The Art of Fiscal Cliff-Diving

Posted on December 6, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Way too bold to be from D.C.

There was a point in my life – a long, long time ago in a land far away – that I waited not-so-patiently for late Saturday afternoons when I could hijack the family TV (NEVER during a Notre Dame football game!) and flip on ABC’s Wide World of Sports. WWS was a hodgepodge of traditional, niche market sports such as the Penn Relays, amateur boxing, international soccer (Remember now, this was the 1960s.) and some really arcane competitions like barrel-jumping. (Who doesn’t enjoy a good barrel-jump crash?!?) and the iconic cliff diving competitions from La Quebrada, near Acapulco, Mexico.

Cliff diving – it appears – is making a big comeback!

No, this version does not include majestic vistas of bright sunlight glistening off blue water as a backdrop to a group of whacked-out daredevils perched on a rock sitting perilously close to a huge cliff that looks a mile high even on black & white TV (the 1960s … Remember?).

No, this fiscal cliff diving version just includes the whacked-out daredevils.

No Speedos, please

Now admit it … Wouldn’t you just LOVE this fiscal nonsense as REAL cliff-diving?!? Are you a bit twisted, just enough that you would enjoy this political pissing contest just a little bit, if it included the possibility that John Boehner, President Obama, Harry Reid and – please, please, please – Nancy Pelosi could possibly … just maybe … go SPLAT at the bottom of the shallow end???

Hmmm … But that would leave Joe Biden in charge.

Well, this is hypothetical; so let’s push that thought way, way back into that Dark Space we reserve for the Zombie Apocalypse, IRS audits, and Nicki Minaj.

Where was I?!? Oh yeah … cliff diving …

Full-length burka only

Anyways, cliff diving competitions use of method of score-keeping that emphasizes style, creativity, and a difficulty factor in lieu of how many jumps you make before going SPLAT or the number of broken bones should you survive.

That’s the way I would score it. But remember, I also like a good barrel-jumping crash!

Now, regardless of where you stand on the impending Thelma & Louise act (Obama as Susan Sarandon’s Louise, of course) currently being played out on the cliffs overlooking Washington, D.C., it’s best to be prepared when it’s your turn to Follow-the-Leaders over a perfectly good cliff.

Frankly, I really could not care less about the Fiscal Cliff.

My long, long-standing federal employment never required me to pay into or rely upon Social Security (Thank God!). So not only did I NOT benefit from the Bush tax cuts, which were applied to Social Security taxes, I will not suffer from their expiration either. And maybe … just maybe … we actually NEED this to happen. Afterall, 51% of the Electorate did not give a rat fart about the Economy during the November election, so why worry about it now?!?

Yes, in that regard I am a bit selfish.

The reality is that BOTH parties would probably benefit from a hand-holding cliff dive, no doubt screaming “WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!” all the way to the bottom. President Obama could then brag that he faced down the terrible Republicans, who realize that raising taxes in a bad Economy is a really stupid idea. (Apparently so does The President, since he couples his demand for increased marginal tax rates on the wealthy with a $50 billion stimulus package.)

The Republicans – on the other hand – can claim they never gave in to the anti-economy, income-redistributing Democrats. (Is there really any other explanation for taking from the rich with one hand and pushing out a stimulus with the other when the “real issue” is supposed to be deficit reduction?) All told, The President’s proposal amounts to a $1.6 TRILLION in new taxes and spending, and $400 billion – or 2.5% of the total $16 TRILLION of National Debt – in deficit reductions!

As one critique described it, “Four hundred billion in spending cuts is like forgoing the monogrammed towels in the 16th bathroom of a 52,000 square foot house.”

So, if you too are willing to embrace the possibility of becoming a mushy piece of fiscal fish food, now is the time to consider your approach to Taking the Dive. Will you scream like a teenage girl on the Tower of Terror? Will you stick out a stiff upper lip and leap with resignation and a modicum of dignity? Or will you dive with flair and style, performing a triple flip with a full twist while singing Madonna‘s classic, “Material Girl (Guy)” all the way to the bottom?

And if you’re wondering how it all came to this, to ridiculous deficits, to abject failure in Leadership for addressing the excess in deficit spending, to the notion that raising taxes on 2% of the population – as if forgoing the monogrammed towels – is a “solution”, then simply check out the story this week coming out of Detroit’s City Council.

Hey, $200 million here, $200 million there … What’s the BIG DEAL, right? At least we now know why Detroit voted Obama … To bring home “the bacon”!

Tocqueville, South of France (1992)

As historic French cliff-diver, Alexis de Tocqueville is rumored to have said,

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself free stuff * out of the public treasury.”

(* OK … He actually said, “… largesse …”. )

With that in mind, allow me to recommend the following in cliff-diving hints and suggestions:

1. Never hit the water head-first, as dives above 85 feet can result in concussion. (How high exactly is a $16 trillion dollar stack of Benjamins?!?)

B. Select a spot along the cliff with an unobstructed view all the way down to almost certain Death.

4. No Speedos for men. Women? Topless, of course.

iii) Poise precariously on the smooth rock of Economic Sanity; time the incoming wave of debris from the Eurozone; and push away violently from this amazing fustercluck.

p. Immediately assume the simple pike position; feet wisely pointed down; and extend the middle digits on both hands as you sing the following verse from Sarah Johns’ The One in the Middle:

And now I’m giving you the one in the middle,

The one that’s a little bit longer.

And I have another one on the other hand,

So I can say it even stronger.

Pomegranates Eating Tasty Anthropoids

Posted on November 19, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Every so often on my way to work, as I enter Philly via Cheltenham I come across a red Prius – a Hybrid no doubt – sporting a red bumper sticker that states

Usually I just get a chuckle out of it; shake my head; and move along. That’s just my first reaction however. I might also ponder what reason or purpose these creatures would serve, if not those so clearly expressed on the back of my favorite red Toyota Prius hybrid. How might I classify such purposeless creatures?

But since the last time I saw the aforementioned bumper sticker, it has been tugging at my brain like a persistent 3-year-old. I simply can’t shake the nagging question of what exactly such Tasty Animals were intended for, if not Exploitation by Man. With another Thanksgiving approaching, a holiday when many a stately bird is sacrificed in the name of the National Family Holiday, it seems to be an appropriate time to consider this problem.

Two’s a secret; three’s a conspiracy …

It’s an interesting conundrum, with many little twists and turns that really make you think about the ecosystem Man inhabits and his effects on said system. But in the interest of Full Disclosure, I have to be honest in admitting I really, really, really love a good ribeye! Especially one done on a very hot barbie, where the fat cracks and sizzles as it melts and adds that unmistakable flavor to moist, tender beef …

Geez, I’m sweating …

Anyways, I’m always struck by the compassion and sensitivity of the Meat is Murder (MIM) crowd. They are passionate. They are committed. They are plainly speaking from the heart for those species that cannot speak for themselves, that cannot lobby their rights, that are truly at the mercy of Man.

But let’s think about that one … Would it be any different if Man wasn’t the dominate species?

Pomegranate-enslaved humanoid

In researching the subject of Meat is Murder, I ran across the following argument, “Suppose a species larger and smarter than man existed on Earth.”

What if the Pomegranates were perched at the top of the food chain?

(I know … pomegranates?!? Bare with me.)

My guess is that a lot of us would be lying low in the weeks running up to Thanksgiving, should our sweet human meat enjoy the status as the National Foodstuff of Master Pomegranate’s Black Friday Eve. But if that were the case, it would – most likely – be a condition that developed over the course of Nature’s millennia.

Unless of course, we speak of an alien Pomegranate species from another galaxy, roaming the star systems in search of good fertilizer and moderate growing temps; pillaging this Big Blue Marble; and feasting on local populations.

In either case, the Pecking Order would have been established – as it always is – based entirely on which species was stronger, more adaptive, of greater intelligence, and possessing the more highly developed kitchen cutlery. The Stronger hunt and kill; they domesticate the Weaker species; some they would eat; some they would ride; some they would use for clothing or entertainment.

Pomegranates: proficient breeders whose offspring are capable of forming intricate designs in the wild

Of course, from our point of view this situation would suck. It would especially suck if it happened at the hands of alien Pomegranates that supplant us at the peak of the Big Blue Marble food chain. All of us turkeys-in-waiting would be cursed with the KNOWLEDGE what was at steak.

Sorry … Couldn’t help myself.

But let’s not kid ourselves, if Pomegranates took a page from the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, they would do what they wanted with us. This is until we stopped them. No touch-y feel-y existentialism would likely alter the end result – Cranky Giblets! (Just in case, here’s how to avenge Humankind.) This is – not surprisingly – what our REAL, current carnivore competitors do TO US when we wander into their oh-sh*t-where-the-hell’s-the-truck/boat territory.

Survival of the strongest …

Now the MIM crowd would argue that Man – as the more intelligent species – should be much more sensitive to the plight of the lesser animals. Perhaps we were back when Man was still living in caves and limited to eating nuts and berries.

I tend to believe that the definition of Animal Husbandry changed dramatically and irreversibly when that first caveman found out what fire roasted meat tasted like. From then on, the over-riding quest became finding the best way to roast, grill, bake, or broil the perfect piece of meat.

Don’t let this …

And as anyone who has tried to go back to the Nut ‘n Berry route after years of steaks and breast meat can tell you, it ain’t all that easy trying to put THAT genie back in the bottle!

And while we’re at it, why would The Line be drawn at Animal/Vegetable by the MIM crowd? What about the feelings and sensitivities of our plentiful Plant life?!? Nope, the MIMs don’t want to go there! How could they possibly push BOTH concepts of “Meat is Murder” and “Salad is Murder”???

Yet there are numerous studies on the intelligence, reactive capabilities, and even communication behavior of plants. But the MIM crowd doesn’t want us marching down that road … Recoiling at the screams of the Chick Peas as they are conveyed in the millions towards the HummusMasher 8000!

… or this happen to YOU!

No … No … Picking among species we are “allowed” to eat would defeat the purpose, because no truly sensitive, well-adjusted, in-tune with Nature being should be able to do that! So, we are left to our own devices in determining the whys and hows of an Animal/Plant line of demarcation.

But here’s the Key Point …

You can be certain that if the Pomegranates truly ruled The Planet, and along the way developed a taste for Human spareribs; we’d all be hiding right next to the turkeys in the weeks leading up to Black Friday Eve!

A Sunday morning at the National Institutes of Health

Posted on October 9, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Dealing with rare health issues is never much fun. And when the possibilities are shadowy and evasive, it is not only difficult to diagnose, the uncertainty itself becomes a source of anxiety. With this as a backdrop, we found ourselves spending a Sunday morning in Bethesda, Maryland as guests of the National Institutes of Health.

Yep, not a misprint … a Sunday morning in the monolith to American medical innovation and research just north of D.C., that black hole of Government bureaucracy.

Naturally, on a Sunday morning this huge facility was as quiet as a catacomb with barely a smattering of staff on hand for The Institute’s routine of Sunday sample processing. Why Sundays are preferred was not clear to us before our trip; but – to be honest – the off hours arrangement reduced our anxiety level by several orders of magnitude.

We were there for only a few hours, performing a rather simple step that could lead to either a much more complex round of testing and probing, or – hopefully – the answer we really want to hear, “No worries. It’s not THAT. The indicators were false.” Not that The Answer would belay all our concerns; but at least we could move on to other less threatening possibilities.

We ended up at the NIH because local specialists could not nail down the existence of a condition indicated by routine tests, yet elusive to medical imagery technology. A nationally renown expert was the next logical step; and referral to the NIH was suggested. As is the norm for bureaucratic networks, it took us six months to get to the point where patient-specific variables were addressed to the satisfaction of both patient and specialist. Once the arrangements for our visit were finalized, our family physicians were so impressed with our pending NIH visit, you could tell they almost asked if they could go along with us!

And so we found ourselves making a Saturday trip to my sister’s house in Bowie, Maryland for our 8:00 AM NIH appointment for the simple task of drawing blood samples. One would think such a routine medical procedure could have been done locally, as so many of us do for a variety of health-related issues. Not so for the purposes of the NIH … Controls in process and technique are understandably crucial when participating in a diagnostic study.

Our experience at the National Institutes of Health, aside from the necessity of travel, was nowhere near as inconvenient or irritating as we had feared. Part of that was undoubtedly the result of visiting this sprawling facility on a quiet, unobtrusive Sunday morning. But by far, the experience was made relatively painless by the helpful administrative and professional employees we encountered there.

To say I was pleasantly surprised with our NIH visit would be an understatement! From the guards responsible for the physical security of the NIH facility; through the painstakingly thorough, well-organized registration process; to the nurses who administered the sample collection, we were impressed with the professionalism and friendliness exhibited throughout our visit. (I even had the opportunity to argue the merits – and shortcomings – of NFL QBs RG3, Michael Vick, and Tony Romo with both a Redskins fan and a Cowboys fan just hours before Vick played the Steelers as though the football itself had contracted an infectious disease!) In roughly three hours time we completed the entire exercise and were on our way out.

Our biggest problem? Trying to solve the cheese-at-the-end-of-the-maze challenge of finding an open exit from which to escape the monstrous facility. We were convinced it was part of the evaluation process … some form of intelligence assessment. How long would it take these rubes to find their way out? All that was missing from making the test a viable reality show concept was a back seat full of over-dressed, pruning dance moms or elimination challenges at each inaccessible gate!

As a moderate political conservative, who eschews the huge footprint of Big Government, most would expect me to look at an organization like the National Institute of Health as a monumental example of bureaucratic excess. I like to think I’m more pragmatic than that.

There are several valid arguments for the benefit of federally funded footprints on basic social functions. Some are glaringly obvious … National Security, Emergency Management, Social Safety Nets, Interstate Commerce, Transportation Safety. Others may not be so obvious, yet are just as important to a well-functioning society that is responsible for maintaining and improving the health and welfare of its citizens.

The National Institutes of Health’s mission statement reads as follows:

NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

The goals of the agency are:

to foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis for ultimately protecting and improving health;

to develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will ensure the Nation’s capability to prevent disease;

to expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation’s economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research; and

to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.

In realizing these goals, the NIH provides leadership and direction to programs designed to improve the health of the Nation by conducting and supporting research:

in the causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cure of human diseases;

in the processes of human growth and development;

in the biological effects of environmental contaminants;

in the understanding of mental, addictive and physical disorders; and

in directing programs for the collection, dissemination, and exchange of information in medicine and health, including the development and support of medical libraries and the training of medical librarians and other health information specialists.

The NIH performs research in a number of fields including obvious ones, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, aging, and infectious disease, and less familiar studies in human genome, bioengineering, and environmental health sciences.

Health and medical research are vital contributions to the advancement of societies. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where social development can be successful if the overall health of its members are left to the vagaries of commercial research and the lure of The Almighty Dollar. Having a nationally recognized hub for research that ensures growth in knowledge, better health, and healthier behaviors is a benefit to everyone.

Now, from my scant exposure to the NIH, I can’t claim to be in a position to know everything the NIH does or to judge the merits of all they do. But from the point-of-view of a citizen seeking the relief of knowing what’s on the horizon, it’s comforting to know that medical frontiers are being explored.

Eat mor kow!

Posted on August 2, 2012 by Mike Shortall

“Eat mor Kow!”

That would have been the best reaction to the strong position against gay marriage struck by Dan Cathy, CEO of the Chick-Fil-A franchise system. If you disagree, you simply take your appetite – and your money – somewhere else.

Cathy’s stated position was a lightening rod for LGBT proponents for recognition of gay unions. That he held these positions was no surprise to anyone who knows even the least of Chick-Fil-A’s corporate development and very public record. That he dared express those views was treated as if he single-handedly threatened the civil rights of every non-hetero American.

Usually, I don’t allow myself to get caught up in these social battles. But it was the reaction of officials from several large U.S. cities that prompted to me to leap to Cathy’s defense.

When you hear government officials of any stripe talking about running a prominent and successful businessman out of “their city” for doing nothing else but expressing his opinion, consistent with his long-held religious beliefs and personal philosophy, you should be compelled to object!

From cities like Philadelphia, Boston, New York City and Chicago you heard local officials threaten to close Chick-Fil-A franchises or to deny them business opportunities. And that’s when I decided to stand up for Dan Cathy’s freedom to express his views free from retribution by those who did not agree. This was also the basis for such actions as the Same Sex Kiss Day planned by LGBT groups targeting Chick-Fil-A franchises. The objective is to embarrass the public face of the Chick-Fil-A corporation in an attempt to shut them up.

These are exactly the kind of politicians of whom you should really be afraid. The ones who will condemn a successful corporation and endorse efforts to deny it business opportunities based on the expression of an unpopular opinion. If they will stoop to that level over a position on a social issue, imagine what they might do if … say … you balked at their sugary drink policy or refused to donate to their political party!

But their suggested sanctions won’t hurt Chick-Fil-A. Given the support the restaurant chain received yesterday, I’m certain Cathy would have no problem moving his franchises and JOBS out to the suburbs.

Warrington Chick-Fil-A crowd

Based on the reactions seen all over the country on Wednesday. Chick-Fil-A may very well experience the best single week in terms of retail sales than ever before. When I attempted to treat the wife to Chick-Fil-A takeout Wednesday evening (Yeah, she was a bit flummoxed.), we could not get close to their Warrington, PA location. The standing line went out the door and threaded itself far enough along to wrap around the building at least once. The drive-thru line went around the building, out the driveway, and hundreds of yards down PA Rt 611. Reports had the wait for service running between 60-90 minutes at 7:00 PM!

Many of those who made the trek and withstood the lines (We decided not to.), certainly were motivated by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s original social media call to honor Cathy’s stand against gay marriage. But many – like I – were simply there to recognize and support Cathy’s right to believe what he believes; to speak freely in accordance with those beliefs; and to be free of intimidation and punitive action by those who disagree … particularly those in government with no legal basis to judge or penalize such expressions.

The LGBT/Chick-Fil-A confrontation is a challenging lesson in the demands of American citizenship. Freedom of Speech requires that you endure messages and viewpoints that are guaranteed to make your blood boil. That’s what Freedom of Speech requires at its very core.

The question really comes down to this … Are you strong enough to LIVE what you claim to embrace?

When the crazies kill, why sanction the legal and responsible?

Posted on July 23, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Here we go again …

Another crazy gets hold of an arsenal of weapons; breaks almost every law in the books; and shoots scores of innocents. And the result is predictable … a groundswell of opinion that never wavers … PASS LAWS TO RESTRICT GUN OWNERSHIP!

The problem with that sentiment is that third word … “LAWS”. Because “laws” only apply to those inclined to obey them in the first place!

It’s one thing if our elected leaders had the backbone to take on such an unpopular position (unpopular that is to most people who do not live in large, liberal-run cities) and accept the political consequences. But that’s rarely ever the case, when politics and power are of greater value. And that’s exactly the sentiment that was expressed by Democrat stalwart Senator (CA) Dianne Feinstein, who stated, although a sane discussion on gun control and a ban on military-type assault rifles was important, an election year was not the time to address it.

Huh?!? Wouldn’t that be the PERFECT time to address the issue?!?

Apparently the Democrats see a discussion of gun control to be a political loser in a year when President Obama is fighting for re-election in what is expected to be a close election. For these Democrats, the subject of limiting gun violence by restricting access to guns for everyone is trumped by White House aspirations. It says much about where the issue really sits with the political animals of the Democratic Party. So, if they refuse to have this discussion now, why should they be taken seriously when they finally get around to it?

In that same vein, we are still waiting for The President to get around to his 2008 campaign promises on gun control. Instead, President Obama has signed bills allowing guns in national parks and even on Amtrak! He has steadfastly refused to seek reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. And maybe that’s the real reason Democrats – like Senator Feinstein – do not wish to bring it up now!

But in truth, even if we did have this conversation today, it would accomplish NOTHING for keeping guns of all shapes, sizes, and magazine capacities from the criminals and the crazies.

If it were that easy, we wouldn’t have had Aurora … or Columbine … or Howard Unruh … or the University of Texas clock tower … or Virginia Tech …

That’s the REAL problem … the criminals and the crazies. You have no right to ask law-biding citizens to give up access to responsible gun ownership if you have no prospects for denying similar weapons to the criminals and the crazies. And it’s mind-boggling that anyone would propose such a ban in an age where our own Federal Government openly distributed guns to the most dangerous criminals currently on the continent. They must solve the problem of keeping automatic assault weapons from the drug runners, the gangs, and criminally insane before asking John Q. Citizen to even consider doing the same.

I ain’t holding my breath on the former, but fully expect continued efforts to do the latter.

For another reason entirely, I laugh when gun opponents run up the flag of the Founding Fathers to claim that they had no intention for gun ownership to exist outside what was needed for the purposes of organized state militias. That may well have been their original intent, just like it was to restrict the voting rights of women or to count African slaves as 3/5 of a person. In reality, the concept of militia had little-to-nothing to do historically with the development of a gun culture in the United States.

Every household in 18th century America REQUIRED the possession of a firearm. This was not a legal requirement; it was a requirement for survival. For if you lived anywhere other than the relative safety of early American cities, a gun was as important as food in surviving the dangers and hostilities of the unsettled frontier.

Whether it was dealing with the growing hostility of a native population or using the point-of-a-gun to discourage foreign intervention and push American civilization West across the North American continent, the National Government fostered the concept of private gun ownership – far removed from the concept of militia service – among its citizens. Huge tracts of territory were settled and controlled; colonial forces from Spain, Britain, and France were pushed out; and the Wild West was colonized, then civilized with the help of armed citizens that NEVER once stepped foot into a militia formation.

It renders the concept of “militia” a convenient interpretation of a badly worded phrase in the Bill of Rights. So for better or worse – depending on your point-of-view – America grew and flourished as the result of a gun culture that was accepted by a Government led directly by those same Founding Fathers. The same ones who supposedly never intended private gun ownership outside of a quasi-military apparatus.

The irony seems lost on those who want to blame the carnage on law-biding citizens and their long-held rights.

You read it in the Sunday papers.

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Shortall

This is a regular feature … as in regular, not weekly … of Cranky Man’s Lawn, where we look at – and comment on – a few articles that catch our eye during my regular … as in weekly … Sunday morning coffee’n paper lounge-about. My regular Sunday morning read is The Philadelphia Inquirer. But if you do not get The Inqy delivered to your door, links to the applicable articles are provided as the header to each discussion.

Need a watch “dog”? You can get one for less than $5

Parts of Texas and northwest Louisiana are in the grips of a long-lasting drought. When drought strikes, it means cattle and sheep cannot be sustained in a way that’s profitable for ranchers. Aggravating the situation even further is the ragged, slow state of the economy which affects the costs of everything including the price of hay, which is used to feed the herds. As a result, ranchers have been forced to unload their livestock in order to reduce the financial footprint of the ranching operation.

One unusual consequence of the situation in this region of the country is the releasing of hundreds of donkeys by ranchers who can no longer afford to maintain them, nor can they find buyers when the animals are put on the market.

Apparently, donkeys make exceptional watchmen! They are able to provide a passive security of sorts for the herds they accompany as they – the donkeys – eat, sleep and live among the cattle and sheep. The ranchers use FEMALE donkeys to provide security for herds located in isolated pastures on the very large ranches located in this region. The donkeys are naturally hostile towards wolves and coyotes. They will even go to lengths to attack them should they come into close proximity!

The problem is that they eat the same hay that the herds eat; so if you are not feeding livestock you don’t have, you don’t need the donkeys or the costs of feeding them. So what happens is the donkeys are simply set loose or are pushed onto the lands of other ranches … a sort of reverse rustling.

The shame is that the animals are abandoned and left to fend for themselves. Animal rescue organizations are overwhelmed, their valuable resources used to clean up an unfortunate mess. So if you could use a sentry animal or a decent burro around your spread, check into acquiring a Watch Donkey. They’re going cheap!

Reading the minds of Supreme Court Justices

This has become a favorite activity of cable and television commentators, political bloggers and analysts, State and Federal officials, and health insurance executives over the past week. Three days of unprecedented testimony was held this week over the challenge by 26 states, including Pennsylvania over the mandates set forth in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare).

We have seen this coming as early as the day former House Speaker (I still enjoy saying that!) Nancy Pelosi stated that to find out what’s in the bill, Congress would have to pass it!

It was an amazing admission of just how rushed and ill-conceived the Obamacare package really was. With so much power concentrated in the hands of the Democrats in their heady days when Hope and Change were the agenda, they stupidly threw together a terribly complex and pork laden bill (like Nebraska’s special Medicaid deal to land Senator Ben Nelson’s support) and shoved it down the Legislature’s – and America’s – throat. Even its favorable and sensible aspects, like covering dependent children until age 26 and ending exclusions for people with pre-existing conditions, may be lost because of the short-sighted hubris of the Democrats.

In The Sunday Inqy’s Business section Chris Mondics Law Review column took a look at the comments and questioning that emanated from the Supreme Court Justices to gauge their leanings on the law. His take was not good news for the Democrats.

There is no surprise that Justice Antonin Scalia was pointed, sarcastic, and a bit testy with U.S. Solicitors representing the Administration’s case in favor of the law. But the questioning coming from Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy were much more troubling for the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress. Both Roberts and Kennedy have been seen as the only hope for a majority decision in favor of Obamacare; yet neither seemed impressed with the Administration’s arguments. Worse yet for the besieged healthcare law, both also seemed unlikely to let separate parts of the bill stand if the central buttress – the individual mandate – gets overturned.

The Democrats should have seen this coming the moment Nancy Pelosi opened her mouth!

The funny thing is, if the Democrats had framed the healthcare law as a tax to pay for national coverage, similar to Medicaid, it most likely would have passed muster with the Supreme Court. But no, they were not committed enough to covering the uninsured to go to that great length. Why? Because they KNEW the word “TAX” would have cost them enormous political capital and a few elections along the way. I guess being in power and staying there was just a tad more important than universal healthcare, eh?

By the way, if you have ever had a meltdown speaking in front of an audience during an important presentation, listen to find audio of Soliciter General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. hemming and hawing; uhing and duhing; gulping copious amounts of water; and rambling barely coherently during his presentation on the individual mandate. It goes on and on for much, much longer than presented in the link. One wonders if he suddenly realized as he began his presentation, “Sh*t, this law really is unconstitutional!”

U.S. Navy and environmental pollution

Seems the U.S. Navy has been getting a lot of attention from environmental groups over it SINKEX program, under which they tow old out-of-commission ships to sea and allow Navy ships to hit them with bombs, torpedos, and missiles until the sink. They do this quite naturally to give its sailors the chance to use the same weapons they will be called upon to use in a real ocean conflict.

The problem? The ships often contain unacceptable levels of toxins from PCBs to asbestos.

I won’t get into the rest of the article, which makes a lot of good points about sinking toxins in the ocean. Instead I wanted to address the work being done by the Navy in its efforts to REDUCE the environmental footprint it leaves on the oceans it travels through and operates in.

For several years I have worked with a group responsible for environmental policies applicable to all Navy ships, though I have not worked directly in any of these programs. The Navy has spent a lot of money on reducing the amounts and types of garbage they eject from their ships every day. All ships do this, from those luxury cruise ships you like to travel on to those tankers and cargo vessels our economies rely upon.

Garbage in the form of biodegradables like foods, some paper products, and human waste generally present no harm to the ocean environment provided they are treated in some way before disposal. Other trash like plastics, styrofoam, caustic solutions and industrial products are another story altogether, and should never be dumped into the seas.

The Navy has been working deliberately and diligently to eliminate the dumping of any non-biodegradable substances into the oceans. The fleet is under strict guidelines to prevent to eliminate the need to dump dangerous substances into the ocean. The Navy has re-engineered the way it collects, handles, and removes harmful substances that are unavoidably generated by ships holding hundreds – if not thousands – of sailors along with their weapons, aircraft, and equipment.

I have worked for a short time on one program that dealt with the handling and disposal of trash generated aboard nuclear submarines as they spend upwards of six months cruising – non-stop at times – around the world’s oceans. You can not grasp the difficulty of this effort to reduce ocean pollutants until you appreciate the problems faced with the mess that gets created aboard a cramped, closed system – essentially a tube filled with people, electronic equipment, and war fighting capability.

Suffice it to say, the U.S. Navy has been doing a heck of a job in getting on top of their waste issue and in its efforts to eliminate to the extent possible its fleet’s impact on the ocean environment!

Generation Y is having a difficult time with life after college.

This post is already getting a bit too “wordy” as my friend, Bob likes to remind me; so I’ll leave you to read the specifics of the series in The Inqy that started on Sunday about the problems college graduates are having finding work in a stifled economy.

I have one son just out of Millersville University and exploring the job market. But he just completed his requirements in December, so he’s fairly new to the market. And my youngest is a freshman now at Temple University. So the details of Generation Y’s post-college job market frustrations is of particular interest.

I was not really sure how to take the stories provided in The Inquirer article. I guess I hope that these are the worst case scenarios. But as a parent you worry. You want the best for them. Who wouldn’t?

So my message to my sons – all three of them – is to make sure you are making the right decisions as you build your background and your resume’. Don’t take shortcuts. Don’t blow off classes. Don’t be satisfied with “OK grades”. Maintain your flexibility when it comes to future employment opportunities and career choices, unless you are truly fixed on a very specific field of study and profession. Don’t limit yourself to specific jobs to certain employers in limited geographic areas.

The reality is that you could do everything right and still not land a suitable opportunity. But a well-developed resume’ and maximum personal flexibility should give you the best chance of getting a job of which you can be proud.

Good luck to them and to all who are searching for a fair post-college opportunity!

More PC wackiness

Posted on March 7, 2012 by Mike Shortall

Every once in a while, I have one of those days where it seems that everything I read in the newspaper irritates the bejesus out of me. Today was one of those days when a number of articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer elicited much head-scratching and eye-rolling.

Allow me to share.

First up was a report from the U.S. Department of Education that claimed that 70% of all in-school related arrests or referrals to law enforcement involved African-American or Hispanic students. Despite the fact that black students made up 18% of the sample, they comprised 35% of student suspensions and 39% of expulsions. (Similar data in this vein for Hispanics and other groups was not presented.)

Of course this begs the question as to how such a phenomena occurs and for answers to rectify the situation. And just as plainly, all the reactions cited in the Associated Press column missed – or simply decided to ignore – the most obvious reasoning. Instead these commentators focused on why non-minority students were not more equally represented. In other words, they turn the issue into a Civil Rights issue instead of a parent, student, behavior, respect, and discipline issue!

As so often is the claim, there must be SOME OTHER reason for the aberrant data. Either the System is applying investigative, enforcement, and punishment unequally across all racial groups or somehow the white people are gaming the schools and The System.

Give me a break!

Could it be that perhaps that African-American and Hispanic students are simply the source of more school crimes, assaults, and general misbehavior in relation to the national school population as a whole? Could it be that maybe parents in some socio-economic groups simply do not pay enough attention to what their children are doing in and out of school? Or how they behave and – even more importantly – how they PERFORM in school? Is it possible that maybe the issue has more to do with values, priorities, and general parental involvement?

Of course not! Silly me …

Next up was an unbelievable story out of Cumberland County, PA reported by Sohrab Ahmari, an Iranian-American journalist and associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and guest columnist for The Inqy. The article relates a court ruling last week in the case of a Muslim immigrant that attacked a participant in the Mechanicsburg Halloween Parade, who decided to dress up as a “Zombie Muhammad”. The incident was witnessed by scores of people; and the defendant even confessed to his part in the attack, where Ernest Pearce, a member of the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania, was rushed and choked by 46-year-old Talaag Elbayomy.

Open and shut case, you say?!? Silly, silly you …

But it isn’t the fact that District Judge Mark Martin found the broad daylight, confessed attacker innocent; it was the way the Judge decided to express his own personal views about how the American legal system applies to Muslim immigrants! Among the findings of Judge Martin were the following Pearls of Wisdom:

The REAL victim was Mr. Elbayomy because his religious beliefs were offended.
Mr. Elbayomy could not be expected to abide by American laws simply because he was an immigrant!
Mr. Pearce was an insensitive “doofus” (Yes, the judge’s very word!) for “mocking someone else’s religion”.
And finally, that Mr. Pearce was lucky he wasn’t hanged or beheaded as would potentially happen if he had the suicidal impulse to perform his imitation of “Zombie Muhammad” in Iran or Saudi Arabia!

Mr. Ahmari – on the other hand – did an excellent job of explaining why such an irresponsible decision by a judge “… sends the worst possible message to American Muslims … about the rule of law in a free society”. He explains how many Muslims have immigrated to the U.S. to “escape religious tyranny”. And in a way Judge Martin’s ridiculous ruling also feeds the paranoia of some Americans who fear the specter of both Muslims and sharia law.

In the parade, Mr. Pearce’s “Zombie Muhammad” was accompanied by another Parading Atheist dressed as a “Zombie Pope”. Apparently, no Catholics attacked.

Finally, the Irish-Americans are up in arms over their oppression. But before you go off seeking a Union Jack to set aflame, it’s not the British this time. No, it’s Spencer’s Gifts!

Seriously …

Outside the Aqua entrance to Franklin Mills Mall in Northeast Philadelphia, reporter Monica Yant Kinney covered the Irish Anti-Defamation Federation as they handed out green – of course – flyers alerting shoppers to “crimes against Irish culture”! The problem being hats that say, “Kiss me I’m Irish!” and St. Patrick’s Day beer hookahs.

Even the Philadelphia County Ancient Order of Hiberians got into the act by noting their anger at the annual desecration of the shamrock.

Geez … desecrating the Sacred Shamrock!

I always considered the Irish a stout, tough breed. One not given to feeling sorry for themselves or for joining in with all the other ultra-sensitive ethnic groups resentful of how they have been portrayed. As an American of Irish descent, I have participated in over 30 years of St. Paddy’s Days and never once felt demeaned or offended.

Certainly the drinking and fighting characteristics of the Irish get overplayed, just as particular legends and physical traits of other ethnicities have for decades. But I never looked at any of that as demeaning to my heritage. In fact, I would hazard the opinion that it has actually made the Irish more likable as a down-to-earth people and more sympathetic in those times when sectarian violence tore apart the fabric of Irish culture.

I can understand the reluctance of culturally conservative Hibernians to engage in those stereotypes and activities they see as demeaning to Irish culture. But it’s equally hard for me to believe that this is suddenly a wrong that needs to be righted. Although they may see this behavior as devoid of any traditional Irish cultural appreciation, it still makes the Irish a whole lot more fun to be around than just about any other cultural group.

So on this St. Patrick’s Day have a few green-colored cocktails (in moderation of course); grab a platter of corned beef and sauerkraut; and find the movie, The Quiet Man (starring John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara) on a TV near you. Enjoy the atmosphere of fun and mirth. Try to appreciate the Irish culture that Americans of all types have been exposed to each and every year on March 17. But if you watch my favorite Irish movie, don’t fast-forward through the drinking and fighting scenes that involve Sean Thornton (Wayne) and the local Irish natives.

Because if you do, you will miss half the movie!

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!

Rick Santorum, Values over Politics

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Mike Shortall

I have always admired Rick Santorum as a politician. You know what he believes; what he values; and more importantly where he will stand next week, next month, next year. He can not sneak up on anyone. His positions are well-known; and he sticks to what he believes regardless of how unpopular those views and values are with certain segments of the electorate.

From a political point-of-view, Rick Santorum is a breath of fresh air.

That is why this moderate Pennsylvania Republican has always found Santorum to be a sound choice among state and national politicians. Santorum’s stance on social issues – whether you agree or vehemently disagree – are honest to a fault; based on a foundation of personal belief; and never affected by the expediencies of political popularity.

This is important because I have become disgusted with the nature of National Politics and National Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. The vitriol, the skullduggery, the deliberate efforts to undermine progress on the National Agenda has exceeded my patience. It has gotten to the point that I prefer to limit my political interests and activities to local issues and offices.

So when it comes to politics on the National Level, I’ll take predictable, principled, and reliable over swaying with the breeze of Public Opinion. The Best Man should win over The Best Politician every time!

You do not see this principled approach from Mitt Romney, who is universally recognized as a politician that moves effortlessly from one position to another depending on how the political winds blow.

You will not see President Obama taking politically unpopular positions on issues such as gay marriage – despite his steep Liberal Inclinations – or the sacrifices needed to save Social Security and the National Budget in a re-election year. Remember the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission??? President Obama wishes you wouldn’t.

Many fear Rick Santorum for the personal values he holds and the potential for how those values would play out in the realm of social issues. This anxiety is not new. Every conservative candidate for President has been feared by their liberal counterparts for their stance on social issues. In Santorum’s case, the reaction is more visceral because he will not abandon those positions when campaigning. He did it in his unsuccessful bid to win re-election to The Senate in 2006; and he is doing it now as well.

But Fear of Santorum is misplaced based on what I would refer to as The Oval Office Effect.

The Presidency changes you. Just ask President Obama. Examine what happened to his pledges to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he entered The Office, or how quickly his promise to empty Guantanamo Bay of terrorists in order to try them on U.S. soil went by the wayside. Then ask yourself, what did he learn in the intervening months of transition that undoubtably changed his “hard and fast” campaign positions?
When one ascends to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, layers and layers of National Responsibility are revealed and the weight of those charges is enough to make any President mindful of ALL the People he is bound to protect and serve.
John F. Kennedy‘s candidacy in 1960 faced some of the same fears of Religious Influence. Many in the country feared his ties to the Vatican – solely because he was an active, practicing Catholic – as an open door for The Pope to influence U.S. policy and international relations. Those fears were never realized.
A President is a National Leader, yet he controls only one-third of the Government’s check-and-balance structure. All Presidents enter The Office with their own sets of values, priorities, and bases of power … be they Liberal or Conservative, religious or secular, progressive or populist. The effects these positions have on public policy are limited through parlays with the House and Senate, as well as the challenge of running the gauntlet of Judicial Review.
Mid-term elections in the House of Representatives offer the possibility of drastically changing political coalitions. The threat that an entire National Agenda can be waylaid by such shifts in the political orientation of Congress tends to reign in the more controversial tendencies of any President.

None of this would reflect a change in Santorum’s long-held values. But it does speak to the practical political reality of affecting sweeping changes to social policy based on those values.

This rationalization will mean nothing to those on the opposite end of the Political Spectrum from Rick Santorum. But for those who are more moderate in their politics and in their views on social issues, it is important to consider the political realities of National Leadership and to resist the temptation to toss aside such a principled politician as Rick Santorum simply because his position on social issues is seen as controversial or unpopular.

Citizen U.S.A.

Posted on December 30, 2011 by Mike Shortall

I did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on Monday, December 26. Well, almost nothing … I had to do some post-Christmas clean-up, since we host a house full of relatives for Christmas dinner every year. So the Day After Christmas is reserved for Decompression and Recovery.

The one thing I’m glad I did was catch an HBO documentary called Citizen U.S.A.: A 50 State Road Trip, where director Alexandra Pelosi travels to naturalization ceremonies in all 50 states; meeting brand new American citizens to learn why they chose America as their new home. I found it inspiring and thought-provoking.

Two experiences I have had with younger, liberal family members made the story Pelosi tells all the more poignant.

Documented and legal vs. Undocumented and running scared

One young relative not only constantly shines the light on the dangerous sub-culture of illegal aliens (The PC term is now apparently “undocumented workers“.) … pouring across the southern U.S. border, he has actually spent time in that hostile environment working with charitable organizations trying to help these “undocumented workers” survive the physical ordeal of crossing the desert border region. It’s an admirable humanitarian effort, providing they aren’t directly abetting illegal entry.

We have gotten into some spirited internet discussions about the subject of illegal/undocumented aliens/immigrants/workers. My central point in these discussions comes down to what barriers prevent these illegal border crossers from going through the process of becoming legally announced, recognized and controlled immigrants? How difficult it is really to apply and obtain legal work permits, then enter the country and work here legally?

From my research, it appears that the only practical barrier undocumented immigrants face to become documented laborers is the bureaucratic wait to receive work visas from the U.S. Government. But a New York Times report found that H2-A visa for agricultural workers, one of the few unlimited visa categories, can be obtained on the same day.

The HBO documentary – on the other hand – showed thousands of legally documented immigrants, who not only came here to attend schools and/or to work, but who have flourished to the point where they persistently and successfully sought to become fully naturalized U.S. citizens. They did not have to live a life under the radar, isolated from helpful human services; constantly on the move; always looking over their shoulder due to the fear of being caught and sent home. No hiding, no running.

How can the undocumented worker lifestyle be any freer, safer or more productive for the individual when they determine it necessary to leave their home and sneak into the U.S. for work, better wages and services that would improve their family’s quality-of-life?

Legal entry is obviously the safer, cleaner choice for the immigrant, even with the bureaucratic hoops which – according to the above NY Times link – is not an unreasonable barrier to LEGAL entry. So for me, it is hard to argue with the premise that illegals would rather enjoy the improved lifestyle and new opportunities without having to contribute a fair share towards the human services (schools, hospitals, etc.) they and their families enjoy while here.

The part that doesn’t make sense is having to SURVIVE the ordeal of a border crossing so dangerous that charitable organizations are compelled to be there to provide survival assistance.

I am hardly one who fails to recognize the value that foreign migrant workers contribute to the U.S. economy. Their labor is indispensable to many areas of our agricultural industry. So I’m waiting – even hoping – for someone to disprove this negative view of a generally hard-working, productive people, who – on the surface at least – appear to be only interested in improving their lot in life. These are givens.

(As an interesting aside, in six months during 2006 Mexico deported over 100,000 illegal immigrants. It is illegal for foreign nationals to be in Mexico – including Americans – without proper documentation. Mexican immigration law allows authorities to arbitrarily check immigration papers and to racially profile groups determined more likely to be in Mexico illegally.)

America: An Ideal not a guarantee

In the middle of watching the HBO presentation, I caught my eldest son snickering at one newly naturalized citizen’s proclamation that in America you can become successful, accomplish anything, and realize a better quality-of-life.

I’m willing to bet this is a fairly common reaction in some people. Those who have come to believe that corporatism and the financial system keeps the lower and middle classes hopelessly bogged down; those who think that social inheritance and political opportunism will always trump hard work and creativity; the cynical who look at the faults one can inevitably find in a society as large and complex as ours and conclude the deck is fixed against all but the properly connected.

I prefer to look at it another way.

Living in America is an Ideal, not a guarantee. It is a Promise that Hard Work and Creativity will be rewarded. It’s not a guarantee that you will be made rich and amazingly successful or even that all your Hard Work and Creativity will free you of financial pressures or eliminate all social disadvantages.

The Ideal is an objective for which we should reach up and out. The Ideal may very well be unattainable, which any true Ideal worth working towards should be.

America is still an Experiment just as the Founding Fathers saw it 235 years ago. America is imperfect. There are flaws in every segment of the Political, Economic, and Social orders. Solutions to these problems, whether these challenges develop over decades or pop up suddenly like cracks on a windshield, are tweaks in the Experiment that in reality are experiments on the Experiment. And sometimes the Solutions end up causing more problems elsewhere.

As in any experiment, when the variables – like economic stability or political efficacy – get out of whack the results suffer. Sometimes the confluence of problems and events within The Experiment develops into a perfect storm that threatens much of what has been accomplished. The storms can hold us back; and sometimes they can ruin the Individual. But part of the Promise is that the Foundation will always be there for You, a Foundation that can protect you and help you to recover.

The Promise isn’t that You will be carried forever. The Experiment has developed mechanisms that allow You to be carried when You cannot carry yourself. Yet even these support structures were never guaranteed to be there always or to carry into perpetuity those who fall on hard times, especially when they have the basic capabilities to work for themselves. Certainly the Promise was never intended to be a substitute for Hard Work.

In the end, You get out of the Experiment what you put into it. And if You wait only for what America will give you, you only cheat yourself, and the Promise will turn into nothing more than that … a promise.

As I viewed Citizen U.S.A. I heard people who spoke of their love for America – their new home. They understood the distinction between the Promise of America vs. America as a guarantee. Some spoke of how much is taken for granted by birthright Americans … how many things we accept as givens, such basic concepts as physical safety, freedom of speech and religion, freedom from overt government harassment, even the simple conveniences of running water and electricity at the flip of a switch. Things that many of these newly naturalized Americans saw as Miracles of Democracy, because in so many other parts of the world even these simple expectations regularly go unfulfilled.