten years that he agrees with her, ” … as he watches America … launching one preemptive war after another.”

Sentiments like these are difficult to accept, given how ignorant the logic is.

Bin Laden’s so-called justification for the 9-11 attacks was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, as they protected Islam’s holiest lands from the invasion threat posed by Saddam Hussein, who had just crushed the Kuwaiti armed forces. This son should be prohibited from further editorials until he lists the multiple preemptive wars we have launched since 9/11.

But I know of only two wars initiated by the U.S. since 9/11. One was reactive, one preemptive. Am I missing a few wars?!? Even the “preemptive” war on Iraq was preceded by a decade of U.N. pronouncements and Congressional resolutions under the Clinton Administration declaring Hussein a lethal threat to his regional neighbors, the international community, and national security!

It boggles my mind the extent to which people cannot – or simply will not – admit who the aggressor was that day; why they attacked us; or that our response had to go beyond flushing out and punishing the cowards who perpetrated 9/11 and were responsible for everything that followed.

What’s really, really disturbing is that I’m not at all surprised that they still don’t get it.

Book Review: American Gospel by Jon Meacham

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Mike Shortall

When I saw Jon Meacham‘s book, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, I put it on my reading list. I was looking for a book that would provide a layman’s perspective of how the relationship between God and government developed in this country. Having read Meacham’s work on Andrew Jackson (American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House), I was hoping it would be another concise and enjoyable read.

Meacham is executive editor and executive vice president at Random House, former editor of Newsweek and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. I’m most familiar with Meacham as a guest political commentator on MSNBC’s Morning Joe (weekdays, 6-9 am), a show I usually watch while getting ready for work in the morning.

Meacham starts off by highlighting the theme that’s consistently drawn upon throughout the book, the difference between Public religion and Private religion as the Founding Fathers had envisioned. The concept of Public religion recognizes faith in God (in all forms in which He exists and is worshipped) as a unifying influence, one that unites “the virtue of the populace”. In this regard, the concept and belief in God takes on whatever religious form is meaningful to an individual, be they Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.

Private religion seems a concept that is self-explanatory. That all people have the right to worship – or not worship – God in whatever manner they choose. This was the antithesis of the religious atmosphere in Europe which led to the founding and colonization of America, which Meacham covers in the first chapter, God and Mammon. The American experiment provided that no individual would be prevented from worshiping God – if so inclined – in whatever form they should choose, a direct result of what drove the early pilgrims to hazard the perilous Atlantic crossing.

From the beginning, the thinkers among the Founders recognized the importance of religion. Although they were almost all Christian, almost all Protestant (Several deists, such as Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were also prominent players.), they recognized the importance of religious tolerance. Yet they also appreciated the threat to religion that government could pose should the two become too close and become intertwined. These principles hold true regardless of who you worship or how you worship them.

(This is why I find The Founding period in our country’s history so fascinating! The timelessness of The Founders wisdom and foresight is amazing. The Founders were far from perfect. Their failure to resolve issues such as slavery and women’s rights – among others – would complicate the road ahead; but the foundation and framework were sound and have survived multiple tests throughout our history. Despite their shortcomings, The Founders were incredibly prescient.)

Meacham’s greatest accomplishment here is his discussion of the concept most commonly referred to as The Wall between church and state. A common theme throughout the book, Meacham subscribes to the concept that The Wall was intended more to protect religion from the state as opposed to the other way around. This is why he finds no contradiction in expressions of God in the public sphere, including mentions of God on our money or in the Pledge of Allegiance.

As he explores the role of Public religion in America, Meacham takes us through many of the nation’s struggles and accomplishments where Public religion served to unite the country behind the causes that defined the nation, such as the fight for Liberty; the struggle to end slavery and Jim Crow laws; the Great Depression, and the defeat of both Nazi and Communist suppressions in Europe. In these instances as well as others, Meacham illustrates how American Presidents, political and social leaders invoked the concept of God and the values that flowed from that belief as a compelling, uniting influence for the country.

The book reads much shorter than it looks, running only 250 pages in narrative length. The rest of the book is a compendium of extensive source notes and bibliography, references to historical letters and documents, even excerpts of presidential inauguration speeches where religious themes were integral.

Meacham’s effort here is not intended to be taken as an in-depth, historical essay. He attempts only to provide a historical perspective to the questions “What part did religion play in the founding of the American experiment?” and “How has religion affected the moral development and success of the country?” Regardless of where you stand on – or know of – the relationship of religion to the American experiment and American governance, you will enjoy Meacham’s perspective on how that relationship came to be.

On this date 30 years ago …

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Mike Shortall

… President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. as he emerged from the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. Reagan had been at the hotel to address an AFL-CIO conference.

As with many such attempts, the perpetrator was six doughnuts short of a dozen mentally. Hinckley had an acute obsession for Jodie Foster of all things. His attempt to kill The President was an equally unusual effort to impress Foster. The assassination attempt closely paralleled the storyline of the movie Taxi Driver, where the character Travis Bickle (Played by Robert DeNiro) plots to assassinate a presidential candidate.

Oddly enough, the Bickle character was based in part on Arthur Bremer, who shot presidential candidate George Wallace in 1972.

Unlike many such events where people can instantly recall where they were when it happens, I have been trying all day to recall where I was and what I was doing that day.

In theory I would have been at my new federal job that afternoon, having been hired the previous April. But for some reason the recesses of my oft stilted memory give me flashes of being home, watching the events unfold shortly after they had occurred.

I’m guessing my murky recollections are at least partly accurate. Why I might have been home that day, I have no idea. Sick day perhaps … But I was such a dedicated employee, it’s hard to accept.

OK … Maybe not that hard to accept.

Part of the problem might have been that I was hardly a fan at all of President Reagan at the time. As mentioned elsewhere here, I had severe issues with the then new President that had me a bit verklempt at times. But as some pundits theorize, the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan may have kick-started the country’s – and my own – eventual love affair with the 40th President.

But let’s take a look at those other individuals whose lives and careers where greatly affected by Hinckley’s actions.

Secret Service Agent-in-Charge Jerry Parr was famously credited for dumping the President into his awaiting limo; recognizing Reagan’s injuries; and re-directing the White House-bound driver to George Washington University Hospital. This despite missing Reagan’s injury at first and getting a verbal drubbing from the shocked and hurting President, who thought Parr had broken presidential ribs when he landed on the Chief Executive in the limo.

But the real heroes in the protection detail that day were Secret Service Agent Timothy McCarthy and D.C. patrolman Thomas Delahanty. The D.C. officer was struck in the back when he turned to protect the President. Agent McCarthy took a bullet to the abdomen as he bravely put his body between the shooter and Reagan’s only method of egress. Both men were fortunate in that they recovered from their wounds.

It is interesting to see McCarthy standing large and tall as the shooting starts, while military members of the White House detail can be seen hitting the ground. This illustrates the difference in training between the military, counseled to make themselves small targets when the lead starts flying, and that of Secret Service Agents, instructed to stand in front of a bullet to protect their charges.

Not nearly so lucky was Reagan Press Secretary James Brady, who was struck in the head and never recovered entirely from his wounds. He would spend years in a wheelchair, but eventually recovered most of his speech function and mobility. Brady’s experience led him and his wife to found the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. And the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was named in his honor.

It is also interesting to compare the modern-day threats to U.S. Presidents as compared to the simpler days when Chief Executives – up to the time of Harry Truman – were generally free to walk the streets of Washington (or New York or Philadelphia). When Truman barely avoided a run-in with Puerto Rican nationalists, the days of carefree presidential outings ended.

From the sad days that followed the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I’ve seen way too many such attempts. And maybe that’s why I’m not too quick in recalling the specifics of this one.

Rest easy, Mr. Reagan.

Review: “Decision Points” by George W. Bush

Posted on March 25, 2011 by Mike Shortall

At times I have been accused of being an apologist for former President George W. Bush. Rightfully so, I must add. That’s why I have been looking forward to reading Bush43‘s memoir, Decision Points.

The book starts out with a frank, introspective look at Bush’s struggle to overcome his problem with alcohol. Most telling was his failure at Laura Bush’s urging to remember a day when he had not had a drink. Unable to do so, he begins to realize that he just might have a problem. From my perspective, it was a surprising way for an ex-President to kick off his memoir. But it conveyed the obvious importance that struggle was to his future success. It also helps to understand his reliance on Laura’s strength and wisdom. They were married just three months after they met!

Of course the linchpin event of George Bush’s presidency was the attack of September 11, 2001. Through all the smoke, fire and loss of life from that day comes the one pledge that overshadowed the rest of his presidency.

Yet after 9/11, I felt my responsibility was clear. For as long as I held office, I could never forget what happened to America that day. I would pour my heart and soul into protecting the country, whatever it took. (page 151)

This is the prism through which one must view his subsequent decisions and actions, both here and abroad. Afghanistan was a no-brainer; but going into Iraq was a dicier decision that resulted in a major distraction from the Afghan operation.

However a decade after Operation Desert Storm, the Saddam Hussein situation required a solution. The international community, the U.N., and the Clinton Administration had been convinced that Hussein had WMDs; and the reliance on no-fly zones was not the solution to Hussein’s cruelty, oppression, and perceived threat to the region. That no WMDs were found does not diminish the validity of these widely held beliefs.

President Bush’s 9/11 pledge also explains the decisions to house captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, The Patriot Act, creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the development of the Bush Doctrine and the Freedom Agenda. And no matter where you stood on the pro-con scale as the Bush Administration enacted these measures, they are still in place two years after President Barack Obama entered The Oval Office!

The book’s tone is straight-forward and conversational. My impression was that the book read much the way his speeches and national addresses sounded (minus the ill-timed gaffes). Those who regarded President Bush as a fumbler and stumbler would be impressed by GWB’s efficient style. I found the book to be an easy and enjoyable read.

The common thread throughout the book is how Bush43 approached the problems and decisions he faced. Oft times criticized for not being naturally inquisitive, he relied heavily on experts and leaders in applicable fields of research and study – both from within his administration and in industry and academia – when facing complex issues and problems. And when it came to making a decision, GWB viewed all situations through his strongly held core values. Although he was not pretentious in his religious beliefs, his beliefs were the foundation of those values.

And yet President Bush was capable of making sound value-based decisions that were not restrained by the desire to pander to his political base. An example was his decision on stem cell research. Despite the fervent wishes of the religious right, GWB was adamant in his commitment to seek out all sides of the controversy. His final decision was based on several factors: stem cell research offered the potential for monumental breakthroughs in medical research; research was already progressing on several dozen stem cell lines (per the National Institute of Health), and the number of lines in development were plentiful for current and future medical research. His decision to allow federal funding for existing stem cell lines, while affirming the dignity of human life and preventing the use of federal funds for future stem cell harvesting was a practical and compassionate solution to a difficult problem.

If the measure of a good compromise is the reality that neither side is entirely satisfied with the solution, then George Bush certainly hit the mark with stem cell research. A good leader can never be burdened with the concept that he must please everyone all the time.

Several other aspects of the book were very interesting; some surprised me:

As Governor of Texas, GWB was renown for his ability to work across the aisle. Something that was essential as a Republican Governor with a State House and Senate headed by seasoned and well-respected Democrats. In fact, Bush and Lt. Governor Bob Lubbock – a Democrat – respected each other to the point where Lubbock not only endorsed Bush for his second term as Texas Governor, he predicted that Bush would be the next President of the United States!
Laura Bush was a real cutie when she landed GWB! (See third page of the first photo section.)
The Bush Administration committed $15 billion over 5 years to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. After a 2003 visit to AIDS-ravaged Uganda, Bush was inspired to push the country to do more in fighting the disease. He envisioned the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) as a medical version of The Marshall Plan. In addition to testing, counseling and treating tens of millions for AIDS, there was also considerable commitment to eradicate malaria.
During the 2008 presidential campaign and the banking crises that resulted in the Toxic Asset Recovery Program (TARP), Republican candidate for president, Arizona Senator John McCain insisted that The White House host an emergency meeting of both candidates, the leadership of both parties in the House and Senate, and the Bush Administration. Expecting McCain, who instigated the meeting, to address the issues and how Congress could support TARP, the President was astounded at McCain’s silence in contrast to Barack Obama’s succinct analysis of the program.

In my opinion, anyone interested in politics and government whether a supporter or critic of President George W. Bush would enjoy reading a Commander-in-Chief’s view of his eight years in The Oval Office.

DISCUSSION TOPIC: The Bush Doctrine included the concept that America’s interests would be maximized by promoting freedom and democracy wherever possible. It supported fledgling democracies in the Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. And it lent encouragement and support for dissidents and reformers in places like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

“America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.”

Given the uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, etc., can the argument be made that the Bush strategy of supporting democratic reforms in that region has been much more successful than illustrated by the novice democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ali is down!! Ali is down!!

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Mike Shortall

It’s funny how some events seem to stand out more brightly in the vast warehouse of memories we carry around. It was forty – yes 40! – years ago today that the classic Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier heavyweight championship fight took place at Madison Square Garden. They haven’t made heavyweight matchups like this since … well, since then.

I was not a big boxing fan as a kid, which makes that fact that the Ali-Frazier fight stands out in the memory all the more interesting. I believe it has more to do with the political/social climate back in 1971, my awakening – if you will – to the important events going on around me, and with the development of a 15-year-old’s social conscience as I sorted through and examined my own set of values, beliefs, and judgements.

I can remember a fellow Immaculate Conception (Germantown, Philadelphia) classmate, Timothy Cantwell (another weirdly clear memory) trying to get me interested in the Cassius Clay-Sonny Liston fight in 1964. At the time I had zero interest in boxing, as the predominant sport in my life was becoming Phillies baseball. But Cantwell absolutely LOVED Clay. And you would understand why if you look back over Cassius Clay’s amateur and early professional career. (I wish I could say I remember watching Clay boxing in the 1960 Summer Olympics, but I was only four at the time!) And Tim kept claiming Clay was going to destroy Sonny Liston, a popular champion in his own right.

(At this point, I should explain – in case anyone unfamiliar with the story misses the connection – that Cassius Clay was Muhammad Ali’s name back in the early 1960s.)

My above-mentioned awakening was of a pre-Vietnam War sort. The American portion of that war was just beginning to grow after the French were summarily booted out of the country by the Viet Cong. As the war grew, as young Americans came home wrecked or in body bags, as the over-18 crowd woke up to the realities of an unpopular war, Cassius Clay stepped onto the national stage; took a controversial stand over a contentious war; and then climbed into the ring at MSG to engage in a monumental battle with Joltin’ Joe Frazier.

Not that I was on his side there in NYC.

No, when the renamed Muhammad Ali was arrested, tried and convicted for his failure to abide by military draft requirements in 1967, I was a staunch supporter of our efforts to purge the world of the Communists. I thought the Vietnam War had an admirable goal … Freedom for the Vietnamese people. Fighting to stave off the dreaded Domino Theory. Keeping the world free from oppression. I hadn’t considered the extent of corruption in South Vietnam’s leadership, their own people lacking the desire to fight, or whether the USA had a place fighting in what was essentially a civil war.

I also wasn’t a supporter of anti-war sentiment or groups. I was too young to appreciate the changes going on around me; too rigid in my beliefs that authority knew best; and certainly too young, too timid to appreciate the growing hippie movement. Heck, I was attending Father Judge High School, where “long hair” would not be “legalized” until 1974! Certainly, I hadn’t yet reached the point in my life when I would develop my short-lived liberal tendencies.

Anyways … For those of us who viewed the-way-things-were as the right way – the only way, Muhammad Ali was almost an anti-Christ. And Joe Frazier was the champion of the people … our people!

And it has always rankled whenever I heard Ali describe Joe Frazier as a “house black”, a reference to house slaves in the pre-Civil War South who tended to curry favor with the slave owners. That was patently unfair. And as a result, the Frazier-Ali relationship was for decades a jagged and hurtful affair, after two rematches that – while contentious and nasty – never lived up to the original bout.

I never looked at the Ali-Frazier standoff as anything racial. Ali was simply considered a loud-mouthed troublemaker. He was stirring things up. He was making people confront the issues we wished to ignore. He could talk trash with the best of them. He could rhyme in ways I imagine would embarrass many a modern rapper. Heck, He could even best Howard Cosell!!

No, we just wanted Joe Frazier to shut him the H-E-double-hockey-sticks up!!

Joltin’ Joe did his part that night at Madison Square Garden. A good number of us rejoiced when Frazier sent Ali to the canvass. We smugly enjoyed Frazier’s victory and the chipmunk-cheek look Ali carried with him the next day. And we wallowed in our righteous belief that Ali got what he had coming.

The problem was, Ali was right. Eventually the country realized that war was wrong for all the right reasons. The South Vietnamese weren’t willing to fight as hard to determine their own destiny. Their government was corrupt and inept. And in a day when the war was paid for with the blood of young Americans, who – at the time – were old enough to die far away from home but were still too young to vote (26th Amendment adopted July 1, 1971), it became impossible for many – me included – to support a losing cause.

In time I came to appreciate both Joltin’ Joe, a long-time Philadelphia icon, and Muhammad Ali for the incredible athletes they were. It pains to see what has happened to Ali over the years due to the ravages of Parkinson’s Disease. Both men are venerable, weakened gladiators who – after years of personal animosity – seem to have come to an amenable understanding.

But that night in 1971 at Madison Square Garden still shines strongly and as brightly as ever!

Lincoln’s struggle with slavery

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Mike Shortall

The following letter was submitted to The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial page in response to a very well written piece on Abraham Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address 150 years ago. My motivation was my frustration with complaints – mainly from liberals scribes and commentators – that have recently taken to criticizing any commemoration in the southern U.S. of its Civil War history as “celebrating slavery”.

In my opinion, it’s the same old, tired foolishness – done on both sides of the political spectrum – to portray groups you don’t agree with as raving lunatics looking to destroy everyone’s way of life. The Left does it here, as they do whenever the Tea Party gathers; looking for the most unacceptable messages on signs and t-shirts from the loonies on the fringes, who tend to be attracted to large crowds. The Right tends to do the same thing with coverage of the union protests of late; looking for those who are way out there on the fringes of decorum or sanity.

When it comes to Southern commemorations of the Civil War, you can read letter after letter in The Inqy, or catch Bill Maher and the MSNBC afternoon/evening rabble criticizing southerners for daring to recognize their Civil War history. Yet, I have yet to see any evidence that anyone at these well-publicized events are “celebrating slavery”.

The letter:

Thanks for publishing William C. Kashatus’ piece that sheds a little light on President Abraham Lincoln’s struggle with balancing his constitutional mandate to preserve The Union and the maelstrom over slavery that was consuming the nation. Not many people – especially those who have taken to criticizing southerners for daring to commemorate their Civil War “slave history” – realize that Lincoln never promised to do anything about the institution of slavery. And that he didn’t act upon it until he was certain the issue could solidify The Union’s support in the North and it’s position internationally.

Perhaps Mr. Kashatus’ next contribution (for Memorial Day?) could focus on all those common soldiers on both sides – fresh immigrants and stand-in draftees in the North and poor dirt farmers in the South – who fought and died with absolutely no personal or moral stand on the issue of slavery. Then perhaps we can bury the disingenuous criticism of southern commemorations of their Civil War history as nothing more than celebrations of slavery.

Certainly there are inappropriate ways in which anyone – north or south of the Mason-Dixon – can sully the memory of one of the most defining moments in U.S. history. But the contention that every Civil War commemoration in the South is inexorably linked to commemorating slavery is a disingenuous attempt to paint one group of people with a wide brush all in the name of political expediency.

People often lose sight of the fact that until 1964, the South was known as the Solid South due to its penchant for voting solid Democrat. Those were southern Dems standing in the doorways of schools, blocking black access. And Democrats who controlled the most violent states during the civil rights struggle.

My point being, these southern commemorations – that liberals so abhor – were cultivated largely under Democrat leadership. So they really have no room for false righteous anger.

(The Inquirer notified that they are considering the above letter for publication.)

On this date in 1875 …

Posted on March 1, 2011 by Mike Shortall

… President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

This tends to surprise many people, even those who can refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, maybe even the Act of 1957. But it’s a bit of a shock that Civil Rights was the topic of an act of Congress only ten years after the end of The Civil War. Yet political and legal battles would be waged for almost another century before full civil rights law was established.

The 1875 Act was written in an attempt to provide equal access to public accommodations such as restaurants, trains, theatres, etc. The reason why so many have problems recognizing the earliest civil rights law was that it was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883. Its rejection by the country’s highest court was based on the law’s lack of standing within the context of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Fact is, in its eight-year existence the 1875 Act was rarely – if ever – enforced anyway.

What is most telling to me, is the realization as early as the 1870s that only reliance upon national law held any potential for mitigating the heinous treatment of African-Americans, both pre-Civil War freemen and newly liberated slaves. And that despite this realization, it would take another 89 years before full civil rights legislation was enacted.

In 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 provided voting rights to black Americans in a way that was ineffectual in increasing their political power. Then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson is touted with the tricky political accomplishment of both progressing the measure through Congress, while at the same time ensuring the bill’s evisceration by assigning it to a Judiciary Committee run by anti-civil rights Senator James Eastland (MS). The bill’s eventual passage also had to survive the longest lasting Senate filibuster by Senator Strom Thurmond, who railed on about nothing in particular for 24 hours, 18 minutes.

It would not be until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that full civil rights to women as well as blacks would be institutionalized. Oddly enough, the Act of 1964 was signed into law by the very same, now-President Lyndon Baines Johnson, after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.